Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:45 pm One thing they had plenty of is experience with God.

It is obvious that this experience was not enough, otherwise why would they have done what they did?!:?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 2:30 pm So you agree that the Serpent lied?

Anybody who reads the text knows he lied. And she didn't have to believe what she heard; she had already been told the truth by God Himself. She had the freedom to choose, and did.

nemos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:45 pm One thing they had plenty of is experience with God.

It is obvious that this experience was not enough, otherwise why would they have done what they did?!:?

Free will. As all human beings know from their own experience, and as you surely also know from your own, just because you know the right thing to do doesn't mean you're automatically going to do it. It means you have a decision to make, that's all.

"How did they deal with the same problem of shame or any other biblical problem...?"

It depends on the psychic fortitude of the people and how well they sublimate their shock and disbelief at their own nature. For instance, the jews interpret their 'fallen nature' as a kind of punishment. This is expected of a slavish culture. The greeks, on the other hand, not only recognized their perverted nature but celebrated it and compartmentalized it. They didn't feel shame before it becuz they weren't a slavish culture; they're not predisposed to be suspicious of themselves. Moreover they reflect their own nature... or I should say 'project' their own nature... onto the nature of their imagined gods. Zeus, for example, was a total perv. Dionysus too. That fuckin guy was off the chain, bro. And the satyrs. So what was happening here was the greeks were exalting their own nature, were proud of it. U can tell this by analyzing their gods.

There were no fig leafs for the greeks. Those n*ggas actually preferred running around naked.

But the jews and christians were, by comparison, an aborted mess of self contempt, mistrust and bad fortune. Their god was necessary to explain and justify their condition, hence the whole story revolves around the earthly struggle (as punishment) to become obedient once again to the master (god) so he'll stop torturing em. It's incredibly morbid, man. Like way down deep sick.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 2:30 pm So you agree that the Serpent lied?

Anybody who reads the text knows he lied. And she didn't have to believe what she heard; she had already been told the truth by God Himself. She had the freedom to choose, and did.

But apparently, she believed that she wouldn't die otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit. You know, either she was wise or she was unwise. God should not punish an unwise person as she/he makes a wrong decision. If she was wise then she must believe the Serpent. You know, there is no point in eating the fruit and dying. Therefore, she was fooled. But God should not her as she was fooled.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 2:30 pm So you agree that the Serpent lied?

Anybody who reads the text knows he lied. And she didn't have to believe what she heard; she had already been told the truth by God Himself. She had the freedom to choose, and did.

But apparently, she believed that she wouldn't die otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit.

Right. She could have trusted God, but she didn't. And what she did use to make the decision is actually spelled out: she thought it looked good, probably tasted good, and might make her aware of new things. The text says that.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing why you're not recognizing that as a clear case of a free will decision. Is it your supposition that she was somehow "forced" to do something? The text certainly says otherwise.

But that particular garden of eden story is a critically important part of a carefully tailored meme that was being created by the ruling class to mindfuck people for centuries to come. So much so that even if the story wasn't discovered in some ancient text, something like it would have been fabricated by the authors of the finalized bible. The MO has always been to make the ordinary working classes feel guilty and in debt to the 'state' (an extension of the church back in those days).

And even after the protestants brought the challenge to catholicism and reduced the power of their reign of terror, the meme was already rooted in the psyche of the people... so it didn't matter; christianity was already here to stay and build a nice, stable, obedient working class to be ruthlessly exploited by the bourgeois ruling classes.

And here we are today. Mindfucked so throughly that workers actually believe that living in perpetual debt and working eight hours every day is perfectly normal (and necessary).

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:27 pm ...a carefully tailored meme that was being created by the ruling class...

Don't you Marxists every get tired of simplistic bad-guy-ruling-class, good-guy-working-class scenarios?

Even the Neo-Marxists now call that "crude Marxism," and dismiss it, because historically, it just proved dead wrong. The Proles didn't rise up and overthrow the Bourgeoisie. The "triumph of the Proletariat" never came, and the Proletariat dissolved into the middle class. Marx was just wrong. Nowadays, the Neo-Marxists have shifted the explanation to "race," and "sex" and "gender" and "culture" and "fatness" and "disability," and anything else they can use in their desperation to drive a wedge into society and produce their "revolution." But they're flogging a dead horse. Marxism was wrong. It was never even close to right.

There's no reasonable doubt that Marx was just plain wrong. Give it up. We just don't need any more piles of corpses produced in order to defend an ideology that was stupid from the beginning, and is even stupider now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:57 pm

nemos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:45 pm One thing they had plenty of is experience with God.

It is obvious that this experience was not enough, otherwise why would they have done what they did?!:?

Free will. ... It means you have a decision to make, that's all.

Yes, and with their "free will" they also confirmed that they are not enough with the experience given by God.

Another ethical problem of Christianity:
Most cultures teach to respect ancestors, correct me if I'm wrong, the Christian faith does the same. Adam and Eve should be the most respected, unless I am mistaken in my assumptions, and they were also the only ones that god created directly, with his own "hands". So should we condemn them for the choice they made, or respect it? Because if we can, for some reason, disrespect Adam and Eve and their choices, then there is no question of later ancestors, including direct parents. Can we justifiably ignore them, for the same reason?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:56 pm
Anybody who reads the text knows he lied. And she didn't have to believe what she heard; she had already been told the truth by God Himself. She had the freedom to choose, and did.

But apparently, she believed that she wouldn't die otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit.

Right. She could have trusted God, but she didn't. And what she did use to make the decision is actually spelled out: she thought it looked good, probably tasted good, and might make her aware of new things. The text says that.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing why you're not recognizing that as a clear case of a free will decision. Is it your supposition that she was somehow "forced" to do something? The text certainly says otherwise.

No, she was not forced at all. She just got fooled into believing that the Serpent telling the truth. Did you get my argument? I repeat it again: But apparently, she believed that she wouldn't die otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit. You know, either she was wise or she was unwise. God should not punish an unwise person as she/he makes a wrong decision. If she was wise then she must believe the Serpent. You know, there is no point in eating the fruit and dying. Therefore, she was fooled. But God should not her as she was fooled. This means that the act of punishing them by God is unjust.

nemos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:57 pm

nemos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:52 pm

It is obvious that this experience was not enough, otherwise why would they have done what they did?!:?

Free will. ... It means you have a decision to make, that's all.

Yes, and with their "free will" they also confirmed that they are not enough with the experience given by God.

I'm not sure whom you mean by "they." Do you mean mankind? Yes, man is not "enough" by himself, for sure. But I'm not sure what that adds, that we didn't already know...

Another ethical problem of Christianity:
Most cultures teach to respect ancestors, correct me if I'm wrong, the Christian faith does the same.

It depends on what you mean by "respect." Christians are taught to honour their father and their mother. It's one of the big ten commandments, and it's repeated in the New Testament as well, with further elaboration. So yes, there is honour due to one's parents.

But there's no mention of ancestors being revered. Certainly, nothing like the heightened reverence and spiritism of the Yoruban or Shinto religions, for example, is ever suggested, even remotely. Prayers to ancestors, offerings to ancestors, or that ancestors are higher morally than their children -- nothing like that is even remotely implied by the Biblical account, and Christians do not do that sort of thing at all.

So no, Adam and Eve don't come in for any special moral exemptions: they were normal human beings, as are we all, and are due only the respect one normally should give to progenitors, not any worship or reverence of a religious or moral sort.

"Don't you Marxists every get tired of simplistic bad-guy-ruling-class, good-guy-working-class scenarios?"

Note to PN members: compare the above scenario to the simplistic evil-satan vs good-god scenario and decide which of the two scenarios, the two conspiracy theories, might be more realistic.

I mean if u absolutely had to choose. Which one would u choose? S'what I thought.

"because historically, it just proved dead wrong. The Proles didn't rise up and overthrow the Bourgeoisie."

Indeed, the bourgeoisie has extraordinary power and sometimes even controls the military.

Clearly capitalism is obviously great becuz there have been hundreds if not thousands of uprisings, strikes, riots, worker protests and revolts since the industrial revolution. The people love capitalism. Can't u tell?

"the Neo-Marxists have shifted the explanation to "race," and "sex" and "gender" and "culture" and "fatness" and "disability," and anything else they can use in their desperation to drive a wedge into society and produce their "revolution."

That garbage has nothing to do with marxism and is only a testimony to what a mess capitalist/consumerist cultures can become. So while what u mention are the effects of what's happening in western societies, they aren't the reason why a genuine marxist would be marxist. The genuine marxist wants to put the ownership and control of the economy into the hands of the working class. He/she duzzint give a damn if u are gay, overweight, trans or identify as a toaster oven. All that's peripheral crap. Your neo-marxists are just left wing opportunistic politicians who are capitalizing off society and its discontent. It's just more theater.

"Marxism was wrong."

It may actually be getting righter and righter. Haven't u noticed the specter haunting countries all over the world? Capitalism is edging closer and closer to completing the production of its own grave diggers. And digital tech (AI included) is primed to become the mechanism with which this will happen.

Workers of the world, log on!

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:10 pm
But apparently, she believed that she wouldn't die otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit.

Right. She could have trusted God, but she didn't. And what she did use to make the decision is actually spelled out: she thought it looked good, probably tasted good, and might make her aware of new things. The text says that.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing why you're not recognizing that as a clear case of a free will decision. Is it your supposition that she was somehow "forced" to do something? The text certainly says otherwise.

No, she was not forced at all. She just got fooled into believing that the Serpent telling the truth. Did you get my argument? I repeat it again: But apparently, she believed that she wouldn't die otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit.

I got that. I answered it.

She knew what God had told her. She heard what the Tempter told her. She made her choice between the things she had been told. But she also used her own eyes, her own desires, and her own wisdom to make the decision she did. The Biblical account is very, very clear about that.

Therefore, she was fooled. But God should not her as she was fooled. This means that the act of punishing them by God is unjust.

No, she wasn't "fooled." She was offered a choice. She chose badly. Nothing coerced or forced her into the decision she made. She could have believed God, but she chose not to. She could have refused, but she didn't. She had enough experience to make a better choice, but went with her own preferences, and encouraged Adam to do the same. It's all pretty clear how her decision was formed: she was no victim.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 5:57 pm I'm not sure whom you mean by "they." Do you mean mankind? ...

Of course I'm still talking about Adam and Eve who should be 100% guilty that you can debate them now... Because if they had stayed with god you wouldn't be here either...

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 6:01 pm

"the Neo-Marxists have shifted the explanation to "race," and "sex" and "gender" and "culture" and "fatness" and "disability," and anything else they can use in their desperation to drive a wedge into society and produce their "revolution."

That garbage has nothing to do with marxism

That's what the Neo-Marxist want to say about all the mere "crude Marxists"(as they call them) like yourself! Once again, we see the old excuse for Marxism's failures: "That wasn't real Marxism." It's what every Marxist ever says about all the other variations of Marxism.

And they all lie. They're all Marxism. They're Marxism's many embarassing failures, is what they really are. The problem is, we can't afford any more Marxist failures: they're too expensive. They kill more people than any single cause in human history.

Sorry...like The Who so poingnantly sang, "We won't get fooled again."

Or if we do, expect more corpses. So we'd better not.