User Controls
Is there a term for this? *the illusion of sin*
-
2017-08-17 at 1:29 PM UTCI was reading some of the government discussions here and got to thinking about the first government, I don't know I guess it was primitive people forming little groups and dictating rules perhaps. As this continued and the population grew the governments became larger and more complex.
As humans evolved and populated, things began to happen that others disapproved, maybe it started with stealing, or assaulting. Although nobody has ever formally ever given any objective reason as to why these acts were "bad," they became accepted as such and rules were created against the will of others who may not have agreed- rules that literally stole their freedom, because W X Y and Z felt differently than A.
So, even though it's clearly generally agreeable what we consider as sins, is it not still a man-made concept that steals the essence of what Earth may have wanted for us, true nature, no rules other than the limitations of the planet itself.
If I murder everyone that thinks murdering deserves punishment, now we're back to square one and perhaps the tides of humanity and the rules and understanding of sin could change entirely.
This kinda sounds like that sovereign citizen shite huh? Those folk are laughable because it just doesn't work like that, but I get it, mannn, I get it. You should have the right to be your own government, unfortunately all these nations and countries decided to make their own governments already meaning we're fucked, but maybe the sovereign citizens are right, and it's not fair. We aren't choosing our birthplace. We aren't choosing any of this. I AM ME. GOVERNMENT CRINGELORD SELFINGTON. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
*cry cry cry* -
2017-08-17 at 7:14 PM UTCmiscegenationists have sinned against their rass.
-
2017-08-17 at 7:25 PM UTCSin is an important philosophical concept and doesn't have anything to do with current laws. I have found two ways to understand the symbolism of the concept of sin, the first one is the most obvious, after adam and even ate the fruit of knowlege they became self aware and now had the free will required to sin. The second one is more about the fruit and the idea of original sin (why catholics baptize babies) To live you must consume life and it is inherently sinful to kill anything therefore sin is a necessity of life. This is why I laugh at vegetarians and vegans, they think animals matter more than plants. They are just showing their own egocentrism, just because an animal is more like you doesn't make it more valuable (and you are not as valuable as you think you are) If anything plants are much more important to the ecosystem then animals. But alas, to live is to sin, the real question is do you need to be forgiven for it?
-
2017-08-17 at 7:44 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 8 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 8:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Memeing_Electron they weren't predestined to do shit, the snake convinced them to do it.
thats exactly what destiny had predestined you to type and i have been predestined to type this in return :
the snake had been predestined to appear to convince you and adam and eve that it was it who convinced adam and eve to eat their predestined apple to maintain their predestined illusion of freewill ....
again, you have been predestined to read this and disagree. -
2017-08-17 at 8:33 PM UTCPredestination doesn't exist unless god exists. In reality its probably a fair amount of biological and environmental determinism on top of some free will, it doesn't have to be either or.
-
2017-08-17 at 8:52 PM UTCits all about fear. fear is just your perception of what might happen given a certain situation. this is open to manipulation tho. if i convince you of a threat to your existence, one that you perceive yourself to be completely defenceless to, yet i can convince you that i have the means and/or ability to protect you from that threat. i then have control over you. i am now your king and you will do pretty much anything to keep me around and remain your king. you will happily pay me goods and money, and you'll do pretty much anything i ask of you, because you'll perceive the alternative to be unbearable. this concept can be applied to a mass population just as easily and the types of threats can vary. they can be dragons, witches, criminal elements, demons and devils, wrathful gods, diseases, foreign invaders, terrorists, pedophiles and sex offenders, black people, muslim people, aliens and ufo's, global warming, even your own stupidity can be used by particularly cunning individuals. and the threats can be real, imagined or just exaggerated. as long as you fear it, and believe you are defenceless is all that is necessary in order to exert control over you. this is a concept that is nearly as old as man himself yet is still used as much, if not more so, today as it ever was. why do you think st george was so revered for his dragon fighting ability that the people of england made him their patron saint? yet we know now that dragons never existed.
. -
2017-08-17 at 8:56 PM UTCits the nature of the control freak.
. -
2017-08-17 at 8:57 PM UTCthe true cancers of society
. -
2017-08-17 at 9:12 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 9:27 PM UTCNot at all, only in conversations about god is the term predestination used. If a god is all knowing then he has condemned you to hell or saved your soul before you even existed. The ideas of god and free will can't really coexist as far as I know, but that doesn't mean a lot of people don't try.
-
2017-08-17 at 9:55 PM UTCThere is only one god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraxas
-
2017-08-17 at 10:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by fag There is only one god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraxas
my gott can beat the shitt out of youre god
-
2017-08-18 at 2:46 AM UTCOh, there's plenty of pious sons of bitches who think they know the word of God, or gods. I don't. I don't even know their real names. Maybe it is the Seven. Or maybe it's the old gods. Or maybe it's the Lord of Light. Or maybe they're all the same fookin' thing. I don't know. What matters, I believe, is that there's soomthin' greater than us, and whatever it is, it's got plans for Sandor Clegane.
-
2017-08-18 at 3 AM UTC
Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery Oh, there's plenty of pious sons of bitches who think they know the word of God, or gods. I don't. I don't even know their real names. Maybe it is the Seven. Or maybe it's the old gods. Or maybe it's the Lord of Light. Or maybe they're all the same fookin' thing. I don't know. What matters, I believe, is that there's soomthin' greater than us, and whatever it is, it's got plans for Sandor Clegane.
This is why I don't agree with 'there is no god' and 'the idea of god is retarded' stances. -
2017-08-18 at 7:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery Oh, there's plenty of pious sons of bitches who think they know the word of God, or gods. I don't. I don't even know their real names. Maybe it is the Seven. Or maybe it's the old gods. Or maybe it's the Lord of Light. Or maybe they're all the same fookin' thing. I don't know. What matters, I believe, is that there's soomthin' greater than us, and whatever it is, it's got plans for Sandor Clegane.
Jehovah, his name is Jehovah.
. -
2017-08-19 at 3:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Olusola Adio So what we now know as the world’s system today is a product of man’s thinking that was corrupted by satan when Adam fell.
Satan, over the centuries, set up what we also call strongholds in the minds and souls of men that became belief systems.
why don't you stop preaching and start replying? or are you not that confident in what you are saying that you are prepared to defend it in a legitimate discussion?
you could start with how you know all this shit.
. -
2017-08-19 at 4:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So, even though it's clearly generally agreeable what we consider as sins, is it not still a man-made concept that steals the essence of what Earth may have wanted for us, true nature, no rules other than the limitations of the planet itself.
You are not apart from nature. Man made constructs are no less natural than an ant colony or a beehive. So that is the tautological argument: the way we are is the way nature intended, because we are a part of nature.
But I think you deserve a better answer than that.
You agree that this "total freedom", no rules, is the state of nature, right?
Well let me introduce you to the idea of the categorical imperative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
I recommend that you give the article a read, but let me give you the gist of it; since the "state of nature" is for everyone to be able to do anything they want, it can be argued that once everything exercises all of its "freedoms", the freedoms of everything principally cancel out; for practically every action, there is also a negation.
For example, a cat's "right" by nature to kill a mouse is cancelled out by the mouse's "right" by nature to defend against being killed. (CF's note; when this arises in a practical circumstance, the fact that these do not "cancel" per season is that the practical exercise of these rights does not live up to the ideal, principle exercise of these rights).
Kant therefore asserts that the state of nature principally has no freedom due to the fact that every individual is allowed to exercise their right; all these rights cancel out, infinitely.
Therefore to truly have any freedoms, he contends that we must enter, as we have, a "state of society". In a state of society, we give up some of our rights, so that we may be able to exercise other rights. For example, you must all give up your right to murder someone, so that you may exercise your right to life. (CF's note: and you can take this further to say that when you violate someone else's right to life, you must also therefore forfeit your own right to life.)
In this way, we can say that the "natural" state for a being that values true freedom, is the state of society, with rules, and not the state of nature.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-19 at 10:37 PM UTCPeepee
