/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20084693]

>If someone is not sinning but acting righteously they can't be your enemy.
Do you agree with this statement? That's how 99% of people think, but I'm not convinced. It shows a strictly political interpretation of the Gospel, which I think is really more about psychology. Personally I think an enemy can be someone who doesn't even know you exist, for example someone you are jealous of.

[Anonymous No.20084696]

>>20084693
>That's how 99% of people think, but I'm not convinced. It shows a strictly political interpretation of the Gospel, which I think is really more about psychology. Personally I think an enemy can be someone who doesn't even know you exist, for example someone you are jealous of.

[Anonymous No.20084697]

The bible makes it crystal clear that everyone is sinning

[Anonymous No.20084706]

>>20084693
that's because you're a bad person

[Anonymous No.20084709]

>>20084697
Classic response. Irrelevant. Clearly I'm talking about sinning against you. By your logic everyone is your enemy, and then the discussion of what constitutes an enemy is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.20084711]

>>20084706
What do you mean? What is?

[Anonymous No.20084726]

>>20084709
Everything you've said in this thread is retarded and shows a child's theory of mind. You've said incomprehensible nonsense to us and assumed we would just magically know the point you intended, and assumed we all are Christians that fit into this really specific model you have in your head (of which I have never seen or heard of).

[Anonymous No.20084730]

>>20084711
You're attributing an inherent maliciousness to a person because of their belief, not their actions. To assume a person is your enemy without input from the other is placing yourself above them, and preemptively justifying any aggressive behavior on your part, whether it's warranted or not. You're passively supporting the same behavior in others, and fostering strife and malcontent where there doesn't have to be any. You are actively making the world a worse place.

[Anonymous No.20084735]

It seems to me that the word "enemy" really has more than one meaning and they're very often conflated. For example an enemy can have a politic meaning where it can really mean two separate things:
1) One who is working against you.
2) One who you are working against or who you think should be worked against.
And then it can have a purely psychological meaning 3), where you can be living alone on another planet, sitting meditating, and the memory of someone haunts you, someone who isn't even alive anymore. Or someone you are jealous of.
Then it can be discussed what the actual relationship is between the political/physical and the psychological, solipsism etc. Also 1) and 2) can philosophically and psychologically be intertwined and the distinction between them is unclear at times.

[Anonymous No.20084742]

>>20084726
learn how to debate

[Anonymous No.20084751]

>>20084742
There's nothing to debate in the first place, you have not stated an arguable position.

[Anonymous No.20084754]

>>20084730
No, that's your faulty interpretation of what I said, and still a strictly political interpretation. One interpretation of who is your enemy is anyone who you are holding a grudge against, your mind defines the enemy, and there aren't necessarily any actions on your part connected to it.

[Anonymous No.20084763]

>>20084751
learn how to debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[Anonymous No.20084766]

>>20084763
posting wikipedia articles without explaining the relevance is not debating, silly little boy

[Anonymous No.20084779]

>99% of christians think X
No, they don't. Not on anything whatsoever. You couldn't find a single issue where 99% of Christians have any opinion at all, let alone the same opinion.

[Anonymous No.20084782]

>>20084779
I said people, not Christians.

[Anonymous No.20084788]

>>20084693
It depends on the antagonist framework you are using to frame the "enemy" description.
In a spiritual or moral sense I would say no.
But on a finite planet with limited resources some people who act righteously will still be your enemy on an material level.

[Anonymous No.20084790]

>>20084782
I was trying to be more favorable to you. With all people, it's even more how I described, obviously. Non-Christians wouldn't even consider this silly dilemma of "sin" anyway.

[Anonymous No.20084800]

>>20084790
Specifically I'm talking about posters on 4chan. I have posted about this topic many times and every time is the same thing, a ton of replies who all think your enemy is someone sinning against you and if they're not they're not your enemy. Anyway your post is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.20084802]

For a second I was wondering how there were all these retarded zoomers responding to this low quality wordsalad like it actually meant something but then I saw
>5 posters
and was immediately relieved to know that this is just one faggot talking to himself.

[Anonymous No.20084810]

>>20084800
4chan is extremely diverse, saying 99% of it is anything is retarded and it's even more retarded on this particular point. Lots of people here have a very broad idea of who is their "enemy", part of why they're so mentally unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.20084811]

>>20084788
Your post makes no sense. You said you don't agree but then you say "but" and lay out a position which shows you did agree. Flesh out your position beyond "no" so it's clearer what you mean.

[Anonymous No.20084815]

>>20084811
>Your post makes no sense
that's because you have an IQ of 65

[Anonymous No.20084817]

>>20084810
Still not an argument for anything whatsoever. Forget how many percent believe said thing, a certain percentage do.

[Anonymous No.20084818]

>>20084810
but at the core, people's actions can be driven by the same motivator, independent of the shell that most fixate on

[Anonymous No.20084820]

>>20084815
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.20084823]

>>20084693
>>20084709
Of course not. Virtue is an object of scorn, ridicule, and hatred by the wicked. Being righteous is precisely what makes enemies. Being chaste leads to insults like "virgin" or "incel". Being humble, means you are "weak". Not engaging in scandalous conversations or venues, leads one to be called a prude. Virtue produces the strongest envy, which is it produces the greatest malediction by men of this world. The wicked shall gnash his teeth and be angry as the psalmist says. Standing up and doing the right thing does nothing for you in this world, and people resent it so much that they would kill you if they could, which why many saints were beaten, flayed alive, fed to wild animals, or had their heads chopped off. Wanting to appease people leads to compromise which is why Aristotle, Seneca, and untold number of theologians that followed have declared human respect and the want of it to be a vice.

[Anonymous No.20084824]

>>20084818
so you agree that none of this matters and your post is a waste of time

[Anonymous No.20084830]

>>20084815
There was just one question in the OP, so your "no" appears to be a response to that. If so it makes no sense to say what you said after the "no", as I said.

[Anonymous No.20084834]

>>20084818
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.20084838]

>>20084823
Exactly, people really don't understand how deep this dilemma goes. God imposes his ideas of "right and wrong" on people independently of human laws. People conventionally shouldn't have to be afraid of doing things that aren't illegal but God says he will kill me for eating cheetos. God considers it "sinful" for me to eat cheetos, snickers, popcorn chicken, chalupas, hamburger helper because "it's too good for me" and "I'm a peasant".

By their view, it would literally be better to live in a society where the law is the only thing keeping people's impulse in check than one where God is because God terrorizes me for the "pettiest" things imaginable. God terrorizes me for playing the video game battle brothers and other video games, he terrorizes me over my literal private thoughts. Imagine wanting to live in a world where you're constantly being menaced by a nazi gestapo God who reads all your thoughts in real time so he can mock and terrorize you for them. They say it would be better to live in a world where you only have to worry about murdering, raping, torturing people because there might be legal consequences than one where you have to worry about your literal private thoughts, fantasies, what food you eat, what video games you play because God might decide that it's "wrong" and punish you for it.

[Anonymous No.20084869]

>>20084823
Also a classic response and it's not what I'm talking about. You are making the classic position "if I'm good people will hate me". Again, not what this is about. The Bible says love your enemies. Let's say you are in prison for life. People will then say those who put you in prison are not your enemies because they didn't do anything wrong, you did, so you are their enemy. But the prisoner might have a hard time forgiving the people who put him in prison, regardless of who is acting righteously and who is sinning. That's why I don't think the enemy that's talked about in the Gospel is the political interpretation, nor that it matters whether they sinned or not.

[Anonymous No.20084888]

>>20084824
that was my first post
>>20084834
i mean, people get fixated on the superficialness of an action, an not what is actually driving an individual to performing that action. all humans have the same necessities and motivators that drive us, the implementation of achieving is just varied and that tends to be people's focus. if you wanted, you could find out what a 100 percent of what drives 4chan users.

[Anonymous No.20084893]

>>20084754
keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.20084896]

>>20084838
I read all that and I really don't see an argument.

[Anonymous No.20084898]

>>20084896
I'm agreeing with you.

[Anonymous No.20084899]

>>20084893
great argument, I really thought /lit/ was better than the replies ITT

[Anonymous No.20084911]

>>20084899
No one /lit/ reads, it's clear because they haven't developed the sophistication that comes with it.

Ever since I got back into reading a few years ago I have faced some pretty grim revelations about life. People believe they can justify literally any crime against someone by calling them a peasant and they will use violence or threats of violence to prevent "a peasant" from enjoying things that they have access to and can afford like cheetos, snickers, hamburger helper, chalupas, popcorn chicken, all-dressed chips, barbecue hoops, etc, because "it's too good for them " or "they don't deserve it".

Same thing applies to anything at all that can be considered remotely good in life like having a gf, going to college, having a white collar job, speaking well, owning a website, hosting video game tournaments, exercising and trying to look good, etc.

Basically the aggression threshold is set extremely low because it doesn't take much at all to threaten someone's sense of superiority when they don't have much of a reason to feel superior. They literally think it's acceptable to say that someone is irish when they aren't then will get angry when that person says they aren't irish because they view it as a challenge to their ego if they aren't allowed to lie about other people and identify them as something that they view as inferior to them. They also believe they should be allowed to decide who a person marries and believe that violence or harm is justified if a person refuses to marry.

Imagine living in a world where things like highschool diplomas, walmart brand great value food, thermal hoodies, women who aren't overweight, identifying as english/scottish, movie theatres, "sit down" restaurants, condos/apartments, etc are gatekept and viewed as "for rich people" or "for your betters"

Does that sound like a world you want to live in? "Jimmy's going to go the city and go to college when he's older but you're a fucking peasant so I better not ever catch you eating spicy food or drinking rum instead of beer, if you do well in school I'll starve you" these are literally the kinds of things rural people say to their children.

It's a pretty heavy burden once you figure all this out. Maybe it's better for them to not read and remain ignorant.

[Anonymous No.20085063]

>>20084911
this is why you've been saying every post isn't an argument, to build up to this, to get the attention of people, to post this, this hot garbage, kys tranny

[Anonymous No.20085088]

OP take your meds

[Anonymous No.20085118]

>>20084693
If someone is not sinning but acting righteously then they are incapable of being my enemy because I, too, am acting righteously, so we will not be in conflict.

[Anonymous No.20085138]

>>20085118
Bullshit, read the thread. You're making a strictly political interpretation of the word enemy.
>Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but not the plank in your own eye?
What does that mean? It means that unless you are a saint, totally sinless, with a 100% pure mind, you do have delusions about other people, which means that in some cases you will perceive people to be evil when in fact they are not.

[Anonymous No.20085190]

>>20085138
Oh look, a retard that thinks she is smart. Perception wasn't proposed as part of the equation. No one said that you must personally be aware of whom is and is not your enemy. But if both they and myself are acting righteously then we are not enemies because we are not coming into conflict, even if we do not sit around thinking "that person is not my enemy".

[Anonymous No.20085220]

>>20085190
Bye retards, I'm done with this board.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !Ry9RIEstm6 No.20085793]

>>20084693


YOU HAVE A STRANGE, ERRONEOUS CONCEPT OF ENMITY.

YOU ARE THE WRONG ONE HERE.

[Anonymous No.20085811]

>>20085793
either provide an argument or fuck off >>20084742

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !Ry9RIEstm6 No.20085823]

>>20085811


STUPID ZOOMER.

[Anonymous No.20086086]

>>20084911
This hit hard

[Anonymous No.20086108]

>>20084911
I wish this wasn't so true

[Anonymous No.20086116]

>>20084911

[Anonymous No.20086122]

>>20084911
I'd thought this for a long time but this is the first time I'd heard someone else say it.

[Anonymous No.20086130]

>>20084911
God damn, this has made me rethink a lot of things.

[Anonymous No.20086147]

>>20084911
checked

[Anonymous No.20086249]

>>20084911
wow...

[Anonymous No.20086262]

>>20084911
>these are literally the kinds of things rural people say to their children
I am literally a poor rural person and have never hear any of this kind of bs ever. I hear people saying the GV brand stuff is breddy gud for less. I always heard people say either go to college or trade school.

[Anonymous No.20086300]

>>20086262
You need to get out of your bubble, this is standard stuff in the real world.

[Anonymous No.20086345]

>>20084911

[Anonymous No.20086351]

Are religion threads allowed here now?

[Anonymous No.20086353]

>>20086351
feel free to employ the report button

[Anonymous No.20086359]

>>20086300
What bubble am I in? I have known pretty well the most backwoods poor to the fairly wealthy. I have cousins that live in homemade houses, and a cousin with her own elevator. I have shot bottles and cans on dirt roads, been to pasture parties, and house sat for months for millionaires. What is my bubble?

[Anonymous No.20087136]

>>20084911

[Anonymous No.20087161]

Bunch of fucking retards ITT, I really didn't expect this.

[Anonymous No.20088513]

>>20084911

[Anonymous No.20088548]

>>20084911
Why are people pretending that this post is deep? it's actually pretty fucking retarded.
> People believe they can justify literally any crime against someone by calling them a peasant and they will use violence or threats of violence to prevent "a peasant" from enjoying things that they have access to and can afford like cheetos, snickers, hamburger helper, chalupas, popcorn chicken, all-dressed chips, barbecue hoops, etc, because "it's too good for them " or "they don't deserve it".
obviously no, you don't get to bully or abuse fatties because they are fat but "just let people enjoy things" is enabling degeneracy; why do you think people are naturally so against these things?
> Basically the aggression threshold is set extremely low because it doesn't take much at all to threaten someone's sense of superiority when they don't have much of a reason to feel superior.
Yeah, this is pretty true.
> They literally think it's acceptable to say that someone is irish when they aren't then will get angry when that person says they aren't irish because they view it as a challenge to their ego if they aren't allowed to lie about other people and identify them as something that they view as inferior to them.
Sounds like you're talking about something that happened to you. Take your meds, schizo.
> Imagine living in a world where things like highschool diplomas, walmart brand great value food, thermal hoodies, women who aren't overweight, identifying as english/scottish, movie theatres, "sit down" restaurants, condos/apartments, etc are gatekept and viewed as "for rich people" or "for your betters"
This is almost incomprehensible to me honestly but there's a reason why hierarchy and status exists: Some people are just better than others. Yes, this can be taken to extremes and can become ridiculous but that's just how it is.
Seriously, this post is pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.20088568]

>>20084911
This has blackpilled me pretty hard