/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18745381]

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
You can be a fedora tipper if you want. But this is inspired writing. Divinely inspired.

[soursore !!5HEGfvI0zIR No.18745408]

>>18745381
it was a word of mouth story before being written down, those are usually dope.

[Anonymous No.18745428]

>>18745381
But what does it mean though?

[Anonymous No.18745432]

>>18745381
Probably was better in the original Hebrew

[Anonymous No.18745469]

>>18745381
It's not inspired, it's just beautiful.

[Anonymous No.18745487]

>>18745408
>it was a word of mouth story
absolutely filtered
>>18745428
Most ancient cultures believed that naming something was akin to creating/calling it. Some priests say that Pokemon(STER) is satanism because when you use them to fight you have to say their name.
"Bear" does not actually mean "bear", it means "the brown one", because our ancestors thought that saying (real name) would literally call the bear. And you don't want a fucking bear near you, when you are naked and living in a cave.

[Anonymous No.18745489]

>>18745408
Based oral tradition appreciator

[Anonymous No.18745510]

>>18745428
God is the unity of actuality and potentiality, because God is the source of absolutely everything. Leibniz and Hegel thought this:
>That universal is God, as the cause of the world, to the consciousness of whom the above principle of sufficient reason certainly forms the transition. The existence of God is only an inference from eternal truths; for these must as the laws of nature have a universal sufficient reason which determines itself as none other than God. Eternal truth is therefore the consciousness of the universal and absolute in and for itself; and this universal and absolute is God, who, as one with Himself, the monad of monads, is the absolute Monad. Here we again have the wearisome proof of His existence: He is the fountain of eternal truths and Notions, and without Him no potentiality would have actuality; He has the prerogative of existing immediately in His potentiality.(21) God is here also the unity of potentiality and actuality, but in an uncomprehending manner; what is necessary, but not comprehended, is transferred to Him. Thus God is at first comprehended chiefly as universal, but already in the aspect of the relation of opposites.

The Logos (Word) is the Divine Actualizing force (see jung, early jewish thought, etc.), and the Father, is the set of all potentialities.

This Divine being has the essence of the source of life in it, since it is the most fundamental and greatest being.

The book goes on to say that the Logos, ie the actualizing force of reality, or the word of God, became incarnate as a human being. This human being then showed us as children of God how we should actualize the potentiality of all of being. And this is called Ethics.

[Anonymous No.18745513]

>>18745381
>>18745469
You guys are obviously joking, right? That bit is so clunky, repetitive, and in parts incoherent. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made"??? Divine inspiration? Maybe if the author was experiencing a divinely inspired STROKE.

[Anonymous No.18745521]

>>18745510
>became incarnate as a human being
Mhmmmm, don't like that bit.

[Anonymous No.18745526]

>Be John
>Hear that some heretics are claiming that some demiurge guy made the material universe
>Write a long screed into the opening paragraph about how uhh God made everything just by saying so, ok?
>2000 years later some trad larping nerd claims your sectarian diatribe is divinely inspired

[Anonymous No.18745530]

>>18745521
why? Its extremely plausible to me

[Anonymous No.18745532]

>>18745513
>In the beginning there was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God.
This implies that logic, math, cognitive functions themselves are metaphysical.
And that's pretty fucking based.
Atheist fags eternally BTFO.

[Anonymous No.18745540]

>>18745532
Metaphysics don't exist

[soursore !!5HEGfvI0zIR No.18745543]

>>18745487
take notes on this guy>>18745510
he at least knows what the Logos is, and doesn't go into bear magic and shit.

[Anonymous No.18745547]

>>18745530
Because we're so innately flawed that I dislike the idea that we can be an incarnate of the Logos. We obviously posses it in part, but not an incarnate. Only God possesses the logos in its entirety.
It's your wording basically.

[Anonymous No.18745555]

>>18745540

[soursore !!5HEGfvI0zIR No.18745557]

>>18745547
Jesus is the Word.
Logos is Greek for "Word."
ffs

[Anonymous No.18745575]

>>18745543
Absolutely filtered
Have this (You) and fuck off already

[Anonymous No.18745579]

>>18745547
the Logos is the Son. Think of Jesus as the human instantiation of the fundamental force that brought the world into being.

[Anonymous No.18745596]

>>18745513
>p implies q
>and also q implies p

its a logical biconditional you absolute brainlet

[soursore !!5HEGfvI0zIR No.18745607]

>>18745575
I don’t think you know what that word means, either.

[Anonymous No.18745611]

>>18745557
>>18745579
I cannot accept that. God is logos.

[Anonymous No.18745620]

>>18745611
Or rather, the father is the logos if you wanna go with the trinity mumbo jumbo.

[Anonymous No.18745626]

>>18745513
I think Christianity is bullshit but John is one of the most beautifully written works I have ever read. You're either being disingenuous or have irredeemably pedestrian taste

[Anonymous No.18745627]

>>18745381
Wife is the goal

[soursore !!5HEGfvI0zIR No.18745633]

Jesus was the Word made flesh. Jesus is God. You all are trolling, it’s why John wrote that.

[Anonymous No.18745638]

>>18745513
>>18745596
They simply had to repeat stuff multiple times because people back then were mostly retarded and unable to follow complex reasoning
...
Wait...

[Anonymous No.18745646]

>>18745620
Logos has different meaning in christianity then in some sort of greek gnostic style of thinking (which is what i assum you believe). Either way, you have to come up with a theory for how God split into actuality and potentiality. Christianity does that in spades

[Anonymous No.18745686]

>>18745607
Ok, just one more time

>3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

>Most ancient cultures believed that naming something was akin to creating/calling it. Some priests say that Pokemon(STER) is satanism because when you use them to fight you have to say their name.
>"Bear" does not actually mean "bear", it means "the brown one", because our ancestors thought that saying (real name) would literally call the bear. And you don't want a fucking bear near you, when you are naked and living in a cave.

Now write a ten lines commentary on how the two are completely unrelated.

[Anonymous No.18745701]

>>18745646
>Either way, you have to come up with a theory for how God split into actuality and potentiality
Why would God need to split into anything? Can't he be both at the same time?

[Anonymous No.18745705]

>>18745532
>Atheists btfo because I think it would be based if this thing was true
>proof missing
Yikeserinos my dear redditor tradcath retard, you have no understanding of induction and by inference metaphysics. Stop mentioning "coolio" words you read on 4deep, faggot.

[Anonymous No.18745714]

>>18745705
>I want empirical evidence
>For a metaphysical thing
If you can't into logic anon, I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.18745737]

>>18745626
"To start, there was the word, but the word was also god, and god was the word and this word god thing made everything, and everything that was made was made by the maker of made things which is the god word thing. Also, the god word thing is life, and has life in it, and the life is also light and it shines in the dark which didn't have light and that darkness was stupid"
You really eat this kind of thing up and think it's divinely transcendent? Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.18745743]

>>18745714
There's some empirical evidence for paranormal stuff like if you stare at someone through a camera from another room they can feel it somehow and get weirded out

[Anonymous No.18745744]

>>18745737
>I build a strawman
>Then I knock it down
>I win

[Anonymous No.18745745]

>>18745701
>Can't he be both at the same time
yes, thats part of what the trinity is

I'm just not personally satisfied unless I explicitly conceive of why the universe came into existence.

>>18745686
yes you are on to something, but there is a better way to think of it. Imagine what a self-caused substance like God would be like. I think we can agree the closest thing would be some sort of consciousness, because consciousness grounds itself. By imagining things, you bring them into existence in the substance of your mind (imagine a purple umbrella for example, something changes in your mind). The absolute generalization of this, is of course an infinite consciousness which is the source of everything. The process of bringing things into existence is still through the word, and this meshes well with my actualizing force i menationed earlier in the thread.

[soursore !!5HEGfvI0zIR No.18745749]

>>18745686
John wrote the first one, after preaching about it his whole life.
Now you are quoting the Book of Genesis, with the same nonsense like you know how to create like God. You're a moron that is trying to spew out things that are well developed in theology with your own opinion on why they are that way.
>most ancient cultures believed "blah"
maybe they did, and maybe they didn't. What does that matter to what it means? You don't even know why it was written. You are a filthy prod, I can smell it on you. You made some assumptions about me, being filtered, that wasn't very Christian of you, was it? I've read more on this subject than you, it is obvious if you think John and the book of Genesis were written by the same person, or even for the same reason. Burn in hell, you protestant nonreader. Honestly, don't even know why you are on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.18745750]

>>18745745
>yes, thats part of what the trinity is
The trinity only exists because you have to account for Jesus as the son of God. I see no reason why God would have to split into anything.

[Anonymous No.18745751]

>>18745714
>I believe without proof because I'm really smart
Just gib money dude

>2 Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

[Anonymous No.18745757]

>>18745743
post videos of your hot roommate

[Anonymous No.18745764]

>>18745751
Proof exists, it's just not empirical.
Is there anything sadder than an empiricist?

[Anonymous No.18745766]

>>18745744
Everything I wrote came from OP. There is a word god thing which is the maker of made things and also a life thing but life is also light and it was light in darkness and the darkness was dumb. That's literally what that paragraph in OP says. If you think it's deep or profound then you are a certified retard.

[Anonymous No.18745771]

>>18745766
You just don't get it anon.
It's repeated for a reason.

[Anonymous No.18745778]

>>18745750
split is actually the wrong way of putting it, they are just two aspects of God. Think of it like this, we are talking about the same thing, its just that I give more names to it to characterize it more clearly.

[Anonymous No.18745785]

>>18745749
???
>Now you are quoting the Book of Genesis, with the same nonsense like you know how to create like God.
>You are a filthy prod, I can smell it on you.
>You made some assumptions about me, being filtered, that wasn't very Christian of you, was it?
>it is obvious if you think John and the book of Genesis were written by the same person,
>you protestant nonreader

Are you drunk? Because I drank a couple beers and still your rant does not make any sense

[Anonymous No.18745799]

>>18745771
Repeating something without adding any clarity is pointless

[Anonymous No.18745804]

>>18745764
>I totally sucked Holy Mary's tits, I just was too busy to take a pic of that

[Anonymous No.18745808]

>>18745381
KJV is always great (although this one is good even in more literal modern translations).

>>18745737
This is the cringiest post I've seen on /lit/ in years.

[Anonymous No.18745810]

>>18745799
I'm not
>>18745771
But the reason is this>>18745638

[Anonymous No.18745815]

>>18745799
There is clarity, but you don't get it.
>In the beginning there was the Word.
Establishment of the word.
>And the word was with God
Establishing that God had possession of the word.
>and the word was God
But that God also was the word.

Now if you view the word as just word, you'd be right. But the word is the logos. That's why it's written so well.

[Anonymous No.18745819]

>>18745799
I have two questions:
1) Do you enjoy poetry? If so, I'd be curious to know your favorite poets.
2) Are you autistic?

[Anonymous No.18745840]

>>18745815
Since we know that (1. God is the word. Do we need to also be told that he is with the thing that he is? It already says they are the same thing! It's pointless repetition which, had it been posted here rather than some old book, would be viewed for as what it is, schizo posting.

[Anonymous No.18745846]

>>18745714
Proof can be inductive, as in mathematically inductive, you absolute retard. Just admit you cannot into metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.18745847]

>>18745840
>It's pointless repetition which
It's not. It perfectly describes the logos in relation to God, and God to logos.

[Anonymous No.18745848]

>>18745819
The Bhagavad Gita is far superior both in verse and story telling

[Anonymous No.18745855]

>>18745840
>the word existed in the beginning of time
>the word existed alongside god
>the word existed in unity with god
you literally get so much information in those phrases anon

[Anonymous No.18745859]

>>18745847
>The thing is also another thing, and it is with the thing, because the thing is the thing.
Sorry, that's just retarded structuring

[Anonymous No.18745893]

>>18745859
For the trouble you bring is the trouble you bring
And a thing is a thing just a thing is a thing
In the eyes of a dreamer
It's in the eyes of a man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yvAgmRU49c

[Anonymous No.18745903]

>>18745893
>"A = B. A is also with B. B = A"
>Retards on /lit/: "The most beautiful phrase ever written, it must have been divinely inspired!"
It's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.18745908]

>>18745381
that's horrible though

[Anonymous No.18745919]

>>18745908
Post writing.

[Anonymous No.18745931]

>>18745428
The link between magic and civilization's forming -- inasmuch as there is a mythological element -- is the semblance of separate events as they occur within the same whole. In other words, scapegoating to that which resembles within an omnipresent symbolic (or auditive, see McLuhan) realm, so that one chooses to victimize that which, in event, resembles the felt injustice -- for lack of a better term -- in the same concurrent realm. This is how Girard interprets ritual and the creation of scapegoats, however this same process can be seen not only in the social sphere, but also in the solipsistic. The presupposed distinction, the separation of the world into objects and processes, into durable and perishable, is not anterior to the formation of language as a given factor, and it is in fact language itself which brings this separation, separation which language must first do to itself. It follows that language cannot start by a stage of simple nominal concepts, nor by a stage of simple verbal concepts, that it alone can create the schism between the two, schism which creates the great crisis of the spirit, through which permanence opposes change, being opposes becoming. Separation of the whole, the step from singular perceptions to general concepts, is procedural, and in it lies the creation of our Gods: the instantaneous sensation birthed by external forces, its experiential value, where Gods and their names burst out for the first time in our consciousness. The first linguistic insights weren`t a comparison of contents or essence of diverse singular intuitions, nor were they an act of highlighting that which they share among one another. They aimed at concentrating intuitive content, to tighten it to a single point, the manner of which depends on the interest given to it (its teleological pespectives). The content of the moment floods consciousness in its entirety and seizes the spirit, so much so that nothing else remains next to it. The self is forced to turn towards this whole, lives in it and forgets itself. This intuition passes, the tension gets discharged, and this subjective excitation gets objectivized, and becomes, to man, God or Demon. Man does not see in the word a product of his own creation but rather finds in it an objective reality which exists and signifies by itself. Once the experiential sparks passes, once the tension of the instant is discharged unto the word or to the mythical image, there begins the adventure of the soul. The word, the name, turns a thing, a man, into an individual. The name is not merely a symbolic adjacent, but is an integral part of the thing. The word or the name itself is a substantial thing. There is nothing apart from it with which it can be compared, its strict and simple presentation hold within it the summation of its being. Consciousness is a prisonner of its immediate totality.

[Anonymous No.18745946]

>18745543
>18745557
Yes, /lit/ needs more dumbass tripfags.

[Anonymous No.18745952]

>>18745903
I'm not even Chri*tian
I also think the bible is retarded
But art sometimes is not rational
I mean, that was a Charlie song

[Anonymous No.18747065]

>>18745931
drawing is from where? looks like something goethe would draw

[Anonymous No.18747164]

>>18747065
Yiya ti o n beere nipa ti akole rẹ 'iduro alagbe ati gbigbe ara lori ọpá kan' ati pe o ṣe nipasẹ oluyaworan Dutch ti o gbajumọ julọ ti ọrundun kẹtadinlogun.