-
On Nietzsche...
No that's what you say the most important question is now - I'm not willing to address it here. You certainly didn't think so at the beginning of this discussion.So you decide what discussion we have? I say that we have completely different motives here. To me, the most important question is: Why christianity and not Another religion? — Beebert
Now there's a lot of stuff YOU haven't addressed, so I find it quite unbelievable that you claim I decide what discussions we have -
On Nietzsche...
Of course I will hate the burglar - that's why I'd cut his head off and save my wife!Will you Hate the burglar or feel compassion? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Sure, if he attacks it will not be nice.But I am 100000 percent sure that Trump will not solve the problems But cause more. — Beebert
Proof?The Nazis loved Romans 13. That is what I talked about. — Beebert
This one:"That's not what you said the first time. So what happened, did you change your mind, or?"
What time? — Beebert
If you Believe that this sick evangelical pastor is right (because he pretends to be christian or what? How biased and dishonest if so), something is seriously wrong. You would like it if Trump started war? Brilliant... You think these statements are smart? My... The question isnt what God has or hasn't endowed people with, you answer to something completely different than the spirit of my post intended to say. The question was: Do you see what Paul 's sentences lead to? What has that to do with God now? "Because God wrote the bible"? Please, not YET... Now regarding fighting evil with force ... Doesnt sound very enlightened does it? I think both Buddha and Jesus would disagree with you. Wasn't it Jesus who said "Do not resist evil"? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
No, he actually wasn't. He told them they're headed for hell. You know, there's a reason the Nazis loved Nietzsche, but didn't like Christianity so much.Well Paul was once again a great Comfort for the Nazis — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
That's not what you said the first time. So what happened, did you change your mind, or?The matter is about the internal movements once again that causes one to act in a specific way. — Beebert
I do believe that Kim Jong Un is evil and should at one point or another be fought with force. He has enslaved all of North Korea and forces his people to live deluded and in horrible conditions. I'm quite sure that for Trump though it's about his (or America's) ego.You really believe that Trump and his insane advisor wants to fight evil with force for the sake of Good and justice? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Of course you fight evil with force, what do you think?! Are you crazy? You'll sit around "loving" the burglar who is killing your wife, or grab the sword and cut his head off?!Please, not YET... Now regarding fighting evil with force ... Doesnt sound very enlightened does it? — Beebert
Yes, in a different context.Wasn't it Jesus who said "Do not resist evil"? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
>:O >:O >:O And this passage:The question was: Do you see what Paul 's sentences lead to? — Beebert
"What belongs to greatness. Who will attain anything great if he does not find in himself the strength and the will to inflict great suffering? Being able to suffer is the least thing; weak women and even slaves often achieve virtuosity in that. But not to perish of internal distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of the suffering -- that is great, that belongs to greatness"
Gave great comfort to Heinrich Himmler who headed the SS and came up with the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem :) . I don't think I have to tell you who wrote them. See what Nietzsche's sentences lead to?! >:O
Really these are childish arguments. -
On Nietzsche...Now you should consider answering those points/questions I referred to above, as they are actually directed at the discussion we were having, and are relevant, unlike many of these additional points you bring without even finishing what we were previously discussing.
-
On Nietzsche...
Yes, I am aware of that. I haven't answered them because they bring up points which are not relevant to the discussion we were having. I can address, for example, why I think Christianity is true, but it wouldn't be very relevant to our discussion here or the thread.I Think Btw that you avoided to answer basically three posts in a row that I wrote. Nay more! Five! Wow... Nietzsche proves himself to be right when I observe your behavior. — Beebert
And having that as a goal you expect us to be able to have a meaningful conversation? :PMy goal is to fool you, dominate, display that I am better, that I can go against things I despise, and most of all; that I can just spit out frustrations and boredom in text. — Beebert
My goal is to understand your position, and show you where it is and where it is not compatible with Christianity as I understand it, especially as it relates to Nietzsche.Now I ask you; what is your motive? To help me? To convert me? To prove yourself right? Or what? — Beebert
I disagree with this. If everything is subjective, then we cannot have a discussion with each other, because a discussion presupposes we will both strive to attain some objective standard and truth.it would be subjective — Beebert
You are a human being, not the living God, so there is no comparison here. You're not my Creator. I have to keep repeating this same distinction a BILLION times because you don't seem to read what I write carefully. You - a creature - cannot do what God - the Creator - can do. You are bound by the Law, God isn't.Based on the same reason why you wouldnt enjoy it if I came to your door and tortured you in various ways." — Beebert
It's His Creation. If He wants to end it one day, who are we to say He can't? :s Indeed, it would be unjust for us to tell God what He should and shouldn't do with His creation.2. Considering the first question and granted that you answer it honestly; what would you say if God tortured everyone because he found it to be fun and just? If he, because he is justice, creates mankind just in order to play with it, deceive it and torture it endlessly without saving anyone? Would you agree with calvinists that it is just? Just in what way then? You dont know the mind of God, so isnt it better to look at it from a human Perspective?" — Beebert
Reason, revelation, faith, conscience - a multitude of factors goes into judging what is just and unjust.1. On what bases do you value what is just and unjust? What is derrived from your own banality and what is derrived from the True living God? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
I don't know, but you keep raising questions upon questions (which have little to do with one another), and then when I answer a bunch of them, you always ignore the answers, or avoid answering the questions that I'm asking you. Below are just a FEW of the many things which you've never even bothered to answer:well what is the point with our discussion to start with? — Beebert
What's the problem? I would be punished by the Living God, not by man, and probably if God decides to punish me, then I absolutely deserve it, and would wish no different. God is the very standard of justice and truth. He is no man. — Agustino
Why? You are judged based on moral considerations, not musical and compositional skill. You can be an unrepentant rapist who nevertheless writes the greatest music. So what?! You think that somehow that excuses you?! :s You're excused from having to follow moral rules because you're "great"? What kind of nonsense is this? — Agustino
What have you done to be more precise? — Agustino
No, these are not a progression, but rather three different ways of being in the world. They are "moods" rather than paths. Kierkegaard's ultimate point is that the aesthetic mood is a forgetfulness of the ethical mood, and the ethical mood is a forgetfulness of the religious mood. In-so-far as this relationship holds true, this means that the religious mood does not deny the ethical and the aesthetical, but rather subsumes and incorporates them in itself. Aufheben. — Agustino
What's the use of that? What do you think you'll achieve with it? — Agustino
Not to mention pretty much my entire previous post..I would pray that God forgive me and spare me of that fate, but if that's what He wants, then I will accept it, for Him. Afterall, He too died for me, why shouldn't I be willing to suffer for Him if I must? It is not up to a servant to question his Master in the end. — Agustino -
Post truthIt's a metaphor.
noun
1.
a short, jerky motion:
Also bob can refer to a small mechanical part.
"a dangling or terminal object, as the weight on a pendulum or a plumb line."
His knowledge of economics is like a short, jerky motion - like a small mechanical part -
basically nonexistant and faulty. -
Post truth
Oh yeah, old grandfather commie Sanders, who doesn't know two bobs of economics, as American President would have been great!Again, we would all be better if the DNC didn't rig the primary against Sanders and he was our president. — Thanatos Sand
-
On Nietzsche...
God in His essence is both changing and unchanging at one and the same time - obviously. I don't even know why you mention this, as if I didn't already know that the God of the Bible is a transcendent God.it seems blasphemous to say that God is unchangeable if one takes a look at scripture. — Beebert
:s As if Aquinas denied the transcendence and mystery of God... Quite the contrary, he said reason goes only so far, and ascribes properties to God ANALOGICALLY. But of course, you probably critique him without knowing all those subtleties, much like Nietzsche. It's no fun to put up a strawman and then burn it.He is not the Aristotelian God that Aquinas — Beebert
By sovereign we actually do mean someone who can actualise his will if he so desires.Or he creates the world because he so wishes, but that means he still isnt sovereignly omnipotent, because he then obeys his own wish to create. — Beebert
That's not what it says.God caused people to disobey him (Rom 11:32). — Beebert
"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."
"According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear"If they do not understand God's message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) — Beebert
As I've told you many times, this means that God allowed them to persist in their sin. It's metaphorical language. You seem to have started to read the Bible like John MacArthur :P
False. Rather God prevents certain of the Apostles from preaching there. Why? Because they were meant by God to preach in different places. There were others meant to preach in Asia.God prevents the Gospel from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) — Beebert
"Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not."
Yes, all humans have been predestined to find their joy only in God and by serving God's purposes. Yep, our purpose was predestined and given to us before the world began. We were also predestined to exist, etc.Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (ii Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11) — Beebert
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."If a person has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). — Beebert
Yes, it does come from God, doesn't everything, including your intellect for example come from God?! Where do you think it comes from, the devil?!
Nope, that's not what it says in those passages. You cannot cite even one single instance of a man doing what he does because God predetermines him to do so. And even if God predetermined them, He could still hold them responsible so long as they have free will. God predetermined them to have free will too."If a person can only do what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible for their actions?" — Beebert
Well it is blasphemy because you're purposefully misinterpreting what holy Scripture says, in a manner that is quite a bit like John MacArthur to tell you the truth.And the hypocritical and evil thing seems to be to object it and call it blasphemy. — Beebert
Well yes, God has endowed them with this power, where else do you think this power is coming from?! :s Oh the devil, you're going to say. Well who endowed the devil with power?“When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.” — Beebert
And there's nothing wrong with fighting evil by force.
Incomplete interpretation.If God is unchangeable and eternal and outside of time, then this must mean that Everything that has come in to existence out of him must be either only representation and appearence, or eternally existing outside of time (That again means that this world is just like Schopenhauer understood it, which would give the writers of the upanishads right), otherwise God went from Being the only Being, in to being he who created everything. Or perhaps God WASN'T before he created? Perhaps Stendhal said it best: "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist". — Beebert
Really, I'd like to have a discussion with you, but so far you've just been strawmanning and purposefully misinterpreting things so that they fit with the story you want to tell. If you want to have a discussion, please put more effort in deciphering the meaning of what you read in light of Apostolic Tradition. Otherwise it's quite pointless, as you seem to be fixated to interpret things in such a way that they fit the story you want to say, on an a priori basis. -
On Nietzsche...
Soon we're going to get to an infinite regress of an idea of an idea, etc. This doesn't really work because obviously the number 2 isn't the same as the idea of the number 2. A circle, isn't the same as the idea of a circle. A circle is a concept, in other words, a relationship between a set of points.An idea of an idea. — Buxtebuddha
No, not at all, I presuppose this by just looking at the world. I don't encounter just physical objects in the world. Emotions for example are neither physical, nor are they ideas, and yet one feels them and encounters them. By the way, please be aware that I'm using "being" in the philosophical sense.And you presuppose that there are different types of beings based on faith. — Buxtebuddha
Why? Human experience of the transcendent is so common - our history is littered with examples of theophanies.Human experience of the transcendent? You can't know that. Pure hamfisting here. — Buxtebuddha -
On Nietzsche...
Why is that Christianity's failure, and not rather the failure of the unbelievers?It cannot overcome human weakness for millions of unbelievers. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I think Christianity does make death and suffering easier to bear for that matter. As Nietzsche said, he who has a why, can bear almost any how.If our concern is overcoming the weakness of human death or the suffering instituted by worldly conflict, a Christian world is amongst the greatest tragedies, a natural disaster constituting human weakness of millions of people. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Because according even to you it works for the believers? >:O So if they become believers it will work for them?Why would anyone concerned only with overcoming human weakness be attracted to Christianity as an ideal? — TheWillowOfDarkness
:DChristianity is only effective at overcoming human weakness for the Christian. — TheWillowOfDarkness -
On Nietzsche...
I didn't say you must like the idea, because as I said we're not sure if eternal refers to infinite temporal duration. It might refer to that. I said that you should be capable to be fine with it if it DOES indeed mean infinite temporal duration. That I do not know. God knows.Why must I like the idea? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Okay, sure, so what's the point? You don't seem to like the idea of eternal hell. Why not? Can you - a created being - decide what the just punishment is better than the uncreated God? If the uncreated God decided that eternal hell is the just punishment, why would you say it's unjust? Based on what?Those are what I criticize, and your God I dont know — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Created beings, obviously. What's your point?and theology, Christians, the church are? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Stalin is a created being, not an uncreated Creator."What makes you think that your idea lf good and evil can judge whether what Stalin did was evil or not?" — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Why?I have constantly claimed that God as proclaimed by traditional christianity appears to me as evil. — Beebert
And why would you think that your idea of good and evil can be applied to judge God? -
On Nietzsche...
Sure, hence he decides what is good and what is evil, just like he decides what is just and unjust.But
1. God is beyond Good and evil — Beebert
Those are too large questions, you need to be more specific. Truth for example doesn't have just one definition. A sentence being true is different from a a situation in the world being true, which is different from an emotion being true and so forth. Truth doesn't have only one sense.2. What is justice and truth? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
It makes sense to question a theology maybe, but not to question God. You can think a theology is wrong, and that's entirely different. So far you haven't spoken of a theology being wrong, but rather of God being evil, etc.When I speak, God is impossible to question because he is transcendent, beyond Good and evil etc. But while you speak, everything is perfectly rational. — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Because you said if God is transcendent then it is meaningless to speak about Him. And that's false.Omg what made you draw that conclusion from what I said? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
So I take it that you don't respect, admire and love God then? :sI was talking about me not you. If you misunderstand so gravely what I write then surely you have at least said one true thing: We can't have a discussion. — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Everyone else.Who are we? — Beebert
No, I'm not sure if eternal = infinite temporal duration.Do you then at least have any idea of what it means? — Beebert
Of what use is this insult?That is very selfish but so what? You invite me to it. And if you werent a typical Engineer in your dryness — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...Not to mention that your thoughts are the absolute height of stupidity - you believe you may be damned, and therefore you propose suicide or worse as the answer! As if another wrong can somehow remedy the situation or make it better! No, of course it can't but you, out of spite and resentment, dream up these monsters. Because you're damned, you might as well make the world hell for yourself and others, because why not? You're damned anyway, what do you care? Doesn't that sound selfish even to you?
And not just this, but you believe you MAY be damned. Of course there's a small chance maybe - say 0.1% - that you're not damned. But you don't even want to play that chance. Instead, you prefer to screw all your chances of salvation, because why not, 0.1% is too small for you to accept! Only 100% will do! -
On Nietzsche...Your thoughts are all over the place, and it's impossible to discuss like this. Please pick a specific subject/topic and let's discuss it.
We don't understand what "eternal" means in "eternal hell". You seem to understand it so very well, the rest of us not so much.The thing is that you claim, based on your tradition, that God actually does send people (according to Scripture the majority) to hell — Beebert
:s Never said this. God is the Creator of both good and evil - of both pairs of the duality.The rational, the unchanging, the good, the true, the moral. These cannot have become and must therefore be causes, is that so? Why? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
No I'm not. To say God is beyond reason isn't to say God is IRRATIONAL. Hence it's not meaningless at all. Beyond reason isn't the same as irrational.But you are blind because you take it for granted that God is good (and yet beyond goodness). You are basically just saying meaningless things. — Beebert
No, I take it that God is transcendent, and hence beyond good and evil for God is Creator.But you are blind because you take it for granted that God is good (and yet beyond goodness). — Beebert
No, this doesn't follow at all. Trying to put the blame on me for your own immoral thoughts isn't going to work. You have convinced yourself of that, which is nothing but foolishness.And you have convinced me that if I one day am "brave" enough to accept that your monster God will torture me forever, I am justified to go rape and kill everyone I see. — Beebert
Right, God alone can judge, but you've already decided you're probably damned :s Do you even believe what you're saying?Because God alone can judge, and I am probably damned because I refuse to accept what I believe to be a reprehensible understanding of the world. — Beebert
Why would I do that? I respect, love and admire God.Why not declare war against God and mankind in the meantime like Lucifer himself? — Beebert
No I'm not saying it is ugly at all. That's your misinterpretation. I've already told you that God IS the very standard by which beauty (and truth and justice, etc etc.) are judged by.You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. — Beebert
It looks ugly to you, I don't see anything ugly in the unrighteous being punished by the Living God.No matter how that truth looks like right? — Beebert
Again, beyond reason =/ irrational.The Only conclusion to Draw from your understanding and reasoning of God is "There is no point in neither reasoning with eachother nor trying to understand" — Beebert
You are projecting once again.Christianity makes criminals worse than they already are and create enemies. — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
Yes, but we do have access to revelation. You need grounds for questioning something, and such grounds are in this case missing.Who knows? Surely only those who God has revealed this to would know it. — Beebert
Because that is absurd, we would never form that conception of God.Without revelation, why not say "God is the very standard of injustice and falsehood. He IS injustice and falsehood" — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
You misunderstand. God is incomprehensible, BUT we do know that He is the standard of justice and truth, for there is nothing higher than God. Therefore you cannot judge God by the human idea of justice and eternal punishment, that is foolish, since you already know that God is the very standard of justice and truth.But let me start: God's justice is beyond our comprehension of justice you claim over and over again. I dont know this God. Therefore I judge what I know, and Based on that, the human idea of eternal punishment being justice is more reprehensible than any crime ever committed. — Beebert
Both. There is no faith without works, and no authentic works without faith.Faith? Or Works? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
?But that God might as well be... You know — Beebert
How do you know? Feyerabend is a scholar (and an atheist by the way). He thought the Church acted rationally. And I think so too. The evidence is absolutely in their favor. They may have wanted to dominate (who knows what they really wanted), but the facts are such that they had a right to act the way they did.It was not what the Church did, or mostly, it wasn't the reason they did what they did. — Beebert
Back in that day yes, because there was no other way to prevent them from publishing their works. Today no, because we have scientific journals, and if you don't get published in the relevant journals you will be ignored by the scientific community anyway. It was a more barbaric way of police-ing what happens. Wasn't Nietzsche the one who said that as societies develop, their punishments get lighter or something to that effect, but only because the societies get stronger and have stronger means of preventing harm?And is that even a good reason for condemning someone and threstening the person with death? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
We don't know if he is, but probably he is. He had a direct encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, and many things were revealed to him, compared to most other Christians.You dont understand my words. And you havent understood Paul, so talking about Scripture is obviously meaningless. Isnt he the predestined to glory? — Beebert
If you believe your own words with regards to hell to be true, then you at least intend to attack whom you perceive the real God to be.What makes you fantasize that I do? — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
The Church back in the day was doing what the scientific community is doing today (because most of the scientists were also priests, because priests were mostly the ones who had access to the required education). The scientific community also "trials" people today. If you get trialed and thrown out, your papers won't be accepted for publication anymore. It's the same thing.Be consequent here, and stop being stupid. If you say that the Church was right because it was scientific, then surely you must remain honest based on your convictions and admit it was wrong. It was wrong to start with to even pretend to have the authority to trial someone for a discovery, no matter how true it was. — Beebert
I am absolutely being honest. Yes, the Church was wrong (ultimately), but it took the right decision at that time. It was the decision that should have been taken by ANY rational person. -
On Nietzsche...
Yes, Nietzsche is great. In comparison to Hume ;) .Because if you did, you would see that if one admits that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky is great but do not admit that Nietzsche is great, one either lies or does not understand... — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
What's the problem? I would be punished by the Living God, not by man, and probably if God decides to punish me, then I absolutely deserve it, and would wish no different. God is the very standard of justice and truth. He is no man.I would Love to hear you say that if you end up in the hell of John of Patmos — Beebert
How can it be unjust when God is the very criteria by which justice is decided? :s So let's see, you're going to judge God for throwing anyone in hell based on HIS OWN CRITERIA - how does that make any sense? What you're doing here is that you're raising yourself above God - much like Lucifer - and casting down judgement upon his creation. Why? Because of your weakness - you cannot accept that it is so. It is pure ressentiment and nothing else. And you form a morality which is above and beyond God himself, which you then use to judge God. That's nonsense.The question is rather: How can one be so blind as to not see that not a single doctrine is more cruel than this one, that it is the opposite of "justice"? — Beebert
Sure, since now you're referring to people.The hatred that has blossomed in the heart of someone who demands and longs for this must be so great that it has no end and no cure; that is, it must be as infinite as the hell they Believe in — Beebert
St. Paul says:It is obvious that Paul believed himself to be saved and going to heaven while others would go to hell. — Beebert
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Everyone, including St. Paul, have been working out their salvations with fear and trembling.
If we were to have a punishment of torturing someone then we would be a cruel and violent nation. Why? "Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord" You don't seem to understand the distinction between creature and Creator. Yes, it would be immoral for us creatures to set up hell. The same isn't true for God.Eternal hell isnt a solution to anything. It is primitive and heartless and nothing besides. — Beebert
Why? We speak to share God's mysteries. Mysteries by their very nature transcend the understanding, but are not therefore false. Furthermore, we speak to praise God - the fact that God is beyond all classifications and understanding illustrates God's greatness and supremacy. He is not in the pocket of a tiny little Einstein.If so, then we shouldnt speak of him at all. — Beebert
It was right for Galileo to be tried. He had absolutely no proof that the telescope, the new instrument which he used to make his measurements even measured accurately. He was using this instrument to measure the heavens, an instrument for which there was no empirical backing whatsoever. It's like me coming up with a new instrument, and then like a child insisting that I am right, and the whole scientific community is wrong in requesting further study of the instrument before the conclusions based on its measurements can be accepted.the trial of Galileo Galilei — Beebert
And that's not the bad part. The bad part is that he published and insisted, even when asked to reconsider and verify, that he is right. He was absolutely wrong, and the Church was right. The Church applied the scientific method in judging Galileo. We were not yet ready to consider the telescope a valid instrument for making the measurements. Of course, Galileo did happen to be right, BUT he had no way of knowing he was right when he came up with it. It was Galileo who was the irrational child stomping his feet, and it was the Church who was rational and applying the scientific method. If you read Feyerabend's Against Method, you will see this particular instance discussed in more detail.
Yep. What's wrong with that? Have you not read what Jesus Christ Himself says?! Matthew 19:28"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"
?!?!?! What? Shall the Saints, a John of Patmos etc. judge the world? — Beebert
That is not Paul, John's or anyone else's invention. Jesus Himself said it.
Foolish. I don't think Einstein was "noble". Or Galileo for that matter.And yet, in reality the foolish have been like the "learned"(Aquinas, the whole Catholic Church) and the noble (an Einstein, a Galilei etc) have been like a child. — Beebert
Why? You are judged based on moral considerations, not musical and compositional skill. You can be an unrepentant rapist who nevertheless writes the greatest music. So what?! You think that somehow that excuses you?! :s You're excused from having to follow moral rules because you're "great"? What kind of nonsense is this?I can't even imagine seeing a Paul at some throne judging a Beethoven... — Beebert
No, they never said they can judge for God.The blindness among those who do not see that it is he who wrongly considers himself to be saved that condemns others to hell and come up with dogmas to tell how one is damned and who is damned and not. This IS cruelty beyond all other cruelties. — Beebert
Truly.Wow, what great psychology! I guess even you have to Thank Nietzsche then! — Beebert
Why so? Nietzsche did have some good points, I never denied it did I?A bit dishonest though, dont you think? — Beebert
Sure, but your biggest problem is dealing with your anxiety. You will conquer your anxiety by being strong - by being okay with the idea of you yourself going to hell. It's a possibility that all of us have to take into consideration. Any one of us may end up in hell. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling.And if I judge anything, it is a fantasy and not a True living God. That is obvious based on your understanding of God — Beebert -
On Nietzsche...
I'm not quite sure Nietzsche is that great either. There's a lot of things he was blind to.In terms of greatness, depth of thought, honesty etc. Nietzsche goes far beyond what Osho does, and Steiner just tried to grasp everything so to thé degree that he grasped almost nothing.
It is almost like comparing Chopin to Salieri. Or Tolstoy to JK Rowling ( in the case of Osho), and perhaps to Tolkien or CS Lewis in the case of Steiner. — Beebert
For example, you protest about eternal hell and say that it makes God evil, and that everyone should be saved. But is that what you truthfully think, or do you merely say that because of ressentiment, because you're not strong enough to accept the doctrine of hell, and that some, maybe even you, will be damned? And out of your own fear and repulsion and weakness you invent a morality which you use to judge God by, and condemn God, just because you lack the strength to accept the Truth. -
Cosmological Arg.: Infinite Causal Chain Impossible
Yes, and the deeper problem is that physical laws may actually change with time, but they may change so slowly that we haven't yet managed to perceive the changes. It would be like Newton's laws work on Earth because the curvature of space-time here is so small that it's basically imperceptible to us.Consider also that you have shackled your argument to a claim that may not be made by scientists in the future. There's no reason to believe that another Einstein will not come along and fundamentally change our understanding of the physical universe, such that the Big Bang is then subsumed into an even more expansive and cogent theory, much like how the physics of Newton was subsumed into relativity theory. Who knows what could happen to the claim that time began with the Big Bang in that case. In other words, it would be like a 19th century person basing an argument for the existence of God on the notion of the ether. At the time, scientific consensus accepted its existence, but scientists in the 20th century discarded the notion, and so too would one then have to discard that theistic argument. — Thorongil
So all our physical laws may work for 10,000 years say, but what is 10,000 years in the history of the universe? It is like the curvature of spacetime on Earth, negligible. What we're doing is basically projecting:
See how what we're doing with the size of the universe is merely projecting backwards and forwards based on theories and conjectures that we form about the model of our Universe (whether it's accelerating expansion, decelerating, etc.). The reality is, that those prior and future conditions could really be anything. Any mathematical function we can imagine, which passes through the points of observable history (which is a few thousand years) can account for the data. Likewise the age of our universe is the result of our projection.
Agustino
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum