/lit/ - Literature

congrats, you figured it out, you're now the anti-pope

>whyimnotachristian.txt

>>5095451

everyone is a pope.

that story reminds me of two kids playing outside, burning ants with magnifying glasses

it's a really juvenile portrait of these cosmic entities, that are supposed to be so far beyond us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnaUvPoiTfQ&feature=kp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs970lwHn2E
Chris de Burgh fucking owns

as nietzsche said... god is dead

>>5095490
You just could not wait for a chance to use that meme

>>5095456
armchair pop-culture pope detected

>>5095559

that's wrong though, the blame falls on God and Satan for playing these games with us.

God's explanation is to basically say "Ya but look at the entire creation, it's all fucked up, who do you think you are?! where were you when I made the foundation!"

There is no such thing as a "natural occurrence" without God's consent...

Satan is the cure for cancer.

>pic related

>>5095591

The point is that if God created you, you don't get to blame God for your suffering. God is not subject to your moral understanding of the universe.

>>5095618
preach brother

>>5095618

>>5095630
>you don't get to blame God for your suffering

you do get to blame God, he is the cause.
Your problem, like most humans, is you think suffering is inherently evil/bad/immoral. So when you lose your material goods, your farm, your children, your health, your possessions you think OH THIS IS EVIL!!! WHO TOOK MY THINGS!!!

But you never owned anything.

Suffering is more like a necessary shock to end your selfishness, and get you closer to God and the true path.

So we have all these apologists trying to do mental gymnastics and contortions trying to explain how an all good, God who created everything, all the laws of the universe and all the processes of growth and change, but isn't responsible for malaria and earthquakes, aids and dementia, and things that ruin our fun on earth, because only the DEVIL would take away your beauty and gold and sanity and sexual pleasures, right?

>>5095645
You don't get to blame God because this physical life is a package deal. You get the good with the bad, and God has no obligation to spend his time transforming your life into Heaven or Hell based on your actions. He already made Heaven and Hell to throw you in after you die and are judged.

>>5095645

>you do get to blame God, he is the cause.

No. To assign blame to God for something, you need to establish that that thing was 1) caused by God and 2) a wrong. The first is self-evident if God exists, the second is inconceivable if God exists. God decides whether you suffer or not, not you. God decides what is right and wrong, not you. So you do not get to blame God for your suffering. Instead, like Job, you should credit it to him.

>>5095559
>>5095591
That interpretation is wrong, but not in that way. Job is about how it isn't man's place to claim to understand God's will and the actions that occur, whether those are actions that are happening to ourselves or to others, or whether we are fortunate or unfortunate, or have lived a "good" life or a "bad" life. It's the whole point of Elihu's speech: wisdom and understanding of God come from God Himself, not from ourselves, so it isn't our place to interpret his actions. The Book of Job isn't about the pitfalls of casting blame, it's about the foolishness of claiming understanding of the divine in any capacity.

>live your life which is 80 years of sitting on your ass with the occasional dead relative and outbreak of sores
>spend an eternity in bliss if you don't fuck it up and curse the guy who made you (and even then you can always repent)

Even if we just say that you only get to be in Heaven for 10,000 years, it's still a good deal compared to the lesser amount of time spent on Earth.

>wahh my dead family

>>5095676
>He already made Heaven and Hell to throw you in after you die and are judged
Conflating an Old Testament story with New Testament, thoroughly hellenized conceptions of judgement just seems wrong to me; that Christians actually believe two notions of God over a thousand years apart are in any way compatible is almost inconceivable.

>>5095732
I can acknowledge that both are fucking wrong, and humans can never understand God because we're not Him.

If Satan was portrayed as a mere sadist maybe, but it would be wrong. He was judging mankind.

>>5095637
I remember watching that years ago
>Ghaal: Ok guys, basically what I'm trying to say is not to blindly follow anyone. Now walk up this mountain to this shack where I was born
>interviewers: wow that was long walk up and down that mountain, did you really live up there?
>ghaal: ...

>>5095685
>you do not get to blame God for your suffering. Instead, like Job, you should credit it to him.

that's my point.

>God decides whether you suffer or not, not you.

In christian theology maybe, but not in reality. Suffering is in your control and discernment.

God is the real Satan
He is a sociopath:
Superficial charm and good intelligence
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations
Unreliability
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame
Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
General poverty in major affective reactions
Specific loss of insight
Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
Fantastic and uninviting behavior
Failure to follow any life plan

Sodom and Gomorrah was better

>>5095490
>>5095497

I cannot emphasize how much you should read Jung's "Answer to Job"

>>5095814

>real world
>control

nice one

>>5096078

Not samefag but I 'think' he was trying to suggest you can control your attitude to suffering but it came out all wrong.

If he meant that you have actual control then, yes, confirmed for retardation

>>5096108

suffering is very much a choice, choices are in your control. Not complete control from the very start, but like a weak muscle you can develop it through practice

Ppl always mix god with jesus. Physical reality is god, the illusion called mind is represented by jesus. Satan is simply another word for systematic external science. Everyone thinks theology's a piece of cake, and tieing shoes is the real art. But of course if the shoe is several fedoras ,why the miracle of it all. Pardon my vanity par sarcasm & all. Also baphomet does not equal jewish-satan. Baphomet is satan + jesus.

>>5096171
> Baphomet is satan + jesus.

elaborate.

>>5096171
The word Baphomet originates from European generational mishandling of the name Muhammad and the hysterical frenzy of islamophobia. This cartoon character demon is the icon of the stupidity of European racism and imperialism as well as their herd mentality and willingness to believe the lies they create about things they never bothered trying to understand.

>>5096171
lol ur fcking retard mate

>>5096250
I literally made that noise that's like a stifled burp only it's more a stifled laugh.....it's less like a stifled sneeze then, which is more nasally.

>>5096254
I'm working on my descriptive powers, was that good?

>>5096257
You know what it's kinda like? A fart your mouth makes. More fart-sounding than the stifled burp. i just farted, it was inspirational

No sense of humour.

>>5096250
I didn't mean to discomfort you, i formally apologize.

>>5096237
What's the magic word?

>>5096249
Nice to hear this info, but i was reffering to the picture signifying the as above so below, as sin so virtue. More than the word reffering to it.

>>5096254
Again, i formally apologize for your discomfort

>>5096257
>>5096254
Again, i formally apologize for your discomfort

>>5096260
>>5096254
Again, i formally apologize for your discomfort

Straight to the core:

It's all about submission isn't it? Why should submission be desirable?

>>5096332
Shot to the heart and you're to blame oh baby you give love, sing it now. Submission? Reality is nature, physical nature. You either cough 'submiti' to reality, physical nature, or you submit to fantasy, the intellect.

>>5096336

>thinking the intellect isn't part of nature

>>5096336
so the whole point is to feel less bad because you are giving up responsibility?

>>5096343
Oh you.. Also you're saying the circular descartes non-syllogism. My gawking friend.

>>5096362
Sartre, you here. And i see simone and che are here too. You go boys, take up thine ace to grind with 'world'.

>>5096372
Pardon me "axe"

>>5096372
i'm sorry mate i've never studied philosophy so i'm just asking and sadly am only left confused with your witty banter

>>5096377
Premisses poor misss

>>5096377
Also, u no, then study philosophy if u want to know.

>>5096372
Friend, I don't know if English is your first language, or if you're on drugs, but I think you know something but are totally unable to articulate it.
Why are you trying to debate in this state?

it's like you only read the first page of it and not the subsequent 30 pages of discourse

>>5095591
But what if a person is born to extreme poverty and is forced to commit crime or kill just to survive?

>>5096493
>not liking Job
>not reading the most amazing condescension in the bible
>not listening to god ask job if he has a voice as thunderous

>>5095490
>implying "god is dead" has anything to do with what op is saying

ITT christfags getting BTFO

>>5096485
Impassingpacmanpac+ù

>>5095490
Very mature

The book of Job is the oldest known book, isn't it?

>>5095559
Uh-huh, the book wherein God is an atheist.

The "rain falls indiscriminately" meaning god is not deciding it, meaning the phenomenon that is uncaused, or in other words, god does not believe.

>>5095630
Suck my balls

>>5095724
But we know why God acts. The book tells us so.

>>5095676
None of that made any sense at all

>>5095814
Nietzsche would like a word with you

>>5095448
If you go buy Christianity's interpretation:
Job was before the first covenant which is why Satan was free to mess around with people and since there was no covenant and no rule set, God "had to" play by Satan's plan.

As to why he didn't forsee any of that happening they'd probably give you the good old "god works in mysterious ways."

>>5095448

The correct reading is that there is no God.

>>5095559
> god does not divvy out
god is therefore irrelevant.

>>5096249
>This cartoon character demon is the icon of the stupidity of European racism and imperialism

so it's a good thing that other cultures can learn from? I dunno your interpretation is wacky

I say God would only be morally wrong if he judges us after death but didn't make us aware of the standards of this judgment
Christianity doesn't meet the requirements since it's about placing faith in a highly unlikely historical event, and it spawned many denominations and derivative religions, so your choice is simply impossible to guess
So religion can't be the answer. Perhaps we are to be justifiably judged on the basis of our conscience, but this is still pretty murky territory. At most I'd agree to a golden rule kind of deal.

>>5095559
If that's the case, why even bother being religious? The whole point is having magical thinking and thinking everything happens for a reason.

>>5095559
this is actually the point of everything god-related. in fewer words:

>god is important
>you're not able to judge him

which, I guess, makes christianity's message "shut up and listen"

the jew bible is a scam by a bronze age madoff

The "god" of the Old Testament is actually the malevolent demiurge who trapped fragments of the divine spark, or souls, on the flawed material plane he created in imitation of the Pleromatic realm after deluding himself into believing he was the supreme being.

Has anyone read A Masque of Reason by Frost? It is about the story of job.

God: Yes, by and by. But first a larger matter.
I've had you on my mind a thousand years
To thank you someday for the way you helped me
Establish once for all the principle
There's no connection man can reason out
Between his just deserts and what he gets.
Virtue may fail and wickedness succeed.
'Twas a great demonstration we put on.
I should have spoken sooner had I found
The word I wanted. You would have supposed
One who in the beginning was the Word
Would be in a position to command it.
I have to wait for words like anyone.
Too long I've owed you this apology
For the apparently ineaning sorrow
You were afflicted with in those old days.
But it was of the essence of the trial
You shouldn't understand it at the time.
It had to seem unmeaning to have meaning.
And it came out all right. I have no doubt
You realize by now the part you played
To stultify the Deuteronomist
And change the tenor of religious thought.
My thanks are to you for releasing me
From moral bondage to the human race.
The only free will there at first was a man's,
Who could do good or evil as he chose.
I had no choice but I must follow him
with forfeits and rewards he understood--
Unless I liked to suffer loss of worship.
I had to prosper good and punish evil.
You changed all that. You set me free to reign.
You are the Emancipator fo your God,
And as such I promote you to Saint.

it means that job is a retard and god and satan can do whatever the fuck they want

>>5097754
Shhh do you not fear the Hersey?

Nah just kidding. Why didn't you mention about Sophia or Lucifer?

>>5097836
>Why didn't you mention about Sophia

I did indirectly with "divine spark".

>Lucifer

No such thing. The demiurge plays the role of what Christians typically think of as the devil.

The serpent in Genesis wasn't Lucifer or Satan or whatever but an agent of the Pleromatic realm sent to aid Anthropos in escaping the demiurge's material realm.

>>5097865
gnostic master race detected

>>5095448
why this garbage gets 76 replies on /lit/ is beyond me. make me a mod now.

>>5097898
>people discussing interpretations of massively influential literature on /lit/

God forbid.

>>5097865
Oh you are aren't aware of the Gnostic Lucifer? It seems like it is the more modern version of Gnosticism, where by Lucifer is from domain of light and mind, sent by Abraxas to combat the Dermiurge in his domain of matter.

This version doesn't include Sophia though

Finding texts about him is scattered at best, though i do recall William Blake writes about him.

>>5097903
its a shitpost bait interpretation. if someone actually believes that they should fall on a knife.

>>5097909
>Gnostic Lucifer

lol there's no such thing, not in any Gnostic text I've ever read at least. Nor would it make sense for there to be considering the Gnostic creation myth is vastly different than the traditional Abrahamic one, and as such there was no "war in heaven" or whatever.

There are people who view the Lucifer character sympathetically but those people fit more into the Luciferian and Satanist mold than Gnosticism. It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to fit Lucifer into Gnostic mythos.

>>5097915
>I don't agree with it therefore it should be banned from /lit/

>>5097933
its just a shitty interpretation for the sake of it being shitty. dont be a faggot.

>>5097946
>It's shitty because I say so even though I haven't given any sort of refutation, j-just believe me guys! I'm right! btw ban this from /lit/ pls, I don't agree with it ;_;

>>5097933
Not the original mythos of course, but probably in the Christian Gnostic branch? Not the Satan devil motif, the gnostic version paints he(or she) as a light bringer and liberator and was the serpent in Genesis. More or less he was created to subvert the christian mythos?

There a lot of material online though i cant vouch for all of them.

>>5097953
ok thats fine. but tell that to anyone that knows even a little about the history of the old testament and they would tell you how much of a fucking retard you are.
>source: 14 years of roman catholic schooling

This is the stupid bullshit they give as an explaination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZKuixGmiMw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXLlFRLu7mffDdfpUWo6Vl5&index=10

>>5097958
>the Christian Gnostic branch

That's all of Gnosticism. Gnostics believe in Jesus and co., etc. but not in the traditional Christian creation myth.

The serpent wasn't Lucifer, just an agent sent from the Pleromatic realm to aid in the recovery of the divine spark fragments that had become trapped in material bodies to the Pleroma.

But yeah the "light bringer and liberator" in Gnostic mythos is Jesus, who played a similar role to the serpent and was sent to teach mankind how to escape the realm of the demiurge. The difference between the Gnostic and Christian conceptions of Jesus is that the Gnostics don't believe he had a material body, but that he was a pure being untainted by the material plane created by the demiurge.

Anyone who claims that there's some sort of Lucifer type character in Gnostic mythos doesn't know what they're talking about though, or is maybe just just using an analogy to make a point.

>>5097898
/sci/ plz go away

>>5097980
>That's all of Gnosticism

I don't think so. Some texts I read regarding Sophia doesn't involve Jesus. Some mention Christos as the other half of Sophia, but i think that was older than NT.

Please be aware that Gnosticism as a religion has many branches and is not a monolith like Christianity. It has been known to use other religions' mythos to fit its message and core values. Discarding one version because it doesn't fit your current one is to be honest just like what the Christians would do. It is valid as long as it has the core values and theme of Gnosticism.

>>5098003
Gnosticism is deeply rooted in Jewish and early Christian mythos, all branches of it. Gnosticism itself began as a branch of Christianity that incorporated Neoplatonist and mystical Jewish ideas into their beliefs. Only the Mandaeans rejected the idea of Jesus as messiah, though they basically just substitute John the Baptist in his place.

All of Gnosticism is an offshoot of Christianity though, yes.

>>5098029
Not really. Gnosticism has existed way before Jesus was around. It was just that with the gradual purging of Gnostics (Gnosticism is a label created by Christians for people they fundamentally disagreed with), many uses Christian mythos to either hide themselves or seek more followers. Valentinian version is the one that comes to mind. Christianity labels gnostics like they labeled pagans, a loose group of people with some common views that were coexisting with each other (Christianity is not well known for the last trait). It just that pagans were for people that use other mythos and gnostics were people that used mythos similar to theirs

>>5098056
No you're factually incorrect.

>To date, no pre-Christian gnostic texts have been found,[8] and gnosticism as a unique and recognizable belief system is typically considered to be a second century (or later) development.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

There is literally no evidence whatsoever that Gnosticism predates Christianity, that's just baseless speculation on your part.

>>5098063
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gnosticism

I was using this. Pythagorean and Platonic school of thoughts and Hermeticism used the term gnosis and the search of it.

I think this is where you and I differ. If I am correct, Gnosticism to you is centered around the myth of Sophia and her fall. While for me I see Gnosticism as a search for gnosis that exist in many forms and traditions, the myth of Sophia being one of them.

You see the three branch above (Although I heard Plato borrowed a lot from Pythagoras) as pagan while i see them as the early gnostics. Am i right?

>>5098117
Sorry I dont mean the actual word itself but the general idea of it

>>5098117
>I was using this. Pythagorean and Platonic school of thoughts and Hermeticism used the term gnosis and the search of it.

"gnosis" is literally just Greek for "knowledge", of course early philosophers were searching for knowledge you numbskull. That doesn't mean it has any relation to Gnosticism as a religious school of thought.

>>5098131
>Gnosticism among those individuals who are called Gnostics, was one such example. Many of the first Gnostics may have been pagan and Hebrew (Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew), predating Christianity.

Ah I understand. Our idea of what Gnosticism is differs. It was nice to speak to someone on /lit/ that knows about Sophia. Thanks for your image.

>>5098150
>Despite the above, the problem remains that the term 'Gnosticism' was rarely if ever self-applied by any group in antiquity; even if the suitability of the term might be argued from the discussion above, it remains for the most part a modern typological construction. As a result, the term may be said to draw attention to the doctrine of gnosis out of proportion to its actual importance to 'Gnostics' themselves


Just because a historical thinker pursued knowledge doesn't mean they had anything to do with fucking Gnosticism as a belief system. If that's how you wanna define it then you might as well throw in Einstein and whoever fucking else you want under the "Gnostic" label.

>>5098131

Gnostics were looking for God-knowledge. Which is precisely what the platonists and were after.

The realization or communion and apprehension of God or The One predate Christianity and heretical offshoots like gnosticism.

>>5098196
>Gnostics were looking for God-knowledge. Which is precisely what the platonists and were after.

That doesn't mean they're the same thing though.

The idea that Gnosticism predates Christianity is a thought that hasn't really been accepted by scholars since the Nag Hammadi library was discovered.

>>5098185
Carl Jung, William Blake etc etc

>>5096297
Abra Kadabra.

>>5097980
>>The serpent wasn't Lucifer, just an agent sent from the Pleromatic realm to aid in the recovery of the divine spark fragments that had become trapped in material bodies to the Pleroma.
Dat schizophrenia doe.

The moral of the story is that god does whatever the exact fuck he wants and he is entirely incomprehensible to pathetic mortals (who can never have any pretence over his ways).
The world is a vale or tears and your only happiness lies in the next life.

Unless you're United Church of Canada of something, which means it's just a metaphor and it means whatever the fuck you would like it to mean in order not to scare people off with too much edgy religiousity.

>>5095448
>"This just in: God's a dick"
>"In other news: Water is wet and bears shit in the woods, we bring you first coverage of these shocking events"
>"Later tonight: Are hearts needed to sustain human life? More on this story as it breaks at 10"

Isn't Christianity pretty depressing if you think about it?

God's omniscience/omnipotence guarantee that everything that has or ever will happen is his will. Presumably the Fall of man was preordained in order to show God's divine mercy by saving people, while also showing his justice by condemning those who were predestined to not act according to his law to eternal suffering.

Basically, I think the logical conclusion of Christianity is Calvinism. I can't see how it can be any other way.

>>5099994
>Isn't Christianity pretty depressing if you think about it?

That is why most Christians don't.

>>5100053
fucking A+ m8

>>5099994

No.

There's no explicit contradiction b/w omnipotence/omniscience and free will.

>>5100102
I think you're being sarcastic, but I have a sneaky suspicion that's actually what the whole faith thing is all about.

Fedora tipping little brats like me just can't into it. Our logic is based on an entirely different foundation and so all dialogue is doomed.

...not that I care, as long as they keep shittin' out babies and keep the economy wheels greased.

>>5100120
I didn't deny that people have free will explicitly, just that it's preordained that people will choose to act in certain ways. In other words, some people were created with foreknowledge that they would not believe in God, and thus end up condemned. Now, maybe they deserved this because they chose such a thing, but it's still depressing to think about the fact that God knew it would happen and it was his will.

>>5099994

>Presumably

There's your problem. Calvinism is what happens when Christians try and apply rational analysis of motive to the Christian mythology, and it winds up being pretty nightmarish worldview. But surely it's better not to try and have your cake and just admit that rational analysis of the motives of God is not possible for anyone except God? This sort of answer though is not really equal to the rationalist/capitalist reality into which Calvinism was born. So your choice as far as Christianity is concerned becomes joining the death-cult of YHVH, remaining in mystic state with all the failure to embrace capitalism that that implies, or kill God.

>>5095685
this philosophy that everything god does is above reproach just because hes god is pretty retarded

>>5100179
Well, the motive isn't really important anyway to the reason why it's a sad state of affairs, besides, Christians can just say that anything that God says/does is necessarily good, and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong (of course, it's been preordained that they would think this way.)

I don't understand how capitalism becomes involved in the chain of reasoning I described, maybe it's not exactly Calvinism, but I think it's quite close.

>>5100252

If God is not above reproach, then why bother calling him God?

>>5100310
rekt

>>5100310
that depends. usually being beyond reproach is not a main characteristic of a god but think of a lesser figure and ask thesame question: whats the sense of calling a king if hes not beyond reproach. you can answer that the sense is authority and power. not necessary infalibility. similarly, theologicians themselves were the ones that said that omnipotence and thus actual perfection were not a necessary attribute of God as long as he was the most superior being existent. you can argue then that there's no contradiction in deeming god the greatest being and reproaching him as well

>>5100310

if God is above reproach, how can he be Good?

>my God casts plagues and tortures his most faithful and righteous for fun

Well he's a demon then.

>>5100310
God is just a name. By your argument alone God does a pretty good job of showing just how meaningless and without effect he is.

>>5100346

>if God is above reproach, how can he be Good?

probably a bait, but you'd have to be a pretty huge moron to try and consign a concept like "God" to temporal morality

>>5100362

tell me how God is good then, and the difference between him and an omnipotent demon would be

>>5100365

>tell me how -

it's ineffable you fucking moron

>>5100375

why do you think so?

>>5099795
If Christians would be more obtuse and honest and would say "God let it happen because be did not give a fuck about Job" then I would respect them more.

>>5097966
>14 years of roman catholic schooling
I'm sure they told you exactly how to read and interpret all those stories too so you won't ever have to think about them critically for yourself.

wow look at this edgy thread