/lit/ - Literature

>>20406489
Baptism does nothing. God cares about people's hearts. All unbaptised children go to heaven anyways because people are judged based off what they are capable of understanding. Also God doesn't want some people to go to hell. He wants all people with Him but most aren't going to choose that and there's nothing He can do about it because of free will

>>20406509
Do you think God is sad or happy when sinners go to hell?

>>20406489
Morality is always about satisfying your personal preferences. The mere thought of being virtuous itself is preferable to many. Christians obviously prefer to go to heaven, to be without guilt and sin. They prefer to live forever. Who doesn’t? It is a basic evolutionary desire. Instead of having to reproduce, we can go to a magical place where we never die. And not only that, it’s really pleasant. And we sit around praising God all the time, though no one really knows what it’s like, or how it never gets boring.

A utilitarian also cares about his own preferences first and foremost, and he believes that reducing suffering is good. Of course this is to say that he simply likes the idea of reducing suffering. He cannot make any objective reasoning about the matter. Without someone to judge that suffering is bad, it cannot be bad. The universe is indifferent.

Consider the following dilemma: you can only go to heaven if everyone else goes to hell, otherwise, you go to hell and everyone else goes to heaven. Both choices are permanent, and you will not remember your choice. So you will not think yourself a hero if you’re suffering in hell, and you will not feel bad for all the people you sent to hell if you’re enjoying heaven. You will never be punished if you choose heaven, and you will never be rewarded if you choose hell. Which would you choose?

>>20406509
baptism is explicitly defined as necessary for salvation. God CAN save people anyway, but you're supposed to thank God who saw fit to make you a Christian.
>>20406521
Divine Justice has been done. He doesn't want anyone in hell, but you have free will.

>>20406552
>Morality is always about satisfying your personal preferences. The mere thought of being virtuous itself is preferable to many
And yet you will say that Christianity is life denying and self denying the moment someone quotes acts at you.

>>20406552
I would choose to to go to heaven, but that might be the morally wrong choice. Presumably God cares about morality and he might disapprove.

>>20406489
Great analysis. The answer is yes because of: "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth."

You want to make the angels happy, right? This because an issue of scale and why Hell can't exist - because otherwise making the devil and demons happy should be equally selfless.

>>20406552
>Morality is always about satisfying your personal preferences.
More of an confession than a statement

>>20406567
Is God happy or sad when sinners go to hell? Is God happy or sad when divine justice is done?

>>20406628
yeah but the devil could rejoice in people being damned. If God and Satan exist after the end of time then pleasing one or the other makes no difference, ergo Satan exists unto the end of the world but not after.

>>20406637
I think it's more important to please God than to please Satan. Indeed, pleasing Satan is probably bad.

>>20406642
>I think it's more important to please God than to please Satan.
Both infinite beings who allow for infinite existence but one is good the other bad at the individual level.

>>20406628
Happy and you shall be so too.
in fact you shall be happy to see your friends and relatives in hell if you're saved and they aren't
are you happy about this answer now? can you weave enought ad hominems out of it?

>>20406649
Satan isn't infinite. None of the major Christian writers admit this.

>>20406489
The Kingdom of God is communion with God. The righteous will enjoy a regenerated New Heaven and the New Earth. You’re not morally obligated though. If you reject God, the source of perfect love, life, goodness, beauty and truth, you will inherit a hellish state from your own actions.

>Behold, the wicked man travails with evil;
he conceives trouble and births falsehood. He has dug a hole and hollowed it out; he has fallen into a pit of his own making. His trouble recoils on himself, and his violence falls on his own head.

>>20406521
God wants all to be saved, but respects the choices of His creations.

>>20406654
If God is happy when people go to hell, I don't see why I would be required to go to heaven, since God wouldn't care either way. Or rather, whatever I do, God will be happy, because that's what he wanted me to do.

>>20406613
you're asked to either choose God to put in the first place in your life or not doing that. Choosing God and being saved is inherently the right moral choice to do.
He won't disapprove of you choosing him over limited temporal things, that's what he wants out of you and the point of the exercise.

>>20406649
> Both infinite beings
Blasphemous. Satan is no more than a fallen cherub and will be damned for eternity

>>20406669
like clockwork.

>>20406668
Do you think God is in heaven wishing that Judas Iscariot hadn't betrayed Christ and sent himself to hell? Is there a hypothetical perfect world that Judas singlehandedly prevented from coming about?

>>20406575
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Christianity isn’t necessarily life denying, depending on your interpretations of Christianity. Not really sure how you’re responding to what I said.
>>20406613
In other words, you fear God’s disapproval, which would lead to punishment. So you are only hesitant because you think choosing heaven might actually lead to bad consequences for yourself.
>>20406625
So if you could choose between two lives, one being more preferable than the other, you would, under some circumstances, choose the less preferable life? Is that not a contradiction? It is by definition less preferable, so how could you prefer it?

>>20406676
What do you mean?

>>20406674
this, we aren't Zoroastrian in here.
Satan derives pleasure from you being damned because he hates God, you're made in image of God, and he hates you.
This pleasure is nothing, it's gallows humor in having managed to sucker you into choosing limited temporal things over eternity.

>>20406672
I'm not really choosing God. God will continue to exist whether I go to heaven or not. The choice is whether I personally should get to spend eternity in God's presence. I doubt that I am morally required to spend eternity in God's presence.

>>20406684
that you're not arguing seriously you're fishing for gotchas. Nobody except those who are already there is happy that people go to hell, obviously.

>>20406674
>God has torture chamber in infinity
>all merciful
Pick one. I'm Christian btw
>>20406681
>So if you could choose between two lives, one being more preferable than the other, you would, under some circumstances, choose the less preferable life?
Yes.
>Is that not a contradiction?
No - see deny yourself and pick up your cross.
>It is by definition less preferable, so how could you prefer it?
Why not? Destruction can be fun and preferable in its own sense.

>>20406678
How do you know Judas Isariot is in hell? We know that even as the Jews shouted that their blood be upon them and their children, that Christ forgave them and asked the Father to do the same. Judas was evidently so shamed by his actions that he couldn’t even stand to live anymore. Regardless, Judas made his choices from his free will decisions. God laments all who stray from Him, and this is clear from the fact that Christ was sent into the world in the first place, and the parable of the prodigal son, and the parable of the lost sheep. We should pray for Judas’ salvation

>>20406681
No, it doesn't follow from the hypothesis that God disapproves of my action that God will punish me, since many sinners will go to heaven. But it's still wrong to displease God whether God will punish you or not.

>>20406688
this has nothing to do with anything

>>20406694
>Pick one. I'm Christian btw
The love of God will never even depart from the damned. The Eastern Orthodox Church has the only correct view of Gehenna.

>>20406690
I don't really care if you think I'm arguing seriously. But if God is happy when people go to hell, that seems to prove that it's not morally wrong to go to hell.

>>20406695
God himself says that Judas would have been better off not being born, which implies that he's in hell.

>>20406694
God doesn't have a torture chamber God has a place where he metaphysically is not so that people who don't choose him have a place where to exist eternally.
Any torture in hell is from demons, and from the sense of being permanently divorced from God.

>>20406700
Can you link me that please? Much appreciate the debate btw - I feel like that this is in good faith in the extreme

>>20406697
I don't care what you think.

>>20406710
>infinity has place without infinity
I just disagree and refuse to change my mind on this. I've read Aquinas's and Augustine's take on Hell and find them shallow for Augustine to borderline sadistic for Aquinas.

>>20406713
The best book on the topic is “Life After Death” by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos. For some links though, here are some good ones:
https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

> Those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion: remorse. But love inebriates the souls of the sons and daughters of heaven by its delectability.
https://solzemli.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/saint-isaac-the-syrian-on-hell/

>>20406694
>No - see deny yourself and pick up your cross.
Why deny yourself and pick up your cross? Is it not to achieve a more preferable outcome?
>>20406696
why is it wrong to displease God?

>>20406734
Because God good by definition. Anything that pleases God is ispo facto good, anything that displeases him is ipso facto bad.

>>20406734
>Why deny yourself and pick up your cross? Is it not to achieve a more preferable outcome?
I'm okay with anyone following Christ for whatever reason they have. I would follow Christ if my soul stopped existing at the end of my life - he's the only thing I've come across I truly cannot explain other than saying that He is divine.

>>20406733
That is the most beautiful thing I have ever read. Thank you.

>>20406717
the feeling is mutual

>>20406742
>>20406733
Can I get some opinions real quick
1
>... those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God ... But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (Saint Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises).
2
>Man’s eternal destiny—heaven or hell, salvation or damnation—depends solely on his response to this love.
Is 1 not saying all end in heaven but 2 is saying that damnation can be eternal suffering still?

>>20406722
look up infinity math, aleph zero and stuff like that. In alternative, Real numbers are infinite, but they aren't irrational numbers.

>>20406567
>baptism is explicitly defined as necessary for salvation
this is simply unbiblical

>>20406752
Numbers are infinite in by abstraction but God is infinite by essence.

>>20406753
no it's not, your position is.
Read acts.

>>20406755
I'm making an analogy, but good point and checked.

>>20406753
I've always wondered if Christ corrected himself in real time because he realized people would think you needed physical baptism.
>5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
>6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

>>20406742
I agree, it completely changed the way I saw things when I first learned of it.

>>20406750
St. Isaac the Syrian is basically an uncondemned universalist, but is very influential in the church for his homilies and ascetical treatises. His view of hell though can be found in people who didn’t hold such views such as St. Gregory Palamas, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and many others.

>>20406750
1 is saying that he'll isn't necessarily a place in the afterlife but a state of existance. Which in the spiritual world amounts to the same thing. in no way it says that everyone goes to heaven.

>>20406767
>St. Isaac the Syrian is basically an uncondemned universalist
My dream job :)

This is great - thank you very much!

>>20406777
Glad to have helped. The chapter on Paradise and Hell in that book I mentioned above is really good, but unfortunately I cannot find a PDF of it after a short search. I had to borrow my copy originally from the parish library. If you’re interested enough the book was less than $35 if I remember correctly

>>20406735
define good
>>20406738
this is nonsense. People clearly follow Christ for a reason, even if it’s just a good feeling that can’t be explained. He’s very clear that if you follow him, you will enter heaven.

>>20406807
God.

>>20406489
>to go to heaven

>>20406821
>worldly false Gospel

>>20406813
If good is God, how do you describe an action as being good? What does good actually mean?

>>20406837
It would be one that God wills.

>>20406827
It's not a gospel nor does the author claim to writing one. It's a correction of certain perversions towards the teachings of Christ.

>>20406821
>Ellul
Dropped

>>20406844
So what if God wills an action? How is that different from any other being willing an action? Why do you care?

>>20406567
Baptising children does nothing because they dont understand why theyre being dunk'd. Baptism itself, when someone is an adult or old enough to understand the concepts of sin and repentance is a public show of faith, which is the important part. The act itself is just symbolism

>>20406837
Good = akin to God and His character

>>20406862
>The act itself is just symbolism
False. Baptism enters one into the Body of Christ, and brings us to mystically participate in Christ’s death and resurrection. It is more than just a symbol, as all of the early Christians, even in the time of Paul, believed. It is the same with the Eucharist.

>>20406860
Because God is good. I can't make it simpler than that.

>>20406862
retarded argument, the apostles baptized children too.

>>20406878
that’s vague and you know it. A much better definition of good: whatever is preferable or desirable or fitful. Without preferences, there is no good. You wouldn’t care about God if you weren’t endowed with the ability to prefer some experiences over others. An action or situation is good if it helps you satisfy your preferences. You can’t escape this. You can only care about pleasing God if you prefer it. So you’re still following whatever you prefer.

>>20406890
See >>20406896
You have to explain why God’s goodness has any effect on your actions. I’ve already done that, quite simply. But you are struggling with circularity

>>20406896
It’s not vague. God has revealed His character through the prophets, the Bible and of course in His supreme revelation where Christ Himself becomes flesh and dwells among us, teaching and living the perfect life. Here we see the good in its clearest form demonstrated to us in the pages of the Gospels. God is the standard by which goodness is defined and has any meaning whatsoever.

>>20406896
There would be good and evil regardless of whether or not I had any preferences. Otherwise, everything I wanted to do would be good.

>>20406855
It perverts the Gospel of Christ, therefore it is preaching a false Gospel

>>20406552
Very few of your desires are evolutionary. You seriously mistake how much of you is a product of man-made structures.

>>20406489
>Do Christians believe that we're morally required to go to heaven
First, you need to define what you mean by "morally" since morality, in a Christian sense, means "doing things in the way that will result with me going to heaven"
Going to heaven is above morality, it is the cause of morality

>>20406910
still doesn’t tell me the definition of good, or right and wrong with respect to choices. Basically, you have to explain how an action is “right” or why we “should” do certain actions.
>>20406914
If you had no preferences, you would have no idea what good or evil is. You could murder and rape and you wouldn’t see it as good or bad, right or wrong. No one would be able to convince you that you are immoral. It doesn’t matter if they invoke the suffering of others, or God’s will. You simply wouldn’t care because it doesn’t affect you. All action comes from desire and preference. It is not justified by reason. Why should I eat? Why should I sleep? Simply because I prefer it. The suffering of others only matters insofar as it affects my own suffering. It’s why people care more about family than friends, friends more than strangers, humans more than animals. It’s all subjective, it all comes back to you. It couldn’t be any other way. To act at all requires your desire to act.

>>20406933
Elaborate. Give examples

>>20406918
In what way? Substantiate your claim.

>>20406943
> still doesn’t tell me the definition of good
This should already be clear. Good is a godly or divine quality of thoughts, words, deeds, etc. This is revealed in the Bible and most specifically in the life of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 5:1—be imitators of God. Likewise, “Be holy as the Lord your God is Holy”

>>20406552
>They prefer to live forever. Who doesn’t? It is a basic evolutionary desire. Instead of having to reproduce, we can go to a magical place where we never die

>>20406552
>Which would you choose?
Ignoring that that's not how Hell or Heaven work, that Hell isn't permanent and that every soul will eventually reach God, that hell isn't a Dantean fire pit where you get punished but the absence of Gods light, it would still be the only good choice to save everyone and sacrifice yourself
Dont remember? Im conscious at the time I'm making the choice, only someone who is a complete coombrain does things based only on if they will feel guilt or not. So you would go around committing the most heinous crimes if we were to lobotomize you in the way that you would forget every action you take after a day, or that you were incapable of feeling guilt?

>>20406986
>it would still be the only good choice to save everyone and sacrifice yourself
why?
>only someone who is a complete coombrain does things based only on if they will feel guilt or not.
So you wouldn’t feel guilty for choosing to go to heaven? I would, but I would just ignore it in favor of eternal joy after pressing the button

>>20406998
Just to add, you cant sneak your way into heaven. Doing good things because you seek a reward is self-defeating and not "good" at all.
>why?
What makes a choice good? Only your good will and duty.
>I would, but I would just ignore it in favor of eternal joy after pressing the button
Thats what I mean by coombrain

>>20407021
>What makes a choice good? Only your good will and duty.
vague, circular, nonsense. What is a good will? What is duty?

>>20406998
>why
“Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

>>20407024
>vague, circular, nonsense. What is a good will? What is duty?
I'm not going to read and understand Kant's second critique instead of you
Atleast read the stanford entry on Kants moral philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#:~:text=In%20Kant's%20terms%2C%20a%20good,beings%2C%20are%20imperatives%20and%20duties.

>>20407034
Why do you care about these commandments? Why follow them?

>>20407039
Because I love God and the meaning of life is to love and be like God.

>>20407038
I’m asking simple questions, and you cannot answer them. The problem with the “good will” is that artificial intelligences can have good wills. They would, by Kant’s logic, be more moral than humans. Also, if having a good will is operating by moral principles, you can simply have the moral principle of achieving the most preferable life. Kant is using pretty language, but he’s not actually making an argument. Why should we accept that a will is only good if it is determined by moral principles and nothing else? Why do those moral principles exist in the first place? What does “good” mean in the phrase good will? He just wants to pretend that desires are irrelevant to morality, when morality is impossible without desires. How else do you think moral principles are formed?

>>20407039
>Why follow them?
Because humans are social animals, not solitary and selfish pleasure seekers, we treat others as we want to be treated, and because we are rational animals and can understand that people deserve mutual respect, we can imagine how it is to be another person, and we know that decisions are not made in a conditional way but categorically in an absolute way
Selfish pleasure seekers are parasites

>>20407051
So you love following God’s commandments. Doesn’t this mean that you prefer it? You would choose to go to hell simply because in that moment, you would feel great for following God’s commandments. In that moment, it is what you prefer. Do you disagree?

>>20407068
Why do we treat others how we want to be treated only with respect to humans and not animals? Why follow this rule at all? Is it not the case that we respect others because it is better for ourselves? This is basic game theory and explained by evolution easily. Do you really think empathy evolved for no reason? Do you think we are social and cooperative for no reason? Obviously it is beneficial for us. We know that if we piss people off, they get revenge in some way. At the very least, people begin to hate us, which is bad for us. Our morality is pro-social because it’s evolutionarily beneficial. It is not necessarily the same with other species. In nature it may be right to kill others when possible. That is the subjective nature of morality

>>20407065
>He just wants to pretend that desires are irrelevant to morality, when morality is impossible without desires

Go actually read it nigga, you wouldn't write embarrassing stuff like this. Good will is the very opposite of acting out of desire. A mother jumping to save her child isn't the same as a woman jumping to save an unknown child
>I’m asking simple questions, and you cannot answer them
Cope more
>The problem with the “good will” is that artificial intelligences can have good wills
Thats not a problem at all, a dolphin can have good will if he can choose freely. If a computer has free will it can have good will
>They would, by Kant’s logic, be more moral than humans
No
>Also, if having a good will is operating by moral principles, you can simply have the moral principle of achieving the most preferable life.
That's not it, you are confusing doing something for a certain end, a benefit, with doing something out of principle. I get that some people simply cant understand the higher levels of Kohlberg's scale
>hy should we accept that a will is only good if it is determined by moral principles and nothing else?
Thats not it
>Why do those moral principles exist in the first place?
You wouldn't ask this sort of pointless questions if you actually had read Kant
>What does “good” mean in the phrase good will?
Not doing things out of desire but out of moral duty -> see categorical imperative

Answer me this, what do you mean by "moral principles". Do you honestly think Kant thinks "this is written in the bible so it bust be good", what are you doing on /lit/ if you haven't atlreast hear of the categorical imperative

> How else do you think moral principles are formed?
Categorical imperative :^)

>>20407090
>Why do we treat others how we want to be treated only with respect to humans and not animals?
Yes, why dont we do that? We absolutely should
>Why follow this rule at all?
Try not following it, even a child understands what repercussions are
>Is it not the case that we respect others because it is better for ourselves?
That wont get you far. You dont gain anything when you give a homeless a few coins, a judge doesn't gain anything when he proclaims justice. The idea of "but you felt good giving this guy money" doesn't work, id "feel good" equally keeping that money, wouldn't i? I also dont hope that the homeless guy will repay me some day. The judge doesn't feel better seeing justice in the world.
If this was the case, people would also obey unjust laws, they wouldn't protest unless these laws were targeted against them. Whites gained nothing by abolishing jim crow and other anti-black laws.
>In nature it may be right to kill others when possible
When possible? Do you mean when necessary to keep yourself alive?

>>20407107
>Good will is the very opposite of acting out of desire
A will itself is a desire. Desire implies preference.
>A mother jumping to save her child isn't the same as a woman jumping to save an unknown child
They’re both desires. Actions that, if not taken, would incur guilt, at the very least. And if successfully done, produces feel-good emotions.
>Thats not a problem at all, a dolphin can have good will if he can choose freely. If a computer has free will it can have good will
So now you introduce free will, another incoherent concept that you won’t be able to explain. Again, you can’t explain why a decision is made without appealing to desires. Free will makes it seem as if we choose with no cause or motive, but at the same time consciously and intentional, which is simply absurd. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that we simply have desires and follow whatever desire is greatest within us.
>You wouldn't ask this sort of pointless questions if you actually had read Kant
and you can’t answer a simple question. I don’t give a fuck about Kant. I don’t have to read him. You’re the one who mentioned him, as if we were discussing Kant in particular. I refuse to read a book which seems to me lacking in true arguments, and whose followers always fail to give arguments as well. I don’t know why he is worshipped so much. Probably because people prefer the idea of a morality that is as far away from the idea of selfishness as possible, because people hate the idea that they are selfish.
>Answer me this, what do you mean by "moral principles".
A moral principle is a rule that guides behavior.
>Categorical imperative
you can’t explain why one should follow the categorical imperative

>>20407107
Go read Aristotle instead of Kant, who Kant even justify why anyone should follow the categorical imperative. Aristotle is smart enough to realize all virtue and morality is based in self-love, which is literally indisputable.

>>20407160
>A will itself is a desire
Thats not true, that might be true only for animals. Desires can guide will and the will can satiate desires, but can also ignore it. I guess you go around raping every woman you see
>They’re both desires. Actions that, if not taken, would incur guilt, at the very least. And if successfully done, produces feel-good emotions.
So you think that the "feel good emotion" is evolutionary of higher desire and value than the "I'm not going to risk my own life/im not dying" feeling?
>So now you introduce free will
You cant have morality without free will kid. Im done arguing with a 12 y old

>>20407159
>The idea of "but you felt good giving this guy money" doesn't work, id "feel good" equally keeping that money, wouldn't i? I also dont hope that the homeless guy will repay me some day
wrong. You DO feel good by helping him, for various reasons. You would also feel bad/guilty if you didn’t help them. Don’t pretend that we don’t feel like shit for seeing a homeless guy and ignoring him. We like to give money just so we don’t feel that guilt. But some people simply love the feeling of helping him, because it makes them feel virtuous. Perhaps other people will notice their virtue, or perhaps the homeless guy will somehow pay them back in the future, or someone else. Again, why do you think this behavior evolved in us? It’s consistent with principles of evolution, it benefits us in various ways. It is good for the survival of our genes. At the very least you must admit that we do these things because we prefer to do them. Otherwise we wouldn’t do it! I’m not sure how this could be any clearer and simpler.

>>20407202
>I guess you go around raping every woman you see
No, dumbass. I am not made of just one desire at any given moment. As I said, we follow are greatest desire. We are full of multiple desires. Yes I want to rape women, but this desire is overwhelmingly defeated by my desire not to be punished for raping women.
>So you think that the "feel good emotion" is evolutionary of higher desire and value than the "I'm not going to risk my own life/im not dying" feeling?
By saving genes in other humans, we indirectly save our own genes. You have to remember this. Our goal is ultimately the survival of our species, not just ourselves. It’s interesting because we must have a strong sense of self-survival for the species to survive, and yet we also must have affinity for the species as a whole. I would totally kill myself if it meant saving the species, without hesitating. And I would prefer it. It would be my desire.
>You cant have morality without free will
not an argument. Do you think we can’t have punishment without free will too? You would be wrong

>>20407207
>I’m not sure how this could be any clearer and simpler.
You are confusing emotions, will, and desires
Just because you feel an emotion after doing something, doesn't mean that you did if for that emotion. "Feeling a certain way" can be a end, but that doesn't overwrite everything else when it comes to actions
Also, with this in mind, you dont need to feel anything, and you can even feel like shit, you can be publicly shunned, humiliated, rejected by the person you wanted to help etc, and still decide to do something. I dont see how the concept of doing something outside of your own interest is so foreign to you? I feel sorry if you cant imagine doing something without a reward

>>20407159
>Try not following it, even a child understands what repercussions are
This is the same argument we're making though. You're just arguing in the opposite direction (if you don't do it, bad things will happen). We're arguing conversely we should do things that are good in themselves and good for us. This is virtue ethics.
>That wont get you far.
It gets you very far. You respect others insofar as they are virtuous and akin to yourself, thereby both making the world better by encouraging virtue and creating friendships between like minds. This is the Aristotelian principle of self-love, which can extend to others as well so far as they are akin to yourself and virtuous (people who are not virtuous are not capable of self-love because they are self-destructive and deceitful).

>>20407238
>but this desire is overwhelmingly defeated by my desire not to be punished for raping women.
So you still feel a desire to rape and would rape given the opportunity. This is just straight-up psychopathy. And dont try to coat in the "desire to respect other people", because that would be circular, vaguel, pointless etc whatever you said
>By saving genes in other humans, we indirectly save our own genes. You have to remember this. Our goal is ultimately the survival of our species, not just ourselves
I guess you are just fucking with me now. Since the example could aswell be a guy jumping into a river to save a dog
>not an argument
Lmao ok Ben, you do understand that by claiming that humans are driven by desire only you are removing morality and free will? What are you even trying to say then

>>20407239
>Just because you feel an emotion after doing something, doesn't mean that you did if for that emotion
That is the best working explanation. Otherwise there is no motive at all. Doing things simply because we feel like it will be preferable is the most axiomatic and intuitive explanation for actions. Again, without preferences, there is no reason to do anything, even if other people suffer. You first have to care about suffering to do something about it. It all originates within the self. It is selfish.
>and still decide to do something
because you still feel motivated by some desire to do so. It’s not random, you’re not a puppet being controlled by external forces, you do things because you want to, and most of the time we can easily explain this desires with evolutionary principles. And even if we can’t, it is obviously true that we act out of preference. It makes no sense to do something that you don’t prefer.
>I dont see how the concept of doing something outside of your own interest is so foreign to you?
Why did you end this sentence with a question mark? You type like a fag or a woman. It is impossible to act outside of your own interest. How does that it even make sense? Even if you’re acting to benefit others, you must first have an interest to do so. How do you explain why we want to be to good to humans and some animals but not literally random objects? Something inside us has to propel us to act. It is desire, interest, preference, whatever you want to call it. By fulfilling our desire we feel better. That is the nature of desire.

>>20407021
This image is basically the Demiurge's entrapment pyramid scheme

>>20407251
>So you still feel a desire to rape and would rape given the opportunity.
I’m not sure if I would rape, but yes, I have the desire to rape. I’ve been conditioned to detest rape because it generally is bad for me. But we see in nature that animals rape all the time, because they are hardly punished for it. Are they psychopaths too? I even have desires to kill people, I admit this. But again, it is extremely small compared to my desire not to be punished, not to live in guilt for the rest of my life. Why do you think humans are much more civil in modern times? Because punishments were not as absolute in ancient times. Fucking obvious.
>Since the example could aswell be a guy jumping into a river to save a dog
Dogs are valuable to us, and they still share our genes. By the way, evolution allows for us to make stupid decisions. We are not always perfect specimens. That’s literally how natural selection works. Sometimes we have certain traits or desires that simply don’t work, and so they don’t get passed on. If sacrificing ourselves for dogs were a common trait and disadvantageous for us, then it’s possible for this trait to be eliminated over time.
>you do understand that by claiming that humans are driven by desire only you are removing morality and free will?
So? I’d rather believe in something that I can understand. It’s a pretty good model for explaining behavior. I just want you to IMAGINE that this is possible. Imagine a world in which people don’t have free will, and people are just guided by desires. They can have multiple desires, which complicates their decisions. They can be intelligent and ponder over decisions before making them. But still, it is all predetermined and they simply act out of selfish desire. Benefiting others is simply a byproduct of their own selfish desire, because they evolved to have such behavior, as it benefits them. What part of this is impossible to you? Why do you think this world can’t be explained like this? And if you think it can, then why do you think it doesn’t?

>>20407243
I like how you said "I won't read Kant! Why mention him then" but then you continue to repeatedly mention Aristotle. Aristotle has no notion of free will as far as I remember, since both his view was constructed inside the notion of circular time, and the primal mover being mechanically connected to the rest of the universe.. I dont think, just to add, that you can unite evolutionary theory with Aristotle, since Aristotle has a strong sense of teleology and evolution simply cant have any teleology in it. I believe that the idea of choosing one desire above another comes from Aquinas commentary on Aristotle tho. Any ideas of genes want to be preserved or spread is teleological, and goes against Darwin, your explanations of evolutionary mechanics are vulgar at best
>>20407307
Ill go to bed now but Id still add that the separation of will and desire is above the idea of desire being the only motivation. The will is the pursuit of good which is perceived as good by the mind. We understand something as good in itself and we want it for its own sake, and we see good as good for something (a tool for a greater good, which includes also unwanted things that happen while we persuit a greater good, like a loss of hair during chemotherapy), and when we see something as a certain good we first see it also as a universal good. You wouldnt be able to see univeral goods if you are driven only by an appetite to fullfil your desires. I guess you could say, an apple is good not only when you are hungry (when you have a desire for it)
Gn lad and thanks for the talk

>>20407347
>I like how you said "I won't read Kant! Why mention him then"
I've already read Kant, I'm not that poster. I just don't see how anyone can consider Kant's ethics to be convincing, it's the worst aspect of his entire work.
>Aristotle has no notion of free will as far as I remember
Yes, he does. He explicitly affirms the notion of logical future contingents in order to make room for human actions and choice (not to mention choice is a fundamental aspect of his ethics). He also metaphysically establishes the doctrine of chance, which is distinct from necessity and choice. Free will is also meaningless without teleology, because it becomes simple chance action, ie flipping a coin (at a metaphysical level) between doing one thing or the other. Free will is absolutely void of meaning without some degree of determinacy, like for example the determinate human form, which has a determinate end.
>I dont think, just to add, that you can unite evolutionary theory with Aristotle
Evolution does not exclude teleology, it just does not deal with it at all. Also, Aristotle does not once mention teleology in his Nicomachean Ethics when discussing the virtuous man, he uses the doctrine of self-love first and foremost, and that for some people it will differ in comparison to others, who are for example philosophically inclined. You should do yourself a favor and read it.
>Any ideas of genes want to be preserved or spread is teleological, and goes against Darwin,
Not at all, again, do yourself a favor and read his work instead of uttering nonsense.
Here's Charles Darwin's own words about Aristotle: "Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle."
Darwin was not a philosopher and Darwinism is not a philosophy.

>>20406567
When did Abraham undergo baptism?

>>20407347
I’m not the one bringing up Aristotle, I really don’t care about what other people have said. They all seem off the mark to me. I don’t think morality should necessarily be based on evolution. I think it’s possible to live the most preferable life without reproducing. I only mention evolution because it explains why we have desires at all, and why we are seemingly selfless, and why we believe we have free will even if we don’t. But regardless of how we exist, I still find it impossible to act outside of self-interest, or outside of preference, in the same way I find it impossible to have free will, which is seemingly being free from the influence of desires while also acting, which can only happen due to desires. But for some reason you think desire and will are different. Sure, we have a rational component within us. I know that I desire and prefer health, so I will do things that conflict my desires to achieve a more desirable future. But in order for me to eat healthy food or exercise or study, or whatever it is that I think is good, I still eventually must cultivate a desire to do it. All action is preceded by desire. If I think it is good for me to exercise, and I do not exercise, I will suffer. That is how desire works. We suffer when we don’t satisfy it, and we feel relief when we do satisfy it. All will is still based on preference in the end, because we only will things that are preferable to us. So you can distinguish will and desire if you want, I don’t think it matters. It’s all still based on preference.

>>20407384
>Darwin was not a philosopher and Darwinism is not a philosophy.
Philosophy of Biology is a thing

>>20407401
Im not saying that desires dont exist, or that they arent a component in human action, just that the idea that desires is the only cause of action is silly
> So you can distinguish will and desire if you want, I don’t think it matters. It’s all still based on preference.
Thats why the donkey will starve :0

>>20406489
How can an action be moral and also a sin? Where are you getting your conception of morality if not from the same place as of sin? If an action would cause you to not reach heaven, it cannot be a moral action by definition.

>>20407426
Having a mind, understanding cause and effect and what actions are good for achieving our preferences does not magically grant us free will or objective morality. You still can’t explain how wills also aren’t based on preference. I can’t will something if it doesn’t seem preferable to me in the first place. So I don’t really see why you think this distinction is so important

>>20407473
> I can’t will something if it doesn’t seem preferable to me in the first place.
Ironic that this was posted in a thread about Christianity and sin
Sin (temporal pleasure) is willing something that isn't preferable to you (eternal goodness in unity of God)

>>20407481
Aquinaspilled

>>20407481
Pascal's wager makes sense now desu

>>20407481
Let’s consider a Christian who knows sin is wrong and still sins. Why does he sin? It must be because, in the moment in which he decides what to do, sin is not attractive and most preferable to him. Even if he might realize that not sinning would lead to the most preferable consequences, it is still the case that he prefers to sin in the moment. Though we have a mind that can contemplate the future, our desires are not perfectly representative of our understanding. The most moral thing to do would be to not sin, as it achieves the more preferable outcome. But of course people are not perfectly moral, not perfectly intelligent or disciplined, etc. so they choose lesser actions. This is true in any moral system.

Desires are deceptive. They don’t always know what’s best for us. Again, we are not perfect beings. Evolution explains this. Maybe one day we will have evolved to better coordinate our desires with our understanding, so that we will always do what we think is best, and not just what we feel like doing

>>20407539
sin is attractive*

>>20407539
This doesn't seem convincing at all, what is to say that raping someone isnt or is more desirable in the moment? Any talk of something being more desirable or desirable as a mean to an end fall flat.
Simply saying "oh its imperfect randomness" and call that morality makes zero sense.
It is clear that desire lead to earthly pleasures, biological needs and sin, and that will leads to goodness, and that all goodness comes from God. Desire is just our orientation towards a goal and the will is the "Yes" or "No" towards acting out that goal.

>>20407539
Still can't solve Boridans ass, if two things are equally desirable at a moment

>>20407539
Though we have a mind (will) that can contemplate the future, our desires are not perfectly representative of our understanding (will)

>Evolution explains this
Not really

Maybe one day we will have evolved to better coordinate our desires with our understanding (will), so that we *will* always do what we think is best, and not just what we feel like doing (desire)

>>20407599
Let’s ignore religion for now. Imagine all the countless lives that I could live, considering all the choices that I will be able to make in the future. Whatever set of choices leads to the most preferable life will be the set of moral choices, regardless of what those choices are. Because why would I not want to have the most preferable life? It is most preferable by definition. It is like not wanting to go to heaven. But I cannot time travel, I cannot know the future. But we can assume that the perfect set of choices exist, and that some choices are better than others. There are two main ideas here: psychological egoism and rational egoism. Psychological egoism says I always act out of my self-interest. This is true, even if you are interested in the “good” as you want to call it. Rational egoism is that idea of achieving what will be in my interest in the long-term, achieving the most preferable life. If morality exists in any meaningful way, I think it is about achieving the most preferable life. My will would be wholly directed towards this goal, though my desires may cause me to choose lesser actions. I am always acting out of self-interest, because my desires have their own way of thinking. Suppose I’m having unprotected sex, my natural instincts might cause me to temporarily believe that cumming inside is best for me. This is a constant theme, competing desires and beliefs. After all, how can we really know what’s best for us? Even the Christian doesn’t live according to his beliefs all the time, as if he sometimes forgets that he is Christian. Part of him thinks it’s best to satisfy earthly desires, because part of him doesn’t believe in heaven, and wants to find pleasure that is known to be available. Again, he will always do whatever he desires most in the moment, even if not sinning is most moral. But it’s only most moral because it leads to the most preferable consequences. That is the only point that matters here. I don’t doubt that you will goodness or God or however you want to phrase it. You still will the most preferable life. Or do you think there is something even more preferable (in the long-term) than loving God and following his will? You know that there isn’t.

>>20407610
Assuming those two desires can be equally strong, the ass obviously desires most to do nothing, otherwise he wouldn’t be doing nothing. Simple as.

>>20407647
You are again just ascribing randomness to moments where the will conquers the desire.
"Oh a person doesn't have sex out of marriage even tho hes horny as fuck? That means that he simply desires not to sin more and will plays no role here. Oh he decided to have sex outside of marriage, thats because his desire for sex is greater than the desire not to sin"
Do you see the problem here, every action is reduced to desire, its the same as saying that Allah is the cause of every movement or that water boils because there is a boilo element that emerges when you start a fire next to water.

The desire to not be addicted is the same as the desire to be an addict. The desire to continue living is the same as the desire to kill yourself. If you sre going to kill yourself or continue living is based on randomness, will you desire one or the other more in a moment.

Desire is completely baseless, it as well could mean absolutely nothing. I have the desire to press the keys on my keyboard and I have the desire to keep my heart beating and my eyelids blinking! My self identity? Also desire! My depression and nightmares? Also come from my desire!

>>20407678
>You desire the blue pill... the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You desire the red pill... you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. The desire is your.

>>20407706
It is not random, it is deterministic. Why do you think different people have different desires? Genetics, environment, memories, intelligence, lifestyle, etc. All of these things are beyond our control, or desires formed from factors beyond our control. I’m not really sure what alternative explanation there is for why we do things. Why is one man righteous, and another man a sinner? There are even shameful sinners and shameless sinners. We are all obviously very different, because we have different desires. Is it so absurd that one desire is greater than the rest, and that’s why we act? If that is not the case, then how or why do we do anything? Without desire, without preference, there is no reason to do anything.

>>20407733
>I’m not really sure what alternative explanation there is for why we do things. Why is one man righteous, and another man a sinner?
Have you thought of meybe, free will? Yes people have predetermined aspects to their lives, their genetics, the time and culture they were born into etc. But that doesn't determine you. You are more than a rock, a tree or a dog, more than a being that is just present. Humans exist, they can question their own being, they aren't just a "what" but also a "who". We are all a aggregate of endless possibilities of how we will define our own being. This is where freedom comes into place, the only determined thing when it comes to freedom is that we are free regardless if we want to be free or not. Any attempt of escaping from this fact is a cope
>Without desire, without preference, there is no reason to do anything
Its not that there can be "reason" or that "you can do anything" if life is deterministic. You are entrapped into a theater, thinking that predetermined actions are yours. But even then, you can still believe and think that you are free and that you are acting out of your own will and not based on your desires

Also deterministic = Randomly generated numbers at the beginning of time/the universe
Its random from the point of our consciousness, unless you also deny that you are conscious? At that point we could all as well just commit suicide and get over this

>>20407733
Just to add, this still doesn't answer the question of the Ass and why desire is more logical than "Allah decided so"

>>20407779
>Have you thought of meybe, free will?
that doesn’t explain anything. You could have said smibbedyfloo and it would have made just as much sense. You can’t even define free will. It’s not the same as making a decision. Obviously you realize the possibility that we are all just following desires. But I don’t even know how to imagine what you mean by free will. What is the difference between someone who has free will and someone who doesn’t? Is it possible for them to have no apparent differences? How do you know that you have free will, as opposed to simply following your greatest desires? Even to stop an addiction is itself a desire, you know. If we are free, then why is no one perfect like Jesus? Why do you still sin? Isn’t sin better explained by the lack of freedom? That we simply have sinful desires which sometimes are greater than healthier desires? If we aren’t following our greatest desires, then HOW exactly do you choose what to do? You can’t just say “free will.” HOW do you use free will to make a decision? If it isn’t random, and it isn’t determined by a desire, then how?
>You are more than a rock, a tree or a dog, more than a being that is just present. Humans exist, they can question their own being, they aren't just a "what" but also a "who"
animals can possess similar qualities, and can have self-awareness. Just look up the dog that learned how to use language. Or koko the gorilla. None of this requires free will. It’s just intelligence. Again, how is this impossible in my paradigm? It’s so simple and reasonable, so why do believe something that you can’t even explain?

>>20406489
I'm on board with the concept of conditional immortality because fedoras shouldn't be redeemed at the end of days

>>20407860
>that doesn’t explain anything. You could have said smibbedyfloo and it would have made just as much sense.
And calling it "desire" makes sense? Lmao
>You can’t even define free will
Tell me, at this moment that you are not free, that You do not exist, that there is no individual, no person, just an fleshy automaton. Free will is experience itself

>How do you know that you have free will, as opposed to simply following your greatest desires?
"Your" greatest desire. And how does one follow it, does my desire prescribe which finger im going to move first? How precisely im going to raise one foot after the other? Don't be silly
>If we are free, then why is no one perfect like Jesus?
Freedom doesn't include any way or form of perfection. If anyone precisely because we are free we arent perfect. In a deterministic universe there is no point of talking about perfection or imperfection, since everything follows what was predetermined.
>Why do you still sin?
Sin is our total freedom, God loves us to the point and granted us total freedom that includes the freedom to go against God. Without freedom there would be no sin
>HOW do you use free will to make a decision?
Im doing it right now. Yes it can be influenced by desires, by predetermined factors like my genetics, cultural conformity etc. but at the end of the day its me making that choice and whos behind that action. Someone else didn't decide that for me, even if he was the one who told be "jump off the bridge" or if I jumped because below was a cake and I was hungry. The decision to jump was my own
>animals can possess similar qualities, and can have self-awareness. Just look up the dog that learned how to use language. Or koko the gorilla. None of this requires free will
Koko is fake and self awareness isnt self questioning. A dog never questioned who he is, whats the meaning of his life, that he exists in relation to other beings and that one day he will die and perish. It is not just questioning, but taking a stance
>It’s so simple and reasonable, so why do believe something that you can’t even explain?
Its completely unreasonable, since it requires you to deny your own intuition, your own experience, and it requires you to believe that every action is predetermined by the totally arbitrary notion of desires.

You still can't explain why the donkey wont starve, why Allah isn't actually behind every seemingly desire, what makes you sure that an action is caused by desires, where desires come from and how does a hierarchy of them form (thats predetermined but still somehow follows that some are more desirable than others based on situations?) Its absolutely silly and someone needs to be in some heavy layer of cope to accept that hes not free

>>20407911
If anything *

>>20407911
The question "How do you use free will" answers itself kinds, you can't use "desires"
By asking "how do You do" anything presumes free will

>>20407860
I wonder what evolutionary desire made me stand up, make 10 jumping jacks before punching myself in the balls
The desire to prove that im free?

>>20407911
>Without freedom there would be no sin
This statement alone proves you are retarded and not worth trying to convince. Consider the possibility that free will is an illusion. If you can just imagine a world that looks like exactly like ours, but doesn’t have free will, I would be content

>>20407936
Cope harder retard
This is basic Christian Theology

>>20407936
No free will = no sin you absolute mong
What do you think sin is?

>>20407933
True enough. How can evolution cause you to want to act out your homosexual desire to touch your balls?

>>20407936
Mate...

>>20407936

>Consider the possibility that free will is an illusion. If you can just imagine a world that looks like exactly like ours, but doesn’t have free will, I would be content

Stop appealing to imaginary hypotheticals, if you're trying to talk about reality. Appealing to imaginary hypotheticals instead of making a coherent case is atheist logic.

>>20407936
>>20407952
What kind of desire made you be this retarded?

>>20407936
>Consider the possibility that free will is an illusion.
Ok
>If you can just imagine a world that looks like exactly like ours, but doesn’t have free will, I would be content
That world is without morality and without sin

>>20407943
>>20407946
>>20407957
Sin is just doing something that leads to bad consequences for yourself. An organism only needs to have a desire to do sin, while also having intelligence to realize that it is sin (because there are better alternatives). Free will is not required to sin, nor does free will imply sin. To sin, you only have to have a desire to sin. Having free will doesn’t explain why you would want to sin. If you’re free to not sin, then be perfect. You can’t do it, because you are a slave to desire. You’re all absolute retards.

>>20407978
Word salad and mega cope Jesus Christ
>Sin is doing a oopsie
>organism desire to make mistakes okay?

>>20407960
Why are you afraid of hypotheticals? Is this world possible without free will? If yes, then how do you know we have free will? You would admit that it’s possible for free will to be an illusion. If not, then explain why this world is impossible without free will. Why this world can’t be made of organisms that simply follow desires and believe they have the ability to have done otherwise, and to regret, and to plan, all while being predetermined

>>20407957
>slave to sin
free will bros…

>>20407943
>>20407946
>>20407957
>>20407974
it’s over

>>20407978
>Sin is just doing something that leads to bad consequences for yourself.
Jesus dying on the cross was a sin, you heard it here first
>An organism only needs to have a desire to do sin, while also having intelligence to realize that it is sin (because there are better alternatives).
It has intelligence to realise that its actions are bad but has not the intelligence to act upon its action?
>Free will is not required to sin, nor does free will imply sin
Free will is required to sin, but free will doesn't imply sin correct, since angels and God have free will. Adam ate the apple and became sinful, read the Bible. Your secular idea of sin makes no sense
>To sin, you only have to have a desire to sin.
Again, only YOU need to have something, and you also said that you have a desire to rape someone. You still havent raped, i hope, so its not just desire but acting out that desire.
Desire is just the orientation of the will retard.
>Having free will doesn’t explain why you would want to sin.
It explains is perfectly, you are just denying it.
>If you’re free to not sin, then be perfect.
Thats exactly what Christianity is all about. Have you ever been to a confession? Do you remember saying "and ill not sin anymore" before you go out. Its not easy to be perfect like Jesus but we, with our free will, can attempt to come close
>You can’t do it, because you are a slave to desire.
Exactly, we are slaves to sin and we need to fight against it. How do you fight against sin? By having a predetermined desire assigned to you? Or do you, yourself, with your will, that is free, go against your earthly desires. Do you get it now? Without free will there is no point in talking about morality or sin.
>You’re all absolute retards.
The only retard here is you

>>20408021
>>20408013
Cope more, literally

>>20406906
I don't now why you think that goodness has to affect anyone's actions. We can all ignore morality if we like; that doesn't mean goodness doesn't exist.

>>20408013
>I want to obey God
Hmmm, predetermined lesser desire perhaps ateistbros?

>>20406942
Morality is what God commands or approves. Your definition of morality is inadequate because sin is immoral yet you can go to heaven by sinning and then repenting.

>>20408032
Damn I really wonder how someone can rule over his desires? By another desire? But how can he rule if its actually predetermined desires ruling!? Im sooooo confused

>>20408013
Are you a Calvinist?
Why would God make someone just to suffer?