My brother and his wife had their first kid yesterday, and everything about it was idyllic. She was born perfectly healthy just a day before they were scheduled to induce and after only 24 minutes of pushing. Then she had breakfast and took a nap.
This morning, I had a bit of anxiety about this because it seemed like the buildup to a tragedy. I confess this is a response trained by Hollywood, where the only reason to include innocence or perfection is to tear them down for dramatic effect, and if possible use that tragedy to justify tearing down morality. From a biblical perspective, an idyllic birth would more often presage the idyllic life to follow. Insofar as pride comes before a fall, it typically follows the pattern success -> stagnation -> hubris -> fall. Good examples of stagnation preceding hubris are David and Solomon. So it’s the stagnation part I should be worried about. Anyway, all that is to say I was worried about the baby and it triggered an interesting line of thought.
My first instinct was to pray for her safety, and ask God to reconsider whatever reason he might have for allowing a tragedy. Then of course it occurred to me that he would have chosen the best thing, so I’d better not fuck it up by asking for a change of course. What if the tragedy were to steer us away from getting wiped out entirely? So then I thought I should pray more generally for God to do as he willed. But wouldn’t that be abnegating my responsibility to pray for the baby’s safety? (Praying is very difficult when you’re a sperg with no internal monologue and a bad case of ADD.) This brought me to the question: would I be willing to take on the responsibility for this sort of decision?
Well, of course not. I may play in some of the darker areas of thought (as far as peacetime thought goes) but when it comes down to existential stuff like that I’m downright sensible. The scene where Sam Gamgee picks up the one ring comes to mind, where it offers him a vision of becoming a dark lord over the earth and he laughs it off. But why not? So I thought of the hypothetical scenario where I didn’t have that sensible reflex, and it struck me that decisions like this are the entry point to occultism, Luciferianism, and evil generally. It’s not as if I’m averse to making decisions about life and death, since that’s ultimately a man’s job and IMO the reason for coming-of-age rituals.
It’s the prospect of resisting God’s decision and taking on his responsibility that repulsed me. I like my new term “karmic burden” for this. If God has made some sort of life and death decision about my brother’s kid that I don’t like, then it’s like when a husband makes a financial decision and his wife doesn’t like it. It’s the wife’s job to make her concerns known (prayer) but ultimately she isn’t the breadwinner, and financial decisions are her husband’s job. The idea that she’s responsible for the financial outcome is repulsive to her nature as a woman. (This is why you should stay away from single mothers: even if one’s got good genes and she just had a bad turn in life, being ultimately accountable for their financial situation requires them to develop a level of self-aware sociopathy that makes them incapable of submission to your authority.)
This is strongly related to a Banned Hipster post I was reading this morning:
Any stable political order is predicated on the idea that the rulers have the right to do the things they do, even if you don’t like them. Once that basic, often unconscious, and generally passive consent disappears, a lot of things happen all at once.
I like to use the example of a parent-child relationship; as a kid, I often disliked my evil, stupid parents who told me to go to bed or do my homework or what have you. But as a kid, I also had the vague sense that they had the *right* to decide these things.
As a kid, you generally think your parents are just wrong and stupid a lot of the time (in a rational world, we’d eat candy every day!), but that it’s somehow an adult prerogative to be “wrong”. As it happens, this tend to be the cynical attitude toward politicians as well.
What is *clearly* happening with these vaccine mandates in the US (but not necessarily in other countries with similar mandates!) is that this belief in legitimacy, this sense of “oh well they’re wrong again but what can you do?” is rapidly disappearing.https://bannedhipster.home.blog/2021/10/17/rod-dreher-fedposts-with-my-favorite-black-swedish-marxist/
Returning to the hypothetical where I instead decided to take on God’s karmic burden, it’s like I’m a wife with feminist ideas and I think my man’s decisions are going to make us poor and his authority is broken. Maybe both things are even true. One of the big ideas of Satanism is that God isn’t making the best moral choices and his moral authority isn’t legitimate, similar to how the feminist wife doesn’t believe her husband is making the best financial decisions or that his financial authority over her is legitimate.
It’s the unwillingness to accept the loss from these decisions that defines illegitimacy. In Christianity we presume God’s choice to let an idyllic baby die is the right one even if we can’t imagine any reason why, not for some abstract theological reason, but simply because like the faithful wife we sense that decisions like this are his job and we don’t want to take on the responsibility for them. We put up with the financial hardship or mourn the loss of the child, and then try to move on. Whereas in Luciferianism etc., there’s a refusal to accept the loss. The story of the mad scientist burning the world in the attempt to bring his love back to life is very archetypal of this idea: he refuses to accept that he’s lost her and the decision was made above his head and against his will. In purely symbolic mythical terms this is the refusal to accept the loss of innocence that accompanies suffering and Piaget’s “accommodation,” i.e. growth. Potentially, I can even see this being an incapacity to change radically enough to accommodate the new reality, which presumably requires at the very least a lot of biological energy.
I recently advised Patrick that if he’s looking for an esoteric Sufi version of Christianity he should look less to the East and more at Milton’s Paradise Lost.
[Satan] braves the dangers of the Abyss alone, in a manner reminiscent of Odysseus or Aeneas. After an arduous traversal of the Chaos outside Hell, he enters God’s new material World, and later the Garden of Eden.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost
Nietzscheanism hundreds of years before Nietzsche. With that on the brain, it occurred to me how nearly the book of Job was a Luciferian apologia. Job is given every possible excuse to declare God’s morality illegitimate, and ultimately God’s argument in the debate is the same as a parent’s would be with a potentially rebellious child: it’s a big world out here and you’re small and helpless.
I’m not going anywhere in particular with this, just thinking out loud.
Congratulations to your brother and his wife. I am reminded of Luke 22:42, “Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.”
When my church dedicates babies, the congregation pledges to pray for their salvation and model Christian living to them as they grow. I will keep your niece in my prayers.
Thank you! That’s possibly the kindest remark I’ve received on the internet in years.
My answer to the idea of the intellect believing itself above (or ignorant of) consequences, or necessity, either to follow the heart or to follow base instincts, moving on a path not tested but assured through dogmatic beliefs/hubris, has in the past been that there’s no answer, as it’s not even a question (I’m retarded). To the contrary it’s not a problem, this is man’s only mode of action to begin with. If I accept that the decisions chosen by a being with free will and not his (biological) nature is what’s judged by God, and that ignorance is always present within a human, that we are not aware of the consequences of our actions, then I’d say regardless of the outcome the decisions and the will behind the decisions are what matters. God decides the rest. It’s a bit paradoxical since I thought the reason we’re given intellect is to wrestle against the ways of the world, it’s in wanting to counteract things that we don’t like that causes us to want God.
I can’t accept a God that would give people a biological, inheritable nature and judge them based off of the actions that derive from their phenotype. In every aspect of existence paradox seems inevitable. God accomodates us into whatever it is he’s planning, we act within the world he created, within flesh he’s given us, interacting with decisions that aren’t always his as men can decide things for themselves, in all of that we still should submit ourselves to him. If we don’t act then it’d be meaningless. Should we be paralyzed over refusal to do things that might be good just because God could do it better? I have faith in God’s fairness.
I might be conflating the ways of men with the ways of the world. We’re in this state because Adam and Eve decided to disobey God, and this is the effect of that decision, wanting to counter-act it is natural. I also don’t think I’m saying anything, or being particular enough in my concepts.
I want to congratulate you on becoming an uncle since you seem happy about that, and I don’t know your brother or his wife, but it’s more sensible to congratulate them, and pray for her safety, as they’re the cause of whatever joy you’re feeling now.
You wrote…..’God’s argument in the debate is the same as a parent’s would be with a potentially rebellious child: it’s a big world out here and you’re small and helpless.’
I don’t spot that message at the end of the book of Job, which verses do you think give that message.
I see God saying ‘I am God, I can do anything I want, including to you and your kids, so don’t waste your time questioning me, cos I am God’.
And He wonders why no one loves Him, lol. Just read Ecclesiastes, Solomon knew it was all a load of pointless BS, then turned his back on God.
Uhhhhh, you don’t seem to have read either book very closely.
uuuuh, you got nothin
If you’re expecting me to argue about it with you, you’re mistaken.
You write BS, and when called on it, you run away like a coward, a virgin coward. Usueless fuck.
Really makes you want to go read something else, doesn’t it?
Darkness hates light, fuckwit.
You make shit up, and have NOTHING wtith to defend your falsehoods.
Are you sure you read Ecclesiastes all the way to the end?
Until you quote some verses to backup your Job conclusions, your just deflecting.
But there are none. And you arent man enough to accept it. Saddo.
I guess you’ll have to go find someone more manly to argue with.
In my original commnet I wrote ‘I don’t spot that message at the end of the book of Job, which verses do you think give that message.’ Was I rude, argumentative? Nope.
You couldn’t be assed to to even answer that question. Your choice, but when you look in the mirror, you will know what kind of man you are. spolier alert…a dick.
Why are you still posting comments? It’s been days of this now.
Tell you what, you’ve at least got follow-through. I’ll make a deal with you: if you can demonstrate insightfulness and quality of thought in a book report of Paradise Lost, as judged by me, then I’ll debate you.
Hoping, possibly in vain, that you’ll realize that answering a question on the scriptures should be something you jump with joy to do. Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another, but one can’t sharpen a mcflurry or a guurl i guess.
keep on runnin friend, hang your head in shame, i will go away now.
Both the link and the following post contains spoilers for Madoka Magica.
Only problem I have with the above essay is the claim that no absolute morality given to man by a God is equal to Homura doing nothing wrong, because there is no ultimate wrong. Wrong would be subjective and measured by how well an individual follows along his own goals and will, and considering Homura failed in her goal to make Madoka happy then she’s subjectively wrong, and Homura valuing the things that Homura values isn’t a contradiction within that particular frame of morality. Homura is lust, as in not gluttony over things but love over someone’s flesh and being, and Madoka is agape, love of a general concept, both have rejected the central will of the other. A morality can be formed through emergence rather than from authority, as expressed by Homura, except Homura rejects the concept of agape in favor of following only what she wants, no matter how delusional, perverted, and cruel it may be, even if what she wants is to be with the person she loves.
Within the original anime Homura is the source of Madoka’s accumulated power, since Homura ceaselessly repeats timelines in order to fine a single one where Madoka can be saved, and all the converging timelines centered around Madoka increases her power gradually but consistently. I relate with Homura and can’t fault her without also faulting my own ambitions. Homura is a pumpkin and so am I.
If there’s ever a thing that would cast doubt on my faith it’d come from something Japanese.
I was thinking of writing out the exact things and symbolisms Rebellion represents, the main one I think is self-deception rather than rebellion, although it certainly can include both themes, but that’s a massive undertaking that I don’t think even Urobuchi completely understands.
If Paradise Lost never got an anime adaption then it’s clearly not worth reading.
I’d argue that Evangelion is an adapatation, and more directly so in the reboot. That would be a good post.
I would encourage you to read the SparksNotes on those books instead, it’s probably a focus issue.
I realize Jesus’ statement, or asking, or whatever, in Luke 23:34 isn’t just a throwaway virtue signal, but a very serious statement. I feel fear when I realize my existence isn’t just an irrational manifestation of chaos but has very real and undeniable logic to it.
Kurt Vonnegut’s address at Fredonia College, May 1978