/lit/ - Literature

>>17642251
"Rousseau asks why it is that man, who was born free, is nevertheless everywhere in chains; one might as well ask, why it is that sheep, who are born carnivorous, nevertheless everywhere nibble grass."

- Maistre

TL:DR
Lolbertarian crybabies get the rope

>>17642251
>They didn’t die
Didn't they? Are you sure?

>>17642521
Based, tomorrow will be 200th anniversary of his death. How shall we commemorate this great man?

>>17642251
Not their physical, it's the death of their innocence.

>What does this mean for Judeo-Christian theology?
That God was actually in the wrong, obviously.

>>17642521
I'm a brainlet, could anyone explain that quote to me? Is de Maistre saying that man, contrary to what Rousseau thinks, is not born free, but in bondage, and it is his nature to be "everywhere in chains", due to the natural existence of hierarchies (even to their divine sanction)?

>>17642521
>born carnivorous
Source on that?

>>17642251
I don't believe God denied them the tree of life? He said they could eat from any tree accept the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

>>17642635
You completely missed the point, read that quote again.

>>17642666
*except

I am so tired.

>>17642251
what a novel and original take, i'm sure no-one has thought of this before.

>>17642619
His point, as I recall it, was that Rousseau's noble savage is an unfalsifiable invention. It's like claiming sheep were originally carnivores, but had been "corrupted" by society or something: both unprovable and contrary to any actual evidence.

>>17642251
They did die though.

Lucifer is so fucking hot

>>17642613

>>17642611
>>17642536
>>17642765
Already dealt with this in the post, low-attention span tards.
>Juden and Christcucks cope with this by saying God was speaking metaphorically, that when he said “ye shall die” he meant either a spiritual death or that they will die sometime in the future.
>It cannot be the latter, for God said “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever,” suggesting they were already going to die. And if it’s the former, God lied either way, for Adam had no way of knowing God was speaking metaphorically.
>>17642666
You're right but it's irrelevant to my point

>>17642251
What did he mean by "live forever"? The tale of Adam and Eve will like forever in the minds of people? Or by eating the apple, the man abandons beast status and can achieve God status and live forever as entity?

>>17642251
You got it anon. The "God" of Genesis is basically a noxifer- a darkness disseminating deity, and the serpent is the luxifer, a light-bearing deity.
Are mortal hominids just herd animals that need a dominant deity to keep them in ignorant bliss, or are they capable of following a Prometheus into an arduous battle against death, equipped with limited but developing technical knowledge?

>>17642935
Or maybe it was a test from God to test man's control when faced with tentation.

>>17642810
>Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age.jpg

>>17642820
>they were already going to die
No you idiot, that is why you reject the Tree of Life as irrelevant, because it literally proves you are wrong. They could eat of it and live forever and would obey God. But they chose precisely Evil, that is why they lost their inner order and did not get what they wanted: knowledge. They got knowledge of evil as concealment, darkness, and not as what it is (a dark light that shines, a metaphor employed in psalms to mean how evil, concealment, is necessary for the truly good and is dependent on it).

>>17643016
>But they chose precisely Evil, that is why they lost their inner order and did not get what they wanted: knowledge. They got knowledge of evil as concealment, darkness, and not as what it is (a dark light that shines, a metaphor employed in psalms to mean how evil, concealment, is necessary for the truly good and is dependent on it).
This is wrong. Again, God says:
>And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
God admits that human beings became like him and gained knowledge of Good and Evil (not just Evil like you say) by eating of the tree. If that's a false knowledge, then how did humans "become like God"? Does God also have false knowledge? And why does God say "knowing Good and Evil"? Why wouldn't he say "falsely knowing Good and Evil?"
>They could eat of it and live forever and would obey God.
Wrong God specifically bars them from eating it after they rise above the level of animals to the level of gods by eating of the tree of knowledge. It is very obvious from the text that God bars them because he does not want competitors; if humans ate from the tree of Knowledge and the tree of Life, they would be on the level of gods.

>>17642613
>>17642251
THE SNAKE CONDEMNED US TO WORKING FOR FOOD.

>19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

>suggesting they were already going to die.
That's your assumption, a jump to conclusions. Could it be that after our training under God, then, we could eat for eternal life?

>>17642820
So Adam and Eve didn't die? Are they alive right now?

>>17642746
Ah, that makes sense. The same could be said about similar arguments about human nature/the state of nature, no? Like Hobbes's and Locke's. By the way, where is that quote from?

>>17643541
>By the way, where is that quote from?
It's no actually by de Maistre. It's by Émile Faguet, in an essay discussing de Maistre's ideas. I found it on Isaiah Berlin's essay "The Counter-Enlightment":

>The conception of human nature which the radical critics have promulgated and on which their whole house of cards rests is an infantile fantasy. Rousseau asks why it is that man, who was born free, is nevertheless everywhere in chains; Maistre replies, ‘This mad pronouncement, Man is born free, is the opposite of the truth.’1 ‘It would be equally reasonable’, adds the eminent critic Émile Faguet in an essay on Maistre, ‘to say that sheep are born carnivorous, and everywhere nibble grass.’2 Men are not made for freedom, nor for peace. Such freedom and peace as they have had were obtained only under wisely authoritarian governments that have repressed the destructive critical intellect and its socially disintegrating effects.

>Got us cast out of literal paradise
>Made us mortal
>Severed our relationships
What a good guy. What a chad.

>>17642251
literal fucking r athetism take, please go away you retarded nigger.

>>17643251
>>They could eat of it and live forever and would obey God.
>Wrong God specifically bars them from eating it
Not forever. They had to mature to be able to eat it. Eating it prematurely resulted in shame, blaming etc.
>It is very obvious from the text that God bars them because he does not want competitors
Hahah competitors in what? You think 'knowledge' is what prevents you from being a literal god?

>>17642251
that was actually the tree of duality(good and evil)

>>17642594
Someone make a thread with a link to a PDFs and someone with a good voice and free time start working on an audiobook

>>17642635
The point is they absolutely the fuck are not, saying sheep are born as carnivores and it's some injustice to see them eating grass is the same as saying men are born as free and it's some injustice to see them owned or enslaved.

99+% of Men were meant to be slaveish animals controlled by Elites with an Iota of self sovereignty, atleast at this point in the decline of High Civilization.

People should not only read the Bible, but also read all Christian texts published from the 3rd century to fucking 16th century
Stop thinking your basic ass Sunday school knowledge is worth anything

>>17643251
>not just Evil like you say
except I didn't say ''just Evil'', dishonest.

>how did humans "become like God"?...nd why does God say "knowing Good and Evil"?
Humans wouldn't know Good and Evil, they would only know Good with Evil integrated in it, or if you prefer, Evil in its original purpose, that points to Good. With this separation of Good and Evil they actualized a deeper degree of Evil, a thicker veil upon man's mind, unable to distinguish good and evil properly. We know good and evil like god but in a poor, confused way.

>Wrong God specifically bars them from eating it after they rise above the level of animals to the level of gods by eating of the tree of knowledge.
Stop being dishonest, this is not the point at all. They could eat from any Tree but the one from which they ate.

>It is very obvious from the text that God bars them because he does not want competitors; if humans ate from the tree of Knowledge and the tree of Life, they would be on the level of gods.
Behold that thicker veil of Evil blinding you! Death was a gift from God (every action of God is UTTERLY GOOD, it is always the best possible giving conditions and our free will). If we had eternal life with the knowledge from the tree we would live this miserable life forever, this would be if not like hell, a permanent torturous agony.

>>17644250
it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so you're both right

>>17642521
I APPROVE OF THIS POST

>>17644338
i've got better things to do than become an apologist, so no thanks
stupid xcuck larper

Anything that anyone is saying in this thread can be summed up in this experimental vocal track about the defense of Eve’s decisions against God.

https://youtu.be/P5XbtPzEHFA

>>17642251

God is a might makes right autocrat. Lucifer opened our eyes to the truth and God punished us both. Lucifer is the true spirit of mankind.

Yes, God is the bad guy. I mean, just look around you, does that look like the work of a good entity?

>>17642251
The serpent was Satan, not Lucifer; it was Christ (the eagle) who instructed Adam, and Eve, to eat from the tree of knowledge before they could become misinstructed, and perverted, by Satan.