• Who do you still admire?
    ↪Beebert
    Sometimes you react a lot. My impressions are that some days you're very combative (like yesterday lol), and some other days you're more patient and open to discussion :P
  • On perennialism
    dear charleton — Thorongil
    (L) >:)
  • On perennialism
    All of which simply goes to support the ultimate truth, which is atheism. — Wayfarer
    It's interesting you believe this leads to atheism.

    Atheists point out, rightly, that each 'religion' claims to have a unique truth, which is different to all the other 'religions', and can't co-exist with it. But from any rational or objective point of view, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they all cancel each other out, that no 'religion' has or is the truth, but they're simply cultural projections and collective wish-fulfilment. — Wayfarer
    But why couldn't it be that religions are like peaks of a mountain range? There's different peaks which reach to different heights. But then there would be a religion which towers above the rest and is "most true" if we can so say - the highest peak. A religion which has access to the fullness of Truth.

    I think your view is too black and white - all religions attempt to reach truth and fail (thus no religion is true).
  • Who do you still admire?
    I would love it if you could give me some tips on Works by Christians that reaches the level of the upanishads according to you. — Beebert
    Hmmm - the mystical writings is what I would recommend. Like these:

    Cloud of Unknowing - By Unknown
    Mystical Theology - Dionysus
    Theologia Germanica - By Unknown
  • Who do you still admire?
    But so much of the stupidity done in the name of christianity(even though this may not be a valid excuse) has repelled many more "intelligent" People too. — Beebert
    I don't think it's a question so much of intelligence. It's more of a question of temperament. Perhaps Christianity has repelled some of the most sensitive people because of the reasons you outline.
  • On perennialism
    They have a fear of commitment. — Noble Dust
    Yes, that's why they always carry a pink flying pony around, which they have to always hug tightly to their chests O:)
  • On perennialism
    the "spiritual but not religious", the type who wants to avoid conflict by painting over disparate views with a broad brush. — Noble Dust
    @Wayfarer >:O
  • Who do you still admire?
    But I can't find much in the Christian tradition that reaches the level of the upanishads in profoundity and depth — Beebert
    >:)
  • Who do you still admire?
    ↪Thorongil
    There's also the point that the true religion would have to appeal to both intellectuals and the common man. The common man shouldn't find it impossible to enter just because he's not smart enough.
  • Who do you still admire?
    Paying no attention to proselytization is often a good thing. We know what many of those who have tried to proselytize have often done. Christianity embracing People from different Cultures hasn't only been about love and openess but about power, just as Russia probably would like to be the whole world. — Beebert
    >:O But of course, but it's a pragmatic issue. If you don't have power as a religion, you will be extinguished from the world. So religious leaders always struggle to balance the spiritual with the material.
  • Who do you still admire?
    And, Kierkegaard makes the conclusion that Socrates was probably despairing. — Beebert
    I don't remember that, but it may be possible...

    I also know more about your Church than you think, for example that baptism literally washes away sins. So, what is the regard here to Faith? — Beebert
    ??
  • Who do you still admire?
    Sickness Unto Death that Socrates despaired over his sin. And despair according to many Christians is a very bad thing right? — Beebert
    It's true that it's been quite a long time since I last read Sickness unto Death, but I certainly don't remember the claim that Socrates despaired over sin. I remember he discusses the Greek view that sin is ignorance, and contrasts it with the Christian one in the second part of the book, which I've actually found really really interesting. And I remember that he somehow reconciles the two by the end?

    For example, even if Christ is proclaimed as the universal Truth, christians have more often than not completely FAILED to see that the same Truth is in many ways expressed in writings like the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita. — Beebert
    That's false, this Christian right here is of the belief that God has revealed Himself through the other religions as well, however, only Christianity achieves the highest Truth, because only Christianity has Jesus Christ. So the other religions aren't "false" they just don't have the fullness of the Truth.
  • Who do you still admire?
    You MUST read Simone Weil — Beebert
    *grabs gravity and grace from behind* ok.

    I honestly cant come up with any western philosopher in history who is as moral, righteous and honest as her. — Beebert
    I'm not sure about that, why do you say so?
  • Who do you still admire?
    like Kierkegaard — Beebert
    Wrong. Kierkegaard admired Socrates and sought to imitate him. He thought of himself, much like Socrates, a gadfly.

    Nietzache — Beebert
    Correct, although Nietzsche likes to strawman :P
  • Who do you still admire?
    That is nu point. So, should the pharisees despise the woman because she was an adulterer? — Beebert
    Well we don't even know if she was an adulterer. It may be possible that she wasn't and the Pharisees just lied about it. But if she was, then no. But they should condemn her and the man caught in adultery, unless they repent.
  • Who do you still admire?
    That is part of it. But what was the meaning of the law is something you must take in to consideration here. Love towards God and neighbour right? — Beebert
    Sure.
  • Who do you still admire?
    ↪Beebert
    And actually this thief example is easier to deal with, because our culture supports you - so your friend cannot find much independent support for his actions. But if you take the sex case it would be nigh impossible to convince him otherwise, because our culture entirely supports his actions and beliefs.
  • Who do you still admire?
    That is the typically American obsession. "When were you saved? Ser you saved?" Etc. Despicable questions often. Why would you avoid the question though? — Beebert
    Because a man cannot know if he will be in Heaven? :s And because by "are you saved?" they really mean to ask if I'm a Christian?
  • Who do you still admire?
    We have no right to condemn others because we are not morally perfect, etc — Beebert
    I'm not sure. That's what you read into the Bible due to your modern sensibilities. What Jesus actually meant was relating to the Old Testament Law. If you remember, in all other parables and encounters with the Pharisees, they Pharisees try to trick Jesus in order to show that he doesn't know the Law, while it is actually them who don't know the Law.
  • Who do you still admire?
    I would argue with him. Perhaps even calling the police if he keeps on. I would first ask him why he considers it a right thing, etc. — Beebert
    So what if he tells you that he considers it a right thing because the young should have the money, since they need it, they have their whole lives ahead, while the old are almost dead, they have no more need of it?
  • Who do you still admire?
    Have you heard the typically evangelical question "Are you saved?"? Have you been asked that? What would you, as an orthodox answer them? — Beebert
    Nobody has ever asked me that. I would probably avoid the question and say that I'm a Christian.
  • Who do you still admire?
    Whom, not who. — Thorongil
    Nazi? >:)
  • Who do you still admire?
    In such cases, being moral and following rules such as not having premartial sex seems empty. — Beebert
    Only in cases like a few of those people from the Orthodox forum who cry about not being able to "enjoy" having sex with supermodels in this life, while their friends do exactly that, and they feel terribly envious about it, and think they deserve some great reward in heaven after they cast off moral restraint - probably some nice girls - while their friends sit in hell watching them from a distance >:)
  • Who do you still admire?
    The pharisees were considered moral; they followed the law but neglected the true spirit of the law (love, mercy etc). — Beebert
    No, I think the problem was precisely that they did NOT actually follow the law, but quite the contrary. They pretended to follow the law only. When they brought the woman to be stoned, why did they not also bring the man? Jewish law demands that both are stoned, and they can only be stoned if caught in the act. So were they not hypocrites who did not respect the law?! That's exactly why Jesus told them that he who is without sin to cast the first stone.

    And having robbed the lady I would Tell him to give her the Money back. — Beebert
    What if he refuses, and says that it's right for him to keep the money?
  • Who do you still admire?
    I see. I just find the word moral/immoral to be Hard to use here, because Everything is about the human heart, and we cant judge others heart. The best way to change a person's behavior isnt to condemn and dislike them I believe. — Beebert
    So suppose your friend robs an old lady in the street, and he comes and tells you. What do you do? Do you congratulate him for what he's done? What if he tells you: "well she deserved it, what does she need money for?! She's old, a step away from the grave, while I'm young, it's right that I get the dough". What will you say? Will you be like - "oh how nice of you, come here, I love you very much!"

    Or what if this friend of yours comes to you and says "Oh I just fucked this girl from the bar, it felt so great! That's what we should always be doing, that's what makes life great! I love fucking many girls, there's nothing wrong with it as many people think!" What will you say? Congratulate him?

    boratgs.jpg
  • Who do you still admire?
    So happiness is the purpose? What kind of happiness? Dont you run the risk now though of turning in to some sort of heavenly utilitarian or hedonist or something? — Beebert
    Eudaimonia doesn't translate as happiness. It translates best as flourishing. I'm not a utilitarian because I don't believe you do good for the reward, but rather you do good for itself - doing good is its own reward. Nor do I believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers (another false utilitarian principle). As for being a hedonist, no - since a hedonist takes pleasure to be the highest good, and I don't. Flourishing may involve some element of pain too.
  • Who do you still admire?
    ↪Beebert
    And there are actually a LOT of people who are immoral and don't feel sorry for being immoral. In fact, they justify being immoral as right! That's the worst in my opinion.
  • Who do you still admire?
    Much worse in what way? As in worthy of hatred? Or what? — Beebert
    Much worse in a moral sense.
  • Who do you still admire?
    I meant that it seems to me that you just hate immorality and immoral People because you hate it — Beebert
    Hate is too strong. I dislike people who are immoral and don't even feel sorry for being immoral. I tend not to associate myself with such people. I have no problem with people who have been immoral and repent.
  • Who do you still admire?
    ↪Beebert
    Indeed, I would say that those women who freely and out of their own choice engage in frequent casual sex are much worse, morally speaking, than the prostitutes on the side of the road who are forced into such a horrible existence.
  • Who do you still admire?
    You did understand that I said that fornication is bad NOT because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too, right? — Beebert
    Yes, yes I did.

    May I ask you; what is the purpose of "morality" according to you? — Beebert
    Eudaimonia.
  • Who do you still admire?
    The fact that someone has been sexually abused as a child often leads to prostitution later in life? Understand? — Beebert
    Sometimes, but not always. There are prostitutes, especially those who activate as escorts in the more expensive price ranges, who do it for pleasure and money (they can earn a lot in an easy way in that manner). I'm not talking about the side of the road type of prostitutes, most of whom are forced to do the work that they do, quite often under the threat of death or worse. They are indeed to be pitied and helped, not condemned.
  • Who do you still admire?
    Take a prostitute; perhaps her belief in love has betrayed her, Perhaps she was sexually abused by her father as a Child. Then comes a hell fire-preacher and condemns her. Is that your Christianity? — Beebert
    Wait. So is she a prostitute, or is she someone who has been sexually abused by her father? The latter wouldn't be her sin. The fact she is a prostitute is sinful if it's something she chooses (if she could do something else, but refuses). However, she shouldn't be condemned if she repents and feels sorry for what she has done in her heart.

    You seem to want Christ to Cure them for the SAKE of morality, while I would want them cured so that they will not destroy themselves, so that they can finally trust that there are good things in life too, like love etc. — Beebert
    I agree with both those versions - they are in fact one and the same.

    But I say : Fornication is bad mig because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too. — Beebert
    Absolutely, I agree with that. I agree that virtue is its own reward, and vice is its own punishment.

    But if they did, I would not condemn THEM. — Beebert
    I would condemn them if they don't repent. If, and when they do repent, then I will join you in condemning those who condemn them.
  • Who do you still admire?
    That it is a sick belief that has destroyed the life of many. As I said, now for the third time: This preaching has been used to mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. — Beebert
    The fact that it has destroyed the lives of many is stupid beyond measure. How does it destroy your life?! Do you, like a beast of the fields, think that if you are destined 100% to go to hell, than you might as well go around committing all the immoralities possible, and living a base life? Do you, if you are 100% destined to hell, refuse to enjoy the remaining time until that lake of fire?! That opinion is ABSURD.

    People who have a problem with the belief in eternal hell don't actually have a problem with the belief itself, they have a problem with anxiety, which is different. They - not the belief in hell - are causing their own suffering.

    Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning. — Benedictus de Spinoza
  • Who do you still admire?
    I dont preach encompassing love — Beebert
    I see. So then what's your problem with eternal hell?
  • Who do you still admire?
    Like when he made a Woman fall down from the stairs and then rejoiced when she died years later? Or when he committed fornication? — Beebert
    No, those are despicable moments from his life, which is exactly why I said that in those regards I don't admire him. However - considering who he was, he lived in a very restrained manner (excluding those incidents). He was one of the richest men of his time - you are aware that he could've had sex with a different woman every single night for example, and yet he didn't.
  • Who do you still admire?
    In this life too, stupid. It is the soul that suffers the most when someone has been raped. By the way, there is no soul seperate from the body I believe, but that is not the point now. You are almost a hopeless case when it comes to understanding. — Beebert
    I was actually referring the fact that the worst imaginable suffering of the soul only occurs (potentially) in the afterlife, not in this life. And again, you are a case in point. You hypocritically preach all encompassing love, and yet you hate people like me (by for example calling me stupid), who you're actually speaking with. As I said, it's easy to love mankind from a distance. It's unbelievable that you can't even look at yourself.
  • Who do you still admire?
    Or of mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. — Beebert
    Those people mentally torment themselves. Why do they do it?! As Spinoza said:

    These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning. — Benedictus de Spinoza
  • Who do you still admire?
    Dont you see that the sufferings of the soul can be the most horrible of all? — Beebert
    In the afterlife for sure, but why would that be so in this life? It's such a crock of nonsense.

    Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning. — Benedictus de Spinoza
    Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them
    You seem to be one of that multitude.
  • Who do you still admire?
    But you should be consequent here. He was far from living out his ideas. Far from it. So, according to your earlier statements, he should be taken with a grain of salt — Beebert
    No he wasn't that far actually. He lived quite an ascetic life considering the fact he was born as one of the richest people of his day.
Home » Agustino