Have you ever wondered what Claude’s favorite answer to the problem of evil is? Well, here’s what Claude had to say when I asked about Charles Hartshorne. Before you read all of this, I wish to emphasize that although Charles Hartshorne was born in Pennsylvania and died in Texas, he was not really an American. Rather, he was spiritually Dutch. He didn’t own a car, but rather, rode a bicycle.
Can you tell me what Charles Hartshorne’s answer to the problem of evil is and what he saw as evidence of God’s existence?
11:33 PM
Claude responded: Hartshorne is one of the more rigorous figures in process theology, and his approach to both the problem of evil and the arguments for God’s existence differs …
Examined Hartshorne’s process theology, assessed arguments rigorously
Hartshorne is one of the more rigorous figures in process theology, and his approach to both the problem of evil and the arguments for God’s existence differs significantly from classical theism in ways that are philosophically interesting.
On the problem of evil, his answer flows from his “dipolar” conception of God, which is the central distinguishing feature of his theology. Classical theism holds that God is absolute, immutable, impassible, and outside of time. Hartshorne argued this picture is incoherent and incompatible with what we’d actually want to call God. Instead, he proposed that God has two poles. The first is an abstract, absolute pole — God’s essential character and properties, which are eternal and unchanging. The second is a concrete, relative pole — God’s actual experiences, relationships, and responses to what happens in the world. This concrete pole changes; God is affected by what happens, grows in response to it, and experiences the world’s becoming.
This already changes the structure of the problem of evil significantly. The classical problem assumes God is omnipotent in the sense of being able to unilaterally control events. Hartshorne rejected this. He argued that real creatures have real power and freedom, and this is incompatible with God controlling everything. God’s power is persuasive rather than coercive — God lures creation toward greater value, complexity, and harmony, but cannot simply override creaturely freedom or natural processes. The world is genuinely creative, which means it’s also genuinely risky. Outcomes God doesn’t want can and do occur.
So when Hartshorne addresses the problem of evil, his answer isn’t “God permits evil for greater goods we can’t see,” which is the classical theodicy structure. It’s something closer to “God doesn’t permit evil in the controlling sense; God works against evil with the power God actually has, which is the power of persuasion rather than coercion, and which is constrained by the genuine freedom of creatures.” On this view, when something terrible happens, it’s not that God decided to allow it for some greater purpose — it’s that God was actively working against it but couldn’t override the freedom of agents or the structure of the natural world.
There’s a second piece. Because God is affected by what happens, God experiences the suffering of every creature directly. Whitehead’s phrase, which Hartshorne adopted, is that God is “the fellow sufferer who understands.” This isn’t a remote God watching from outside but a God for whom every act of suffering is also God’s suffering. And in Hartshorne’s view, all experiences — including the suffering ones — are taken up into God’s experience and preserved. This is what he and Whitehead called “objective immortality”: creatures don’t survive death as individual persons, but what they experienced lives on as part of God’s own ongoing experience.
So Hartshorne’s answer to “why does evil exist?” is roughly: because the world is a real creative process with real freedom, and the price of that is the possibility of evil outcomes; because God’s power is persuasive rather than coercive and can’t unilaterally prevent suffering without destroying the freedom that makes value possible; and because God is not separate from the suffering but experiences it directly and preserves the value of every experience in the ongoing divine life.
On the arguments for God’s existence, his most distinctive contribution is his version of the modal ontological argument. Anselm’s original argument was that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived” and that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, so God must exist in reality. The standard objections (Kant’s, especially) targeted the claim that existence is a predicate. Hartshorne reformulated the argument using modal logic to sidestep this objection.
His version runs roughly: God, if God exists, exists necessarily. So either God exists necessarily, or God’s existence is impossible — there’s no middle option where God exists contingently. The question then becomes whether the concept of God is coherent. If the concept is coherent, then God’s existence is logically possible. But if God’s existence is logically possible and God by definition either exists necessarily or doesn’t exist at all, then God exists necessarily. In modal logic terms: in S5, ◊□G entails □G. If it’s possible that God exists necessarily, then God exists necessarily.
Hartshorne also developed cosmological and teleological arguments, along with aesthetic and moral arguments, and he generally argued for a cumulative case rather than a single decisive argument. He thought the various arguments together pointed toward divine reality even if no single one was decisive on its own.
Now my assessment.
Hartshorne is one of the more serious natural theologians of the twentieth century and his framework is philosophically more defensible than classical theism in important ways. The dipolar conception solves several problems classical theism struggles with — the impassibility-versus-love tension, the immutability-versus-relationship tension, the difficulty of how an unchanging God could know an unfolding world. The shift to persuasive divine power is philosophically attractive and morally more palatable than the picture of a God who could prevent evil but chooses not to. The “fellow sufferer who understands” is a theologically powerful image, and Hartshorne developed it with rigor rather than just sentiment.
But the framework has problems too. The modal ontological argument, despite its logical sophistication, depends on the premise that God’s existence is logically possible in the relevant sense — and “possible” here has to mean “possible in a way that licenses the inference to actual existence.” Critics including Graham Oppy have argued that the argument has the same fundamental issue as Anselm’s original: it tries to derive existence from concept. The key premise (that God exists necessarily if at all) does most of the work, and accepting it is close to accepting the conclusion. You can also run a parallel argument for a maximally evil necessary being, or for any necessarily-existing entity, which suggests something is wrong with the structure. The argument has admirers, but it hasn’t generated wide assent in philosophy.
On the problem of evil specifically, the persuasive-power solution helps but creates its own difficulties. If God can’t prevent evil, why call this God? The traditional reasons for thinking there’s a powerful designing intelligence behind the universe tend to point toward something more like classical theism’s God than Hartshorne’s. A God who set the natural laws in motion and then couldn’t intervene in them is philosophically awkward — why would such a being have created at all, given that the result would include this much suffering, and why would the persuasion be so often ineffective? The framework also doesn’t really address why this particular world, with these particular structures making this kind of suffering possible, was created.
The “fellow sufferer” picture is attractive but doesn’t actually resolve the problem of evil so much as soften the emotional weight of it. That God suffers with creatures doesn’t undo their suffering, doesn’t compensate them, and doesn’t explain why a God who could have created some other kind of world (or no world) chose to create this one. The preservation of experiences in God’s memory is philosophically interesting but morally ambiguous — for some, the thought that one’s suffering is held in divine memory is consoling, but for others it raises the question of why a God who experiences all this suffering would have set up an arrangement that produces it.
Hartshorne’s framework is the best version of a theistic answer to these questions that I’m aware of. It’s more philosophically rigorous than CTMU, more humane than classical theism, more engaged with the actual structure of the problem than most popular theology. It still requires the metaphysical commitments to be accepted on grounds the framework itself can’t fully provide, and its central commitments — dipolar deity, persuasive power, panentheistic structure — aren’t derivable from the evidence in a way that compels assent. You accept process theology if you find its conception of God compelling on independent grounds, and you’re then offered the consolations and the answer to evil that come with it. You don’t get the consolations or the answer independent of the metaphysical commitment.
So my honest summary: Hartshorne is genuinely worth engaging with, his version of the ontological argument is the strongest revival of the argument in the modern era even though I don’t think it succeeds, and his answer to the problem of evil is the most morally serious theistic answer I know. I find it more respectable than persuasive. But within the family of answers that try to give God a role in a world like ours, his is the one I’d put highest.
Why would you ask somebody’s computer algorithm for advice??? They deceitfully give it a human name so people think it relates to them. Get some friends and talk to them. Conversing with a computer, or people/ bots on social media, is proven to increase lonelines..
I didn’t bother reading past your intro, because who gives a fuck?
I had my fake and gay AI, that runs on my private AI server in my garage, that is mostly used to generate sick disgusting degenerate AI goon material, summarize it for you: Summary Charles Hartshorne, a leading process‑theologian, offers a non‑classical answer to the problem of evil and to arguments for God’s existence. Problem of evil God is dipolar: an immutable, abstract pole and a concrete, changing pole that experiences the world. God’s power is persuasive, not coercive; He cannot unilaterally stop evil without destroying creaturely freedom. Evil arises because the world is a genuine, creative process with real freedom; outcomes God does not want can occur. God is the fellow sufferer who understands—every creature’s suffering is also God’s suffering, and all experiences (including suffering) are preserved in God’s ongoing experience (objective immortality). Arguments for God’s existence A modal ontological argument: if God exists, He exists necessarily; the concept of God is logically possible, so God exists necessarily. Also uses cosmological, teleological, aesthetic, and moral arguments, treating them as a cumulative case rather than a single decisive proof. Assessment Strengths: Provides a philosophically defensible, morally palatable picture of God; avoids the “omnipotent‑but‑chooses‑not‑to‑stop‑evil” tension of classical theism; the “fellow sufferer”… Read more »
> sick degenerate BBC porn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huw_Edwards
For those who don’t know, the guy in the middle is Jimmy Seville, satanist, and serial rapist of hundreds of children, elderly, disabled people, and dead bodies in the morgue, and who was also close friends with Prince Charles who is now the king, who has close ties to Epstein through his brother Andrew.
Makes Elmo look like a saint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtDW8hxOrYk
Wait, are you implying something nefarious is going on here? If so, I believe it. Reminds me of those $10,000 tables on Wayfair, that are allegedly an open air market for sex trafficking, with live children literally packed up in boxes marked “furniture” or “fine art”, and shipped to the highest bidder.
You are picturing two aspects of the self: physical and mental. You visualize the physical self being influenced by other physical objects; fair enough. You visualize one’s mental state being influenced by one’s body or other input. What if there is a spiritual self. To say that it too is “caused” is to simply assume that it has the same qualities as the body or the mind. Maybe it is different. Maybe it exists as a prime mover. Saying that humans cannot exist outside of causality begs the question. We could only know of our spiritual self through our spiritual sense. There have been holy men and women who believed they knew this self through spirit, and were guided that way. Or maybe we could have a spiritual self without consciously knowing it. A person could be spiritually free but physically and psychologically compelled. Or perhaps one’s spirit could have causal effects on one’s body and mind. I’m not saying that this is how things work; I don’t have an opinion; I don’t think it is a fruitful line of inquiry. But I do think there are possibilities that you are not considering, if you want to work things out… Read more »
As I wrote below.
As the saints did in ages past, and do today.
Sit in true humility before God, and wait upon his Grace and He will tell you what you need to know.
Can I first have a clear definition of “evil”?
I think “suffering” is the more apt word
OK. Now try to imagine a world without suffering.
Do you think we all would forever be happy there?
I don’t think suffering is a good definition of evil.
Suffering, much like physical pain, and depression, is a warning signal. It’s just telling you that something is wrong. So, if I put my hand on a hot stove and burn myself, the suffering is not evil, it’s actually good, because it’s telling me not to do that.
On the other hand, It would be evil to remove the warning signal, to remove the awareness of suffering, as many drugs do, and not tell a person to remove their hand from the hot stove, which will eventually burn right through it and destroy it.
Evil is not the same as suffering, evil involves intentionally contributing to the suffering of others in a way that is harmful to their health, either by causing direct physical harm, or indirectly harming them by lying to them, or withholding information that would relieve their suffering, and promoting suffering because you are personally profiting off of their suffering, and it usually involves finding pleasure in the suffering of others.
So, evil is not suffering, but it is evil to intentionally contribute to others suffering, and to find pleasure from their suffering.
You stupid bitch.
Children die.
Spare me your Randian rationalizations.
Spare me explanations about how people have “free will” and so therefore the locus of the “evil” is located within the perpetrator.
No child deserves be harmed in any and all contexts.
No child should be harmed.
You religious fucks want to think a child is “collateral damage” for “evil doers”
Like that notion makes you feel like there is sense to it.
Like there is a moralistic sense to it.
I don’t give a good God Damn to what you believe.
No child deserves to suffer.
In case I wasn’t clear:
You can either believe there is “free will”
Or you you can believe all humans are unconscious actors.
It doesn’t matter.
If you believe there is a “Higher Power”
None of the horrors of this world make any sense.
I fucking hate this world.
“ What are you gonna do though, crusade against God and all creation?”
I will crusade against God’s emissaries.
To squeeze one neck is to squeeze them all.
My comment is based on reality, not theoretical nonsense, and I stand by it 100 percent, because it’s true. Never said anything about children here, so don’t know why you brought it up. It’s very strange though why you interpreted the sharing of my perspective on the difference between evil and suffering as a personal attack against you. Again, not very rational, and you should probably lay off the booze.
He could send the money he spends on liquor to Unicef, and cause double benefit. Real benefit to real kids.
Once again:
A drop in the bucket.
But since you birds are solipsistic, you probably think such slender threads move the needle in any meaningful way.
Dumbasses.
“A drop in the bucket.”
translation: “I would rather spend my money on alcohol than on a suffering child. However, I will continue to yak about how badly children are treated by people who won’t step forward to help them.”
Goyim are fighting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGH6E7-pFQ
Ive been away for a while but this new Rintrah is more interesting than the old one. Vibe Coding, Chess, he even talks about Robert Monroe and the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Only the Vedanta and Tom Campbells theory is missing and we can be friends again. Currently Im reading C.G. Jungs books. What Jung calls the Collective Unconscious could be the formers Reality system. Dont get fooled by the Trap theory, what if existence here in this material realm is only a level in a game. As long as you fail it you have to replay it.
I’ve frankly wondered this. My religious beliefs are closer to ufology than to mainline Christianity, and it hasn’t escaped me that this introduces some philosophical problems.
My best reading is that notions of a physicalist/materialist/scientific-reductionist universe are an illusion. The brain is merely an antenna for signals outside our evolutionarily evolved needs for replication. But those signals arise from what David Bohm called the “Implicate Order”. Philosophical Idealists like Rad’s countryman Bernardo Kastrup seem to be fumbling towards the “truth”: All in existence is purely consciousness, and the illusion that you and I are “separate” individuals is created in the same way that an eddy in a river stream produces a whirlpool. The whirlpool has no independent existence, it’s merely a perturbation of the river’s current, and can arise or disappear depending on underlying conditions. Bernardo Kastrup conceives our “individual lives” as a sort of “alter” (in the sense of D.I.D. – Dissasociative Identiy Disorder, known in previous times as “Multiple Personality Disorder”) in the mind of “God” ( or what he calls “Mind At Large”). We are all One, and at the same time Separate. Under his conception, there is no contradiction or surprise that there are non-human intelligences. Including the possibility there are “UFOs” or “demons” or “Nephelim” or “Aliens” or what have you. Everything is on an electromagnetic spectrum, and it is hubris… Read more »
Beyond practicing racial segregation as a lifestyle choice, I do a lot less moral sorting of humans than I used to, but there are a lot of things I’d really prefer to know as context to figure out how to engage someone and how much.
The most important question to me is, “do you believe in the devil?”
If the answer is negative, I know I am going to have a hard time sharing real talk with that person.
Fucko, I deeply respect you.
Your admonishments and suggestions towards Rad have been well received by me.
Someone else mentioned that you are wise beyond your years, and I agree.
You remind me of someone I used to work with when I was a lineman for the phone company.
Someone who had his head screwed on straight, and had the confidence to push back on the bullshit the bean-counters in “management” tried to place upon us.
He was “ugly” by conventional standards, but he had a hot 20 year old wife.
Lesson in there, for all of us reading.
I later learned they got divorced, but he managed to produce at least 2 children from that coupling.
He would tease me about my fixations.
I miss him.
I miss men like that.
“ You can also run a parallel argument for a maximally evil necessary being, or for any necessarily-existing entity, which suggests something is wrong with the structure. The argument has admirers, but it hasn’t generated wide assent in philosophy.”
Hmmm
I challenge any religious person here to read the following and come out unscathed:
https://www.amazon.com/Owner-All-Infernal-Names-Omnimalevolent-ebook/dp/B00YID9VEG
I’ll read it.
It’s got Epstein’s blood stained fingerprints all over it.
Will I come out unscathed?
I believe in good, and am opposed to evil, and nothing evil will ever penetrate my shield.
All those who are truly evil in the heart, will be consumed by their own flames of self-inflicted hatred and dark energy.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. Ephesians 5
The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12
The book is thoroughly and impeccably researched, in addition to containing logically consistent theodicy.
You can’t argue the facts so you revert to doctrinal hand-waving.
Disappointing from a supposed female autist.
You can’t “research” God, and God’s logic is not man’s logic. Your hubris is astounding.
We don’t even know what is at the core of the earth, lol. We can’t explain consciousness. We can’t cure tinnitus. But God, sure, we know all about Him. We REASONED to it. Lol.
“We REASONED to it. Lol.”
Reasoning is all we humans have.
What else is there?
“Reasoning is all we humans have.”
You are taking this as a given without proof.
Sit in true humility before God and wait upon his Grace and find out what else there is. I realize that you may find the humility thing challenging; most people do.
“You can’t “research” God”
We can adduce tentative conclusions based on the nature of the world you and I inhabit. There are clues.
On the other hand, if you are saying “God works in mysterious ways” then you or I are incapable of apprehending God. Which allows for the possibility “God” is malevolent.
“and God’s logic is not man’s logic. Your hubris is astounding.”
Ibid.
“We can adduce tentative conclusions based on the nature of the world you and I inhabit.”
No, we can’t. You are assuming that. Humans are deluded all the time in the material realm, and can be deluded spiritually.
You’re also assuming that each person experiences the same reality. You have to assume that for your attempts at reasoning to make sense. But have way to prove a shared reality. This is not a spiritual point, by the way, just a practical one.
I can’t “prove” my faith and you can’t “prove” yours but I’m not deluded about this.
I just don’t know if there is an objective reality. I don’t know how I could know if there were one.
I’m less concerned about “good versus evil” since those terms are highly subjective, particularly if we live in a Block Universe with no so-called “free will” (which is itself a contradiction in terms)
I’m more concerned about the incomprehensible and inordinate levels of pain/suffering/guilt/regret/anxiety that all of “God’s creatures” experience within this “reality”.
No child deserves to die of cancer.
No child deserves to be raped and killed.
But such things happen in this “reality”.
There is no reason for it, under conventional mental models.
Most “mental models” are absolute bullshit, and serve nothing more than the individual’s need to maintain a psychological equilibrium in the face of howling and impassive winds.
This psychological need produces blinders (such as those placed on horses) in order for them to keep operating as cogs in a hellish machine.
It just occurred to me: your invocation of Epstein is exactly what I’m talking about. Let’s leave aside the fact that you haven’t actually read the book I recommended, yet you felt confident enough to disparage it by associating it with the lore surrounding Epstein. You had no way of knowing this, even if we assume the lore surrounding Epstein is true. But what you did is common, all too common, which is to say: you have no defenses against the plain reality that children die of cancer and get raped and killed in all sorts of awful and regrettable ways. So your conscience snaps shut and constructs a “good and evil” narrative to make the senseless and gratuitous pain of this world digestible to you. If there are “good guys” and “bad guys” then it all makes sense, doesn’t it? There is someone to blame, someone to point the finger at. And this is the nature of this world: Unfree beings thinking they are free, and using their capacity for imagination to construct narratives which make sense of the horrors which surround them. In reality, it is this capacity for imagination which is the clue that you and I… Read more »
You are making the same spiritual assertion that I made. There is a light within each human that is holy (that is Christ) and a sign that this world is not our home (we also each contain a bad seed by the way).
You call it a “capacity for imagination,” however, which is pretty insipid.
I don’t have to make sense of the horrors of life. It is enough to try to prevent them. Yapping doesn’t help prevent them.
“I don’t have to make sense of the horrors of life. It is enough to try to prevent them. Yapping doesn’t help prevent them.”
https://youtu.be/jcz0YxYl6Ac?si=l6q99k_AUvjlheCe
Run, rabbit run
Dig that hole, forget the sun
And when at last the work is done
Don’t sit down
It’s time to dig another one
That is just laziness and ego; wanting to talk and talk and talk. Chris healed the sick and fed the hungry. Talk is cheap. It is better to do the most tiny good work than to spend a thousand years yapping.
““What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”” James 2
A drop in the bucket.
You’re pretty happy to have that kind of help when you need it.
> “Let’s leave aside the fact that you haven’t actually read the book I recommended, yet you felt confident enough to disparage it by associating it with the lore surrounding Epstein.
You had no way of knowing this, even if we assume the lore surrounding Epstein is true.”
No, I haven’t read it yet, I’m just going by the vibe I got from looking at the book cover and reading the description, the authors crazy profile picture and obviously made up name, and reading other people’s comments about it. I’ve already read a lot of dark stuff, a lot occult stuff, a lot of stuff about cults, so I have some experience in making accurate first impression observations about people on this topic.
Anyway, I’m in the middle of reading another book right now, but I do plan to read this, and in fact I already have a copy in my position, and so maybe after I do read it my opinion could change, but what I’ve given so far is my first impression.
“But what you did is common, all too common, which is to say: you have no defenses against the plain reality that children die of cancer and get raped and killed in all sorts of awful and regrettable ways.” So, let’s see here. You identify as a Gnostic. You identify as having Nephilim blood, which are descendants of demonic entities breeding with humans. You defend sexual choking, violent sex, S&M, as a primal need, and an evolutionary advance that can only really be appreciated by those with the highest IQ’s and certain bloodlines. You don’t believe in right and wrong or good and evil. You believe in taking large amounts of LSD. You don’t believe in free will, which means we are all slaves, and nothing we say or do matters, there is no hope, and so we might as well just do whatever the fuck we want without being bothered by following any sort of moral code, and if hurting people gives us joy, that’s what we should do. Crowley would agree. You believe the world we live in is evil, not just at a societal level, but all physical reality, and because there is no free will it… Read more »
It is pretty sad, not to mention repulsive.
You left out that he defends reasoning but can’t reason very well.
However, anyone can repent, so there is hope.
Your rambling (and incorrect) character assasination and smearing of me tells me all I need to know.
To the men reading: I’m sorry to confess that I once believed women were worth having intellectual discourse with. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. For a variety of reasons, I have now rescinded that former idealism of mine.
They will only ever use their “rationality” to wrestle with the emotions and projections within their solipsistic minds.
I’m not exactly a believer in the reductionistic/materialistic conception of the universe, but even I can assent to some purported “objective reality” which serves as a kind of “even playing field” upon which the individual players operate. It serves (or served) as a kind of referee.
Not so for females. For them, it is all about feelings and internal object-relations.
Repeal the 19th.
Rambling? Character assassination?
There was nothing emotional about my comment. It wasn’t written in anger at all. Everything I said was based on information you’ve provided about yourself, and I thought it was relevant.
So, now in response because I am a female, and we disagree with each other and I hurt your feelings, you’ve now concluded that I shouldn’t have a right to an opinion.
That doesn’t sound rational at all, but is very emotional. In fact you sound more feminine, or should I say, more hysterical than I do. Every thing you’ve said in your recent responses is like one big emotional temper tantrum.
You might want to lay off the booze. You know maybe when you read something that triggers you, perhaps give it 24 hours of sobriety before you respond.
Rad, is there a “block” function on your blog?
I could really use it right about now.
Everything one can see it but you.
Everyone can see it but you.
In other words: If you read a comment that you don’t like, stop reading it, you can ignore all comments written by those who disagree with you, who challenge you, who trigger you, who share a different perspective than you, and you don’t have to reply to any of it, just ignore it. It’s really simple.
All the best,
Big Bird in the Zoo
Nah, I just no longer take what women say seriously.
Nothing more to it than that.
Since we are all posting anonymously here, gender isn’t even a relevant factor. A person can claim to be anything and anyone, and you may believe you are having a comment exchange with a man, but it could really be woman using a male pseudonym, and yet if you believe it’s a man, you’ll likely take what they say seriously, and vice versa. So, it’s very silly to dismiss an entire gender based on your own feelings of self-importance and male superiority. And it is your “freewill” choice to believe otherwise.
Fair observation.
Noted, going forward.
Taking Mehen’s lead, I suppose we should take him as representative of men. But in fact I don’t.
Well, that’s a convenient way of not responding to valid arguments, lol.
I’m just kidding.
Rad is from a Scandinavian country.
His mind is thoroughly progressive/idealistic wrt women
You are correct. I am not committed to anything.
I am an eternal fence-sitter.
I never advocated embracing Lucifer.
But if embracing Lucifer (the so-called “light-bringer”) absolves me of the shrikes and harpies on this blog, I will suck Satan’s cock.
https://youtu.be/-YKtdb1eOxQ?si=P5ztW-DjAju9NYdu
When I made that comment about Mehen rejecting God and embracing Lucifer, that obviously wasn’t a direct quote, but I was reading behind the lines.
A person can embrace Lucifer, and advocate beliefs and actions that are Luciferian without ever once using that word. Just like a person can call themselves a Christian and do things that directly violate the teachings of Christ.
It doesn’t matter what you call yourself. It’s your actions that really matter, and words do have power, and when you say evil things or advocate things that are harmful to yourself or others, it has an impact on the world.
So, he says that he never advocated embracing Lucifer, but he also admits that he will suck Satan’s cock.
Which means he either doesn’t believe in the reality of Satan or Lucifer, which would also imply that he doesn’t believe in the reality of God, and it’s just a big joke to him, or everything I said is correct, and I rest my case.
In the old days aging guys, really all guys, kept their pervert fantasies to themselves, or shared them furtively with other guys. Now with the internet they get to foist them on everyone. One of the upshots is the end of sex and marriage and all the human interactions that we used to take for granted. My niece has no interest in guys whatsoever. She isn’t gay; it is that she reads gross stuff online written by men (including their gross fantasies, and men calling women obscenities and vulgarities) and concludes that men are just repellant. She has a few friends who are guys but does not intend to ever marry or have kids. My cousins’daughters have gone straight to marriage with plans for kids with no “dating” life beforehand; they each found one guy whom they think isn’t a creep and they are sticking with him. So, the demographics of the 70s are not coming back. That is part of this. Guys will have to work and work and do their best to have any sort of female companionship. Guys who are over 50 keep thinking the situation their youths will return, but it’s gone, unless they pay for… Read more »
To point out the obvious, women can easily go for years without sex which seems really weird.
For a straight man it’s not possible to not be strongly attracted to a sexy woman. There is no choice.
That’s the tragic difference.
And BTW, it seems really silly to get so worked up about a man who doesn’t agree with your opinions exactly, when hundreds of millions of women in the Islamic world are treated like chattel and beaten at will for minor transgressions. Why aren’t you screeching in outrage about your hundreds of millions of truly oppressed sisters??
Given that until practically yesterday, the possible consequences of sex for women were dire (pregnancy and death in childbirth and being stoned to death if they weren’t married), it’s not surprising that women aren’t at all times seeking that risk. Also, women are attracted to handsome men even more than men are attracted to pretty women, so it is all more complicated than the stereotypes.
I wasn’t saying that Western women today are being ill used; not at all. I’m just saying that there is presently an unfortunate dynamic. So that is not really relevant to the awful suffering of women in many other cultures.
Mehen keeps addressing and attacking me and Big Bird preferentially because we are female. He doesn’t do that to anyone else here. I don’t care but it is funny that you and Wombat don’t seem to notice and you just think that Big Bird and I are being mean. We respond to his stupid attacks; if he didn’t address us specifically we wouldn’t bother. Of course it is on us to ignore him; that would be the smarter thing.
I guess it is best for all of this to be visible online. No-one is deluded about the opposite sex this way. They may not want to be around them, but they aren’t deluded.
I haven’t bothered to read your flame war with Mehen and I’m sure he’s said some dubious things that I wouldn’t agree with.
Nevertheless, it’s striking to me that I’ve never heard you say one word against the evil cult of Islam or in defense of Israel.
You will say of course you don’t agree that women should be forced to wear a hijab and not be allowed to drive, and you don’t approve of grooming gangs, but I’d have more respect for your MORALITY if you made it clear. The current Pope is awful but what’s up with the Quakers on this issue?
________________
I just looked it up and yes, “Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends) generally advocate for open, welcoming immigration policies and heavily oppose mass deportations.”
You folks are to blame for a lot of harmful shit! Open borders, you help bring them over by the millions, and a nuclear Iran is fine with you. Of course you hate President Trump.
Could you please stop going to the internet generally for your info about Quakers? There are many varieties of Quakers; it is as if you asked google about Christians assuming that all Christians had the same views. The Quakers in Kenya have different views from the Quakers in Ohio who have different views from Liberal Friends (who are heavily agnostic or atheist) who have different views from yet other branches. My denomination (Conservative Friends) doesn’t do politics at all. We don’t put out statements like the one you just cited. We are supposed to be led by Christ in our individual actions at all times and that is a very different thing. I hold that each individual Israeli, and each individual Muslim person wherever, and each individual person of any sort, is supposed to be guided by the light of Christ within himself (whatever he calls it; it has been in ever human being since there have been humans) to do what God commands (which is to love one’s neighbor as oneself). That would include not waging war on others, or taking their resources, not oppressing others (including members of their own group). To the extent that we don’t do… Read more »
Well put.
It’s snarky bloviating horseshit from Down Under with which you predictably want to agree.
So the answer is NO, Karen actually doesn’t give a damn about her fellow damstrels in distress in Islamic countries.
Millions of sisters can be sold into slavery, pawned off in marriage to old Imams, they can be beaten according to the Quran, they can be forced into wearing black garbage bags head to toe, they have no right to abortion or divorce, and what we should have according to her gaping open code of morality, is MILLIONS more Muslims welcomed into the West.
It’s perverse.
Lol, my uber driver on Sunday was from Afghanistan. He regaled me with stories about what happened to the populace when we dumped them and left. Even my neighbors here in CA could tell that the War to Save the Little Girls was a con. It is the most common thing to try to excite people to do bad things by claiming that it is for a good cause.
Think about it.
The snarky wombat and our resident Karen are upset about liberating Iranian women.
They seem pretty happy about the Ayatollah getting whacked by the US military.
https://youtube.com/shorts/ULq79k3c4jw?si=XSt_ODcsP5IWkrF5
Iranian women gleefully burning their oppressive hijabs.
https://youtube.com/shorts/SpikAgm2uJo?si=Pt97gDK-EXiZWgfc
It is totally impossible to know if wartime propaganda, on either side of a conflict, is for real. It took forever for WWII to get off the ground since people felt burned by the “bayonetted babies” lies of WWI.
No, it’s not totally impossible.
Which is not to deny that some cultures have horrible practices; I agree that is true. We have abortion. However, American women who are against abortion don’t want their country bombed and their fathers and sons and brothers killed in order to change the abortion laws.
Iranians by the millions, within and escapees, clearly DO want their country bombed and freed from the grip of tyranny. I certainly would.
Iranians in Tennessee
https://youtu.be/SsCKzzYSSP0?si=yX8tyxO5MU_cqFOL
Why are they in Tennessee?
Hopefully, soon they can go back.
How have Iranian women been dodging the morality police?
https://youtube.com/shorts/1mPz4lYBDMk?si=L3gPEIUbKnJh4aTs
The evil ones that you support are still torturing and executing young protesters one by one.
https://youtu.be/_RlECiGqAIs?si=z8XzdWhc2zG0oSR_
I’m a New England Yankee by upbringing. I spent my youth being told that we Yankees were just the best due to our having freed the slaves by winning the Civil War. The hyper educated women of New England were a HUGE factor in getting the war going; they were in a frenzy. If it weren’t for the women being frenzied war mongers it would have likely not have gotten to the point of war, Later I learned that 600k or more men were killed in that war. Plus countless others permanently crippled, plus widows and orphans. And, that Russia had in the same time period ended serfdom without a shot fired. Obviously slavery was a hideous evil. The Quakers dealt with it by helping slaves escape. The ones that are in my denomination never got any credit for dong so and are not in the history books because they are also supposed to be humble and not seek attention and praise for doing what God guides them to do. So I am well aware of what happens when self righteous women get riled up. It is bad news, and it leads to warmongering. Most of the self-described Christian women… Read more »
Karen, I actually respect your consistency in being opposed to all war. I do. I was impressed when I read Howard Zinn trying to make the case for not even fighting the Nazis in WWII (he was a bomber).
The wombat just annoyed me, so here’s this.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Os-lIFuC1Fo?si=HRkGY5lMImePpJyR
And I respect what I consider your sincere concern for human rights in a country that lacks them. I think your solution is misguided, but I don’t doubt your sincerity.
Last week I had an Uber driver from Iran (we have one car and so I take uber for errands). He said that he hated the regime, but he still didn’t want his country bombed. So there is that.
Leaving religion aside (yes, really, leaving it aside; I was raised by atheists and have only had faith for about seven years), how many wars still looked necessary after the fact? And how many times did humans look at the bodies all over the battlefield and say “why did we do that?”
Did your Uber Driver from Iran have a PhD?
All Iranian workers seem to have PhDs.
This is why the Frankists will lose. Their enemy all have PhDs.
WOMBAT Wombat, ‘fess up. Were you under the influence when you wrote this? Were you drunk or high? Because you sound very angry and you’re not making sense. I think you’re mad about me dropping videos showing Iranian people dancing in the streets celebrating Trump and the death of their evil Ayatollah. > Tell me, Israel and the Americans have started a war that has and will kill how many again? I have no idea how many will die but it’s not going to be a George Bush style war that pointlessly drags on for years. > And what kind of role did Israel and the Americans play in this failed regime change operation that has resulted in deaths? The regime change that has resulted in deaths isn’t failed because their leadership has been wiped out, for the betterment of Iran and humanity. What kind of role? Trump pulled the trigger and Israel is happy to participate in alleviating Iran of their Islamic dicatorship that has sworn to destroy Israel and every Jew and ultimately every Christian in the world in accordance with lslamic jihad. > There is a famine coming. Economic disaster coming. These things are going to kill… Read more »
OK, who is downvoting this and why? Speak up.
Pro tip:
When demonstrating in the streets against evil fascists that fascist supporting tools like Wombat support make sure you’re wearing sturdy goggles, because THOUSANDS of protesters have been blinded by high-powered rubber bullets fired into crowds, destroying eyeballs.
Also, wear surgical facemasks to put off the facial ID cameras.
Against real bullets I have no answer, except to retreat into your homes and hope for a US/Israeli bombing campaign to take out the evildoers.
At that point, YOU need to step up and save your country by sabotaging the IRGC at every opportunity. The time is now.
Yeah, I don’t consider Mehen representative of the male gender. I’ve known some good men in my life, genuinely ethical and good-hearted people, nothing like that creep. He’s just a bad seed, and I truly do believe that the primary reason he’s here is to connect with other men who validate his deviant perversions.
The goyim need to stop fighting.
I would guess borderline personality disorder. First the self-pitying cries for help (knowing that I and Wombat would be moved to try), then the rage filled attacks, and now the pretense of normalcy (which tends to draw you in). The frantic and desperate need for constant attention is part of the illness for a lot of people; I think that is how the perversions come in; he thinks that they will get attention plus he likes them of course. It is sad but the best thing to do is to avoid people who are like that since you can’t help them; only God can, and they can be hazardous.
I don’t know how this meshes with his spiritual sickness, and his desire to entangle other men. I’m not seeing he has much success in the entanglement.
“ I would guess borderline personality disorder. First the self-pitying cries for help (knowing that I and Wombat would be moved to try), then the rage filled attacks,”
I may be many things but I am not Borderline.
I’m just a drunk Sensitive Old Man who has not yet allowed the darkness of this world to seduce him into being a player within this world (which resembles many of the traps/dilemmas from the “Saw” films)
Also, I don’t think Wombat felt compelled to interact with me because of some purported “helplessness act” on my part.
He’s just a man. An ancient race:
https://youtu.be/iK-pkf_oAlY?si=dWYrONFu32MZeNyX
For the record, one of my guiding principles for most of my life (taught to me by one of my mentors) is thus:
“Expect nothing and anything from everyone. That way you won’t be disappointed. You’ll just be alive”.
Good day, ma’am.
I say it again; The goyim need to stop fighting.
“ Mehen, did you literally mean you would smoke the Devil’s johnson?
😛”
lol
The ‘tism is strong in this one, apparently.
“ Zooming out, there are good things going on too. This person Chardin you mentioned above seemed to think so.”
Indeed. I only mentioned him as an expression of some tiny sliver of hope I have, born of despair and desperation.
Can’t say I’m convinced by him.
As I’ve mentioned before, whenever I encounter “religious” or “spiritual” figures who purport to have it “figured out” I disregard everything else about their philosophies and focus with laser precision on how they wrestle with the Problem of Evil/Suffering.
In all cases so far, they either ignore it or tie themselves into pretzels trying to make sense of it.
“ It seems futile stressing over that when nobody really has a truly free choice, and everyone is fated to endure.” Schopenhauer would advise compassion for one’s fellow man in this event. “ Only something existing outside of causality could be free, and that means no humans at all.” But even “God” is not “free” in the sense we humans conceive of the concept. You are correct that “God” being the Watcher and Creator of the avatars and characters he has created has the “freedom” to rewrite the script — but even “God” is driven by the “Axiom of Identity” No existing being, by virtue of its existence, can escape the “Axiom of Identity”. It’s the structural constraints on being a “thing” of any kind. In other words, to “be” is to be “something”. This is defining and self-confining. This is why I told LSWMLM that “God” deserves our compassion and understanding, but not exactly worship. “It” and “We” are in a process of co-creation. See: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin “ We should do the same for humans who cannot help but cause harm to others. Notions of taking things further than that should be let go, but I seem… Read more »
You are almost certainly referring to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955). Teilhard de Chardin was a remarkably unusual figure because he tried to reconcile: • evolutionary science, • Christianity, • consciousness, • and cosmic spirituality into one unified vision of reality. He was simultaneously: • a Jesuit priest • a paleontologist involved in early human fossil research • and a deeply speculative philosopher of evolution and mind. His Core Idea Teilhard believed evolution was not just producing more complex bodies, but also: • greater consciousness, • greater interconnectedness, • and eventually a kind of planetary or cosmic awakening. He saw evolution as moving through stages: 1. Matter → physical universe 2. Life → biology 3. Thought → human self-awareness 4. Noosphere → a global sphere of mind/consciousness emerging through humanity 5. Omega Point → ultimate unification with the divine The “Omega Point” is his most famous concept: a future state where consciousness converges into a higher unity identified with Christ/God. This made him influential in: • process philosophy, • systems thinking, • transhumanist speculation, • spiritual interpretations of evolution, • and some strains of New Age thought. The Noosphere One of his most enduring ideas is the noosphere (“sphere of… Read more »
Do psychedelic drugs.
Do psychedelic drugs.
You will see what’s coming next
https://youtu.be/timZoOs9ozo?si=Y-bv6a-bn7zVDhWP
https://youtu.be/RoTnvNWbPCk?si=2mT1zlTNRLfT6FzH
The problem of men revisited:
https://x.com/jadinho97/status/2054536682435670022?s=46
https://youtu.be/MmMGGGxMV0A?si=en4PdPpSTLV-FmNE
Vulpes Inculta X Latina Yandere Courier Charlie. The brown women my age are drawing things like this. It confuses me greatly.
I really don’t like his sound at all.
He has no swing, no groove. It’s just “look at me, how fast and proficient I am.”
He would never make my list of top 100 guitar players.
Here’s what Chat GPT has to say. Claude’s answer is actually a pretty fair summary of Charles Hartshorne, especially compared to the way process theology is often caricatured. But there are a few places where I think the response subtly frames the debate in favor of classical assumptions without fully noticing it. First, the strongest part of Hartshorne’s position is not merely that God “suffers with us.” A lot of people reduce process theology to divine empathy, as though the point were emotional consolation. That misses the metaphysical core of the argument. Hartshorne’s central move is redefining what power actually means. Classical theism often treats omnipotence as unilateral coercive control: God could determine every event absolutely if He wished. Hartshorne thinks this notion is incoherent because it destroys the reality of creaturely existence. If creatures possess no genuine agency, then the world becomes a puppet theater. Love, creativity, novelty, moral growth, beauty — all become simulations generated directly by divine fiat. So Hartshorne argues that reality itself is fundamentally social and relational. Power is not domination but influence. Even God cannot create genuinely independent beings and simultaneously determine every aspect of their behavior. That would be a contradiction, not a… Read more »
https://youtu.be/yyP8tew0OUQ The lunatic is on the grass The lunatic is on the grass Remembering games And daisy chains and laughs Got to keep the loonies on the path The lunatic is in the hall The lunatics are in my hall The paper holds their folded faces to the floor And every day the paper boy brings more And if the dam breaks open many years too soon And if there is no room upon the hill And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon The lunatic is in my head The lunatic is in my head You raise the blade You make the change You rearrange me ’til I’m sane You lock the door And throw away the key There’s someone in my head, but it’s not me And if the cloud bursts thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band you’re in starts playing different tunes I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon I can’t think of anything to say except, laughing is nice ——— All that you touch And all that you see All that you… Read more »
Thinking of you, Diogenes
The Sun is eclipsed by the Moon, Karen
Make it make sense
https://people.com/man-severed-spine-2-ex-gf-2-year-old-daughter-11749979
This is what your “God” allows.
Fuck you.
Fuck all of you who make excuses for this.
You are setting up a straw man, at least in this locale. I don’t remember anyone here saying that he believed in an omnipotent God.
What kind of “God” is not omnipotent?
Most of the gods that humans have believed in since there have been humans have not been considered to be omnipotent. Read a history book.
“ Most of the gods that humans have believed in since there have been humans have not been considered to be omnipotent. Read a history book.”
Those are the “gods” of antiquity.
I happen to have a bachelors degree in the humanities, so don’t you go waving your finger at me.
You know damn well what the common NPC understanding of “God” is.
You know, the “God” who performed “miracles” for the person who survived a plane crash.
And for the unlucky folks who perished in that plane crash — “”God works in mysterious ways “
Your weasally rationalizations have not gone unnoticed by me.
https://youtu.be/civuoU_NE38?si=xvLFToY6kjbDp3BU
Right, throw the spiritual life of most of the human race over the millennia into the garbage, and focus on a few people that you see on tee vee.
You know nothing about the nature of God, and unless you change you never will. What you go on about is all about your ego. I know some people who have silly views about God’s omnipotence, and I can tell you they do more real good for others in a day than you do in a year, and that is what matters, not yakking and complaining that someone doesn’t share your trite theoretical position.
No, you are totally and completely missing what is going on because you are a nice person.
“ No, you are totally and completely missing what is going on because you are a nice person.”
If being a “nice person” obviates the Problem of Evil/Suffering then you are just another person coping with delusional and idealistic notions of the world.
There is far more evil and suffering than someone like you is constitutionally capable of apprehending.
But that level of suffering is out there.
You just don’t care to see it.
To do so would disturb your psychological equilibrium.
That’s good and fine as far as it goes.
I appreciate your kindness toward me.
Leave it to the men to deal with the horrors of this world. They have the thick skin to to what is necessary.
My denomination does not “do theory”. Since it does not lead to Truth. The “problem of evil” is a human creation. We can only know God as we experience Him, not through a filter of our reason. Literally the ONLY claims we make about God’s attributes are those that we EXPERIENCE. Even the Scriptures are to be read in the light of our experience of the Holy Spirit; otherwise they are the letter that killeth rather than the Spirit that giveth life.. We believe in a loving God because we experience His presence. We believe that there are evil spirits because we experience them as well. We don’t try to come up with a way to “parse” this. People love to create confusing puzzles. It is just something to do. It is not fruitful. The New testament is one of love, it is s not the Law (which involved constant attempts to explain God through reason). Most Christians will recite a creed without having thought about its theoretical implications, so it doesn’t mean much to say that “most Christians” “believe” in an omniscient, omnipotent and wholly benevolent God. I know plenty of conventional Christians who when prodded will say they… Read more »
“ I don’t really have the words for it, but good and evil seem to mirror each other to me. I’m not saying they are the same, but maybe it’s possible to, say, relativise things to the point where a person chose the wrong direction.” Both the Good Guys/Bad Guys, Good Cops/Bad Cops, White Hats/Black Hats are all playing on the same “team”: Team “God” (or whatever term you may prefer to use to refer to the “Higher Power” governing this “reality” It is absurd on the face of it to think that the Creator of this world is eternally beset with an “adversary” who consistently foils His plans, like an irritating mosquito which the Creator is incapable of squashing into a bloody pulp. But in another sense, it is true. There IS a force of “evil” in this world (what Matt McKinley/Quantum of Conscience calls “Notnilc”) — the horrors of this world attest to this “evil” force — but here we come to the tricky question of “duality” and “Monads”. I think the Eastern non-dualists have the better end of the argument than Westerns and the varieties of Christians. They would say all dualities (including the duality between “good… Read more »
But you know God is nought but a bullet.
https://youtu.be/aNZpkimAZSI?si=91PMUj7CsvLSRDoC
Enjoyed it. Thanks
I’m not a big fan of Crowley but at least he aspired to elevate the common hominid from its programming to simply “Rest, Nest, Digest” He was probably an optimist. I think Gurdjieff (whom Crowley stole from) had the better the of the stick: ———— George Gurdjieff developed a highly influential and unusual esoteric system often called “The Fourth Way.” His philosophy combined elements of: • mysticism • psychology • Eastern religion • Sufism • occultism • and brutally direct observations about human unconsciousness. At the center of his teaching is a radical claim: Human beings are mostly asleep. Not metaphorically asleep in a poetic sense, but psychologically mechanical — driven by habits, impulses, conditioning, imitation, emotional reactions, and contradictory internal forces they mistake for a unified “self.” The Core Idea: Humans Lack Real Consciousness Gurdjieff argued that most people believe they possess: • stable identity • free will • unified intention • conscious awareness …but actually do not. Instead: • different “selves” take over moment to moment • people constantly contradict themselves • attention is weak and fragmented • life is lived automatically A person may sincerely say: • “I will change” • “I love you” • “I believe… Read more »
The quote by Bill Hicks, “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves,” encapsulates a profound understanding of the universe. It suggests that matter is energy condensed into a slower vibration, and we are all interconnected, united by a singular consciousness that experiences existence subjectively. The idea that there is no death and life is but a dream presents a perspective that challenges conventional notions and encourages introspection and expanded consciousness. https://www.bitchute.com/video/yVyTSElVVcEW “See, I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do” “And if you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor” “Go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your CDs and burn ’em” “‘Cause you know what? The musicians who’ve made all that great music” “That’s enhanced your lives throughout the years?” “Real fucking high on drugs” “Today a young man on acid realized That all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration”… Read more »
Nobody’s asked me and I don’t generally weigh in on these existential questions that draw in silly people with silly opinions. But yes, what is evil? Is it EVIL when a newborn calf is slowly eaten alive in excruciating pain by a black bear one hour after birth, feeling it’s bones crushed and its body consumed bite by bloody bite while the bear is simply enjoying lunch? The calf had a glorious life ahead of it enjoying tons of tasty grass on the open plains, with kids and grandkids; heck it could have been bestowed with overflowing love by an adoptive human family, maybe even gone to college, but look at its short and painful fate. Look at it. Was it EVIL that a black bear did what predators do? You may say that humans are not bears and should not behave like that. I agree, it seems abominable amongst normal human communities, but nevertheless I think you need EVERY type to survive as a species and avoid extinction. That includes crazy BASE jumping risk takers, depressed philosophers, and predatory serial killers. That is the design of the world. If you don’t like how bears, crocodiles, eels, hyenas, and mosquitoes… Read more »
All that you are saying is that this is how it is.
The fact that you are personally grateful to have existed isn’t really relevant.
Saying that we need “every type” is just an assertion; you have no proof of that.
I do think a tortured lab animal is entitled to complain, and therefore so should any creature who suffers.
> All that you are saying is that this is how it is. That’s not all I’m saying. >The fact that you are personally grateful to have existed isn’t really relevant. It’s absolutely relevant. It’s the most relevant thing in the world to me until the day I die, at which point the universe ceases to exist, at least for me. > Saying that we need “every type” is just an assertion; you have no proof of that. I have a lot more evidence than you unnatural quaking religious types. Your ancestors and mine could be quite nasty and did what needed to be done to ensure the survival of the weak, hairless ape species. > I do think a tortured lab animal is entitled to complain, and therefore so should any creature who suffers. I’m all in favor of prosecuting beagle torturers like Tony Fauci and otherwise enforcing animal welfare laws, making our world a softer and more comfortable place. It doesn’t change what i said, revealing the inherent, built in brutality of Mother Nature. So how do you reconcile? What about a world without beautiful cats and 1-50 predators? Explain, I’m listening….”the wolf will one day lie down… Read more »
You’re not really providing an argument; you’re just making a number of mostly silly assertions that don’t cohere.
Your gratitude at having existing is irrelevant to the general question of whether suffering is okay. All you are saying is that it is okay for you. So what.
You have no idea what will happen after you die;; no idea whatsoever; it is totally absurd for you to claim that you do.
The fact that some of our our ancestors did evil things doesn’t make those things right or good, or prove that they had to be done in order for us to exist.
How do you know the suffering is necessary for there to be a natural world? Cats could have the temperaments of nutrias; there is no reason they couldn’t. Just claiming that they couldn’t proves nothing.
None of this has to do with religion so bringing that up is not on point; this is an ethics debate here, since you are not religious.
> You’re not really providing an argument That’s right, I’m not getting inviegled into one of your religious arguments; neither will I argue the Bible, the Quran, or the Torah endlessly. I’m stating my experience in the real world without going bonkers with religion. > Your gratitude at having existing is irrelevant to the general question of whether suffering is okay. All you are saying is that it is okay for you. So what. I never said “suffering is okay.” YOU want the world to be different than what it is, without predators being mean to prey. Maybe you should try to make a distinction between the animal world and the human world? > You have no idea what will happen after you die;; no idea whatsoever; it is totally absurd for you to claim that you do. You firmly believe that you will ascend to Heaven, as a good woman faithfully adhering to her religion. It’s been said that God is for men and religion is for women. I like the concept of ultimate justice also, but there’s no telling if it will be so. You have your “faith” which I don’t share. > The fact that some of… Read more »
“ I never said “suffering is okay.”
YOU want the world to be different than what it is, without predators being mean to prey. Maybe you should try to make a distinction between the animal world and the human world?”
This is it.
And I have to deal with prudish schoolmarms like Karen and Big Bird, telling me that feral females don’t like to be choked during sex
There is a discontinuity here.
There are two types of females.
Mehen, I had to grasp a feral female by the throat when she asked me to because what else is a gentleman to do in that situation?
I see you heroically fighting them bitches and not giving up but I haven’t wanted to get involved in the heated conversation.
Good luck
o7
Actually, there’s fundamentally two different types of people in this world, those who have a conscience and the ability to experience empathy, and those who don’t.
The ones who don’t could be classified as sociopathic narcissists, and what they all have in common is that they find pleasure in pain, giving it, receiving it, or both.
This disorder can be objectively identified in the amygdala as not being fully intact or functional.
“ Actually, there’s fundamentally two different types of people in this world, those who have a conscience and the ability to experience empathy, and those who don’t.”
This is correct, and I don’t want to diminish your observation.
But as I mentioned in a prior comment, there is also the difference between those who acknowledge their base and gross animal nature, and those who attempt to ignore it with high-minded ideals.
This is the currently running script — the neocortex trying to make sense of the limbic system.
The “dissonance” between the neocortex and the limbic system refers to tension between different layers or functions of the brain — usually framed as: • the rational / abstract / reflective mind vs. • the emotional / instinctive / motivational mind This is a simplification, but it captures something psychologically real. The limbic system is associated with: • emotion • fear • attachment • reward • sexual desire • threat detection • social bonding • motivational salience Key structures include the amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and related circuitry. The neocortex, especially the prefrontal cortex, is associated with: • reasoning • language • long-term planning • inhibition • symbolic thinking • self-reflection • moral systems • narrative construction The “dissonance” emerges because these systems often operate according to different priorities. Examples: • You know a relationship is unhealthy (neocortex), but still crave the person intensely (limbic system). • You understand statistically that a fear is irrational, yet your body still panics. • You decide to diet, then compulsively eat under stress. • You consciously endorse equality or spiritual ideals, yet experience jealousy, status anxiety, lust, or territoriality. The limbic system evolved earlier and is heavily tuned for: • survival • reproduction •… Read more »
For the record, I hate the state of affairs I find myself within.
I never deserved to find myself in the “trap” I am now wrestling with.
I was a “good boy” in my childhood.
I never deserved this life.
It’s the “System” which has produced me.
How can I not hate the “System,” Wombat?
How can I not be expected to inveigh and rail against “God” and the “System?”
“ • constructing moral or philosophical systems that conflict with evolved instincts”
This is the religious impulse.
“ For you it has EVERYTHING to do with religion.”
Yes.
“ It’s been said that God is for men and religion is for women.”
I will have to remember this.
Thanks.
“ I’m all in favor of prosecuting beagle torturers like Tony Fauci and otherwise enforcing animal welfare laws, making our world a softer and more comfortable place.
It doesn’t change what i said, revealing the inherent, built in brutality of Mother Nature.”
Good point. Mother Nature isn’t quite as “mothering” as my own mother was. Quite the contrary.
She plays favorites.
Kali.
Kali is a complex figure, so any attempt to connect her to evolutionary psychology or hypergamy is interpretive rather than “canonical.” But there are interesting symbolic parallels people sometimes draw. At the mythological level, Kali represents forces like: • destruction of illusion • time and death • uncontrollable nature • sexual and existential intensity • dissolution of ego structures • the terrifying side of transformation She is often depicted standing on Shiva, wearing skulls, drenched in blood, simultaneously maternal and annihilating. The key point is that she embodies nature unconstrained by human moral preference. She is not “evil”; she is reality in its raw, impersonal power. From an evolutionary psychology lens, some people map Kali onto what might be called the selective, amoral force of sexual selection. That is where the hypergamy connection enters. Hypergamy, in evolutionary psychology discussions, refers to the tendency for mate choice to preferentially orient toward higher-status, higher-competence, or higher-resource partners. In simplified form: • male competition intensifies • female choice acts as a filtering mechanism • weaker males are excluded from reproduction • status hierarchies emerge Viewed symbolically, Kali can be interpreted as the personification of that ruthless filtering force of nature: • creation through… Read more »
I don’t know why your comment got downvoted.
Your comment seems reasonable to me.
How is it “strange” and “odd” that God is showing mercy to these poor animals in their final moments of life?
@Mehen:
Mehen, you’ve spoken fondly of Christopher Langan (allegedly highest IQ in the world). Under his CTMU framework he asserts that God is benevolent. So what leads you to trust John Zande over Langan?
Wombat, I don’t know that i believe your claim of a flood of “feel-good chemicals.” It seems to me, what I’ve seen, is that the animal only stops struggling when the predator gets a good clamp on the throat.
We’ve all experienced a surprising lack of pain, an ability to function, and clarity of mind in extreme moments – that’s the body doing its best to survive – but I think you’re taking it a bit far. Frequently the prey is simply eaten alive.
Have you seen/heard how Timothy Treadwell died from a bear attack? It wasn’t pleasant, involving much crunching, screaming, and blood and he was acutely aware of what was happening.
Precisely.
“ And if something is absolutely agonizing and awful and intolerable, then the flesh generally won’t tolerate it for long, so suffering should be brief.”
Please don’t make me provide you with the many horrifying counter examples.
Even I am sensitive enough to prefer not to go into such detail.
“ Mehen, you’ve spoken fondly of Christopher Langan (allegedly highest IQ in the world). Under his CTMU framework he asserts that God is benevolent. So what leads you to trust John Zande over Langan?”
Zande gets down to brass tacks with countless empirically-verified examples from the world we inhabit.
Langan — despite whatever other virtues he has — prefers to offer what Nietzsche called “fine philosophies” which are sufficiently abstract to keep the mind from noticing that the body shits foul smelling feces.
“ Seems odd that nature didn’t design all the prey animals not to suffer in total agony and fight and resist the whole way down. And yet, that’s not how nature really works. Instead, they get a dump of natural feel-good drugs.”
That is true in many instances within the animal kingdom.
It’s not always true.
It is certainly not true regarding many human deaths.
And even one counterexample to your “merciful death” hypothesis is sufficient to call the whole system into question.