/lit/ - Literature

>>16050169
There's no such thing as Judeo Christian. It's just Christian.

>>16050169
This is actually pretty good writing. Is the whole book like this?

>>16050197
I can only subvocalize his work in his nasily little voice, so whatever merit the prose had was impossible to appreciate

>>16050169
So this is a total negation of free will, yes? If "God's Will" is the force behind what human beings are doing, they cannot possibly be exercising their own free will. Yet again religion is self contradicting and incoherent

It's Islam

>>16050320
He really means to say that goyim have no free will and whatever end God has set up for them is for the benefit of Jews. Hence, only jews can be on the right side of histort because history is designed to favor Jews.

>>16050387
I think you've cracked the code anon

>>16050169
>>16050181
>>16050320
>>16050387
>>16050466

>>16050169
Isn't this literally what Hegel wrote

>>16050216
That seems like a you problem

>>16050556
A what problem?

>>16050169
>God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time
>but muh omnipotence
Checkmate theists

>>16050483
hehe

>>16050181
Hmmm...

>>16050169
We don’t need another thread to talk about it

>>16050169
>>16050499
I’m not a theist so I’m not sure, what exactly is he trying to imply is the endgame? We will all realize the horrors of degeneracy the struggle for liberalism?
>>16050320
That’s not what it’s saying though. He’s saying God’s goal is best achieved by little humans fight it out themselves since he could end the conflict whenever he wants but doesn’t. What that goal actually is I don’t know.

>>16050337
Insh'Allah sister.
>>16050387
Have a cry about it. We should distinguish orthodoxy and moderates and seculars though. Only those who keep God's covenants are beloved.

>>16050197
No it's not.

>>16050169
This is a modified Lincoln quote. Read some of Lincoln's major writings, they tend to be rather short. I believe this comes from a private writing, but his second inaugural address is a good starting point. (Not endorsing Lincoln btw. Also Shapiro is a hack.)

Why would a meta-temporal and meta-spatial God have to adhere to the law of noncontradiction ¬(p∧¬p)?
It's just an abstract theorem/formula of the various classical systems of logic. Why would a God be constrained by a formality?

>>16051330
>God MUST be able to realize any non-concept! If he can't create dry water, he's not omnipotent!

>>16051330
Then the term "God" signifies nothing and is meaningless as you are saying signification doesn't apply making it irrelevant to all discourse whatsoever

>>16051354
>>16051375
Scholastic onions. Even created reality can be Dialetheistic (quantum phenomena)

>>16051596
Not ontologically

>>16050169
>God cannot be for and against the same thing
Who are you, little man, to say this of God?

>>16050169

Every person who fell for this needs to leave the board and never come back.

>>16050216
kek

This is unironically the thread that exposed /lit/.

1 - retards LARPing like you're literate couldn't even recognise it was a passage from Abraham Lincoln.

2 - in spite of the fact that if you had all known who wrote the passage, you would have been felating it, you're all coughing up bullshit non-responses to it under the pretence that it was written by someone "modern" who you don't like

>those that claim to know the morality of god wish to turn themselves into the voice of god

God is on all sides.
Fuck Ben for claiming to know god, and his mechinations.

>>16050581
A problem that’s your fault, not his. The pitch of someone’s voice is irrelevant to the arguments made.

>>16051354
That's exactly right

>>16051816
Why would anyone felate him when he was great at rhetoric but his thought was extremely weak and full of holes?

>Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.

-Abraham Lincoln before the civil war

>>16050169
Do you guys think Ben really believes in God? I know he says he does, but he's too much of a shill to be able to reconcile his conduct with his Faith. He doesn't strike me as someone who takes into account eternity while making his decisions.

>>16051868

sure he was a hypocrite but oh well he was a politician. Idc about lincoln im not even american but the fact of the matter is that most of nu /lit/ would've approached the very same quote with a far greater reverence if they did so under the assumption that a person in the 19th rather than 21st century had said it.

it also doesn't excuse their not being able to recognise the origin of the quote either.

>>16051863
Not that guy, but I don't understand why you would think so. If I have to test God's ommipotence with a question of the form "can God do x?", I think that "x" ought to be a concept in the first place. Asking "can God do xydbdjejej?" means nothing: the point is to understand wether you're "x" doesn't fall into that case.
If it does, the problem is in the question.

>>16051902
On Joe Rogan, he was asked why he adheres to kosher and he said it's because kosher was originally the most humane way to kill an animal which Joe obviously called him out on because it is clearly not the best way to kill an animal and Ben just said "take it up with the Rabbis". It's a way to abdicate responsibility for objectively incoherent beliefs. Mr. facts-don't-care-about-feelings hides behind religion when facts hurt his feelings

>>16051919
No they wouldn't. Boomer idols like Jefferson and Lincoln have no regard here

>>16050197

The writing seemed too good for him, and it is. He is using an old Lincoln quote.

September, 1862

>The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.

>>16051991

they definitely do amongst the newfags. Its not even what these people did or said, its just the context of their existence which gets them clout amongst these pseuds.

>>16051988
timestamp on this?

>>16051988
yup and he just glosses over it, 'oh yeah it's good times' like it's not a big deal.
if there's an afterlife and there are sewers there that lead to the bottom of a big shit hole, meat eaters, especially the ones like him, are going in them head first for a nice first-hand experience.
it's remarkable how a creature capable of rational thought can think that by being born in a silly random tribe and wearing a dumb hat on his head, he's automatically part of god's chosen and can basically do whatever he wants. is there any legitimate fucking religion that doesn't even have a concept of hell or purgatory, like judaism?

>>16052075
https://youtu.be/hl0iNRXcUbE?t=60

>>16052007
Jews really are incapable of creating. They don't have the creative impulse. All they can do is imitate, copy and rip off Aryan works.

>>16052103
"Judaism" isn't a legit religio. When will you understand this? Read the Bible for Christ sake. Judaism is legality (and especially, training to find loopholes in that legality) completely devoid of contact with divinity (which they murdered 2000 years ago, and deny to this day)

>>16050320
Read Lucretius

>>16052122
>Judaism" isn't a legit religio
thats what i implied.
>Read the Bible for Christ sake
christianity may be more elaborate thanks to its openness. philosophical ideas have been thrown around so much since the conception of christianity that inevitably some had to stick to it in the end.
as logical/rational thought goes, christianity isn't doing a whole lot better than the others. it's nonsensical to say that each soul gets one go at life and then there's either heaven, hell or 'don't worry god loves everyone so everyone wins in the end' (if its the latter, then life itself and the tough choices we may make are utterly useless).'
the only 'spiritual' system that works is reincarnation. upon death, if you were a fucktard cunt, you get to go right back in but as a lesser actor. think about the dichotomy of slaughter vs slaughtered animal. suppose the slaughtered animal is, in essence, just like the being capable of thought and feeling but doesn't have the biological basis to express them in an understandable way. you get sent into a shit life, you get exploited, tortured and murdered, then justice says 'ok he's done enough we'll give him a "normal" human existence, maybe he won't be a cunt this time", so you get that, and you go right back to torturing others for your own good/pleasures, you get sent back in as an animal and so on.

>>16052177
What tradition even says that? Did you make this up? I'm asking; what tradition says that a moral choice determines which body you will "reincarnate" into? Don't say Karma, that's not a moral doctrine.

Sure Sharpio is a pseud which is why I simply ignore him instead of seething about him like a moron.

Ben Shapiro and this thread show clearly that Abrahamic religion was a mistake

>>16052191
I didn't say there's currently a tradition that's all good, up and running with a whole lot of members in the modern day, because it couldn't be. What percentage of modern day Christians do you think would endure even a 5-10 minute torture when faced with either that or abandoning the religion, take a dump on the cross, spitting on the image of Mary, and so on? All of the religions with huge numbers of members essentially get to keep them because they put no further adversity on their life than what they've already been accustomed to since birth.
>what tradition says that a moral choice determines which body you will "reincarnate" into?
Well, the platonists and neo-platonists for one thing; also the pythagoreans, though I don't particularly like any of them since they don't have a clear concept about animals too (which may be understandable, given that it took modern science to know just how close we are to other animals, in terms of the origin of little nuts and bolts that make up our biological nature). 'Vegan' tradition has been rare, sparse throughout history. A couple of ancient philosophers, a couple of middle-eastern non-religious personalities during the golden age of Islam, a couple of romantic poets and so on. Today, the numbers grew almost infinitely larger compared to the old days because, again, the lack of further adversity. Nowadays it only takes 'inaction' to be vegan just because there's always food to eat, you're not a lone savage in the cave who would have to learn overnight how to grow wheat and oats, and there's always a group in a relatively near proximity through which you can avoid isolation. Even so, veganism, as a moral philosophy obviously struggles to get even 1-2% of the population. It would get even less if it was defined properly and not pragmatically (see the definition). People also generally care about it less because it deals with animals; if you were some anti-slave-ownership lad at one point in time, you wouldn't really go and laugh, eat and drink with slave-owning friends and family. It would take some thinking to realize just how powerful isolation can be. If there's one thing the bible may have got right it's the "leave your mother, leave your father, leave your sister and follow me (jesus)" and "he who is not with me, is against me" or however the actual quotes go. It's the quintessential problem in life for one having a moral philosophy - either choose, follow and defend your ideology, or make a compromise (which, in the end, is no different than abandoning the ideology altogether). If all the vegans had to basically ghost their families (be it even with some pragmatism, i.e. only do it if they were financially able to), then modern vegan numbers would start to faintly resemble the old ones.

>>16052173
I have, whats your point?

>>16052301
>If all the vegans had to basically ghost their families
By this I mean families that eat meat. So the ultimatum would be "either you follow veganism or you won't hear from me again".

>>16050602
Blobby I think that for our differences we can both agree that you'd become a good janny. You know what should be a thread and what shouldn't.

He's a "principled conservative" who believes drugs should be legalized and gays should be married. I fucking hate neocons.

>>16052945
>gays should be married
that's like the only good thing he's ever said.
>noo muh sky dady said sodomy is bad waaaah you can't have sex that doesn't involve conception

I will consider reading this and giving my professional opinion if it is a good as his sister's boobies, I require both (free of charge) to compare before sharing my insight. Please provide kind anons, and I will return wisdom

>>16051832
depends on what the pitch is

>>16052103
lmao, seething vegtard

>>16052945
he thinks that the government should have no control over marriage and that it should be religious institutions that decide who they will marry or not
he thinks that gays should be able to get married at a church that accept gays, but also that his synagogue and other churches should be able to reject gay marriage

>>16053240
You mean to tell me that a liberal believes liberal things? No way.

>>16053253
people that call themselves "liberal" now would disagree with his views because he thinks that churches should be able to reject gays if they want to as part of freedom of religion
he's more libertarian than liberal, he follows his silly jew laws but considers that an expression of his freedom and doesn't think it should be legally imposed on others nor infringed by the government

>>16053276
Libertarians are liberals you dumb bastard. This is why you shouldn't listen to people like Ben Shapiro, it causes nothing but confusion. Some liberals disagree with other liberals, that's such a game changing insight you have there.

>>16053286
there's a significant distinction between the two in our current political landscape, stop being an autist over semantics

>>16050169
>>>16050169 (OP)
wtf Shapiro is actually based

>>16053307
Tell me what the distinction is. It's the conception of what liberty means, but liberty is still the goal. This isn't just semantics, your attitudes are the result of systematic confusion perpetuated by neocons.

>>16053307
It’s the same ideology, retard. It’s founded on the same rotten principles from the enlightenment.

>>16053355
>same rotten principles from the enlightenment.
name a few

>>16053383
Individualism and the separation of church and state.

>>16053391
>the separation of church and state.
ok christtard, i surely would've wanted schizo priests running the country. i would take the lowest idiots/sociopaths like trump or hilary over your 'highest' priests/popes

>>16053409
Nobody asked for you stupid opinions.

>>16053410
shouldn't you be at your priests daily rape course?

>>16050181
No it's greco-christian

>>16052103
>is there any legitimate fucking religion that doesn't even have a concept of hell or purgatory, like judaism?

Judaism doesn’t really even focus on an afterlife.

>>16052945
That’s more libertarian than neocon. The fundamental hallmark of a neocon is submission to Israel, which Ben by default adheres to of course.

>>16050483
Can only thank them for motivating me to read

>>16051596
have you thought about the possibility that quantum phenomena seem to be dialetheistic because we are misunderstanding them somehow?

American Conservatism is retarded. You can't have both Traditionalist values and a free market based on capitalism economy, especially when the latter needs to destroy the former to expand. This is almost on par with leftist defending free speech with censorship.

>>16053410>>16053409
>>16053419

Seethe. The Catholic priesthood may be full of pederasts or other undesirables (which I think is due more to the prohibition on marriage than anything else) but at least they have faith, principles they earnestly believe in. A lot better than politicians today, who range from being grifters and con artists at best to sociopathic murderers and pedophiles at worst. I'm Muslim and even though I don't agree with much of Catholicism, the modern Catholic church wouldn't be that bad at running a state I believe.

>>16053923
Why are you obsessing over Catholics? Nobody identified themselves as one. Do you really think if somebody doesn't get married they're going to become a pedophile? That didn't work for your prophet because he had many wives and still diddled the kids.

>>16053813
have you thought of the possibility that they are in fact dialetheistic and it isn't a misunderstanding on our part?

>>16050169
I am convinced that Shapiro is a smart man, but extremely prosaic.

>>16053893
yep.

Current wokeness is the direct result of consumerism.

>>16050169
i prefer ben's fiction