Idono Maybe
901 karma · joined September 19, 2023
Really though I think I'm right but I don't care at this point and I'm probably being an ass so sorry about that. I did start the re read after the comments but that doesn't really matter. I apologize for being rude to peeps sometimes I get obstinate.
I hope you read and enjoy too.
I'm sorry to everyone if I've been an ass in this thread. I think I was feeling obstinate but I apologize.
That said, I've found that most online conversations about IJ seem to be held by people who really seem like they haven't read the book. I don't understand the phenomenon and haven't offered an explanation. I got on this kick 28 days ago when a commenter here said (about a different novel) "for what it's worth, up to now, you're the only other person in this entire thread I'm convinced has actually read the book.". I reviewed the rest of the comments in the thread, and he had a point. I think that implying you've read a novel you haven't is a frequent occurrence, and it is common with IJ because of the length and the popular intellectual status appeal it had in the 90s. This is a somewhat known phenomenon, as I recall reading a quote from a musician who stated something along the lines of "everyone owns a half read copy of infinite Jest in rehab".
It seems to me like people who've read the book could just answer the question. One person in this thread actually did. They certainly read the book. Everyone else? Well, they (and you, in fact) didn't answer a fairly simple question, and then got pissed off. You can draw your own conclusions.
You've also sniffed out my question's exploit, wherein people who haven't actually read the entire book, and who may have read the line about his dark skin near the beginning of the book, will reveal themselves because they assume the obvious answer can't be correct. They "tell on themselves" as the kids say. I smile at the idea that overthinking causes people to reveal they didn't read a book in which overthinking is a major theme. I highly suspect the majority of other commenters in this thread did not fully read the novel. This doesn't make them bad or "inferior", but lying does. They know they are wrong because my pointing it out caused them to become angry.
I've started a re read, and I'm taking notes this time. Perhaps we should start a HN bookclub.
I do need a new proof if this thread makes this one Googabale.
In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN's Indigenous People's Forum that during the Congo Civil War, his people were hunted down and eaten as though they were game animals. In neighboring North Kivu province there has been cannibalism by a death squad known as Les Effaceurs ("the erasers") who wanted to clear the land of people to open it up for mineral exploitation.[40] Both sides of the war regarded them as "subhuman", and some say their flesh can confer magical powers.[41]...
Pygmies are often evicted from their land and given the lowest paying jobs. At a state level, Pygmies are not considered citizens by most African states, and are refused identity cards, deeds to land, health care and education access.
I think to argue that Dostoevsky is not among the best psychological novelists is to slightly misunderstand what he was trying to achieve.
Feel free to not answer if it's a painful thing.
A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that it is not permissible to take an "intrinsically evil" action even if it is for a good or selfless purpose. Another is that every attempt to "game the system" (for lack of a better term) is also sinful. If our ultimate goal was to "maximize entrance of other souls to heaven" and we considered ourselves to be equal in ability to God, this might be an avenue of investigation, but if our goal is to "submit to Christ our Lord" it is the slaughter of innocents resulting from our attempt to play God.
We understand religious truth as God has revealed it to us, but because of the disparity in knowledge between humanity and an all knowing being, I have the feeling (but no proof) that we'd not be able to "pull of a heist" like this. I don't know if or by what mechanism God might choose to subvert the attempt. I'm thankful that you're speaking purely hypothetically. It is my estimation that if you have faith you would not do it because it is impermissible and evil, and if you do not have faith you would not do it because you wouldn't believe it to be effective.
I also question if a person legitimately believing they would be endlessly tormented beyond anything they can conceptualize could truly chose this. Even if they could, I would imagine they'd rescind after a second of hell (not that they'd have the option). It's nice to say (as the other response did) that we'd suffer anything for our children, but if I strip away my pride and look at myself in the mirror and am honest with myself and consider the reality of what eternity means, I don't think I could do it, even though I do truly believe I'd give up my life to save their's. It's possible that I'm a coward, or it's possible that I'm able to be more honest with myself about the question. I entrust their eternal well-being to God's mercy (as I understand them to already be a Christian through Baptism) without damning myself.
It's a somewhat similar issue of authority when it comes to the crucifixion. God, being all knowing and having all authority, is able to undertake such a mission. We are able to take similar actions (jumping on a grenade to save our friends, for example), but they are temporal actions with largely temporal results. To attempt to enter the "spiritual realm" and generate "spiritual results" other than in ways which have been provided to us by God, are in obedience to him, and are facilitated (not the best word but I can't find a better one) by the Holy Spirit (also God ofc) functionally amounts to, well, "witchcraft".
"If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?"
Every Christian should seek to "become a missionary" in the sense that they should be a positive example and "practice what they preach" while being ready to share honestly about the Christian faith if appropriate/if asked. This is a standard we should hold ourselves to with the help of God.
Early Christians did employ this level of urgency for evangelization, and (according to tradition) the original 12 themselves went as far as Spain and India (without the aid of modern transportation methods, of course). Christian churches spread as far as China, but later suffered persecution and much of the rest of the known world had to wait until the colonial era before Christian missionaries arrived in significant numbers again. Outside of specific uncontacted tribes (and I think a guy just got killed trying to evangelize one of them), I do not know if there are currently populations to which the gospel has not been preached. Translation of Christian writing and good works are the correct method of evangelization at this point, and this work should be supported materially and with prayer.
As for the question of "the fate of the unlearned", there have been a variety of answers (or, more accurately, methods of approaching this question) which have included "they're screwed", "God judges them according to their heart", "God sends them the gospel via miraculous means", "Those who live according to the Logos are Christians but not aware of it", to the more modern "they may receive salvation through Christ through their faith in God as they know him" (other religions). It is important to note that from the perspective of Christian cosmology, (falling in Eden), God would be wholly justified in smiting us down into hell, and has no obligation to have done any of the things he has for us.
"Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions"
You were right to consider the difficulties with this position as it (as expressed in your footnote) is not a historic Christian belief, but a retroactive justification for groups who deny infant baptism.
If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder. On a similar note, suicide is expressly forbidden because it is a rejection of the role on earth you have been called to play, whereas giving up your life for the sake of another, or for the sake of the Gospel, is an ideal because it is in the service of others, which is the fundamental role Christians are ordered to fill.
I hope this helps. May God bless you and reveal his truth in your life.
This does not mean it's okay to hoard wealth at the expense of others, of course.
I think that Saint Basil the Great's sermon to the rich[1] is instructive for a historical and reasonable Christian instruction on the rich.
Let me add an excerpt I really appreciate: But how do you make use of money? By dressing in expensive clothing? Won’t two yards of tunic suffice you, and the covering of one coat satisfy all your need of clothes? But is it for food’s sake that you have such a demand for wealth? One bread-loaf is enough to fill a belly. Why are you sad, then? What have you been deprived of? The status that comes from wealth? But if you would stop seeking earthly status, you should then find the true, resplendent kind that would conduct you into the kingdom of heaven.
And one more because I can't help myself: Since, then, the wealth still overflows, it gets buried underground, stashed away in secret places.... A strange madness, that, when gold lies hidden with other metals, one ransacks the earth; but after it has seen the light of day, it disappears again beneath the ground.
(The whole thing is worth a read, Basil just went hard non stop)
1. https://stjohngoc.org/st-basil-the-greats-sermon-to-the-rich...
"Getting he ass 4: Chasing ideologues"
Edit: If by "hold responsible" you mean "be mad at them" then yes, of course you can, I can't read a comment section that isn't mostly that, and you knew that before making this comment.
I'm riding high on Cap1, personally.
It doesn't directly confirm or contradict your statement, but is relevant to the conversation.
I would also like to remind everyone to pay your credit card balance in full every month without fail, or you are giving your credit card issuer boatloads of money just for fun.
I would assume primarily domestic cards (platinum, quicksilver, savor) will start being issued on the discover network, while travel cards (venture series) will not (initially) because of the high domestic and low international acceptance rate of Discover cards.