/lit/ - Literature

>>16739935
Per the Decalogue, God commands in that no one has a right to take another man’s life (Exodus 20:17) and this includes the murdering of the self.

>“... for he who kills himself kills nothing less than man.” - St. Augustine

Ending one’s existence is ending a human existence, and therefore a sin. The Bible also shows that everything belongs to God, because He created all things. That includes the human soul;

>Ezekial 18:4 | Behold, all souls are mine.

If all souls belong to God, then it is not the right of the individual to end his own life, because that life belongs to His Creator.

It doesn't speak against it specifically, but "they" say that suicide being forbidden is covered by the first commandment in that "thou shalt not kill", not even yourself.
I don't mean that "they" in the pol meme jew way, but rather the religious authorities way btw

>>16740022
My bad, not the first commandment

Doing something you know will kill you is not suicide.
Suicide is seeking dead as an end in itself.
Being your own executor is not suicide, but also, if someone kills you with your acquiescence/concession this too is suicide. Of course you have to make a distinction between having the wisdom that there's no way out and therefore surrendering absolutely; and between not resisting you approaching death, the latter is suicide too, even if it is by someone else's hand.

>>16739935
Killing yourself sets you further apart from God, if we learned anything from the book of Job it is that suffering is the only method in which we can become closer to God. Stay strong brother.

>>16739935


IT IS NOT A PROBLEM OF WHETHER THE BIBLE PROHIBITS IT, OR CONDEMNS IT, BUT, RATHER, A PROBLEM OF WHETHER IT GOES AGAINST THE MESSAGE OF JESUSCHRIST, AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, DOCTRINALLY, AND THEOLOGICALLY —IT IS AN ETHICAL PROBLEM, NOT A NORMATIVE ONE.

LIFE IS GOD'S UNIVERSAL GIFT TO EVERY SINGLE SOUL; TO COMMIT SUICIDE IS TANTAMOUNT TO RENEGATION OF THIS GIFT, THEREFORE, IT CONSTITUTES A MORTAL SIN; THOSE WHO DIE IN DISGRACE BECOME PROPERTY OF THE PERPETUAL ENEMY.

SUICIDE ENTAILS FAITHLESSNESS; THE FAITHFUL ONE REMAINS STEADY IN GOD'S GRACE IN SPITE OF ADVERSITY; THIS DIFFERENCE IS TYPIFIED IN THE CASE OF PETER, AND JUDAS: PETER DENIED JESUS, BUT, IN HIS REMORSE, REMAINED FAITHFUL IN HIS BELIEF OF GOD'S MERCY; JUDAS BETRAYED JESUS, AND, IN HIS REMORSE, LACKING FAITH, HE COMMITTED SUICIDE.

THE LOGIC FOR THE MALIGNANCY OF SUICIDE IS THE SAME ONE FOR THE MALIGNANCY OF MURDER: IT IS A VIOLATION AGAINST LIFE.

>>16739935
It was said by st Augustine during the goth invasion in Rome

>>16739935
Suicide is not just a sin, it's the most selfish, cowardly thing you can do.

>>16740022
>>16739935
Im not an expert on the subject, so dont take my word for it, but I always thought it was an interpretation at least popularized by Augustine, whose influence specifically cemented it as the going stance in the church.

>>16740016
>>16740179
Am I denying God and the gift of sight whenever I close my eyes?

>>16740285
That would be a very applicable metaphor if you were capable of raising yourself from the dead, you suicidal retard.

>>16740285


?

NO.

>>16739935
>umbilical
No, but gestation leading up to birth is.
>cf. Sloterdijk, Globes

>>16740285
Yes, both physically and metaphorically. Don't deny God.

>>16740179
Based

>>16740179
>>16740117
>>16740022
>>16740016
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know much about this, but it seems to me to be contradictory. Thou shalt not kill is the first commandment; both others and yourself. Despite this, I thought the Bible allowed you to kill in defense of yourself or others; so, does that mean some people's souls are worth less or more? If not, does it mean that you personally should value some souls less or more? And even more importantly, if it's true that you're allowed to kill in defense of certain things, would you also not be allowed to commit suicide for certain things/values/ideals? For example, ritual suicide like in the case of the burning Buddhist.

>>16740379

1. NOT ALL THOSE WHO ARE ANIMATED ARE ALIVE; NOT ALL HUMANS HAVE A SOUL, BUT SINCE SOULLESS INDIVIDUALS STILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WORSHIP GOD, AND THE CAPACITY TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, IT CONSTITUTES A MORTAL SIN TO KILL THEM ALSO, SINCE THEY ARE LATENT SUBJECTS OF THE LORD.

2. LIFE IS PRECIOUS, BUT NOT EVERYONE DESERVES TO LIVE, BUT THAT DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT ONE SHOULD KILL ONESELF, OR AN OTHER, WITH NO JUST REASON, EVEN IF THAT OTHER, OR ONESELF, IS EVIL —THE EVILNESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL, BY ITSELF, DOES NOT GIVE LICENSE TO TERMINATION OF LIFE TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, NOR TO THAT INDIVIDUAL HIMSELF.

>>16740379
>Despite this, I thought the Bible allowed you to kill in defense of yourself or others; so, does that mean some people's souls are worth less or more?
...No? That person who makes an attempt at your life immediately forfeits their divine right inherent to all human beings.

>>16739935
Men are Gods' belongings, so it is punishable for them to kill themselves without Gods' permission or the indication that it is what they desire. Suicide is only permissible if God has placed the necessity of death before you such that there is no virtuous way to live.

>>16740506
You didn't answer anything I asked
>>16740789
>That person who makes an attempt at your life immediately forfeits their divine right inherent to all human beings.
So what if killing is required to instate some ideal, even if those killed haven't forfeit some divine right? i.e killing one person to save two people, despite none of them having done wrong.

>>16740886
>Men are Gods' belongings
Is the bible really this retarded?

>>16740932
Anon is just being a shitposting retard.

>>16740932
It's Plato you stupid nigger.

>>16741017
still retarded

>>16740285
no because it exists as a real potential when you close your eyes
your bodily affections (sight, limbs etc.,) are accidental not essential
your soul is essential and that belong to god

>>16740894


YES, I DID ANSWER YOU, BUT, APPARENTLY, YOUR READING COMPREHENSION IS NOT VERY GOOD.

>>16740285
No, because you retain your sight. I imagine that life is always a "gift from God," but seeing certain things can be damaging to your soul, and doing so would be tarnishing the gift from God. You don't need to remove your eyes to prevent the tarnishing; you can just stop looking at those things that scandalize you, effectively "removing" your eyes where those things are regarded.

>>16740894
Are you asking if God is a Utilitarian? If you don't divert the tram from the many, you are still responsible for killing them because you could have done something. But killing for the name of some ideal is more vague, but to kill a worm is not murder. If someone is so cemented in their ways and perverse as to not respond to reasoning or good will, and souls are at stake, to let them to live is either weakness or implication on your part. But there are many ways to wage the same war, and not all fronts involve killing. Thou shalt not MURDER

>>16740506
you can justly kill those whom have damned themselves because God has already taken the gift of grace from them

>>16740506
>NOT ALL HUMANS HAVE A SOUL
How do you figure? Augustine argues that everyone has a soul- but not everyone has a soul that will turn towards god. This seems more reasonable of a point to me imo. Isnt being 'human' conditional upon having a soul? Something soulless but still capable of movement and sense perception would be, by definition, an animal- correct?

>>16741093


NO.


>>16741111
>How do you figure? Augustine argues that everyone has a soul- but not everyone has a soul that will turn towards god.

THE SOUL IS DIVINE SUBSTANCE, THEREFORE, HAVING A SOUL NECESSARILY ENTAILS AN A PRIORI ATTRACTION TOWARD GOD; A REJECTION OF GOD ENTAILS ABSENCE OF SOUL.


>Isnt being 'human' conditional upon having a soul?

NO.

A HUMAN IS AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMATE ENTITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES; THE SOUL IS THE ESSENTIAL FACTOR OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE NOBLE, AND THE IGNOBLE, HUMANS; THE SAPIENT, AND THE NESCIENT, HUMANS, NOT BETWEEN THE HUMAN, AND THE NONHUMAN.


>Something soulless but still capable of movement and sense perception would be, by definition, an animal- correct?

IN THE LITERAL, UNIVERSAL SENSE, YES.


ALL HUMANS ARE ANIMATED, BUT ONLY THE SOULFUL ONES ARE LIVING.

>>16739935
bible is toilet paper. nothing wrong with any death, suicide including.

>>16741199
>A REJECTION OF GOD ENTAILS ABSENCE OF SOUL
How do you define rejection of God? Wouldn't it be true to say that Adam and Eve committed a sin and, in so doing, rejected God? Then, in your terms, Adam and Eve would be humans without souls- which seems like a rather odd conclusion to arrive at. Why would God's first human beings not possess souls?

>>16741263


REJECTION OF GOD CONSISTS IN A CONSCIOUS, MALICIOUS, RENEGATION OF GOD, WITH ALL THAT THAT ENTAILS.

VENIAL SINNING DUE TO IGNORANCE, OR INGENUOUS ERROR, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE REJECTION OF GOD.

REJECTION OF GOD NECESSARILY ENTAILS BELIEF IN GOD, SINCE ONE CANNOT REJECT WHAT ONE IGNORES, NOR WHAT ONE REGARDS AS NONEXISTENT; WHEN ATHEISTS CLAIM THAT «GOD IS NOT REAL» THEY ARE RATIONALIZING THEIR REJECTION OF GOD.

>>16741349
And so your argument is that those commit a mortal sin (ie reject God) do not possess souls?

>>16741399
those who*, apologies

>>16741399


NO, THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT...

>>16741444
Im confused then. I asked how a human being could not have a soul. You replied
> A REJECTION OF GOD ENTAILS ABSENCE OF SOUL.
Furthermore, when I asked you what you meant by rejection of God, you called it a
>CONSCIOUS, MALICIOUS, RENEGATION OF GOD, WITH ALL THAT THAT ENTAILS
What would you call a 'malicious renegation' of God except for a sin?

Putting your points here together, it seems like you are saying that those who sin (ie maliciously turn away from God), with the exception of those who sin venially, are rejecting God. And by your definition, those who reject God necessarily do not have souls. Therefore, people who sin do not have souls. This seems like a bit of an absurd conclusion, so please tell me where I am reading you wrong.

>>16741534
>Im confused then.[SIC]

INDEED, YOU ARE CONFUSED.


>I asked how a human being could not have a soul. You replied
>A REJECTION OF GOD ENTAILS ABSENCE OF SOUL.

NO —THAT WAS A RESPONSE TO YOUR REFERENCE TO SAINT AUGUSTINE'S OPINION REGARDING THE SOUL BEING PRESENT IN ALL HUMANS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PIETY, OR IMPIETY.

YOU NEVER ASKED ME HOW A HUMAN COULD NOT HAVE A SOUL.


>Furthermore, when I asked you what you meant by rejection of God, you called it a
>CONSCIOUS, MALICIOUS, RENEGATION OF GOD, WITH ALL THAT THAT ENTAILS
>What would you call a 'malicious renegation' of God except for a sin?

MALICIOUS RENEGATION IMPLIES INTENT BORN FROM MALICE WITH THE PURPOSE NEGATING, OR OTHERWISE ELIMINATING, OPERATIVE REALITY OF SOMEONE, OR SOMETHING.

REJECTION OF GOD IS A SIN; NOT ALL SINS CONSIST IN REJECTING GOD.

HOW IS THIS CONFUSING TO YOU?


>Putting your points here together, it seems like you are saying that those who sin (ie maliciously turn away from God), with the exception of those who sin venially, are rejecting God.

?

>And by your definition, those who reject God necessarily do not have souls. Therefore, people who sin do not have souls. This seems like a bit of an absurd conclusion, so please tell me where I am reading you wrong.

YOU ARE READING EVERYTHING WRONGLY; YOU ARE TAKING MY EXPLICIT, CONCISE STATEMENTS, AND JUMBLING THEM INCOHERENTLY, THEN MAKING YOUR CONCLUSIONS FROM THAT CONFUSION.

READ WHAT IS WRITTEN, AND READ YOUR OWN QUESTIONS.

IMPROVE YOUR READING COMPREHENSION.

>>16741639
>YOU NEVER ASKED ME HOW A HUMAN COULD NOT HAVE A SOUL

>>>NOT ALL HUMANS HAVE A SOUL
>>>How do you figure?

I am sorry if I did not make this more clear to you. My very first question to you was quite simply how can a human being not have a soul. And I will ask again- how is something that does not possess a soul a human being?

>REJECTION OF GOD IS A SIN; NOT ALL SINS CONSIST IN REJECTING GOD.

I am operating off of the Augustinian definition of sin here as a turning of the will towards impermeant and imperfect things as opposed to God's perfection (ie a rejection of God). Is this not a definition you would agree with?

Either way, if rejection of God is A sin, and not the basic mechanic of all sin, then my question still stands. How can a human sin via rejecting God if a human who rejects God necessarily does not have a soul? How is a person who rejects God punished for the sin of rejecting God without a soul to be punished?

>>16741732
>My very first question to you was quite simply how can a human being not have a soul.

YOU DID NOT ASK ME THAT.


>how is something that does not possess a soul a human being?
>...will ask again...


THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASK ME THIS.

QVOD VIDE:

>>16741199
>A HUMAN IS AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIMATE ENTITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES; THE SOUL IS THE ESSENTIAL FACTOR OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE NOBLE, AND THE IGNOBLE, HUMANS; THE SAPIENT, AND THE NESCIENT, HUMANS, NOT BETWEEN THE HUMAN, AND THE NONHUMAN.


>Either way, if rejection of God is A sin, and not the basic mechanic of all sin...

NOT ALL SINS ARE EQUALLY FLAGRANT; THERE ARE MORTAL SINS, AND VENIAL SINS; REJECTION OF GOD IS A MORTAL SIN, AND ALL OTHER MORTAL SINS ENTAIL REJECTION OF GOD; VENIAL SINS CONSIST IN MERE DEVIATION FROM THE PIOUS WAY, WITH NO MALICE, OR SATANISTICAL INTENT, ENTAILED IN THEM; VENIAL SINS DO NOT ENTAIL REJECTION OF GOD; I REITERATE:

>>16741349
>REJECTION OF GOD CONSISTS IN A CONSCIOUS, MALICIOUS, RENEGATION OF GOD...


>How can a human sin via rejecting God if a human who rejects God necessarily does not have a soul?

QVOD VIDE:

>>16740506
>1. NOT ALL THOSE WHO ARE ANIMATED ARE ALIVE; NOT ALL HUMANS HAVE A SOUL, BUT SINCE SOULLESS INDIVIDUALS STILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WORSHIP GOD, AND THE CAPACITY TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, IT CONSTITUTES A MORTAL SIN TO KILL THEM ALSO, SINCE THEY ARE LATENT SUBJECTS OF THE LORD.


IF A SOULLESS INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES THE PERPETUAL ENEMY BY REJECTING GOD, HE IS RENOUNCING HIS POSSIBILITY OF REDEMPTION, AND THAT CONSTITUTES SIN.


>How is a person who rejects God punished for the sin of rejecting God without a soul to be punished?

AFTER DEATH THE IMPIOUS SOULLESS INDIVIDUAL'S SPIRIT IS DEVOURED BY THE PERPETUAL ENEMY.

>>16741930
>YOU DID NOT ASK ME THAT.
But I did. I quoted it in my last post, and I will quote it again:
>>>NOT ALL HUMANS HAVE A SOUL
>>>How do you figure?
This was what began our exchange.

I think we are talking past each other, and I assume you will blame that on my lack of reading comprehension. I am aware of the different sorts of sin and I do not want to get too hung up on its definition here. My main point in brining up sin was to ask what, exactly, is 'punished' in the human who rejects God (or is redeemed for that matter) if they lack a soul. I see you answer this here:
>AFTER DEATH THE IMPIOUS SOULLESS INDIVIDUAL'S SPIRIT IS DEVOURED BY THE PERPETUAL ENEMY.

How do you define the 'spirit'? Do all human beings have one? What is its relationship to the soul?

Also, if are tired of answering my questions/incredulity, then please just answer this one- what writer/theologian/thinker/book is your biggest influence here. You understand that the claim that not every Human has a soul within a Christian worldview seems pretty unorthodox? I have literally never heard the claim made and am curious to read more.

>>16739935
It is unbiblical because the shepherd will no longer have any sheep to ~~exploit~~ raise.

>>16742058
>How do you define the 'spirit'? Do all human beings have one? What is its relationship to the soul?


A COMPLETE HUMAN HAS: (I) SOUL, (II) SPIRIT, (III) MIND, (IV) BODY; THE SOUL IS THE ONTOLOGICAL ESSENCE OF THE SOULFUL HUMAN, AND THE SOURCE OF HIS SAPIENCE, AND OF HIS NOBILITY; THE SPIRIT IS WHAT ANIMATES THE BODY, AND ENERGIZES THE MIND; THE MIND IS THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE SOUL, SPIRIT, AND BODY, AND THE SPACE OF INTELLECTION; THE BODY IS THE CORPOREAL SHAPE THAT COMPLETES THE ENTIRE FORM OF A HUMAN.

THE SOUL IS LINKED TO THE BODY VIA THE SPIRIT.

>>16742112
Honest question, why can't you just behave normally? Why the caps lock and inability to infer the average persons awkward speech?

And don't fucking responde with 'WHAT?' or '?' or some other such bullshit. It isn't impressive or amusing.

>shall not kill
>Killing yourslef
Here it's a not that hard to expand it.

>>16740016
>If all souls belong to God, then it is not the right of the individual to end his own life, because that life belongs to His Creator.
Isn't this a somewhat disturbing idea?
Do I not belong to myself?

>>16742972
no self-ownership is a retarded liberal idea
this isn't disturbing at all
the Good owns all subsequent goods it creates
you might want to read some Plato

>>16742972
Atomised cuck lmao

>>16742121
>responding to tripfags

>>16743093
Not an argument
>>16743089
>the Good owns all subsequent goods it creates
What does this imply for personal agency and free will?

>>16743089
No one is born under ownership. Ownership is a mere state of material being and there are no shackles or chains in the immaterial. I defy you, I defy mankind, and I defy God. Fuck you. I'd rather be free in death than a slave in Heaven.
>>16743089
Who exactly a cuck, slave?

>>16742112
I fell asleep, but if you read this again I would appreciate if you answer my final question.
>hat writer/theologian/thinker/book is your biggest influence here. You understand that the claim that not every Human has a soul within a Christian worldview seems pretty unorthodox? I have literally never heard the claim made and am curious to read more.