/lit/ - Literature

>>20391421
I say a prayer every time my girlfriend aborts our baby, so that it will go to heaven. I LOVE sending babies to heaven. Imagine not knowing such a joy. You would rather bring a human into this world to suffer, and possibly go to hell forever. But I know my Bible. Ecclesiastes says it’s better to never be born, and 1 Peter 4:8 says love covers all sins, so that even if murder is a sin, it’s done for a good reason, and there is no victim. It is rather selfless, as it incurs sin upon yourself, but not the baby. So what happens to the baby? Does God send them all to hell? If not, then where? Reincarnation? Then hopefully they will be raised by a mother who wants them and is prepared to take care of them. Why are you so opposed to this, exactly?

>>18665077
>If you're trying to argue to that something HAS to exist, rather than just demonstrating how things occur, then you're already on the wrong path.

anon 1 (robot voice): Something like a self or Atman doesn't have to exist for me to be speaking right now, there is just thoughts but not a thinker or knower of them

anon 2: okay so if I'm talking not with a knower of thoughts themselves but just a series of thoughts, then answer me this: which thought am I talking to right now, which thought is hearing my voice?

anon 1: not me, that was another thought from moments ago and not I, in fact, I'm not even the same thought since I began this sentence, but every moment a new thought has emerged, it is only because of each thought being imbued with or having access to knowledge or memory of prior thoughts that I'm to formulate long sentences like this by knowing what context I'm speaking in when each thought-instance formulates the next thought and what my mouth says next. I only speak of myself as being the same being who said mouth some dozen words ago by way of social convention.

anon 2: Wow, that sounds ridiculous, how can you even think about what to say next and act upon it if the thought that carries it out is different than the one that conceived of potentially doing it? How can you even think about what to say and do next if at every moment your mind is continuously occupied with detecting the small changes at every moment through memory, which a mental process? How do you know both at the same time, both the thought and the memory? Trying to understand a new idea for example is experienced as a distinct type of mental ideation that is different from engaging in the remembrance of an instance from this morning, how can you say that these occur at the same time constantly and let us detect change that way when we experience memory-instances and distinct thoughts as different and as occurring in different moments? If you don't know both at the same time, that would mean during a single thought all change in the world/phenomena would be completely undetectable and unknowable which is contradicted by how we experience things.

anon 1: *error* *programmed script fails* *initiate reboot mode* *ignores argument and makes strawman* *insert read what the buddha taught and heart sutra spam.txt*