/lit/ - Literature

>>23067537
Hello sir, this is a LITERATURE board. It is not a board for complaining about Christians or the Bible. Read an actual fucking book and discuss it. Please and thank you.

>durrr aren’t Christians so le stooo pid

Alright you are very smart. Thank you for sharing. Now contribute something of actual substance, please.

>>23067547
Is the bible not a book?

Have you tried being knowledgeable? Many people have done just that times one hundred thousand, they all came back with the same conclusion. Think I know that I don't know, science a cup of water the first droplets of which are atheism with God to be found in the last gulps, scepticism, Pascal, La Double Vérité etc etc etc
Why does Knowing always leads to not knowing enough or simply being mislead. What does that say about knowledge?

>>23067537
I believe /sci/ is the classical board for religious discussions and/or homework

>>23067567
>What does that say about knowledge?

It means you have yet to transcend it.

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."

>>23067547
Is the Bible not Literature?
Discussion of the Bible is discussion of literature.
So i don't get what your point is.

>>23067537
Your generation is so morally bankrupt you deserve nothing short of genocide

>>23067537
>Most Christians today consider it the only book they need.
I can tell you with some confidence that most Christians do not read the bible.

>>23067601
And what virtue does a genocidal maniac like you possess?

>>23067606
Because once you read something you put it away and start reading something else, they fear getting to that stage, so they postpone indefinitely.

>>23067537
>The first story in the bible punishes man for becoming knowledgeable and praises ignorance.
Is this 2007? Hello, what year is this? Literal fedora-tier burn.

>>23067627
Well it's not wrong. Why can't you refute it? It must be true then, Christians are just plain stupid.

>>23067547
Nice try christfag

>>23067645
Grow up. It is so ridiculously easy to 'refute', that anyone, no matter if they're atheist or Christian or whatever, should be able to see how retarded it is. What an embarrassing thread.

>>23067537
What does the Torah have to do with Christianity?

>>23067537
The Adam and Eve story is weird. One on hand it is true that it implies that Most of our toil and struggle stems from our thirst for wisdom but on the other hand it is also saying that this thirst this hunger to KNOW is Just Part of our nature and that it will eventually make us GODS. Furthermore one can read the story of eden in a way that god and truth are Not the same. The snake in the story is actually closer to be represantative of truth than god. God lies multiple times throughout the story " you will die If you eat from the Apple" while the snake only tells the truth " you will certainly Not die" and even gives eve Intel that god hid from her " your eyes will be open and you will be Like god" which god later confirms.

>>23067666
If it's so simple why can't you do it?

>>23067537
No, the moral of Adam and Eve is more about how if you follow a woman, it will lead to suffering. Always.

You need to understand woman live and operate in their thoughts and imagination which isn't real. Rather than practical.

They do what they "think is right" rather than simply "doing what is right".

Adam knew that eating the apple was bad but he did it anyways because he wanted to look cool to eve and get some pussy. Something that men to this day fall for. Where they get trapped in miserable marriages where they blow money endlesses because they followed the lead of a woman who is never happy.

Have you guys never worked with women or gays (these niggas have the same effeminate energy)? Instead of doing a job in an efficient way, they always have to add in drama in the workplace or add other silly ideas that don't work just because it sounded good in their heads than going the practical route with the given information.

Notice how anything effeminate is basically always evil (example: anger, being emotional, lies, deceit etc)

Yet anything truly masculine or feminine is good. (You have to remember too, Feminine =/= effeminate)

>>23067547
Last I checked, The Bible is a book.

>>23067666
Why haven't you done it, then?

>>23067677
I don't know, were Adam and Eve mortal before eating of the apple?

Aside from that, I also found interesting how in Chinese mythology, the goddess Nuwa who created mankind is represented as a serpent with the face of a woman, almost like both these stories have a common source. I suppose there's also Jormungandr and Vritra (in the case of Vritra the serpent/dragon was bad and oppressing mankind). There's a chapter in one of Guenon's books called The Serpent and the Tree, but I don't remember what it said.

>>23067721
>>23067731
Because I don't want to write out boring homework. Get it? Intelligent people just see threads like these and laugh at you. You are unbelievably stupid, or at least immature. The funny thing is, that you're not stupid or immature for having anti-Christian or anti-religious views, it's because your justification, even your style of writing, is so painfully stupid and lacking in self-awareness.

It's more fit for /pol/, which undoubtedly is where you come from. /lit/ is a board for intelligent and serious discussions of literature.

>>23067750
>me special and smart
>you dumb

C'mon buddy. No need to be so pretentious and emotional.

>>23067765
I have the right to not explain myself because I am superior in intelligence. Every other intelligent person on this board will see what I write and agree. It is for them. It is to insulate the quality of this board against /pol/brained retards like yourself. You are not worth enough to consider your opinion, you just need to be insulted into lurking more or leaving.

>>23067772
This is some pretty obvious cope, you are undoubtedly an intellectual midget who doesn't belong here and seeks authority by consensus. Maybe you're better suited to Reddit, that's where pseuds like you belong.

>>23067611
Mercy to put folks like you out of their misery.

>>23067787
So you're a drooling rabid dogmatist? Maybe it's you should be put down.

>>23067537
You evil fuck, Admetus and Ivi really existed, Gan Eden was a historical record. When Ivi fucked that homo, she doomed the human race. HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY MORAL EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE THE PRODUCT OF RACE-MIXING, IT SHORT- CIRCUITS THE OFFSPRING'S CONCEPT OF GOOD AND EVIL

>>23067537
No, that's not the moral of the story. The moral of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden is to show that humans will always be immoral and untrustworthy, since they are warned by God, the being that they should trust the most, and they don't give a fuck about what he said. If you would've actually read Genesis, you would've understood its nature. It is even mentioned in verses like Genesis 6:6.

>>23067804
So why don't you kill yourself if you're such a piece of shit as God says?

>>23067739
That is a good question because it raises another one (I don't know the answer btw). If they were not mortal would they have been trapped in eden for eternity? Is mortality a prerequisite for entering heaven? If that is the case and eating the fruit made them mortal, then eating from the tree of knowledge is what opens up heaven for mankind.

>>23067780
Haha, great turn around. Calling me an intellectual midget really worked, when Op's criticism is 'the Bible is dumb'.

Just do something worthwhile with your time.

>>23067836
Actually I said Christians are dumb, thanks for proving my point. You cannot read nor refute the point.

>>23067537
This is so retarded I can't even come up with a witty remark about it.

>>23067848
>>23067836
>>23067780
>>23067772
>>23067750
Faggots

>>23067537
>One the reasons society is so dumb is undoubtedly because..most Christians today consider the Bible only book they need

If books other than the Bible were lel bad then why did so many classic of Antiquity survive the middle ages thanks to monasteries of monks hand-copying all that generation after generation? Pic related is the Admont Abbey Library (Benedictine abbey 200km from Vienna)


Is there a branch of Christianity today that frowns on it's members reading books that aren't the Bible?

The Amish might be like that, there's an guy that left the Amish that I follow on youtube, he says the schoolhouse at his Amish community only goes up to 8th grade and every grade is in the same classroom, they don't have separate classes for each grade

I know there are some fundamentalist Christians that don't want evolution taught in school but that wouldn't be "most Christians" but a very tiny minority

I went to Catholic schools 1st grade to 12th grade and it's all mainstream biology and evolution and every year we have literature class where we study secular literature, all my literature teachers were great and did a great job getting us into secular literature. One of my favorite literature teachers was a Lasallian Christian Brother (religious order)

We didn't study any religion literature in any of our literature classes. We had a whole separate Religion class for that. All the religion stuff was kept in that class.

>>23067804
>humans will always be immoral and untrustworthy
Rousseau dismantled this by explaining how tyranny and immorality stem from poor child-rearing, and the fields of psychology and neuroscience have slowly been proving this with their behavioral and brain studies.

>>23067864
>evolution taught in school

Evolution is bullshit the Vatican made up to conceal antediluvian history. Fortunately lying is a sin, so for the next million years that gang of fags are going to be playing Oops, All Burnies!

>>23067537
The first story in the Bible teaches you that conscience implies responsibility. Not knowledge.
The Fruit didn't give just knowledge, it gave knowledge of good and evil, which is very specific. Knowledge of good and evil is your conscience.

>>23067797
Too based and schizo for nu/lit/

>>23068142
And God condemned them to death for it.

>>23067537
>The first story in the bible punishes man for becoming knowledgeable and praises ignorance.
It doesn’t. The crime was that god gave everything to these, and the only thing he requested in retuen was to not eat the forbidden fruit. This one request was betrayed, hence the punishment.
The whole ”ignorance is bliss” thing is true when there is no downside to it. There was nothing to hide in Eden, nothing was wrong in Eden. It was paradise, and it was lost

>>23067537
I'll explain it for low IQs
>be lion
>body and brain were designed to hunt, lay around, eat, play, and sleep
>hunt, lie around, eat, play, shit, and sleep

>be human
>body and brain were designed to explore the world, live in small societies caring for each other, eat fruits, lie around, and sleep
>instead, stay still in a city, live in gigantic societies in an individualistic way, eat 2500+ calories a day of fat burgers, use all your free time on a computer, and sleep

What's the difference between these two beings? The difference is that one does what their brains and body were designed to, and the other doesn't. And why do humans reject what their bodies and brains were designed to? Because of KNOWLEDGE. We have enough knowledge to make CHANGES. Lions have lived the same lifes as their ancestors, their bodies already know what to do to live life. But we humans haven't. Humans change so much due to knowledge that our bodies and minds are not evolved enough to be in syncronization with this artificial evolution that is knowledge and science. The way I live life, the way my father did, my grandfather, my grandgrandfather, they are all completely different to one another.

That said, christianity is not the only belief that says that knowledge is the source of all suffering. Greek mythology does too with the myth of prometheus, and of course the other abrahamic religions do too.

>>23069321
Also I would like to add that animals just follow their instincts. Their brains tell them directly orders and they follow them. We can't, because our instincts were designed in a completely different age than the one we are living currently. We are going against what our brains tell us to do, or, how christians says, going "against God". This is what causes suffering in human beings, and the source of this suffering is knowledge and change.

>>23068073
>antediluvian
why do they try to do this? it's not like it disproves Catholicism

>>23067537
Anon this is nonsense: Historically most christians didn't read the Bible, most couldn't,and even thoe who could didn't subscribed to Sola Scriptura as a principle and relied as much on Sacred Tradition as they did on the Scriptures. What you are presenting here is a caricature of a redneck baptist protestant, something that in reality is not how the typical christian behaved or thought.

Second, the consensus among Church Fathers that deal with this topic is that the fruit of good and evil would have been given to them eventually, it was merely a trial. Discernment between good and evil is the mark of rulership in the Bible, and to take it in an inmature state (as many church fathers affirm Adam and Eve were) was a sin of rebellion and pride.

You need to actually read christian tradition instead of rellying on pop stereotypes.

>>23067537
Akshually, the first story is the Creation story.

>>23069321
>>23069330
So you think humans should be literal monkeys?

>>23067537
Hey remember when prometheus gave man the gift of fire and the gods punished him?

>>23069411
So you are advocating for the retardation of humanity?

>>23069402
Not literal monkeys but we would be happier if we returned to our natural way of living and not this artificial one. Of course, we cannot do that. We cannot "uneat" the knowledge fruit. Once you have knowledge, you have it and you can't do anything to change it.

>>23069483
we can still try to return to our natural way, many have many still do

>>23069496
Name one example.

>>23069496
I asked for examples because I can't think of how would you go back to our origins. Every single civilization, no matter how small it is, it uses weapons or tools that were made from knowledge, that the first human beings didn't had. Even if you want to just go to a forest and live there, you still have the knowledge of your culture of being able to discern what's good and what's evil, and you will still use the previous knowledge to make your life easier in the woods.
There is literally no way of going back, and even if we do, because we are social animals and we care for each other, knowledge and science will flourish again.

>>23069500
Christopher Thomas Knight

>>23069515
>Christopher Thomas Knight (born December 7, 1965), also known as the North Pond Hermit, is a former recluse and burglar who claimed to have lived without human contact

>claimed to have lived without human contact
He didn't went back to our origins. Since our origins we were social beings that thrived in small nomad societies.

>in the North Pond area of Maine's Belgrade Lakes
Stayed still in a place. Against the nomad instinct of humanity.

Going back to our origins is not just "live without science".

>>23069509
hmm i guess it is impossible their life was eternal and their earth perfect, we're very far off

>>23069545
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that death is still suffering? Well it is, but I'm not talking about physical suffering, I'm talking about psychological one. Do you see animals in the wild suffering of depression or anxiety?

>>23069557
Enlightened beings don't suffer either. You retards, and that's not even an insult it's an accurate description of your belief, are heading in the wrong direction and trying to take humanity with you.

>>23069422
Im saying your diagnosis is at best too specific

>>23069496
>>23069402
>>23067537
>>23069565
>Enlightened beings don't suffer either.
Ok, that's where I was leading the discussion to.

Now that I've explained my point of view on why knowledge is the source of suffering for humans, I will explain how christianity solves this. Abrahamic religions solve this with the 10 commandments, which imply the 7 deadly sins, which are ways to stay as faithful as possible to our instincts.

>greed, envy, and pride
In the small societies everyone shared everything, thus greed, envy and pride were non existent.
>sloth and gluttony
humans had to work their ass of all the day to get enough food and survive, thus sloth and gluttony were non existent (Or you would die of it)
>lust
everyone was equally ugly back then, there was no makeup, no fancy clothes, everyone shared genetics (Because they lived in very small societies), and there was barely any language if there was any. so everyone no matter how stupid or ugly they were they could achieve getting a couple.
>wrath
Everyone had to help each other back then. If they didn't, they died.

>>23069557
primates and rodents repeatedly have been shown suffering from depression, animals feel emotion too

>>23069578
Show me an example of a monkey or a rodent that is depressed but NOT locked in a cage, or a small box, or a laboratory. They being in these environments that take them out of their natural way of living only helps my point, since it's the same reason why I've said humans suffer, because we are not in our natural environment that our bodies and brains were designed to. I've searched but I can't find any.

>>23069575
>>wrath
>Everyone had to help each other back then. If they didn't, they died.
Wild animals fight each other all the time over territory what makes you think humans were no different
earliest record of murder is from a 430,000-year-old skull, we never changed

>>23069597
Because they lives in very small societies were everyone knew each other. If a human killed another human, they were exiled of society, and died. But I have to agree on you that wrath is the one that makes less sense from my examples, it's the only deadly sin which I can't come up with a directly answer to.

>>23069602
>>23069597
lived*

>>23067537
OP has got to be a teenager to post something this stupid. This is the dumbest first post I've seen on /lit/ in a while.

>Imagine talking about knowledge and ignorance and being filtered like this
Oof

>>23069582
Now most of these monkey experiments involved social isolation, such cases always happen in the wild with the unpredictability of nature
It's strange to say that all depression and anxiety stem from our knowledge and sciences, these negative emotions are obviously deeply rooted in our instincts

>>23069647
Of course i'd be an absolute retard not to agree with the fact that our caging of these animals accelerate their mental degradation
Humans as such are simply not meant for urban sprawl lifestyle, but then again we can't just start culling human populations through wars and birth controls so we have no choice but to deal with this sedentary life its simply survival

>>23069647
So these things happen because one of the instincts of the monkey is to live in society, but they were socially isolated? Ok, that can definitely happen in nature. But again, the monkey brain tells him to live in society, which he can't achieve due to a natural event. In human beings, we could still suffer from natural events like a natural disaster, or a deadly desease. But answer me honestly, which is the thing that makes the 90% of humans go against what their brain originally was build to do? Nature or human knowledge? Because if you ask me, everytime my brain does something that I think I shouldn't be doing it's definitely because of human knowledge. Also the other anon that answered you was not the original arguer.

>>23069669
>>23069647
Also I must add that our brains, originally (Both if you believe that God created us in nature, or that our brains evolved in nature) grew up adapting to nature. My question would be stupid without making that clear.

>>23069669
Well i suppose it'd be human knowledge I'm not quite sure really

>>23069573
Explain.

>>23069616
>u dum

This is the sort of thing a dumb person would say without being able to articulate why it’s the case.

>>23069641
I have yet to read anything to be filtered by, so let’s hear it.

>>23067851
It’s possible you are the retard then.

>>23069358
You can believe it isn’t the case but this thread and every Christian I’ve met or interacted with show it to be true.

>>23069723
Ok, so let's say that suffering comes from both nature AND human knowledge. Then, haven't we with knowledge and science already conquered nature? We have already beaten most diseases, we expanded our life expectancy from 30 years to 80 years, we have treatment for our body limitations. So, what do we humans need to stop suffering? We already don't suffer from nature (except some cases like deadly diseases or natural disasters), so what do we need to do to cease suffering as most as we can? Stop the suffering part of science and human knowledge, which is achievable with religion. Do you see how it's not retarded at all to be a christian, or from any other religion that says that knowledge is the source of suffering?

>>23069775
The other anon said
>Historically
And historically speaking, most christians didn't knew how to read. The 50% for literacy among the whole world was reached, approximatedly, in 1950.

>>23069789
>We have already beaten most diseases
just a few years back we had covid, we are still very vulnerable
>our life expectancy from 30 years to 80 years
compared to the antediluvian people who nearly reached 1000 it is nothing
>Stop the suffering part of science and human knowledge
if this happens we'll just be suffering in nature again, then we'll be fighting wars over minuscule resources a dark age of science will just bring more suffering
>or from any other religion that says that knowledge is the source of suffering?
Christianity is all about truth, seeking knowledge is just a way to bring ourselves closer to truth, ignorance is an act of sloth the bible says we must be diligent and help ourselves

>>23067537
>The first story in the bible punishes man for becoming knowledgeable
Man is punished by becoming aware of his human shortcomings. When Adam was like a child, he didn't have to worry about such things.
>>23069789
This has to be the most unhinged thing I've read on this board in a while. It's more like a /his/ post than something that is appropriate here.

>>23069828
>just a few years back we had covid, we are still very vulnerable
Covid was a new disease and we beat it in 1 years and a half, where, in the past without science it would've taken way longer
>compared to the antediluvian people who nearly reached 1000 it is nothing
True
>if this happens we'll just be suffering in nature again, then we'll be fighting wars over minuscule resources a dark age of science will just bring more suffering
No. Read again. We can stop the suffering that originates science and knowledge without the need of going back to chaotic nature. How? Religion tells you how and guides you to be as human as possible.


>>23069838
Can you explain which part was unhinged? I'm not a philosopher, just a random guy who thinks and vomits it on 4chan, so I'd appreaciate you giving me more things to think about.

>>23069789
Religion is a form of knowledge therefore it is the source of suffering.

>>23070797
On the other hand ignorance also causes suffering. So what to do?

>>23070820
How so? Ignorant people are the happier.

>>23070797
Clearly when people said that "knowledge was the source of suffering" religion still didn't exist.

>>23070834
We really live in the real world, not the fantasy land of platitudes and fairytales.

If an animal is ignorant of the dangers that surround him, he will get eaten. If man is ignorant of the dangers, he can get robbed, shot, manipulated, conned, deceived and killed. But also if he is ignorant of how to make use of the good things in life he can be rejected, angry, sorrowful, jealous, greedy and desperate, possibly even destructive.

>>23070870
Right, that's what I said in a previous comment. Knowledge solves the physical problems of nature. But it creates a new type of suffering, which is the psychological suffering due to our brains not being adapted to our reality, which can be solved with religion.

>>23070870
>But also if he is ignorant of how to make use of the good things in life he can be rejected, angry, sorrowful, jealous, greedy and desperate, possibly even destructive.
Those "good things" that can be used come from knowledge. They were created with knowledge and our brains did not evolve/were created to use them in the first place.

>>23067537
You seem to have missed the point entirely. The "knowledge" that was obtained in the garden of Eden was the knowledge of good and evil, which stems entirely from knowledge of the future. Before our recognition of the future, we lived in a way that provided fulfilment and survival without relying on material knowledge other than what was in our immediate surroundings. Once we crossed the threshold to knowledge of the future, and being able to "think about thinking," ie. metathought, we because overly concerned with material things which, believe it or not, leads to our fundamental downfall and levels of existential suffering beyond anything we could previously have fathomed. The lesson isn't "reject knowledge," it's something more aking to "respect knowledge, give it appropriate weight, but if you try to know and understand everything you will destroy yourself and humanity in the process."

>>23070934
Why do animals eat humans? Do they have knowledge?

>>23070941
How do you even connect eating humans with having knowledge? Animals act purely on instincts.

>>23070947
So man in nature is not the garden of eden then.

>>23070951
Care to explain, maybe with more than 11 words? This makes zero sense for me.

>>23070956
You wrote
>Before our recognition of the future, we lived in a way that provided fulfilment and survival without relying on material knowledge other than what was in our immediate surroundings

So Adam and Eve still would have been eaten alive by animals in the garden since knowledge doesn’t affect them.

>>23070963
From a theological point of view, the garden of Eden was a place without any worries for humans, so we can say that it didn't had these natural problems that you are mentioning.

If you want to take is in a more realistic or rational way, then we can say that humans were already fulfilled back then to survive in nature. If not, then I can't think of a way of humans going from Africa to America on foot.

I think you tried to said that, because animals would be a cause of suffering, then animals had knowledge? If so, then you missunderstood everything. We are not talking about physical suffering, we are talking about psychological suffering. And we are not saying that the one who causes suffering to another person is the one that has knowledge, but the person that causes harm to themselves have knowledge.

>since knowledge doesn’t affect them.
I still don't understand this though. I think we are talking about 2 completely different knowledge. You are talking about the knowledge to survive, which are the instincts, which every single animal has. And we are talking about the knowledge between good and evil, the knowledge to make changes in society.

>>23070994
>And we are not saying that the one who causes suffering to another person is the one that has knowledge, but oneself knowledge the one that causes harm to yourself.
FTFM

>>23068237
Did you miss the part where death, in Christianity, means reuniting with God?

>>23071033
Then why separate them in the first place?

>>23067549
>>23067587
>>23067659
>>23067727
The Bible is a collection of books - none of which OP has read.

>>23071041
Because they ate the fruit, giving them responsibility for their material existence. Did you not read the previous post?

>>23070994
But the Bible isn’t telling us anything we don’t already know about our situation, what it does do is create bullshit stories about why we are here and how we supposedly missed out on an amazing opportunity, all while offering zero solutions to the current problems. It’s a perfect piece of mind control.

>>23071048
And there are people who buy into this retardation? Maybe because they are ignorant.

>>23070963
Precisely. Instincts are what rules when there is no knowledge of the abstract future. That's arguably why instincts even exist. The lion doesn't know why he eats the human; he only knows that the human can fulfil his instinctive desire to not be hungry. He does not have the capacity to contemplate the morality of eating the human.

>>23071072
So it was a failed enterprise from the beginning since there are only two humans and many animals.

>>23071057
I gave you an interpretation you hadn't heard of before, which would enrich your understanding of the story, making you less ignorant of a topic you cared about enough to make a thread about.

Of the two of us, which one rejects knowledge and truth?

>>23071083
I can read Genesis dumbfuck you added nothing to the conversation but your own opinions.

>>23071086
>I can read Genesis
Then you probably should, anon, that would have spared us a thread.

>>23071119
So you weren’t disgusted by the fact man was manipulated and deceived by God?

>>23071078
What? Are you implying humans don't also eat animals?

>>23071134
Can you catch and kill a lion with your bare hands and then eat it without cooking it?

>>23071145
What does that matter?

>>23071145
In that past, our ancestors certainly could.

>>23071033
Not true. In christianity after dying you resurrect. If you sin and don't have faith, you truly die and remain dead. There are A LOT of verses calling going to hell as "dying" and going to heaven as "eterbally living". You either forgot everything you read or you did not read the bible.

>>23071150
Proof?

>>23071148
If you can’t, the lion is eating you. The garden was a trick, God fooled you.

>>23071152
I do tend to forget a lot of what I read.
However I do remember that Christ freed people from Hell in the time between his death and the Resurrection. I forgot who said that though.

>>23069321
Is it because of knowledge though? If we weren't capable of obtaining and retaining such knowledge (like your lion) then in your example we would just do what our bodies naturally are built to, but our bodies are naturally built with the capacity to obtain and retain knowledge so when gaining that knowledge we are doing what out bodies are designed to do. We are also built with the capacity to make the kind of changes you describe using the knowledge we obtain with our natural bodily function, so ultimately the use of that knowledge is also just doing what our brains and bodies are naturally designed to do. If they weren't naturally designed to do it we wouldn't be able to do it. Does that mean all the changes we make are good? Of course not. But they are natural. Its not knowledge that fucks us up there, its the pride in the assumption that we know everything required to make those changes. In thinking we have the whole picture, the bits we miss come and kick our asses. Its also a large reason why dogma is such an issue because it assumes the whole picture is known and tries to crush any move towards over coming those shadow aspects that ultimately lead to the ills of this world.

>>23071535
Of course this makes perfect sense, even the idea that Adam & Eve chose to eat the apple implies some level of cognition not found in animals.

The whole thing is a nasty psychopathic power trip by God. He creates the world in which catastrophic failure is almost guaranteed, then has the audacity to blame the innocent humans who prior to eating the apple didn't even understand the implications since they lacked knowledge. Once things go as planned God punishes his children and says he regrets ever having created them. It's all just one massive guilt trip to force gullible retards into submission for their perceived fuck up which was all by design. Then humanity goes on regretting their failure, feeling guilty and ashamed, held in a superficial limbo. All this only serves the power structures to subdue humanity and it's blindingly obvious to any reasonably dignified human that the whole thing was all a lie.

>>23067537
Sure, but heaven is still real because NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

>>23071847
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

Congratulations, you're a Hindu now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

>>23071847
based gnostic seer dunking on gubmintcucks

>>23071975
Kek, Christians are the biggest slaves.

>>23067793
Drooling rabid dogmatics kept society together for millennia you atheistic ape cosplayer.

>>23069483
Sup, Rousseau

>>23072000
You mean they are good little slaves who helped create the current psychopathic hellscape you live inside.

>>23071983
As opposed to being….a slave of dogmatic science? Every society has dogmas, being without one necessitates nihilism and anarchy.

>>23072004
See>>23072007

>>23072007
No, the opposite of slavery is freedom you retard.

Christians will never be smart enough to read two books at the same time on the subway

>>23067537
holy fuck engage with the source and the tradition. Everyone is on your ass because it's obvious you haven't spent a modicum of effort trying in good faith to understand the thing you're attacking - so why would they go through the effort to educate you when it's doubtful you have the attention span to retain or respect the information.

Why waste time on a hopeless student?

If this isn't the case and you really did engage with the material then please answer me: There were two trees in the garden, The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the other the Tree of _____. What is the second tree and can you tell me the cultural significance in that period of time?

>>23067547
Butthurt Christian detected. He literally referenced literature directly in his thread.

>>23067537
based OP took the knowledge pill

>>23067765
>No need to be so pretentious and emotional.
That's all being a Christian amounts to

>>23072013
NOOOOO!!!!!! YOU HAVE TO BE A SLAVE. WITHOUT JEW GOD THERE IS NO MORALITY!!

>>23072036
>why don't you perfectly understand my dogma from my brainwashed point of view which i can't articulate because it's all emotional nonsense

Fuck off.

>>23071535
>our bodies are naturally built with the capacity to obtain and retain knowledge so when gaining that knowledge we are doing what out bodies are designed to do.
Apple of knowledge says otherwise

>so ultimately the use of that knowledge is also just doing what our brains and bodies are naturally designed to do.
The problem is that society used their knowledge and science to change EVERYTHING basic that the subconscious demanded the man to do. I'll go with it again:
Before, it was a small nomad tribe species that ate fruits with a very small gene pool. They cared for each other and were like a big family, sharing everything
Now, its a gigantic society of millions, instead of being nomads we just stay at a place, we bow eat meat and vegetables, gigantic gene pool of diversity, nobody cares for each other anymore since we live in an individualistic culture, no one shares anything, you have your money and I have mine

>>23071761
>God punishes his children
Not sure about this. Just because they become mortal and have to leave the garden of eden doesn't mean they are being punished. I can't help but think that seeing this as some evil punishment is another symptom of working off of incomplete knowledge. Especially if you consider the possibility that access to heaven is only possible once expelled from eden. Now you could make an argument for withholding complete understanding is the evil that god perpetuates onto us but again that could be a misunderstanding of what it means to have all of that knowledge. I don't know. Im just spitballing which seems to always lead to some loop of agnostic bullshit. I don't know why I talk to people.

>In a world full of abundant knowledge, they choose to be dumb
based and true
Knowledge is the key to civilization and it's progression

>>23072079
>Apple of knowledge says otherwise
I don't think it does but It hardly matters. We were naturally capable of gaining the knowledge no matter how it gets into is (in this case eating a magical apple). If god really didn't want us to have that he would have either made us unable to actually gain the knowledge from the apple or not make the apple at all. Anything god made us with the capacity for is natural.
>The problem is that society used their knowledge and science to change EVERYTHING basic that the subconscious demanded the man to do. I'll go with it again:
Before, it was a small nomad tribe species that ate fruits with a very small gene pool. They cared for each other and were like a big family, sharing everything
Now, its a gigantic society of millions, instead of being nomads we just stay at a place, we bow eat meat and vegetables, gigantic gene pool of diversity, nobody cares for each other anymore since we live in an individualistic culture, no one shares anything, you have your money and I have mine
I don't disagree with any of that. I just think its cause is not knowledge itself but operating off of incomplete knowledge with the prideful assumption that you do have complete knowledge. There is also something to be said about how we came to this state from those nomadic tribe states. I think you romanticize something that had a lot of problems that needed to be solved because you don't like the thing you have. Understandable but also naive.

>>23072102
>I just think its cause is not knowledge itself but operating off of incomplete knowledge with the prideful assumption that you do have complete knowledge.
I think its because of the knowledge to discern between good and evil. If you discern between good and evil you will always destroy evil and create good which was what created this society.

>>23072102
>I think you romanticize something that had a lot of problems that needed to be solved because you don't like the thing you have. Understandable but also naive.
I jave said many times on this thread that before we had physicals problems due to nature that made us suffer. We solved those material problems but now our suffering co es from the psychological.

>>23072145
I can see that, the knowledge of good and evil and needing to destroy evil is what spurs us to action. However obviously we never get all the evil (usually due to short sightedness giving it cracks that it can hide in) and almost always create new avenues for evil to sink in (usually due to some oversight about the implications of our solutions). Those reasons in parenthesis are ultimately due to out incomplete knowledge I would say but you are right in that our knowledge of good and evil is what spurs us to act at all, so I suppose one could say that it is a certain kind of knowledge (not all knowledge) that is at fault. All be it indirectly.

>>23072155
>We solved those material problems but now our suffering co es from the psychological.
Right, I don't see how that being a fact has any bearing on what we are discussing I guess unless you are claiming that the psyche is unnatural or something like that.

>>23072227
Transcending knowledge brings us to non-action. Wu Wei.

>The highest virtue does nothing. Yet, nothing needs to be done. The lowest virtue does everything. Yet, much remains to be done.
>[Tao Te Ching chapter 38]

>>23072243
My claim is that we are talking about psychological suffering, not physical suffering, as I've said 4 times already.

>>23072306
What does the Bible suggest, how does one end psychological suffering?

>>23067537
Ngl I think most people just default into animalistic behaviour. There's no way of fixing that either. Most people are just retarded.

>>23072314
By making your brain to think as faithful as possible to those early communities in which our brains actually were created, while still maintaining the knowledge that will prevent physical suffering.

>>23072291
Transcending knowledge =\= no knowledge. Transcendence means neither A nor B. You could be right. It would mean nothing if you were. Its inconceivable.
>in b4 its solved in walking

>>23072316
>Most people are just retarded.

No denying that but I think it's more emotional than animal, humans today are largely domesticated and driven more by fear and loneliness.

>>23072332
Śūnyatā

>>23072306
I get that. The type of suffering has no bearing on the discussion. I would also point out that physical suffering is usually tangled with psychological suffering, and vice versa if you believe psychologists and the effectiveness of a placebo effect.

>>23072346
Bonjorno to you too mother fucker you got a point with yer fancy talk?

>>23072347
It has a bearing on the discussion because, as I've stated 5 times already, physical suffering was almost completely solved, and we are not talking about physical suffering. Do I need to repeat it a 6th time?

>>23072355
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sunyata

>>23072364
>physical suffering was almost completely solved
It wasn't. That is naivety that I was talking about. If it were there would have been no change in the way we did things in that regard.
>We are not talking about physical suffering.
You might not be. I for one think that the type of suffering doesn't matter to the conversation (especially if you consider them to be inseparable). I think we might be talking around each other too much for as little we have to say on out respective points so I think I'm just going to leave it alone now. God bless you or whatever.

>>23072372
OK. And? Spell it out man. Im retarded.

>>23072389
>It wasn't
How not? If you get hurt or you feel sick you go to the doctor and that's it. Unless you get a deadly disease without cure or there is a natural disaster, both of which are things that are very rare, I don't see how physical suffering was not solved. We went from living 25 years WITH LUCK to being able to live until 70 years old even if you are a landwhale or a professional smoker. We went from eating some fruits a day to being able to eat everything we want a day, we went from not having a place to sleep to having a permanent ceiling. Unless you are a homeless man, I don't see what kind of physical suffering you may suffer in this era.

>>23072397
I agree it's not equal to no knowledge, it's beyond conceptual knowledge thus cannot be conceived. It's Zen, it's Tao, it's Nirvana.

>>23072407
Insanely naive. There is no response to someone who actually believes this, not because they are right, but because they lack such a fundamental understanding of the world that any proof given would fall on def ears. You live on another planet anon.

>>23072432
I get what you are saying and I almost always arrive there in conversations like this. And yet samsara exists.

>>23072453

>>23072442
>I never explained it and I won't because I believe you are naive, even though you have already changed your mind in this same thread
ok anon

>>23072456
I don't know what to say to that other than transcendence seems to be the most un-"natural" thing brought up in this thread so far.

>>23072442
This is the problem with these retards, there is nothing rational about what they believe it's purely emotional, that's why all they can do is say "that's dumb" without being able to explain why. It's the mental state of the reddit leftists, just a bunch of naive children.

>>23072460
How can the fundemental nature of reality be "un-natural"?

>>23072457
>you have already changed your mind in this same thread
Did you? I must have missed it.
The reason I refuse to respond is that it is so evident to me that physical suffering was never a solved thing in human history that I can't even fathom what would be sufficient proof to someone who doesn't see that. Not necessarily that I think your mind can not be changed.

>>23072453
You are thinking in terms of dualities, Heraclitus, Unity of Opposites.

>>23072464
It has to transcend the concept of nature (and all concepts for that matter) right? So it has to be neither natural nor unnatural. Which is obviously hard to conceive.

>>23072462
>>23072479
>that's why all they can do is say "that's dumb"
I never once said that something was dumb in this thread, you're just making things up now. My argument is that physical suffering is already solved, and even though some physical suffering stay, it will naturally get solved with knowledge in the future. On the other hand, psychological suffering doesn't just gets solved with science because our minds are complex, so we need to reccur to religion.

>Did you? I must have missed it.
I started thinking that the source of all suffering was knowledge, then I changed my mind when an anon talked me about animals, then I tought the difference between physical and psychological suffering.

>>23072481
Sure but thats because I live in samsara, the world of dualities. I'm here for what you are saying but we are talking about the thing that literally can not be understood conceptually and thus falls short of any conversation. Ya dig?

>>23072484
Multiple anons have gone "this is so retarded, i can't even" and then have been unable to refute anything I said. It's like this topic cause you to short circuit.

>>23072462
I don't think he ever said anything like "thats dumb." We have actually up to this point been having a pretty constructive conversation, if a bit heated at times.

>>23072483
>>23072489
Yes, it's beyond mind.

>>23072492
Just wanting to clarify that I, the anon that is arguing for knowledge being the reason of modern suffering, did not insult in this thread, because that comment was directed at me, that's all.

>>23072501
Or maybe I missunderstood the comment and it was directed to the other anon.

>>23072499
>>23072501
>>23072505
Ok, I apologise to that anon, for the others who did say it I'm still waiting for an argument.

>>23072389
I believe he meant to say "psychological" suffering was almost completely solved in this post >>23072364

>>23071150
Because we are carnivores, so somewhere way back before we had sophisticated tools, we were eating meat somehow.
>>23071156
Please elaborate.

>>23072484
>I started thinking that the source of all suffering was knowledge, then I changed my mind when an anon talked me about animals, then I tought the difference between physical and psychological suffering.
Oh ok, I saw that. I didn't know right away that was you. I mostly stick to my conversation thread when it comes to assuming who said what on anonymous forums. I genuinely didn't know.
>My argument is that physical suffering is already solved, and even though some physical suffering stay, it will naturally get solved with knowledge in the future.
I still disagree with this. If nothing else I can at best say that I think even if it somehow were, psychological suffering and physical suffering is a false dichotomy and are often interwoven as concepts.
>On the other hand, psychological suffering doesn't just gets solved with science because our minds are complex
I would never argue that it definitely could.
>so we need to reccur to religion.
Or something else entirely.

>>23071761
>>23072522
>>23071145
>>23071078

>>23072522
>I believe he meant to say "psychological" suffering was almost completely solved in this post
I don't think he did because of this >>23072407
Completely comprised of physical suffering examples.

>>23072525
So we agree on almost everything except that you think that I'm making a fake dichotomy. I'm not saying that there are two absolute ways of suffering, and of course one way of suffering will affect the other, but I already made someone admit that 90% of suffering came from knowledge, maybe it was another anon.

>>23072326
>>23072546
But the Bible has no solution, other religions have mastered it.

>>23072432
>>23072453
>>23072456
>>23072460
>>23072464
>>23072481
>>23072483
>>23072489
>>23072500
>>23072525
>Or something else entirely.
Transcendence both rules and sucks (but also neither).

>>23072566
This is obviously the solution. Pretending to be innocent and trying to remain ignorant and acting smug and superior because of it, is really as stupid as one can possibly be.

>>23072558
I have already said twice the solution of the bible. It's to go back to our instinctive feelings without disregarding knowledge. How does the bible says it? Through the 7 deadly sins and the 10 commandments. Jesus being the personification of what I'm talking about.

>>23072586
Yea but it's silly if you actually read something other than the bible, not to insult but it's true.

>>23072546
>of course one way of suffering will affect the other
I guess I just can't see how someone can think this and think that physical suffering is solved. I can at least tell you which anon I am.
>>23071535
>>23072088
>>23072102
>>23072227
>>23072243
>>23072332
>>23072347
>>23072355
>>23072389
>>23072397
>>23072442
>>23072453
>>23072460
>>23072479
>>23072483
>>23072489
>>23072499
>>23072525
>>23072538
>>23072566

>>23072581
You mean it neither is nor isn't a solution. The dao you can speak is not the dao boss.

>>23072597
Kek, you know what I mean.

>>23072590
You can't just say that and not give recommendations

>>23072592
>of course one way of suffering will affect the other
If you suffer physically because of something spiritual/mental, then the source of that suffering is psychological. Even if it's physical suffering, the source is psychological.

>>23072605
I already gave three or four, read again.

>>23072611
I'm not reading a 192 replies thread again. Everytime I had to go back to a previous comment I included a screenshot of it, can you be kind and simply reply the recommendations?

>>23072606
Yeah I do. At this point Im just fuckin about.

>>23072605
>Even if it's physical suffering, the source is psychological.
Ok but what Im saying is all suffering is both physical and mental, and that science can't solve all of that suffering, and probably neither can religion (as if religious intuition isn't somehow knowledge) thats why we have both. My point is that there is that 10% that you mentioned earlier which is a statement of exactly what I was talking about, that shit that our knowledge missed when we tried to solve the problem. That shit that we will always missed as long as out knowledge of good and evil compels us to act on incomplete knowledge.

>>23072618
Zen, Tao, Nirvana. There are literally hundreds of books which solve the problem of suffering.

>>23072628
So we agree that we need both knowledge and religion to not suffer?

>>23072641
>>23072628

Excepting that 10% we are talking about, of course.

>>23072628
Btw I meant to add that there are probably a million other things other than science and religion that would solve some of those issue that cause suffering, but would ultimately bring with them new issues that would cause suffering still, being incomplete solutions due to incomplete knowledge.

>>23072646
Sure but I am skeptical that there are any "solutions" that would erase that 10% without adding back into it. Unless we just resign to that pre adam and eve state.

>>23072660
So what are we disagreeing on? I've said that knowledge solves physical problems but it creates mental problems, so religion comes and can solve mental problems, so you need both to be as happy as possible. But there will always be unsolvable problems like deadly diseases, natural disasters, or the problems that religion brings (lack of faith, or not being able to keep up with it).

>>23072668
The dichotomy of physical and mental problems and the idea that science and religion encapsulate the solution to all those problems is what we disagree on I think. I think that even if there is 100% understanding of scientific nature and 100% faith there will be some third thing (and a fourth, and a fifth etcetera) that makes us suffer some how. Until we can enter the kingdom of god (allknowledge maybe) which was made possible by the fall of adam and eve (otherwise we would be stuck in eden). And even then, we may find we don't much care for all knowledge, but that is just conjecture.

>>23072695
But this just brings me back to that original agnosticism I mentioned earlier that I always come back too. So maybe what I think doesn't matter.

>>23072719
Or that transcendentalism, which isn't worth talking about because it can't be conceptualized.

>>23067547
fpbp

>>23067739
Because knowledge of the One True God and the proper worship was passed down from Adam's descendants. Cain and his satanic descendants had their own satanic cults, rites and orgies. Noah's wife was a witch descended from Cain. She fell back into her own ways after the flood and split off with Noah's sodomitic son Ham. They fell back into the ancient pagan rites of Cain. From there, Nimrod (descended from Ham) gathered all those in the satanic cult to build Babel. Then came the confusion of the tongues, and all of the world's people spread across the earth.

Pagan religions are twisted babel of a mixture of what knowledge remained of the One True God and the satanic cults of Cain's descendants, as well as worship of kings and new myths that were later added.
The Bible goes through all of this.

If happiness was attainable through human efforts without God, everyone would be happy.

>>23072606
>>23072668
I am more than happy to have these discussions somewhere that isn't this dumb fucking /lit/ thread if you would like to continue. I would love to be wrong about these dead ends I keep coming up against.

>>23073055
Sure, my name is Walter Hartwell White. I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87104.

>>23073550
Shit man. I was talking to this dude Heisenberg who had this uncertainty principle that blew my fucking mind, also he got me hooked on meth. I think he had the same address so I'm pretty sure that aint you. Too bad. we would have made sweet music together. Later fag!

>>23067537
>>23067547
The story of Eden and the Temptation is to explain how humanity garnered the Divine Logos or ability to reason.

>>23072866
Most of this is Christians reading extra detail into some very sparse and vague passages to make them tell a coherent story. The Bible provides almost no details about the antediluvian world, what if any distinction there was between the line of Cain vs the line of Seth(they seem to intermarry freely but the sample size is small), what was the exact nature of the wickedness that prompted the flood, etc. I get the sense that the chroniclers were embarrassed by the flood story and other weird passages in Genesis and edited them down over the years to minimize their importance, so that we inherited a heavily abridged version that doesn't fit comfortably with the rest of the OT nor make much sense on its own.

>>23067537
You choosing to be dumb is impossible to be equivalent to bronze age dumb.
Humanity as an aggregate is not intelligent. You telling me, "you and me Anon let us stop being Christians!" itself violates the text of the English language and the English people who are slower than internetted academics. Families do not breed exclusively high IQ do words good scienceman friends. Majority of our existence is daintily signaling "dont attack me" defference to obligation. To connect deeply with kin you need to be a little stupid.

"To be a man, a man has to be a little stupid" Ryuji Goda

The Bible is the greatest literary adventure into understanding language there is. Appreciate the austrolopithicus biblicus for what he is: better than le diversity and inclusion. Pick your brainlets wisely, tenant.