it's contradictory. life is futile, both, with or without god.
tolstoy explained it >The second way out is Epicureanism. It consists, while knowing the hopelessness of life, in making use meanwhile of the advantages one has, disregarding the dragon and the mice, and licking the honey in the best way, especially if there is much of it within reach. Solomon expresses this way out thus: “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: and that this should accompany him in his labor the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. Therefore eat thy bread with joy and drink thy wine with a merry heart…. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity … for this is thy portion in life and in thy labors which thou takest under the sun…. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is not work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.”
>That is the way in which the majority of people of our circle make life possible for themselves. Their circumstances furnish them with more of welfare than of hardship, and their moral dullness makes it possible for them to forget that the advantage of their position is accidental, and that not everyone can have a thousand wives and palaces like Solomon, that for everyone who has a thousand wives there are a thousand without a wife, and that for each palace there are a thousand people who have to build it in the sweat of their brows; and that the accident that has today made me a Solomon may tomorrow make me a Solomon’s slave. The dullness of these people’s imagination enables them to forget the things that gave Buddha no peace—the inevitability of sickness, old age, and death, which today or tomorrow will destroy all these pleasures.
>it's contradictory. life is futile, both, with or without god. tolstoy explained it
Why should anyone care about Tolstoy's opinion on it? He wasnt exactly a holy man
Evagrius Ponticus argued that the Ecclesiates is all about how living in a material world is pointless compared to the joys of the spiritual with God, which explains its inclusion in the bible.
Imagine believing somebody would painstakingly assemble a large body of work just to insert a small text that aims at discrediting the core values of everything else in it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah that was my interpretation and I'm not religious whatsoever. Is it so hard to put aside the sentiments you hold dear and wish to stew further for just a moment to understand the obvious context of something.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The Bible has no overarching set of values or themes. It's an anthology of books included due to their importance in Hebrew and later Christian culture.
Because it's pretty obvious Persian-influenced Exile philosophy that later Hebrews rehabilitated as "Solomon's work" for no good reason. Just like the Song of Songs (except that's folk love poetry rather than philosophy).
>Persian-influenced Exile philosophy
isn't it near east influenced?
8 months ago
Anonymous
You mean Greek influenced?
Persian loanwords and a lack of classical Hellenisms like you see in Maccabees indicates that it was genuinely a product of the period when the Hebrews were ruled by the Persians. Greek phil is far more attested in the NT than in the OT.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's not true. Some scholars argue it has Epicurean influence.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Who? I'm inclined to believe it predates Epicurus, but it'd be neat if that wasn't the case
Nobody fully understands the canonization process of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Sorta cool that they have an ancient existentialist philosophical tract thrown in with the rest of their holy books. Interesting.
The Bible has no overarching set of values or themes. It's an anthology of books included due to their importance in Hebrew and later Christian culture.
brutal blackpill, amalgamation of ancient greek and near east blackpills
skip the last chapters because those were written by priests
Why cant it be complementary to the rest of the book?
it's contradictory. life is futile, both, with or without god.
tolstoy explained it
>The second way out is Epicureanism. It consists, while knowing the hopelessness of life, in making use meanwhile of the advantages one has, disregarding the dragon and the mice, and licking the honey in the best way, especially if there is much of it within reach. Solomon expresses this way out thus: “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: and that this should accompany him in his labor the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. Therefore eat thy bread with joy and drink thy wine with a merry heart…. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity … for this is thy portion in life and in thy labors which thou takest under the sun…. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is not work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.”
>That is the way in which the majority of people of our circle make life possible for themselves. Their circumstances furnish them with more of welfare than of hardship, and their moral dullness makes it possible for them to forget that the advantage of their position is accidental, and that not everyone can have a thousand wives and palaces like Solomon, that for everyone who has a thousand wives there are a thousand without a wife, and that for each palace there are a thousand people who have to build it in the sweat of their brows; and that the accident that has today made me a Solomon may tomorrow make me a Solomon’s slave. The dullness of these people’s imagination enables them to forget the things that gave Buddha no peace—the inevitability of sickness, old age, and death, which today or tomorrow will destroy all these pleasures.
~Tolstoy, A Confession
>it's contradictory.
As the deepest truths invariably are
in the space between the truths of the deepest paradoxes lies God
>waaah, life has more sadness and boredom than happiness in it so its meaningless!!!
As if happiness mattered at all next to Truth. Pathetic.
foolish to put them on a spectrum. happiness is one of many experiences of the heart that leads one to develop a sense for truth
Some say happiness is what makes like meaningful at all.
>it's contradictory. life is futile, both, with or without god. tolstoy explained it
Why should anyone care about Tolstoy's opinion on it? He wasnt exactly a holy man
Evagrius Ponticus argued that the Ecclesiates is all about how living in a material world is pointless compared to the joys of the spiritual with God, which explains its inclusion in the bible.
Imagine believing somebody would painstakingly assemble a large body of work just to insert a small text that aims at discrediting the core values of everything else in it.
Yeah that was my interpretation and I'm not religious whatsoever. Is it so hard to put aside the sentiments you hold dear and wish to stew further for just a moment to understand the obvious context of something.
The Bible has no overarching set of values or themes. It's an anthology of books included due to their importance in Hebrew and later Christian culture.
I mean, the book basically says "life is fleeting and temporary as a vapor, God is eternal, so seek God" and that makes sense to me
Because it's pretty obvious Persian-influenced Exile philosophy that later Hebrews rehabilitated as "Solomon's work" for no good reason. Just like the Song of Songs (except that's folk love poetry rather than philosophy).
>Persian-influenced Exile philosophy
isn't it near east influenced?
Persian loanwords and a lack of classical Hellenisms like you see in Maccabees indicates that it was genuinely a product of the period when the Hebrews were ruled by the Persians. Greek phil is far more attested in the NT than in the OT.
That's not true. Some scholars argue it has Epicurean influence.
Who? I'm inclined to believe it predates Epicurus, but it'd be neat if that wasn't the case
You mean Greek influenced?
Why is this part of the old testament? Doesn't it contradict the Christian system of belief?
Nobody fully understands the canonization process of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Sorta cool that they have an ancient existentialist philosophical tract thrown in with the rest of their holy books. Interesting.
>Judeo-Christian
Go leave
NO, YOU!
Jannies! I mean, trannies!
Funniest book of the OT. Laugh out Loud funny!
one of the few books of the bible worth reading, the others are job, genesis and the gospels, the rest into the trash it goes
proverbs is the best book in the bible imo. good solid ancient wisdom.
Bot plz. God is great. Amen
Pretty well written derivative of the Greeks