https://youtu.be/pp0E1gb80WQ?t=4756
(timestamp late)
First time I've heard a good explanation of the yeshuan self-sacrifice. Even so, he phrases it wrong.
God punishes himself for failing to foresee eve would kill the dog. For failing to prevent it, for failing to protect the dog.
Here's a time the leftists aren't totally wrong.* When you're dealing with God, there's a power imbalance. You can't do anything, anything at all, unless he gives you permission. All responsibility percolates to God, regardless of what you do or how you do it.
Then jiang says, "She will feel so much remorse she will never doubt God again." This is cluster B. If God punishes himself because it was his own fault, then eve's remorse or lack thereof is irrelevant. Why should she feel remorse for something she didn't cause? The thing she learns, via role model, is to punish herself if she messes up. Should she ever have the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.
In this particular example, God should have explained himself better. She did it because she didn't understand, but let's really go out on a limb here and suggest that God has transcendent, incomprehensibly good teaching skills. Glorious and divine, you might say. If eve didn't understand it's because God didn't use these skills.
Jiang is ontologically committed to the idea that God can't teach. This is atheism: denying the divinity of the divine. I use the term yaleism for jiang's particular species of atheism.
For completeness, I will also mention that God could have fenced the dog away. Perhaps given eve a fake toy dog, so she could be tricked into thinking she killed it. Teaching doesn't have to come in the form of words - and if I can think of that, a fortiori God can think of it. There are numerous ways to demonstrate harm is harmful without permitting any harm to genuinely occur.
The dog that didn't bark: why does God have to create someone as twisted as eve in the first place? "No God, infinite love isn't enough for me. I need more than that." Holy shit woman what is wrong with you. Let's explicit say the word Envy here; when it isn't enough that you have enough, when it is only enough that others are deprived.
I believe nobody tries to explain why such creation is necessary because you can't even pretend there's a justification. It occurs to me that this is the problem, so, what, am I the smartest sapient text box that ever lived; or did it a fortiori occur to all the geniuses before me, they merely hope it doesn't occur to you?
Unless, inevitably, euhemerism. If there is no god here, but only distinctly incomplete mortals, then it makes sense when god dad screws up. However, also, god dad doesn't have infinite love &c...
Socrates was the only wizard who was willing to say [I don't know], which is why, and why we know, he is the only virtuous wizard recorded in history. That's all they had to do. Say, yeah this is a problem and we don't know why it had to be created this way. They're incomprehensibly evil if they can't say [I don't know] and they're incomprehensibly evil if they did know.
Holy shit you [wise] elders, what the fuck is wrong with you. If you were trying to be as evil as it is possible to be, well, congratulations. You win.
A fortiori, the godel incompleteness theorem. "We don't know because we do know we can't know." Not [know], it's a [no].
No.
Not at all.
You don't know not because Reality is incomplete but because you are incomplete. We add Pride to the list next to Envy.
The fact jiang uses eve, a woman, in his example, is not a coincidence. If women are doing something, it is because men are allowing her to do it. Women, fundamentally, cannot cause soycial problems without men's explicit written permission. Blaming them for anything is genuinely retarded.
Hunter-gatherers beat their women, but this is largely for the woman's sexual pleasure. If you're doing it for punishment you're a degenerate coward. If she does something you don't like, find the man that told her to and punch him instead. Beat him, shun him, outlaw him. If you don't, then anything else you do constitutes consent to her misbehaviour.
*P.S. This can only happen because rightoids are a kind of leftist. During left-on-left violence, sometimes the left can win.
P.P.S. Jiang claims you have to learn for yourself and not follow a priest or prophet. He does not explain, because the reason is omnievil, Romans 3:10, which is heresy against yaleism. "Everyone is evil so obey the priests." "The priest is also cursed, I mean, evil." "That's bad." "Yes, the blind leading the blind." Mortals maintain their divine spark specifically so they may do the opposite of what it says, priests and jesuses included.
6 comments:
If no one can understand what you say then your writing is not genius but trash.
Lets see how much did I understand! Christian self-sacrifice is caused by them following the example of God, who is punishing himself for having made a mistake, (or perhaps Gods self-punishment is causing the Christian self-sacrifice because as above, so below, perhaps Christian self-sacrifice being an aspect of Gods self-punishment) , but its uncertain whether God is in fact involved, or is it just mortals telling myths in which God is like themselves. If God is indeed punishing himself for his own creations being awful, that leaves an open question why did he make them so awful, but humans either pridefully avoid the question to avoid admitting they dont know, or maliciously pretend the question doesn’t exist despite knowing the answer, which is known from there being no attempt at an answer recorded ever. Also godel was too proud to admit its not logics that is incomplete but his own human ability to perceive it. Is than Christian races self-torment an aspect of God punishing himself(He made them that way) ? How did I do?
Conveniently jesus died. If you do understand the church can claim you didn't and nobody is around to correct them. Likewise the useful, slavish misunderstandings can be allowed to fester without being bothered.
Agree.
Grammar: "why did he make them" is, presumably, correct grammar literally translated to your mother tongue, but low-class in english.
English normies get this wrong too, but in a different way. [Hence why] [begs the question], and there's a new one that, for my virtues, I haven't seen enough to remember off the cuff.
If god is really punishing himself for making ugliness, then we have to ask why divine transcendence doesn't either stop or improve itself first. When mortals address it they deliberately distract the reader from thinking about god's motives and capabilities. "It's not our place to question those above us," which is a deliberate maiming. If you can't learn by asking questions from those better than you, then you aren't a social species, you're an antisocial species.
See also: the antisocial contract. Scarcity mindset, phobos worship, etc etc.
Wealth is in fact abundant, which is a problem for the Envious. They have to trick you into not owning your own stuff. They can't take it away from you without your permission. They can't trick you without your permission either...
It's not your place to question those above you...which is tremendously insulting to those above you. Why are you assuming they're so weak and poor they can't handle a single question? God, a fortiori, will have secured his shit.
Not to mention the intersection. If God (or even Dad) is doing it right, but it seems wrong to you so you ask, then he can correct your misunderstanding. Not asking is Satanism.
Overall I have to say I did mention Socrates by name. Very impressive for athens to worship Satan before anyone told them a name for Satan. Independent discovery...
See also: lordship shortage. Some small groups don't need a leader since everyone is competent. Nobody needs leading. Others can't have a leader because nobody is capable of developing leadership skills.
god 'punishes himself because that makes eve feel bad to know she did wrong'
a) relieves god of responsibility,
b) works only if eve does actually feel bad in this way,
c) works only if eve both gets/believes the connection between god self-punishment and her crime,
d) assumes eve is an idiot and can't grasp principles through multiple actions and her trick question has to be answered directly,
e) has nothing to do with forgiveness, and
f) does not prevent the situation from reoccurring.
the idea is that "forgiveness means there will be a next time". this seems true enough.
and what will we do next time? oh, just whatever happens happens. what? oh sorry i meant we'll do better. so you'll kill the dog but without any obvious traces this time. oh sorry i meant we'll do something different. and how will you come up with the new idea that will lead you to do something different? fear of punishment? fear of god self-punishment? fear of forgiveness. does that work? is that where ideas come from?
ideas come from "love". sure.
"love" means "self-punishment" means "forgiveness". no i don't think so
to cut to the point, the "divine spark" is not "love for each other". "i will not do bad things because i don't want other people to hurt themselves" is not a complete principle, and also does not mean "i will do good things because i want other people to be happy" because inverses are not contrapositives. and we know it's not possible to 'do good things because other people will be happy': because it's not possible to know how they will react! explicitly: it's not possible to abdicate responsibility to take responsibility!
what can you know? what you like. you should do what you like.
what kind of people do people like? people who do what they like first and other people second. oh what a coincidence.
"i like you because you like yourself" vs "i like you because you like me". which is more stable? which sounds more like god=good=power=true?
chm talks a lot about dante's mirrors or indra's net and that "if" one of us shows the divine spark then it will be reflected in all of us. but he's really a lot more concerned about the nature of mirrors and not so much about how to get the "if" condition to be "true". the world is ending etc etc 'only when it's dark can we truly shine'. how about not having a bridge that only barely stays up and is only now recognized as a bridge only because the need is great? how about we try industrializing the thing that's important?
for things you don't know, "i don't know" is a kind of "forgiveness", so "forgiveness" is indeed power, but it's *you forgiving *yourself. the student question right after the timestamp asks this question. i do a heinous crime, "i still cannot forgive myself". chm: "you went to prison", "now you can forgive yourself because you've done your time, and also because you remember that jesus forgives you". this only works if jesus/society was responsible for you all along, they are still responsible for you now and in the future, and that their opinion is all you care about. if you care about ANYTHING else, including changing how it will turn out next time, you are OUT.
which means the only way there is a real next time is out.
Yaleism is yaley.
"If one person shows the divine spark..."
Yeah, uh, that already happened. We already tried that.
Also, "you can only be good with evil to oppose" So what this means is.... a perfect god would not allow good, because it requires evil as a pre-requisite.
Which is yet another another another way of saying god can't be perfect, because that's bad.
Or, more precisely, nonexistent. The Nameless One is perfect. Yaleism is Satanism.
f) it prevents the situation from reoccurring provided both god and eve are batshit insane in a particular way. It's about suggesting madness and disconnection from Reality is a good thing. Framing, see?
At least, making it acceptable and normal.
I will definitely be tweeting that a perfect god would not permit good to occur.
Sanity is always abnormal.
Post a Comment