A Miracle

[Anonymous No.2876037]

Here /lit/, let me tell you the story of a miracle, a real miracle, a miracle that might happen on any ordinary night in any ordinary city in the world.

A man of faith is walking alone in the city late at night. He walks by a secluded alleyway and hears the screams of a feminine voice, high and terrified. The man knows immediately what is occurring, but does not hesitate as he walks into the alleyway to find a rapist bent over a woman. The man persuades the rapist to leave, and stays with the woman for a while to comfort her. She insists on getting his number so that she may thank him properly at a later date, when she has recovered from the night's ordeal.

In the following weeks the man is asked to recount his brave act in an interview with a local newspaper. Though at first the thought lingers that he ought to decline the offer and dodge any praise he might receive for humility's sake, he agrees to do the interview:

Journalist: "So, tell me: you're walking down a street at the time of night when that part of the city is eerily empty, alone, you hear terrified screams from an alley nearby. What is going through your ahead at this moment!?"

Man: "Of course, the panicked way she was screaming told me that there was probably somebody there with her causing her such grief. With nobody in sight but I, I felt it was my duty at that point to step in and to do as much as I could."

[Anonymous No.2876040]

Journalist: "Wow. I doubt there are many people in the entire country who would be so brave in that moment, you must be a hero! . . . Still, it must be distressing to have to talk about events like these, but, if you don't mind, could you tell me what happened next when you went into the alley?"

Man: "Well, personally I wouldn't mind, but seeing as I'd also be talking on behalf of a woman who's told me that she feels rather ashamed - "

Journalist: "Her name will most likely remain anonymous when the story is published. Regardless, we'll have to confirm with her before publishing, and she'll be free to prevent it if she wishes."

Man: "OK then, well, I went into the alley and sure enough I saw a man in a long coat bent over a woman. I asked, "what are you doing?" He straight away threatened to stab me with a knife if I didn't leave. He was still holding the woman down, and I saw a knife in his right hand."

Journalist: "I think I would have been scared stiff."

[Anonymous No.2876044]

Man: "I wasn't scared. I was thinking, "he's a rapist, preying on women in the dark of night. He probably tells himself that the women deserve it in some way, in any case, he's apt to hide what he is doing like he is. While he's forcing himself on a woman he must have contempt for her, and become numb to her suffering, but if a third person were to see what he was doing he would be confronted in that moment with what he was doing, in the eyes of that third person, and he'd be ashamed upon seeing how vile he is". So I asked him, "do you know what is that you're doing?" I must clarify here, that I am a man of faith, and that in my eyes what he was doing was more terrible than the rapist himself probably realized, because he was disobeying and distancing himself from God. So when I phrase it like that, "do you know what it is that you're doing?", he might not perceive the religious dimension of it, but in any case it puts emphasis on the fact that he ought to be ashamed, and it forces him to really consider his act."

Journalist: "I'm not a religious person myself - though I do have a great deal of respect for the religious - you still at this point must have been worried, what if by confronting him what that question he had gotten angry and had become violent?"

[Anonymous No.2876050]

Man: "In one sense yes, but not in a religious sense. In a religious sense the only harm that could have been done to me that night was if I heard the screams of the woman and had hurried away frightened. Hearing those screams was a test of faith (and in that sense it was a blessing that I heard them), would I go into the alley knowing that I am forever guaranteed to be looked fondly on by God for as long as I persist in my faith, or would I in that moment enter a crisis, tell myself that faith isn't worth having if it would put me in bodily harm, and hence lose my faith and lose the grace of God? That is what I meant when I said no harm may have befallen me, because what is a stab wound, or what is even a death, compared to losing the grace of God? So I even went happily into the alley, and in my heart I was even thanking God for giving me such a test. It's better to die young with all of your earthly ambitions unfulfilled than to lose God's grace - man's best gift - even for a moment. You said earlier that I was a hero, and I agree with you, but I am more of a hero than what you imagined, for I wasn't heroic in the pagan sense - which is courage before the prospect of death, which means steadfast pride - I was heroic in the religious sense - which means being steadfast in faith - and this heroism is an order of magnitude more heroic than the former. Indeed, my actions were in every sense unreasonable; [...]

[Anonymous No.2876048]

Man: "Well, he did threaten to stab me again at that point. He threw the woman to the floor and turned towards me with his knife. He said that he'd stab me, so I said: "stab me". He said, "I'm serious, I'll stab you". The woman was sobbing on the floor. I said, "no, you aren't serious, but I am serious. So if you are going to stab me, then stab me." I can see that you're perplexed at this point, it must seem quite unbelievable to you that I'd ask a man to stab me, but let me remind you once more that I'm a man of faith, and was confident that the man could do no harm to me."

Journalist: "But he could have done you a great deal of harm!"

[Anonymous No.2876051]

[...] if I were a reasonable man I would, upon hearing those screams, reason that it is unreasonable to go into the alley and put myself in danger, because what is the sense in causing two people harm when you can very easily get away with only one person? By the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, I would have left that dreadful scene and done my best to forget it, lest it cause me discomfort in remembrance. But I'm a man of faith, and I saw that the dreadful in that dreadful scene was not that somebody might be harmed, even myself, but it was that I might lose my faith in terror of something earthly, in something that is no terror at all - in this way faith conquers reason, and in the sum of the events of that night a miracle occurred, because if it were not for the presence of the Lord and for one man's faith in Him, reason would have had its way and the rapist would never had been lead to repent in the horror of his crimes, as he did. The miracle is that a man's faith was tested, and that the faith was kept."

[Anonymous No.2876056]

But if, reader, you are a reasonable man, you might have replied to this man of faith: "well, in this case I can see that faith did do some good in the world, but that in no way ensures the validity of faith. If it just so happened that this delusion you call faith caused some good in the world for once, then so be it, but faith is still an affront to reason and truth."
But this would be the Devil's temptation, and there was never a being more dextrous in reasoning and providing reasons than the Devil.

[Anonymous No.2876059]

sage
sage
sage
sage

[Anonymous No.2876063]

>>2876059
>saging a story I wrote you

learn some manners.

[Anonymous No.2876064]

please don't repost chain emails from your aunt here

[Anonymous No.2876067]

>>2876063

I feel more offended and disgusted that you wrote it for me.

[Anonymous No.2876071]

>>2876064
I sat down for the last half hour and wrote this, but of course /lit/ will continually prove itself the worst board on 4chan by being unable to discuss anything with seriousness, especially literature and literary topics. Just constant snide bickering.

[Anonymous No.2876076]

What if he had walked by a scene of slavery, genocide, or cruelty against children which are all condoned and even encouraged in the Old Testament?

Plus any moral coda which omits rape, child abuse & slavery but spends half of its time making sure you now who the boss is isn't worth the shit it's chiseled on.

[Anonymous No.2876080]

>>2876071

Your dialogue is painfully automatic. The attempt at a philosophical pop-atheist message is cringeworthy.

[Anonymous No.2876082]

>>2876080
>Your dialogue is painfully automatic.

It's supposed to be that way, because the story is an allegory of faith and not a work of realist fiction.

[Anonymous No.2876092]

>>2876082

your allegory of faith is painfully automatic

[Anonymous No.2876103]

>>2876080
It's, as to the "pop-atheist message" (you mean pop-theist message?) it's not a "message", so much as it's a challenge for the reader to consider the man's position and the consequences of his faith. Was it right for the man to suspend reasonable judgement for this act of faith? Is faith "higher than reason" in this sense? Is the man right when he says that it is better to put yourself in mortal peril than to lose your faith? Would you, if you claim to be a person with faith, be as true to your faith as this man? Does faith really make a demand of us to put ourselves in avoidable harm should the situation present itself?

[Anonymous No.2876109]

>>2876103

I took the statement at the end to mean this was a pop-atheist work of satire. If it isn't then it's like it's even more retarded than I thought it was at first. Do you read books?

[Anonymous No.2876111]

Is the OP implying that without a celestial Big Brother people will only do what is in their own self-interst?

The idea of Enlightenment and reason shouldn't mean anything goes, just that the reasons for not doing them should be based on logic and reason and not supernatural scripture decreeing wrongness from the opinion of a debatable deity. We should make up our own minds, like grown ups.
People are very capable of this, hence why all atheists don't just run around killing people, which is precisely why religion is a crutch. People are scared it'll being out the worst in people to lose it, because it's such an easy way of forcing one to behave... (A certain way I might add.)
Obviously religion and the religious promotion of ethics has had a huge hand in shaping our opinions, but I don't believe any of our base moral beliefs come straight from religion. That's putting the cart before the horse. Religion's just been the best, most efficient way of spreading some of them over time. Precisely why it's a crutch.

Morality is very evolutionary. Or rather sharing, co-operation & empathy are very evolutionary, pack hunting animal traits, which lead to egalitarianism & the Golden Rule. Of course so is letting the weak die, but with greater cognitive faculties comes greater retention of memory, feeling etc, and with it greater empathy. Or something like that

Which is infinitely more praise-worthy and moral than doing morally good deeds from either a fear of punishment or a hope of reward. It makes a mockery of humanism and its values

[Anonymous No.2876112]

>>2876109
No, it's not a satire, there's nothing satirical about what I wrote, except maybe some of the things said by the Journalist. It makes me smile that you think this is a jab at theists, because it shows just how blind people are today to the seriousness of faith.

[Anonymous No.2876118]

>>2876112

oh, so you're a troll.

6/10

[Anonymous No.2876129]

>>2876111
>Is the OP implying that without a celestial Big Brother people will only do what is in their own self-interest?

No, I did allude to this when I said that it would still have been an act of heroism if the man proceed to the alley without faith, because it would have been a "pagan heroism", which is steadfast pride. There's nothing wrong with this kind of pride (except in a religious sense), indeed, you can see from the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans that this kind of pride is very admirable, not in a religious sense, but in an aesthetic sense.

>The idea of Enlightenment and reason shouldn't mean anything goes, just that the reasons for not doing them should be based on logic and reason and not supernatural scripture decreeing wrongness from the opinion of a debatable deity. We should make up our own minds, like grown ups.

I don't know what you mean. He did make his own mind up. He could have ran away from the scene, but he felt that he had to act in the way he did because if he acted otherwise he would have lost his faith. Faith is crucial here because it is faith that puts the man beyond the fear of death, because the prospect of losing your faith is more dreadful than the prospect of losing your life. This is why the man was fearless in pursuit of the Good.

[Anonymous No.2876132]

please dont take anything lit is saying to heart OP. it would be foolish to

[Anonymous No.2876137]

>>2876129

>pagan heroism

best. troll. all week.

[Anonymous No.2876139]

>>2876132

his writing WAS crap though

[Anonymous No.2876146]

>>2876129
To be fair I didn't read it thoroughly.

>Faith is crucial here because it is faith that puts the man beyond the fear of death, because the prospect of losing your faith is more dreadful than the prospect of losing your life. This is why the man was fearless in pursuit of the Good.

You could have made the same story with a suicide-bomber who did it in the name of Allah.

In essence, the doctrine of the sacredness of the soul sounds vauely uplifting, but in fact is highly malignant. It discounts life on earth as just a temporary phase that people pass through, indeed, an infinitesimal fraction of their existence. Death becomes a mere rite of passage, like puberty or a midlife crisis.

[Anonymous No.2876151]

>>2876111
>People are very capable of this, hence why all atheists don't just run around killing people, which is precisely why religion is a crutch.

People (as in non-religious people) are not capable of what the man of faith did in my story. It's only with faith that you can overcome any obstacle in doing what is Good. The pagan man can do what is Good, but only incidentally, as it is really only as an adornment to his pride that he do Good in this case, and the fact that he has done Good is merely incidental. In another case, the pagan man might have done something abhorrent for the sake of his pride - abhorrent in a religious sense, not in an aesthetic sense. As for the people without faith and who also claim to have no pride, but just "do what is right" because they can. What is to stop them from despairing in fear and running away from what is right? Only the man of faith can have the courage to do what is right all of the time. If you want to see an example of this then read about the binding of Isaac - what man, without faith, could have deigned to kill his own son, the most beloved thing for him on the earth? Only the man of faith can overcome the fact that in order to pursue the Good you must some times do what is absurd, what is unreasonable! The man without faith will always be able to furnish for himself, in proportion to how cowardly he is, pretty reasons why he should avoid doing what is Good."I can't put myself in danger! I need to live for my family's sake"

[Anonymous No.2876169]

>>2876151
>what man, without faith, could have deigned to kill his own son, the most beloved thing for him on the earth? Only the man of faith can overcome the fact that in order to pursue the Good you must some times do what is absurd, what is unreasonable!

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. For a rational human being to do abhorrent and immoral things such as killing your own offspring, you need religion - I'm not going to contradict you on that point.
The suicide community is also entirely religious; so is the genital mutilation of females. Any morally sound person would refrain from doing such heinous acts, but with God on their side, rational and morally sound people will do despicable and disgusting things

[Anonymous No.2876172]

>>2876146
>You could have made the same story with a suicide-bomber who did it in the name of Allah.

If a man really does this with the confidence that he is doing God's work then from a religious sense, yes, we would have to accept that is doing the Good. This is what is Muslim's mean by the word "jihad". Jihad means to struggle in the name of God, the man in my story struggles in the name of God - he struggles with his fear of death and harm, but overcomes it through faith.

>In essence, the doctrine of the sacredness of the soul sounds vauely uplifting, but in fact is highly malignant.

It's not "vaguely uplifting", it's the highest achievable bliss.

>It discounts life on earth as just a temporary phase that people pass through, indeed, an infinitesimal fraction of their existence. Death becomes a mere rite of passage, like puberty or a midlife crisis.

This is necessary for the pursuit of the Good. Like the pagan heroes such as Achilles and Hector know that they must confidently prove their sublime manly virtues even in the face of death, the man of faith has to stake all of existence to prove the supremacy of the Good.

[Anonymous No.2876176]

>>2876169
>but with God on their side, rational and morally sound people will do despicable and disgusting things

Despicable and disgusting only from an ethical standpoint, from a religious standpoint they are absolutely the highest thing imaginable. A greatness more great even that the might of Achilles or the ingeniousness of Odysseus.

[Anonymous No.2876181]

>>2876176

ok now you're trying too hard and being boring

[Anonymous No.2876187]

>>2876176

Yes, I have read David Hume as well.
So we have on your side of the argument that it is morally right to adhere to God's list of do's and dont's. I cannot disprove that.
I can say, however, that I do not want to live in a place that is governed by Sharia law for example. I don't want to live in a place where homosexuals are stoned, women are subjugated, genital mutilation is performed, suicide bombing is prevalent, killings of blasphemes and apostates, and the encouragement of jihadism and killing of infidels. I don't really think that constitues the ultimate good. Anyone who does, however, is entirely in their right to do so, but in the end we're probably going to have to fight it out, because neither side is probably willing to 'turn the other cheek' (the most overrated of the virtues of Christianity

[Anonymous No.2876202]

>>2876187
"God's list of do's and dont's" - a man's conception of God, and thus, his conception of what God requires of him, will reflect the values and desires of the man himself. But it is only through the faith in God that man can ruthlessly pursue what he knows what in his heart of hearts is Good, otherwise he will ever be bogged down in doubts, wondering, "is this really what I should do?", "what is the meaning of my life?", "is this really my destiny? But there are so many paths I could take! What a pain it is to have to pick only one! And now I am despairing over how long I've been putting off and am putting off choosing the path of life". The man of faith doesn't ask such questions, he provides them for himself through faith.

[Anonymous No.2876216]

>>2876202
> he provides them for himself through faith.

or rather, God provides them for him through faith. But a man's conception of God is based on the desires of the man. But this doesn't mean that men of faith will always rape and do whatever their bodies desire - on the contrary, more often than not the man of faith will speak of neighbour love and chastity? Why is this? Because most men have it in their hearts that this is what is good, and it is by striving for these things with the sanction of faith that a man is bold enough to pursue what is Good, else he might doubt and question himself.
But this leads us back to the story of Abraham, who was given the task by the Lord to kill the boy who he loved so much, so that it was contrary to his "desire". But Abraham knew that faith props itself up as the highest thing, and even a paternal love, even if it is as strongly felt as Abraham's, must be sacrificed if it is required of faith.

[Anonymous No.2876218]

>>2876202

Yeah, I don't see much virtue or worthwhile morality in creating mankind in sin, and ordering them on pain of eternal suffering in hell to be better. It seems like quite a poorly thought out test, I have to say.

[Anonymous No.2876225]

>>2876218
Mankind wasn't created in sin, he has fallen with Original Sin. Original Sin is a decisive doctrine in religion precisely for this reason, it's not a fairy tale that says, "Man was bad, God was mad, and now we're all miserable." No, it says that our misery is our own doing, but we can always strive to be Good and redeem the miserableness of our Original Sin.

[Anonymous No.2876233]

>>2876225

Oops, sorry, I forgot we weren't born in sin, that was only after the "talking snake-episode".

>it's not a fairy tale

[Anonymous No.2878728]

damn jesus u scary

[Anonymous No.2878746]

>>2876225
>infinitely just being
>mankind is doomed for eternity because of the actions of a single man who really wanted to get it in and couldn't say no to a dumb whore.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.2878755]

>>2876080
>>2876076
>>2876067
>>2876064
>>2876059

Jesus Christ what is wrong with /lit/
go back to r/atheism with your knee-jerk reactions plz, this is a board for literature first and theology many degrees below that, if at all.
I was intending only to respond to OP's story but this disparity between bile and actual criticism was too shameful not to address first


Anyway.
OP, I enjoyed the play on miracles, focusing not on an external deus ex machina but a inner expression of God's love. There's probably something about Kierkegaard I could say, especially his writings on the story of Abraham and Isaac, but I'm not much of a theologian myself.

[Anonymous No.2878762]

>>2878755
wtf is this hypocrisy
ばかの人

[arcolithe No.2878769]

>>2876169
despicable and disgust rhymes with
respectable and just.

[Anonymous No.2878786]

I wish we could sage idiots like this irl...it would be useful for the westboro baptist church

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.2878793]

>>2878762

I knew I'd have to clarify myself but I didn't want to double post, unreasonable (fittingly) as that is. In "literature first, theology..." I meant that this is a place for opinions of literature and it's a little embarrassing for all of us that the first ten responses or so don't really say much more than "I disagree with Christianity and anything Christians write." You wouldn't like it if all I said was "thumbs up for Jesus," would you? More than half of this thread is Dawkins-tier pedantry and frankly the reason /lit/ isn't worth going on very often, though of course no board really is.

sitzpinklers

[Anonymous No.2878819]

Your portrayal of faith made a positive addition to my perspective.

The story itself wasn't successful, but I found your thoughts to be well conceived.

Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous No.2878895]

Above average writing OP, 6/10.

Keep at it, you have potential.

Obviously you picked a controversial subject that people will be rustled by, but that's neither here nor there. Maybe you could disguise it by being less overt, and you'd get less buttmad reactions.

[Anonymous No.2878913]

I knew a chick once who was very religious. But whe would never under any circumstances talk about her beliefs or at all mention faith. The only way I even knew how intensely religious she actually is was was through knowing her solitary habits of going to church regularly as a clock and keeping some religious fetishes and stuff.

She would never even mention her belief to someone who wasn't very religious, and she'd keep mum even if someone yapped atheistic stuff. She'd argue over anything, video games, anime, politics, whatever, but belief she always kept to herself.

And THAT'S how you believe in god. This mode of keeping her faith a non-secret, but private matter, almost like a bodily function, seriously taught me to understand the actually religious, as opposed to people following pack instinct.

And OP is a direct opposite of it. At least, his characters certainly are. Else, OP isn't actually religious, he's just trying his hand at newbie philosophy all Dostoyevski-like. In any case, OP you stupid babby.

[Anonymous No.2878918]

You've learnt to explain, OP. Great. Now find a better use for this skill. Just remember that it's a skill that only matters as much as a task it's applied to. Pick a trite matter, and it's for nothing.

[Anonymous No.2878954]

OP here, I'm back and surprised to find myself on the front page still.

>>2878895
This wasn't meant as a display of skill, I just wanted to tell the story in the most straightfoward way possible.

[Anonymous No.2879039]

>>2878913
You are wrong. Besides, you can hardly say that writing a small story about faith on 4chan amounts to preaching the faith. I didn't even mention a particular faith.
Honestly, having to keep your faith so private makes me wonder if she was afraid of being laughed at or questioned, and afraid of losing her faith thereby.

[Anonymous No.2879049]

imho this is not literature, this is something to be copy and pasted across facebook statuses or forwarded in a chain email.

I'd say the same if it was driving at an atheistic point.

[Anonymous No.2879098]

But OP, what if throwing reason to the curb for the sake of the greater good was a bad thing?

What if the ability to not fear death and have no qualms about jumping in front of a gun for what is morally right didn't actually make you a better human being?

What if it made you an idiot who threw his life away, and with that all of the opportunities and achievements he could have had, for a single good deed?

What if some selfishness is actually healthy?

Despite disagreeing with the message, I'll give you a C+ for prose and style. Keep at it.

[Anonymous No.2879109]

OP, let me illustrate to you just how stupid religion is:

It's impossible to differentiate you, a man of faith, from a troll.

Have fun trolling every non-Christian for the rest of your life, you piece of shit-filth.

[Anonymous No.2879122]

>>2876037
I actually think religion isn't that bad - it has been used with malicious intent (if you go and apply morals, like harming society for the benefit of few), but it also brought a lot of "good" things.
However, I don't consider rape that much of a crime as it is made out to be, so I'd rather side with the rapist. It's such a cliché, the poor woman and the mean rapist. What was she doing in a dark alley late at night anyway, probably in a skimpy outfit, practically asking for it - see?

[Anonymous No.2879144]

>>2879122
you're incredibly dumb.

really fucking dull

you truly have won the right to be called AUTISTIC

[Anonymous No.2879323]

>>2879098
>What if the ability to not fear death and have no qualms about jumping in front of a gun for what is morally right didn't actually make you a better human being?

>What if it made you an idiot who threw his life away, and with that all of the opportunities and achievements he could have had, for a single good deed?

>What if some selfishness is actually healthy?

All perfectly reasonable reasons why you shouldn't resign yourself in faith. But, if you are unable to resign yourself in faith completely, then how are you supposed to love your neighbour? How are you to live in a resigned way that labours tirelessly not because it seeks some worldly reward, but because it gives infinite pleasure to labour in obedience to the Beautiful and Good (God). In other words, if at any moment you are not absolutely ready to give your life up for the Good, how can you reap up all the little benefits of the Good? It's Either/Or. Either the whole Good or none of it. Otherwise when you do the Good you are only doing it because it suits you, and if it the circumstances weren't so favourable you'd cower away because it's "healthier", or because it "limits your opportunities", or because it "doesn't make you a better human being" to do the Good.

>what if throwing reason to the curb for the sake of the greater good was a bad thing?

How can the "greater good" be bad? If you give up your life because in that moment giving up your life was the Good thing to do, then how can that be "bad"?

[Anonymous No.2879336]

>>2879323
[cont]
>How can the "greater good" be bad? If you give up your life because in that moment giving up your life was the Good thing to do, then how can that be "bad"?

And if you aren't ready to give up your life for the Good, then what? Then you make a mockery of the Good. The Good is by definition the most perfect thing, so there is nothing you can do that is better than the Good, there is only doing something that is more "safe" or more "easy" in place of the Good.

Although, there is an argument to be made here. What if the man of faith didn't need to put his life in danger. What if he thought that the Good was to restrain the man by force? It's only through faith that the man determined that it was best to put his life on the line in this case? Why? Perhaps it was to show the man his impotence, to show that there is something in the world that can't be persuaded by fear. The rapist threatens the man with a knife, but only to scare the man. When the man proves himself fearless, then what? Then the rapist has to ask himself if he was bluffing or not. Is he really prepared to stab and possibly murder a man? Is he really ready to go that far.
Surely God wouldn't ask us to always put ourselves in mortal danger for the Good, but if you as a man of faith think that God is asking you to put yourself in such danger to prove your faith, then it is better to do it to preserve your faith than to preserve your life. God will only give such tasks to the most serious believers

[Anonymous No.2879393]

>>2879323

>Otherwise when you do the Good you are only doing it because it suits you

How is this, in any way, a bad thing? Of course I'm going to pick and choose the times I'm going to do good deeds. Of course I'm expecting some form of reciprocation for those deeds, be it personal satisfaction, material reward or otherwise. There is no such thing as a completely selfless act after all. Human beings are programmed to look after their own interests and safety, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of doing 'Good'.

Just because I'm not willing to throw my life away at the drop of a hat for what is right doesn't mean I'm a bad person.

>How can the "greater good" be bad?

The "greater good" can be bad for me when it puts my life or well being in serious danger. If I were ever to see a rapist in the act, I would weigh my options before mindlessly rushing in in service to some 'faith.' I don't think I'd sit idly by and let the act go to pass, but I can tell you that the victim would not have wanted me to throw my life away for their sake.

[Anonymous No.2879434]

>>2879393

>Just because I'm not willing to throw my life away at the drop of a hat for what is right doesn't mean I'm a bad person.

It's not "at the drop of the hat", it is when God asks it of you. Obedience to God is infinite; not insulting a person that is ugly or stupid, not shouting at a person who is an insufferable annoyance to you, not indulging slothfully in erotic daydreams to distract you from your work, and not cowering away effeminately when you are asked to die - the last one might seem greater than the preceding three, but viewed under the aspect of faith giving up your life is just as small a thing to do as to be patient with a person rather than annoyed with him, in fact, viewed under the aspect of faith, no person is ugly or stupid that can't be redeemed, no person can be annoying as long as he doesn't rob you of your faith, no erotic daydream can be so pleasurable as simply reposing in God, and what is your earthly life compared to the eternal one? That is why it is better to give up your earthly life than to lose faith even for a moment.

>The "greater good" can be bad for me when it puts my life or well being in serious danger.

What is bad for you? The only bad thing that can happen in your life is that you lose faith or that you never find it. Everything other tribulation you have to endure is insignificant. What is your "well being" - it is just hiding from God and the eternal demand he makes on you to follow the Good.

[Anonymous No.2879451]

>>2879393
> but I can tell you that the victim would not have wanted me to throw my life away for their sake.

The victim is not what is important, I think I said in the story that the most terrible thing that could have happened that night is if the man ran away and in doing so lost his faith. What is a rape? An earthly suffering, and faith plows through all earthly sufferings with infinite ease. As terrible as a rape may be, as terrible as a murder may be - nothing, nothing at all compared to loss or absence of faith.
If the man's action that night inspired the victim towards faith, then if she ever did manage faith (which is no easy feat, as it makes great demands on you as I have shown) then she would even thank God for sending the rapist that the man should come and show her what is means to have faith. She would even feel love for the rapist who's obviously without faith, because she would know that the rapists faithlessness is a suffering far greater than her rape.

[Anonymous No.2879463]

Why would one need to have faith in a 'God' when one could just have confidence in oneself and one's own ability to achieve the best results?

[Anonymous No.2879465]

>>2879393

here's a quote from Kierkegaard.

You are doing what in the quote is referred to as saying, "I cannot". You are finding many fine and good looking reasons why you can't do the Good: "but if I were to stay alive, I would be able to do more good!"

[Anonymous No.2879471]

>>2879463
because a man's best results are nothing, only for God are all things possible, so only through God can man achieve the best results.

[Anonymous No.2879481]

>>2879471
But with God, without God, it's still nothing. You might as well learn to deal with nothing since it's the consequence either way.

[Anonymous No.2879485]

The trouble is that nobody can ever know they are doing the will of God. Faith doesn't work the way you think it does. Islamist extremists don't blow themselves up on a bus because of the will of God, they do it because of their own frenzied state of mind, they do it because of pressure and approval, because of hatred and the desire for certainty. Those are human things, not divine.

[Anonymous No.2879486]

>>2879471
Jesus walked on water, Man walked on the Moon.

[Anonymous No.2879488]

All your arguments are predicated on God's existence. To an atheist they have no weight.

[Anonymous No.2879535]

To any atheist claiming to be a scientist, take the Christian thesis merely as hypothesis. You won't become ritually impure by the consideration of it, and it's a little fanatical to throw away independent, well-intentioned thought simply because of matters of belief.

[Anonymous No.2879587]

>>2879535
You see, science is based on evidence, while religion denies it in favor of the preservation of faith, so it's basically impossible for them to go hand-in-hand.
Especially considering that religion has an influence on laws regarding what can and cannot be researched. Stem cells, for one, are vital to improve medicine and our overall understanding of the human body, but Christianity is against it because they think that being a fertilized egg is enough to be considered human and thus abortion = murder.

[Anonymous No.2879626]

>>2879535
I think all of us were obligated to listen to this hypothesis during our formative years and most of us subsequently discarded this superstition.
Well-intentioning is relative, most people probably wouldn't like living eternally as a plaything for God, being forced to praise and worship him like a serf. Some find such beliefs discouraging and an insult to life itself.
Obviously objective truth and purpose cannot be proved beyond doubt and it doesn't really matter if we'd prefer to live as our own master rather than as a slave; but the one theory holds more weight and evidence than the other.
At least the atheists (most anyways) admit that we know barely anything about the world and the universe and our existence, but to fill these holes with superstition and faith is a cop-out. The theist, on the other hand, believes he already knows everything there is to know and isn't willing to compromise at all because the elevation of these religious texts are sacred and thus unquestionable.

The debate will never end, unless God reveals himself beyond all doubt i.e. not showing up in the backwards part of the middle east and instigating the proof of his existence through a barbaric human sacrafice.

[Anonymous No.2879640]

>>2879471
>man's best results are nothing
>only for God are all things possible
>only through God can man achieve the best results

Prove any of these things true. Your sentence isn't useful otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2879658]

>being religious

[Anonymous No.2879938]

>>2879658
Being religious means taking your existence seriously, and not playing idle games in it only to despair of it in your loneliness.

[Anonymous No.2879951]

>>2879626
>The debate will never end, unless God reveals himself beyond all doubt i.e. not showing up in the backwards part of the middle east and instigating the proof of his existence through a barbaric human sacrafice.

This is a cynical view of what happened, a terribly cynical view. God came into the world to suffer among us, it is the most miraculous thing that has ever happened.

[Anonymous No.2879978]

3/10 troll
read all the way until man started explaining how faith made him fearless

[Anonymous No.2879976]

>>2879626
>I think all of us were obligated to listen to this hypothesis during our formative years and most of us subsequently discarded this superstition.

This is preposterous. You think that "in your formative years" you can do away with . . .
People spend their entire lives struggling in doubt to try and have faith in God, and you think that you can do away with it like that?

Religion, Faith, is not an hypothesis, it's a continual striving. What is more likely, that a boy "in his formative years" does away with Religion because he is the greatest genius of Earth and has undone the Faith that was the life of many, many great men before him, or that he is arrogant and afraid of the continual striving that is Faith?

[Anonymous No.2879993]

>>2879951
If we're assuming that all mythology actually happened, then I'll just go ahead and point out that Horus did it first.

[Anonymous No.2879994]

>>2879978
Faith doesn't make you fearless, it teaches you a greater fear than the fear of death. A boy of three is afraid of a trivial thing, a man of thirty sees that the boy is a fool for being afraid and that he hasn't yet learned what is more fearful, so the man of Faith is the most mature of all because he has learned what is most fearful.

[Anonymous No.2879995]

op is super wack ima spank the shit out of u op

[Anonymous No.2879998]

>>2879626
I must concur my good man

[Anonymous No.2880002]

>>2879994
Is the scariest thing trannies?

[Anonymous No.2880013]

>>2880002
trannies aren't scary, they are impotent

[Anonymous No.2880014]

dammit, /lit/

[Anonymous No.2880017]

>>2879994
so old ppl are better than kids bc theyre better @ being scared of bullshit

how about kids aren't tainted by the delusions of faith so they have time and room in their fucking dumb minds to fill it with important life shit, unlike old mofos with so much "FAITH" that theyve shut themselves off from the possibility of knowing more

in this case arent kids better than faithful old fuckers bc they learn? i think we can all objectively agree that learning > not learning

[Anonymous No.2880020]

>>2880014
see:
>>2878755