/lit/ - Literature

Something about yahwe telling them to breed.

>>13631560
so you can reincarnate.

>>13631560
Well not only that, by bringing a child into this world a Christian, according to their beliefs, risk dooming that child to an eternity of suffering in hell. I cannot imagine a greater evil

>>13631620
I think about this a lot

>>13631620
Especially for calvinists

>>13631648
It wouldn't be a problem for Calvinists since them having the child, and the child being damned to hell, are the immutable will of God. It's only a problem if you think the child (or you) has some choice in the matter.

In fact St. Paul addressed it, you blithering idiot.

>>13631560
The world is imperfect but there's still joy to be had.

>>13631620
>risk
Salvation and damnation aren't a lottery.

God loved the world enough to die for it. We might as well love it enough to live for it, and part of life is having children.

>>13631725
No, but no matter what denomination you are you cannot know how you child will act or what god's supposed plan is for your coming child.
I am sure your children will turn out to be transsexual meth addicts.

>>13631560
the world isn't imperfect where did you get this idea from? MAN IS IN A FALLEN STATE.

nature is exactly as god intended it to be.

>>13631654
Also I'll add that this problem IMO makes Christian theologies other than Calvinism nonsense. If you can't take comfort in the knowledge that whatever happens is the correct thing, that it was God's will, then that means that things such as the eternal fate of your children could have turned out differently had you done different things, etc. The thought is nightmarish. It similarly applies to acts of human cruelty; you were simply a victim of another man, meaninglessly, and it could have been otherwise; but if it was predestined then you can know that this is the way it should have been.

>>13631729
Divine providence isn't random and humans aren't responsible for God's judgement which is just.

>>13631803
>Divine providence isn't random
This has nothing to do with what I said, unless you assume providence requires no free will in which case you are quite the radical Christian.
Your child can grow up to be a sinner worthy of an eternity of hell no matter how just you, as a parent, is and no matter how caring God is supposed to be.

>humans aren't responsible for God's judgement which is just.
I don't agree with this, it assumes ethics and morality is inherently linked to God which is difficult for me to believe as I don't believe in the Christian God.

However I know many people do believe this. I does not matter though, the terror a father or mother will have over their sinner child and the future they imagine the child having suffering forever, ever, ever and ever. The comfort they get from thinking God is always just, even when it means they child will forever suffer is not a comfort at all.

>>13631881
You are supposed to bring children into this world, that is the human's natural urge. If you do the aforementioned merely for the pleasure the sexual act brings to you (and neglect your children), you obviously won't be well off.

If you raise your child right, he should not "grow up to be a sinner worthy of an eternity in hell" (which is an extreme that is not likely unless your child turns out to be a monster, which indicates a severe fault in your parenting).

Assuming that God is real, then his judgement is also just because he is omniscient. Our variation of justice is inferior to his because he is all-knowing and all-powerful. If you want comfort, just don't be a little bitch and have a child, then raise them right. The possibility of failure is not the fault of some "ephemeral hand of fate" that just causes your child to turn into a "sinner worthy of hell." If's all your fault, and thus having a child is a heavy cross to bear.
By all means, do not reproduce and in doing so pollute this world with more like you.

That's not what Christianity belives what you are saying is a gnostic idea.

>>13631881
>This has nothing to do with what I said,
You're implying that God's judgement is arbitrary or unjust, and that with every birth there's some kind of mechanistic dice roll, which isn't true.

>the terror a father or mother will have over their sinner child and the future they imagine the child having suffering forever, ever, ever and ever.
Except that Christians are forbidden from judging the souls of others, and every Christian knows that even the worse sinners can turn their lives around at the drop of a dime with God's help.

>I don't agree with this, it assumes ethics and morality is inherently linked to God which is difficult for me to believe as I don't believe in the Christian God.
You consider yourself and ethical and moral person. I'm baffled why you think that. For starters, impiety is a terrible sin.

>The comfort they get from thinking God is always just, even when it means they child will forever suffer is not a comfort at all.
No one is in Hell who doesn't both deserve and want to be there.

>>13631560
Jesus didn't have kids

>>13631620
or... you are filling up heaven with more of Gods children

>>13632578
What about the children getting born in Papua new Guinea? Those tribes won't ever know the existence of the Lord and saviour. Where do they go?

>>13632560
>want to be there
so it's not really a punishment

Christians, Buddhists, and Platonists are neither natalists nor anti-natalists. The doctrine is that the correct people ought to have children. Ascetics who strive for the highest fruits of the religious life should have neither sex nor children. Bad people who aren't capable of raising virtuous children shouldn't have children either. Layfollowers who are well equiped to raise virtuous children should do so in order to make a difference in the world.

>>13632560
>with every birth there's some kind of mechanistic dice roll, which isn't true.
When you die is a mechanistic dice roll. Suppose you're holy and good your whole life, then commit some terrible sin and renounce God and have a heart attack. If you died 30 minutes before you'd be destined for eternal bliss. And if you survived afterwards, you'd have a chance to repent.

you have to kill all babies so they automatically go to heaven (or purgatory)

>>13632639
Drown them during their baptism for guaranteed bliss.

>>13631620
I'm a Lutheran, we don't assign the limits of human understanding to the Grace of God.

>>13632610
Imagine being sent to prison under the condition that all you have to do to get out is apologize to your victim. Would that make prison a nice place?

>>13632632
Actually, when one dies is according to God's providence as well. Your legalistic misunderstanding of Christian soteriology isn't found in any church doctrine, but is rather a product of your own imagination, likely acting as it is under influence of the Pharisaism that characterizes your personality generally. The correction to your error can be found easily upon consultation with a priest or pastor, who will explain to you that God's judgement is as merciful as it is perfect. You're trying to faultfind God, but you're only projecting your own lack of any sense of justice onto him.

>>13631560
the womb is better than the void and heavenly afterlife

There is a single reality that everyone's experiencing and trying to describe. Religions are basically attempts to describe that reality, using culturally entrenched concepts and language. The exact, specific way people follow different religions may be ephemeral, and may change, but the core insights offered by specific religious figures still resonate if they're insightful.

I'm a naturalist and I'm basically an atheist, though I could be described as a pan(en)theist because the interconnectedness of everything is a major focus for me. I just don't call it God. But I do see a lot of value in specific traditions, and I think all religions must have some basically valuable observations. But not all branches of all religions. And no, I'm not saying all religions are equally valid, because they're obviously not.

I see a lot of value and insight in Zen Buddhism, especially Dogen. Letting go of emotional bullshit that clouds the mind, and seeing things as clearly as possible, with perspective, so you can act effectively, is one of the most valuable things anyone's come up with, religious or secular. That doesn't mean I have to accept any of the bullshit about enlightenment, reincarnation, etc. The Taoist focus of Zhuangzi, about being adaptable, going where reality leads you, and being pragmatic, without letting your preconceptions limit you, is also incredibly valid. That doesn't mean I have to pay any attention to the bullshit alchemy, chi, etc. crap. Quakerism's focus on "listening to God," or following what you understand to be a deep truth about reality, can keep you honest and help you avoid self-deception. That doesn't mean you have to believe in God, Jesus, heaven/hell, etc.

There is real philosophical value in religion, that comes from an understanding of reality. You can throw away all the superstition.

>>13631803
If you just don't have children then there's no issue - no child to be damned or saved.

>>13631560
Ephemeral or not, what business do people who believe in the doctrine of ETERNAL DAMNATION, particularly for the many, have reproducing anyway? Are these people just insensitive callous assholes? Or is there a total myopia between how these things might be connected in the broader picture?

>>13632386
>By all means, do not reproduce and in doing so pollute this world with more like you.
You guys ever notice that every time we discuss Calvinism, this guy shows up and reveals an utter contempt for his fellow man while trying to style himself as some all-knowing virtuous sage?

>Seriously, has this ever been addressed?
The implication is that future generations will bring on the Apocalypse at some point.

>>13632401
>>13632577
I vaguely recall reading that Pauline Christianity advises against marriage where possible, and I can't recall Jesus making explicit commands to reproduce, but (maybe because of natural selection), I don't see a lot of anti-natalist Christian sects.

>>13634403
Is this pasta?

>>13634896
No, though I've explained this idea before. I'm never very good at explaining it clearly, but I hope I'm improving. Why do you ask? Is it a subtle insult?

>>13631560
If christians were charitable they would destroy themselves so all people would go to heaven by blissful ignorance
preaching christianism equals condemning people to hell

>>13632386
>nature argument
IQ < 90

>>13631560
>that being fond of it will destroy you
False. Next retard please.

>>13631560
>what's the point of getting dressed everyday if i get undressed at night?

>>13631727
>die
>get new magic body
big sacrifice, really
>also you must believe this LITERALLY happened at a specific point in time and space NONMETAPHORICALLY but as actual events which really happened explicitly as they are described or burn in hell forever
very loving

>>13634403
Peak midwit take

>>13635922
Why are you insulting me? There's nothing deep about your occultism.

>>13635932
>Why are you insulting me?
Because you've got the most boring take of all time and still felt the need to offend the reader by actually writing it out. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back though.

>There's nothing deep about your occultism.
k ty

>>13631560

>your soul is not any different than the soul of a rock, or a tree or bird or a cow
>as a relatively healthy and intelligent human you can use your rational faculties to transcend the world and stop clinging to it

it makes sense, dig a little deeper

>>13634403
>That doesn't mean I have to accept any of the bullshit about enlightenment, reincarnation

lol, no offense but you might as well smoke weed or pop xanax if you just want to be calm and emotion free

>>13635950
Ah, I get it, you're a retard and you want magical distractions. Nice. Kys

>>13635965
*kyses u back*

>>13635961
It's not about being "calm and emotionally free," it's about being clear-minded and seeing what's really important. A lot of zen people say meditation is enlightenment. I do think enlightenment experiences, or moments of deep insight, are certainly possible. But what it's about is understanding how things really are, without your preconceptions, so that you can act most effectively. Getting worked up about emotional issues clouds that judgement. You don't really get what I'm saying, which is partially my fault, but you also don't understand Buddhism.

>>13635983

>A lot of zen people say meditation is enlightenment

they're idiots. enlightenment and liberation necessarily entails meditation as a practice, at least for a while. that doesn't mean that it ends at meditation

>You don't really get what I'm saying, which is partially my fault, but you also don't understand Buddhism.

wrong...buddhism is singularly about liberation from samsara, not meditation. the meditation aspect is only a means to the end of liberation, not something that you do for the sake of itself. if you aren't actively studying scripture, or more importantly actually understanding what you need to meditate on, you aren't really doing anything other than doing something that makes you feel good. go back to the drawing board buddy

it's called divine mercy

>>13636010
You literally have the most rudimentary understanding of basic Buddhism, and you're using it to invalidate zen philosophy. I'm done, you have nothing valuable to say and you're basically trolling

>>13636023

i'm not invalidating zen buddhism or trolling, i'm just exposing your degenerate opinions when insult actual metaphysics as 'magical bullshit' . are you trying to say that zen masters aren't/didn't seek enlightenment? lol

>>13631748
Why does it comfort you to know that things turned out as they were "supposed" to? Not trying to argue, my perspective is just completely different and I want to understand better. For me, predetermined suffering that's impossible to escape, even if that suffering is "correct" is significantly more nightmarish that suffering as a result of consequences and volition. Is it sort of like a why worry about what's impossible to change thing?

>>13631560
Cute baby

>>13632597
Christians aren't supposed to make judgements about who goes where after death(though they obviously do). It's supposed to be up to God's mercy entirely, which humans are free to accept or reject. So at the end of the world, people who weren't given the opportunity to accept that mercy could be given the chance to. That doesn't mean that it's doctrine that they will be given that chance, though ultimately, it's supposed to be up to God.

>>13636096
There's really no reason to have to do all this convoluted mental gymnastics. Christians try to rationalize an irrational concept like god by saying god is a person and relatable in that sense but also mysterious and beyond understanding, and then staple on a bunch of jewish fairy tales. Why? Apologetics is just big time coping and rationalizing. Just start from less retarded principles. It can actually make sense that way.

>>13631881
"Just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world."

>>13631560
god isnt real

>>13636118
God explains why there's something rather than nothing.

Nothing doesn't.

God is less retarded than not-God.

>>13636118
It's not especially convoluted to sat "This isn't up to us, so we have no official stance,". Obviously they're hypocrites because they definitely do judge, but still. The development of Jewish, and eventually Christian, understandings of God address the conflicting idea of a deity that's relatable but incomprehensible. These religions didn't just pop up out of nowhere, there were other religious traditions that were heavily influential in their development and that directly influenced their versions of God. It's not retarded at all, it's just ideas coming together causing some silly cracks to form that ultimately don't matter very much to people who find value in these traditions.

>>13631560
well there where the Albigensianists who literally thought just that.
Look into it if you care about the subject.

>>13636132
That pic is of two guys btw

>>13636166
>they saw the universe as a struggle between good and evil, in which the physical, tangible world was inherently corrupt, evil, the creation of Satan, and the spiritual universe was the realm of the good God, a destiny for the soul striving to escape the burdens of the material world. The more closely tied to the world an individual was, through links of food, possessions, family, the more one was trapped and inhibited in spiritual growth by its corruption.
so off course this meant no offspring and even abortion apparently

>>13636181
>perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom.

>>13636158

No, it isn't, because "god" involves the invocation of an unverified mystery (which is called into question by observation (science, yes it is, so)) in order to explain another unverified mystery (the world).

not-god is less retarded than god in the sense that it removes one layer of bulshit, leaving only a single mystery (the fact of the world itself). Every proof of god is false.

>>13632662
Where do you live? In Finland our lutheran church is marching in the pride parade and lobbying to let more refugees to europe.

>>13634887
Jesus has really strong words about marriage. And marriage is all about having children and raising them properly. And the old Testament tells you to merry and reproduce you can find even more stuff if you just look.

>>13636158
I'm not an atheist, retard (unlike christians, who are all universally atheists).

>>13636162
>understandings of God address the conflicting idea of a deity that's relatable but incomprehensible
Not very well. The jewish fairy tales just impede someone's ability to understand god. Of course if you try and say that god is a literal person it's going to cause confusion. Luckily there are many more older and more rigorous traditions that try to explain god and being that don't require believing in a literal zombie kike as a nonmetaphorical ACTUAL historical event.

>>13637359
Your anti-Semitism is getting in the way of your ability to interact with religious history and I encourage you to cease if not period, at least enough to be able to engage. This is /lit/, not /pol/.

>>13637480
Where's the lie, though?

>>13636158
which god?

>>13637484
Jesus died and you're going to Hell. Sage

>>13637578
I want to cum inside jesus christ.

Something something go forth and multiply endlessly something something burn in hell
Idk