/lit/ - Literature

I stay virile by consuming high testosterone men's semen

>>22900557

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

>>22900557
Oh I can totally relate to worn out girly little pussies like you. I listen to the TeaParty Playlist at Planet Fitness

>>22694305
Third post best post

>>22049269
No it won’t lol people have been saying this since the 60s

t. dale, 69 years old

>>19057680
I have seen this with my own eyes in the Ibis thread.

>>18759996
Man can cast judgements, but they mean nothing because God is an entirely different, uncreated entity. But He did not write a law upon our hearts, only to violate every tenet of that law.

If God is compared in the Bible to many things- a she-bear, a father, etcetera, why can I not do the same? Why can I not hold your ideas
of His conduct up to these models?

>>18759976
You can justify no shortage of things that would be considered human evils if it is God that does them. There are actions that cannot be denied (flood, creation of vulnerable creatures, etcetera), but there are also actions I believe are falsely imputed to God, such as eternal, infinite, and disproportionate torment of his weak and neglected sons (even if self-torment, it might as well be directly caused by God).

The people that say these things of God do not sound human to me. They have no compassion, they are like extraterrestrials. I do not see how the gnostics considered the "God of the OT" as a tyrant when the message imputed to the NT, one of hopelessness and futility, is the comparatively more fearsome one.

I cannot live with hope and peace in my heart when I know that my brothers will not see it with me. Telling me "I will not see the sufferings of those in Hell" neither allays this canker, nor can it be proven. Hell, nothing can be proven, everything can be explained as something else.

I'm looking for the root of the truth.

>>18759394
Their reason is corrupted by sin, but ours is, too. And that does not answer the question- what separates Christianity from the rest? There is nothing new under the sun; it has been done before, and mere dogma, which is all I see you repeating, will not convince them. Each religion grapples the other, capturing the other in terms such as "maya" or "sin," but what makes ours true, above all? What do we appeal to, what Cartesian point (like the cogito) do we begin at?

Syllogisms will do little, but humility, patience, and forwardness will greatly help. A living example will convince them, and there are terribly few of these in our times, and the examples of the past are terribly easy to falsify. We, in our rotting edifice, give them no reason to desire Christianity; the times are to blame, but our church, too, shares blame in the great apostasy.

>Suffering needs no justification and I hold no moral qualms with it, it is from the hand of god, all disaster and suffering.
Then surely you will hold no moral qualms with God condemning all to Hell, for none are righteous in His eyes, and no man can be perfect on His own. God decides who enters His wedding, and who's to say He wants anyone inside? Don't even ponder this as a reality, if you want; think of it hypothetically. It can be done for any reason, for surely His reasons are unknown and ineffable to us.

>No such thing, the phenomenal is just the aesthetic perception of the sensual laced with the formal through eidetic intuition, Truth is the unity...
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by truth; I thought you were reducing experience of the beauty to appreciation of ideals, as if there was no conscious experience of beauty (while there is no conscious experience of truth, i.e., something being valid or sound).

Man cannot judge God's intellect, but it is also man, that is, you- Frater Asemien- who is imperfectly speaking for God, and who I am imperfectly arguing against. I cannot attack what is not understandable, nor can you "cleave to it." Remember the problem of interpretation before claiming you speak with the Bible's voice, and keep in mind that our discussion strays significantly from the scope of the Bible, so you cannot even claim to have His voice.

Is Jesus the most beautiful of all things? Aesthetically, not quite. What sort of beauty should I be looking for? I see you expound upon the significance of His sacrifice in your poems, but still, I cannot find beauty in something so distant to me. And if Jesus is alien, how much more alien is God, who makes a point of being obscured.

First, lay out what you think the varieties of beauties are, and how one appreciates them. Then I can answer the question in full. Otherwise we're speaking two different languages, each with his own internal philosophy and understanding.

>>18759390
>It’s easily refuted by arguing that it assumes ontological commitments which the person has no positive proof for neither from faith as most religions do not have this doctrine nor from empirical data.
There is evidence for this, as I have heard it propounded, but I'll drop the matter because I don't remember where (so I cannot show you the "positive proof"). Plus, this would not be a refutation, but rather cause for agnosticism.

>Once more, Love is founded upon relation to the self, if it was not, it wouldn’t be.
I do not see how this is relevant; perhaps I didn't understand the first time you said it, explain in further depth.

>many know they commit evil and continue, many hide and despise, how many people speak of hate for a God they do not believe in? How many are flooded with melancholy and depression and hunger? This is all perception of their own evil.

How can you speak about such intimate knowledge of the "many?" Perhaps you simply project, or subject the majority to your wishful thinking (although even if I were correct, you would still consider such a reality, given Hell, as good). They hate this God because they feel as if you have made a monster of Him; if you gave them hope with your God, they would either be indifferent or embrace you. But remember that we are blessed if we are despised, for that is how the prophets were treated. Only do not pretend as if the despisers are strawmen fit for your Procrustean bed, all sniveling, self-aware atheists suffering from pangs of consciousness like some Dostoevskian character on the cusp of turning to Christ. Even the blessed and joyful will enter Hell, not just these modernist scarecrows of yours. Even the peaceful, even the miracle-workers and visionaries. There will be no purgatory or perfection, for many will seek to enter, but few will manage.

>From the beginning they have been god deniers and their fathers have been and the fathers of their minds also
Then it is an abomination to reproduce, for most will not see heaven, and most will suffer from the sins of their parents. Speaking of "ontological commitments," can you prove that sin is genetic? Is there epigenetic evidence for this, or is it purely environmental, defeating your argument?

>the first evils were committed in the presence of God and his glory, not with closed eyes
God created us so that we would be vulnerable to Satan, and He created Satan so that He would be vulnerable to his own pride, not only knowing that this could happen, but knowing that it would happen. If I cannot judge these actions, and seek a better explanation to this, through the "law writ upon my own heart," how am I to respond to the number of execrable charges brought against my God.

Will someone tell me "Your God is a monster," and will I be forced to say "True, but you cannot judge His monstrosity as bad, for He is greater than you." God does His will, but what is there to stop me from accepting a monstrous interpretation?

>>18758757
No mate, the justification of suffering and Satan's ultimate victory over God- namely, that he is able to drag the majority of his men and a third of his angels to Hell, irreparably.

Conquering the world? You conquer nothing, you only conquer "the world" in yourself, like the transhumanists: by trying to purge imperfection, you also purge humanity, or at least this is how I see you. Perhaps I missed the mark.

Conquering the self? Yes, we must practice discipline.

Others consider you insane? Very well, you consider THEM insane, and so you do not make any sacrifice here, save for their companionship (which you did not desire either way, so there was no sacrifice). You want to view yourself as a "fool for Christ," but there was at least a lightness and naturality about them.

Why even pit the "aesthetic" and the "eternal truth" against each other? It is like pitting one person of the trinity over another, in my estimation.

And:

>>18758757
How can beauty be "nothing but" (the enormity of your starting words are enough to find fault with) harmonization of data points? Beauty is a reflection of truth, because truth is the substrate that allows for us to even speak of these things, but there is a phenomenal dimension to beauty where truth cannot walk.

I'll don the hated trip to make this easier

>>18758774
It may be lust, but there may be a deeper attraction (the two being "made for each other," an idea which cannot be refuted by pointing, possibly spuriously, to this idea causing our modern relational ills). If you truly loved a person, you would do many more things than simply what you say; don't be like a Lovecraft in love-making, there is more to love than this immaterial dimension.

It is fallacious to say "If you truly loved a person, then X and ONLY X." You clearly do not know the idiosyncrasies of love. You are being reductionist here;

>>18758842
I am an Orthodox in hiatus. I find it hard to swallow all of these pills I'm being given, and not just for want of hardiness or dominion of the passions over me.

>stained by the words spoken from eternity
One must first interpret these words, and the interpretations are multitudinous.

People know what is wrong and they continue in it? But do they really know? And do they really not struggle with what is wrong? They will go to Hell, the lot of them, either way, so it is really a fruitless thought. Once again, I insist that this world is not a reality. But perhaps the gauntness of your optimism is what allows you to also carry your grave belief in their culpability. I do not see a world of God-deniers, I see a world of weak and sleeping people.

>as for direct signs, what do you want more than...
To these people, about whom you talk as if they were the rich man, the Bible is just another book, cobbled post hoc and riddled with errors, scribal interpolations, arbitrary additions of books and removals of Apocrypha, and so on. To them, what are the prophets? Every religion has had such. There have been far more ancient religions, with their own Christ figures and Bibles. We can speak about these things as if they constitute the axis mundi, being Christians, but for these people, Christianity may as well be another drop in the dark lake of religions. And who can blame them? We are only one third of the world's population, and the divisions only continue from there. From this great mass, only a single-file line enters Heaven. Pharisaical.

We have nothing in our Christianity that they might desire it. A completely alien beauty, a gnostic majesty. Drained of humanity and causing them despair. Of course they barely apply its tenets; they can hardly deal with the daily hardships of life. And if all would go to Hell, we would stupidly accept this, too; though Abraham questioned God about righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah, we don't dare question God today, because we are not sons of Abraham.

u subconsciously know u ugly so only way to keep a woman is make her ugly

>>16001603
He looks both very autistic and very interesting

>>16007262
>animals suffer, just like us. They feel a vast spectrum of emotions including love, joy, grief, fear and pain.
Therefore, we should lobotomize them so that they do not feel pain, genetically modify them so that they produce the most meat possible, and dispose of them when they can no longer produce. Eventually, science will probably grow meat in vats so we won't be facing this issue any longer; then, the powers that be will have full dominion over what we ingest. Furthermore, I could merely argue that their suffering doesn't matter because they have no moral status. A painless, quick death is better because it's less messy and the meat will taste better because the animal wasn't scared. People that torture animals should be stopped because that's a sign that they lack empathy; they could kill a human in the future. Come up with another example for me to reconcile, please do, frog-poster.

>>16007266
Yes, so veganism's ethical position is absurd, not his implication. It's just that you are unwilling to see that.

>>16007356
Because when the health and ecological arguments fail, they always resort to the ethical. "My body is wasting away, and I feel like shit? That doesn't matter, you have to do it for the animals, and maybe you're doing Veganism wrong (No True Scotsman's fallacy- only Veganism that promotes health is real Veganism)."

>>16007434
That's right, goy, swallow your Hamburger pills and French Fry pills and wash it down with a nice Coca Cola pill. Don't ask us what we put in it, but it's 100% ethical and don't even think about raising your own animals so you at least know something about what went into what you're putting into your body.

>>16007525
If you are religious, then yes, they do not have souls. They are like machines, but how you treat them generally reflects on how you treat fellow humans, who actually have a moral status. This doesn't mean that killing animals makes you an evil or sadistic person (unless you revel in their pain or try to prolong it); it just makes you calloused, at most. Nothing to write home about

pic related is you holding your brain

>>16006648
I would, at first, argue that there is not one trait, but rather a combination of traits that give a being a moral status. If even one of those traits is absent, the being does not have a moral status. After all, if it were just one trait, like "being alive" or "feeling pain," we'd have to live absurdly, unless there are levels of moral status (otherwise you'd have to pick two dogs over your own child, or even just one dog).

>>16006719
They lack moral autonomy but they don't lack the capacity for moral autonomy. Had they not been born mentally disabled, they would have had moral autonomy or whatever that anon's talking about. Children will grow and mature into that capacity for moral thinking/autonomy.

>>16006820
>wrong, if you go down our evolutionary tree you see that only recently...
Yes, around that point we started domesticating and eating the damn things. Let me ask you, how recent is "recent?" 100 years ago? 1000? More?

>studies have been done to show that animals have self consciousness
Not in the same way humans do. Animals don't have existential crises. They don't wake up, thinking, "I am Ook. Today I will go find a bushel of bananas, and try to steal Eek's wife." No such thing

>>16006850
There are alternatives to factory farming, although that would decrease the amount of meat put out, which is fine because a great chunk of it is wasted anyway. If there were less waste and opulence, we'd make greater use of our food, like those Indian lads we killed a while ago

>>16006855
>But humans do recognize their moral autonomy
You do
>and you use this autonomy to... justify inflicting pain on others to survive like an animal? lol
Yes, because humans are animals, and there is no pressing reason to be vegan over a meat eater. Why does pain matter so much? Is it alright to painlessly murder someone if no one will grieve for them, not even you? The moral status matters, and animals have none, or have an inferior status.

>>16006859
Chimps are not frugivores, they eat meat as well. Humans are omnivores, so obviously we wouldn't have our mouths shaped like predatorial animals that live outside and hunt all their lives. Get real

>>16006930
The same types that tell us we should be more like the matriarchal bonobos that resolve all problems with sex (including the homosexual kind)?

>>16007031
No, because they are human, and being human is not an arbitrary trait, because only humans have the CAPACITY for moral reasoning, higher intelligence, and all that jazz.

>>16007090
noo not my moo cows and oink pigs. The problem is, you types only ever refer to factory farming, but you also have a problem with the less in-your-face killing of animals that farmers do when they raise grass-fed beef and the like. No chicks in grinders and chickens knee-deep in their own shit, no sensationalism there, eh?

>>16007226
>How the fuck do you reach this conclusion?
We must treat chickens as if they have the same moral status as humans, no?

>>16003029
How else do you think I masturbate when no one's created the content I want to jack off to?

>>15997988
No, but when you go to sleep you sleep contentedly, knowing or at least hoping you will awaken the next day. Going to death is a wholly different thing, especially if you're an atheist, because it's the cessation of everything that makes you. Your personality, your mind, your "consciousness." It cannot be comfy, because you do not exist. It's just the howling void, no comfort to be found there. Are you an anti-natalist?

>>15997261
>There are several internet famous manchildren with alcoholic parents who do that with their gaming buddies.
Yes, and I'm sure they also went hitchhiking with no money in their pockets, all the way to Alaska with their gaming buddies. C'mon anon, let's be real here

>Like manchildren have never given themselves rice poisoning through result of little knowledge even when still living with others in urban areas.
Who the fuck eats uncooked rice, anyway? Besides, the dangers of eating random berries and shrooms outdoors are greater in number than whatever your fridge can do to you. This tramp guy IIRC ran out of food and couldn't bag any animals, so he ate those berries out of desperation; big mistake on his part. Compare that to a manchild having food to begin with, but not eating it properly, like a real dumbass. Don't compare a life versus death situation to some shut-in's buffoonery.

>>15997635
Imaginative, but riddled with disanalogies.

>>15997652
He wrote that on a piece of paper. Did it represent the thoughts going through his head at the time of death? I'm not sure we can know.

>>15997796
My man

>>15991780
I imagine children don't know what emissions and genitals are, or that parents would read that particular verse with their children.

>>15996098
What a sterile stick-figure. Most likely a victim of veganism, too.

>>15996098
If you are an atheist, why can't you be like the other atheists, that say "I'm not afraid of not existing, of dying, because I won't experience nonexistence so it surely can't be bad for me." If you are a theist, why think this way? Are you afraid your loved ones will suffer?

>>15996416
A real manchild would never leave mommy and daddy's side. He'd either live with them and never think of living, or spend the rest of his days as a bugman, never able to do crazy things like leaving behind his money and going on a little camping trip.

>I'd assume those are most likely to die if out into such an environment
No, he ate the wrong berries IIRC. That was just a result of little knowledge.

>>15996424
>>15996610
>the tramp is a cuck because he died after eating shrooms
>the tramp is a cuck because he didn't fight in battle
We're living in a world of cucks, according to your definitions. You might even be one of them. Him going out and doing what he did is admirable, even if he failed.

>>15996701
He was out getting berries. If I was worried about impending death, I'd probably try to leave messages out in case anybody passes by my camping site. You're laughing at someone who had the guts to get in that situation, unlike you, I am willing to bet.

>>15996885
Yeah, you have to drink deeply from the cup of suffering. Try not to flatter yourself, but retain hope. Try to abstain from indulgence, but reward yourself with it when you feel you deserve it.

>>15995798
I came, I saw, I left. Some novel

>>15991816
No, actually it has been proven by scientists with through their current theories that all religious experiences are the result of high-altitude balloons running on swamp gas inducing schizophrenia and hallucinations in great swathes of the population. Also, it's all a hoax, and all the religions plagiarized each other, therefore we're monkeys on a rock in space yet we still need to love one other to not appear amoral to the aforementioned deluded believers we hate