Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Why was that a bad thing? I interpreted the tempting of Eve to be the promise of knowledge and enlightenment. God's reaction seemed pretty drastic, i.e. original sin.

He did promise knowledge, but some knowledge is bad. Yeah, some of the knowledge Satan gave us benefitted us in some niche ways, but it also introduced us to war, murder, rape, theft, etc, and doomed all humanity, not even just all humanity, but all life, and not even just all life, but the cosmos themselves, to destruction. Now, Christ's coming means that the world and its inhabitants will be redeemed, but think about the enormity of such a crime. Yeah, Satan didn't kill anyone, but he was the one who let us know killing each other, or indeed harming each other in any way was something we even could do.

Theoretically, it was still up to us to make those choices. There may have been things Satan introduced to us that we never acted upon.

Like they say, who shot the Kennedys? It was you and me. The idea of Satan removes agency and responsibility from mankind's capacity for violence and cruelty.

[Stylan]

He did promise knowledge, but some knowledge is bad. Yeah, some of the knowledge Satan gave us benefitted us in some niche ways, but it also introduced us to war, murder, rape, theft, etc, and doomed all humanity, not even just all humanity, but all life, and not even just all life, but the cosmos themselves, to destruction. Now, Christ's coming means that the world and its inhabitants will be redeemed, but think about the enormity of such a crime. Yeah, Satan didn't kill anyone, but he was the one who let us know killing each other, or indeed harming each other in any way was something we even could do.

Theoretically, it was still up to us to make those choices. There may have been things Satan introduced to us that we never acted upon.

Like they say, who shot the Kennedys? It was you and me. The idea of Satan removes agency and responsibility from mankind's capacity for violence and cruelty.

Not really true, Satan isn't a figurative embodiment of evil, and he certainly isn't an excuse for evil. Satan may be used as a symbolic representation of anti-Christianity, but he isn't meant to be an excuse for evil at all, rather, the Bible uses Satan as a figure of things you should not do.

[Punished UMN]

He did promise knowledge, but some knowledge is bad. Yeah, some of the knowledge Satan gave us benefitted us in some niche ways, but it also introduced us to war, murder, rape, theft, etc, and doomed all humanity, not even just all humanity, but all life, and not even just all life, but the cosmos themselves, to destruction. Now, Christ's coming means that the world and its inhabitants will be redeemed, but think about the enormity of such a crime. Yeah, Satan didn't kill anyone, but he was the one who let us know killing each other, or indeed harming each other in any way was something we even could do.

Theoretically, it was still up to us to make those choices. There may have been things Satan introduced to us that we never acted upon.

Like they say, who shot the Kennedys? It was you and me. The idea of Satan removes agency and responsibility from mankind's capacity for violence and cruelty.

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Theoretically, it was still up to us to make those choices. There may have been things Satan introduced to us that we never acted upon.

Like they say, who shot the Kennedys? It was you and me. The idea of Satan removes agency and responsibility from mankind's capacity for violence and cruelty.

Not really true, Satan isn't a figurative embodiment of evil, and he certainly isn't an excuse for evil. Satan may be used as a symbolic representation of anti-Christianity, but he isn't meant to be an excuse for evil at all, rather, the Bible uses Satan as a figure of things you should not do.

There is still a moral judgement on what one "should" or "should not" do, though.

I agree he should not be an excuse for evil, but sometimes he is.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Theoretically, it was still up to us to make those choices. There may have been things Satan introduced to us that we never acted upon.

Like they say, who shot the Kennedys? It was you and me. The idea of Satan removes agency and responsibility from mankind's capacity for violence and cruelty.

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

[Punished UMN]

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

I don't actually think any of those are good things. However I would rather the (supposed) freedom to make my own choices, and to endure any consequences from those choices, than to remain in a form of stagnation.

As for the suffering thing, I have to follow Nietzsche's line of thinking on this one.

To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering

I wish to live in a world devoid of it, but I don't.

[Punished UMN]

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

I don't actually think any of those are good things. However I would rather the (supposed) freedom to make my own choices, and to endure any consequences from those choices, than to remain in a form of stagnation.

As for the suffering thing, I have to follow Nietzsche's line of thinking on this one.

To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering

I wish to live in a world devoid of it, but I don't.

Yeah, I'm saying that's stupid, like from an objective standpoint.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Why is it stupid?

[Punished UMN]

Why is it stupid?

From an ontological standpoint, it's saying "this is too good, I want something worse." It would be like, if you had the option of no-strings attached being able to own any car in the world, with replacements for any damage, however minor, etc. etc., and you said "yeah, I'll take the 1999 Toyota Camry."

[Suriyanakhon]

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

And they almost always seem to be people from First World countries who haven't experienced those things yet.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Why is it stupid?

From an ontological standpoint, it's saying "this is too good, I want something worse." It would be like, if you had the option of no-strings attached being able to own any car in the world, with replacements for any damage, however minor, etc. etc., and you said "yeah, I'll take the 1999 Toyota Camry."

I dunno, maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I find the idea of Heaven or a perfect state of being to be really dull. That does not negate any good or praise any bad. All I seek is the ability to choose and to be whoever I want to be, and to be who I already am, flaws and all.

Maybe the dissonance here is our individual life experiences, as I was not raised religious and through a combination of autism and being subject to upholding the British stiff upper lip, I have come up against challenges in my life, however minor they may seem in the grand scheme of things. I am so used to struggle, even if that sounds melodramatic, that any utopia is unappealing to me.

I am aware that awful and terrible things exist in this world. That is more down to humanity and our shitty choices than us straying away from some prior, perfect state of being. We were never perfect and we never will be, but that doesn't mean we can never be good.

Some use religion to be good. Others don't, myself included.

[Punished UMN]

From an ontological standpoint, it's saying "this is too good, I want something worse." It would be like, if you had the option of no-strings attached being able to own any car in the world, with replacements for any damage, however minor, etc. etc., and you said "yeah, I'll take the 1999 Toyota Camry."

I dunno, maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I find the idea of Heaven or a perfect state of being to be really dull. That does not negate any good or praise any bad. All I seek is the ability to choose and to be whoever I want to be, and to be who I already am, flaws and all.

Maybe the dissonance here is our individual life experiences, as I was not raised religious and through a combination of autism and being subject to upholding the British stiff upper lip, I have come up against challenges in my life, however minor they may seem in the grand scheme of things. I am so used to struggle, even if that sounds melodramatic, that any utopia is unappealing to me.

I am aware that awful and terrible things exist in this world. That is more down to humanity and our shitty choices than us straying away from some prior, perfect state of being. We were never perfect and we never will be, but that doesn't mean we can never be good.

Some use religion to be good. Others don't, myself included.

No, I'm saying your dissonance is objectively dumb, no offense. To put it into something more concrete that you will probably sympathize with, it's like being a conservative in the United States in a way of "Yeah, I acknowledge the way things are right now is objectively worse in every way to the way you want to do things, but I'm afraid of change."

[The Alma Mater]

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

A parent who wants his kids to grow.
It's a rather old theme in storytelling. Chaos vs Order. Chaos brings progress, order brings stagnation. A sign of adulthood is tossing them both aside and choosing ones own path.

[Punished UMN]

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

A parent who wants his kids to grow.
It's a rather old theme in storytelling. Chaos vs Order. Chaos brings progress, order brings stagnation. A sign of adulthood is tossing them both aside and choosing ones own path.

What about a parent who both wants his kids to grow without knowing that they will suffer and die one day? What about a parent who wants their kid with cancer to live to adulthood? Again, you're choosing the option that is objectively worse over the option that literally has no downsides, basically because of some weird prejudice against the very idea of perfection that you can barely articulate.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No, I'm saying your dissonance is objectively dumb, no offense. To put it into something more concrete that you will probably sympathize with, it's like being a conservative in the United States in a way of "Yeah, I acknowledge the way things are right now is objectively worse in every way to the way you want to do things, but I'm afraid of change."

I am not afraid of change, though. I simply oppose that the end goal will be perfect because it won't be.

Things right now are shit, especially in the UK. I want these things to change. I am realistic that I won't get what I want exactly, but that doesn't mean I don't want change.

If anything, I disagree strongly with anyone who opposes positive change for those reasons. Not sure if this is a straw man or a simple misunderstanding, but either way I disagree with the analogy that I somehow oppose change.

[Suriyanakhon]

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

A parent who wants his kids to grow.
It's a rather old theme in storytelling. Chaos vs Order. Chaos brings progress, order brings stagnation. A sign of adulthood is tossing them both aside and choosing ones own path.

This sounds like something out a novel then something that happens in the real world, and hardly sounds like a reason to reject a literal paradise out of some weird cult of individuality that's just the product of cultural conditioning.

[Punished UMN]

No, I'm saying your dissonance is objectively dumb, no offense. To put it into something more concrete that you will probably sympathize with, it's like being a conservative in the United States in a way of "Yeah, I acknowledge the way things are right now is objectively worse in every way to the way you want to do things, but I'm afraid of change."

I am not afraid of change, though. I simply oppose that the end goal will be perfect because it won't be.

Things right now are shit, especially in the UK. I want these things to change. I am realistic that I won't get what I want exactly, but that doesn't mean I don't want change.

If anything, I disagree strongly with anyone who opposes positive change for those reasons. Not sure if this is a straw man or a simple misunderstanding, but either way I disagree with the analogy that I somehow oppose change.

Because your mindset is basically that of a conservative, "I want to struggle"/"struggle is good", why is struggle good? Why should we have to suffer for what is good? You say because it gives some kind of meaning to the good that comes out of it? Why and how?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Because your mindset is basically that of a conservative, "I want to struggle"/"struggle is good", why is struggle good? Why should we have to suffer for what is good? You say because it gives some kind of meaning to the good that comes out of it? Why and how?

First off, I am not a conservative.

Secondly, I never said suffering was good. It is, however, part and parcel of being alive and gaining experiences. I have accepted that I will suffer on the way to a better way of life. Whether or not I think suffering is good is irrelevant because it will happen, anyway.

The meaning out of the suffering are Nietzsche's words, not mine. Regardless, I agree in part. I do not think you necessarily have to struggle, but socio-economic factors add to the stress of achieving our goals. Whether we like it or not, there are barriers to overcome, and when they are then it adds to the catharsis of achievement.

[Punished UMN]

Because your mindset is basically that of a conservative, "I want to struggle"/"struggle is good", why is struggle good? Why should we have to suffer for what is good? You say because it gives some kind of meaning to the good that comes out of it? Why and how?

First off, I am not a conservative.

Secondly, I never said suffering was good. It is, however, part and parcel of being alive and gaining experiences. I have accepted that I will suffer on the way to a better way of life. Whether or not I think suffering is good is irrelevant because it will happen, anyway.

The meaning out of the suffering are Nietzsche's words, not mine. Regardless, I agree in part. I do not think you necessarily have to struggle, but socio-economic factors add to the stress of achieving our goals. Whether we like it or not, there are barriers to overcome, and when they are then it adds to the catharsis of achievement.

Okay, but if that struggle isn't necessarily good, then why do you object so strongly to removing those barriers to achieving our goals?

I'm not saying you're literally a conservative, in fact I used that as an analogy precisely because I think there's a cognitive dissonance in being a progressive and being opposed to the idea of the World to Come, because progressives imo want to work towards a better world with less suffering, which is why I find it strange that someone with that position would reject the idea of a world that is literally perfect and devoid entirely of suffering. I don't think you're literally a conservative, but I think the arguments you are using to reject the World to Come are, fundamentally, identical or at least analogous to those that a conservative would use to reject, say, socialism.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

happens in the real world, and hardly sounds like a reason to reject a literal paradise out of some weird cult of individuality that's just the product of cultural conditioning.

You can reject paradise and the chaos vs. order dichotomy. I gotta admit that this weird cult you speak of is a thing.

[The Blaatschapen]

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

Eh, I get my jollies

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Okay, but if that struggle isn't necessarily good, then why do you object so strongly to removing those barriers to achieving our goals?

I don't object to it. I just think that removing those barriers will lead to a much better society, not a perfect one.

I'm not saying you're literally a conservative, in fact I used that as an analogy precisely because I think there's a cognitive dissonance in being a progressive and being opposed to the idea of the World to Come, because progressives imo want to work towards a better world with less suffering, which is why I find it strange that someone with that position would reject the idea of a world that is literally perfect and devoid entirely of suffering.

I want less suffering. I am a realist, though, and know it will never go away. The best we can do is minimise it. I reject the perfect paradise not necessarily in theory, even if I find such an idea dull, but because it is virtually impossible. In that regard, I am much more of a Scientific Socialist than a Utopian one.

I don't think you're literally a conservative, but I think the arguments you are using to reject the World to Come are, fundamentally, identical or at least analogous to those that a conservative would use to reject, say, socialism.

The arguments conservative use to reject socialism usually stem from fear of change, as well as socialism's attempts in the 20th century. In actuality, I support socialism and - to an extent - communism as a long term goal, not as a Heaven on Earth but a better system than we have now.

I don't reject the World to Come. I embrace it. What I don't embrace is a utopia, certainly not one motivated by spiritual or religious doctrine.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

Eh, I get my jollies

I am sure you do Mr. Sheep.

[Punished UMN]

Okay, but if that struggle isn't necessarily good, then why do you object so strongly to removing those barriers to achieving our goals?

I don't object to it. I just think that removing those barriers will lead to a much better society, not a perfect one.

I'm not saying you're literally a conservative, in fact I used that as an analogy precisely because I think there's a cognitive dissonance in being a progressive and being opposed to the idea of the World to Come, because progressives imo want to work towards a better world with less suffering, which is why I find it strange that someone with that position would reject the idea of a world that is literally perfect and devoid entirely of suffering.

I want less suffering. I am a realist, though, and know it will never go away. The best we can do is minimise it. I reject the perfect paradise not necessarily in theory, even if I find such an idea dull, but because it is virtually impossible. In that regard, I am much more of a Scientific Socialist than a Utopian one.

I don't think you're literally a conservative, but I think the arguments you are using to reject the World to Come are, fundamentally, identical or at least analogous to those that a conservative would use to reject, say, socialism.

The arguments conservative use to reject socialism usually stem from fear of change, as well as socialism's attempts in the 20th century. In actuality, I support socialism and - to an extent - communism as a long term goal, not as a Heaven on Earth but a better system than we have now.

I don't reject the World to Come. I embrace it. What I don't embrace is a utopia, certainly not one motivated by spiritual or religious doctrine.

But the thing we're arguing about isn't some political utopia, it's the idea of a literal, materially and spiritually perfect world where all people are fulfilled. I think you make good points about the idea of utopia, but those arguments are non-applicable to the metaphysical situation being described.