What was the last books you read? — BBZ

Philipp Mainländer, The Philosophy of Redemption - the same book as you -;
Plotinus, The Enneads.

If you say that unconditional love doesn't exist and you're able to reach an agreement as to how you're defining "unconditional love," then you've not submitted as much a philosophical inquiry as an empirical one. So, if someone says that they have experienced the unconditional love you've asserted does not exist, then in order to maintain your thesis that such does not exist, then you're left telling them that they're confused as to their feelings, despite you're having no access to their feelings. What this can only mean is that you yourself lack such feelings and you don't find it possible that someone else should have the feelings that elude you. — Hanover

The same context can be applied to love. No one can ever have "access" to love, as it is an abstract concept of how we perceive the relationships between individuals - I use "Egos", but you can go with whatever you want -. Even without having access to the OP's feelings or emotions, through the use of egoism it can be said that this "unconditional" feeling of love is simply a masquerade of who he really is - this is not only focused on the OP but to Man as a whole -. This "confusion of feelings" that you claim I'm focusing on is real. Just simply question or deny anyone's absolute truths, which in most cases, they collapse into denial and eventually anger - it's really horrible when we look at ourselves in the mirror and see what we truly are -.

Again, I am not saying that love is a bad thing or that it should be abolished, on the contrary, it must continue to be used as purpose. However, to say that something can be "unconditional", that is, that there are no adverse conditions that can change the conception of such a concept by the human individual, is something that human nature itself already debunks in itself. The fact that we are Beings - as in existence - already makes absolute concepts unattainable, and therefore, if affirmed by an existing being, false.

So what we know is that you've never experienced unconditional love. I know this because you told me. — Hanover

I don't remember talking to you about my personal life. In fact, I don't even know why I would do that.

Pyramids — Yozhura

The shape of the Egyptian pyramids is thought to represent the primordial mound from which the Egyptians believed the earth was created. The shape of a pyramid is also thought to be representative of the descending rays of the sun, and most pyramids were faced with polished, highly reflective white limestone, in order to give them a brilliant appearance when viewed from a distance. Pyramids were often also named in ways that referred to solar luminescence. For example, the formal name of the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur was "The Southern Shining Pyramid", and that of Senusret II at El Lahun was "Senusret Shines".

While it is generally agreed that pyramids were burial monuments, there is continued disagreement on the particular theological principles that might have given rise to them.

The Egyptians believed the dark area of the night sky around which the stars appear to revolve was the physical gateway into the heavens. One of the narrow shafts that extend from the main burial chamber through the entire body of the Great Pyramid points directly towards the center of this part of the sky. This suggests the pyramid may have been designed to serve as a means to magically launch the deceased pharaoh's soul directly into the abode of the gods.

All Egyptian pyramids were built on the west bank of the Nile, which, as the site of the setting sun, was associated with the realm of the dead in Egyptian mythology.

It's clear that the pyramids were of great symbolic value to the ancient Egyptian culture, as it was the vehicle by which the monarch of the entire universe - the Pharaoh - would ascend to the heavens and become a God. The aim of the pyramids was not to reach the heavens in a physical sense, but to transport the Pharaoh's spirit to the heavens.

Just a curiosity:

Reconstruction of how we believe the pyramids looked like during ancient Egypt:



Gorgeous!

Either way, I wouldn't go by your argument on love. — Darkneos

We agree to disagree!

Thing is, i have no idea myself what i'm supposed to write about, the materials i have been given are 2 videos, one is where they compare how much bigger planets are than humans , and the other video is what you'd see if you were high as a kite. And then the title for the essay is supposed to be Human- Macrocosm/Microcosm. — Brian the wise

Then you have to search it. Make questions about it for you to answer.

one is where they compare how much bigger planets are than humans — Brian the wise

It seems to me that this brings a similarity between humanity as Being, and the Universe as Eternal. Both Universes within themselves.

You underestimate me then. I would not hesitate to die for them if I knew if would save them. — Darkneos

I very much doubt that this is true. You can say that because - here I am based on speculation - you are probably not in a situation where this choice must be made - between you and your animals -. I am not saying it is wrong, I'm just saying that this love is not as deep as you think it is.

I don't say I have unconditional love to feel better about myself or label myself as noble, most people don't even know that and I don't tell them. — Darkneos

You just stated my point that you say this to be accepted by yourself the moment you answered me with:

"most people don't even know that and I don't tell them"

If that was true, you wouldn't need to defend yourself as much as you did.

It's definitely egoistic. — Darkneos

In this we agree.

I would argue that your denial of it's existence makes you sound jaded or edgy rather than say anything about the love itself. — Darkneos

Here you simply found it necessary to use Ad Hominem because you disagree with my opinion.

even people in my university, all of them told me they have no idea what this subject is — Brian the wise

Being rude and direct, it's probably because they're stupid. The "cultured masses" as they say.

all of them told me they have no idea what this subject is. — Brian the wise

Here I'll quote yourself:

"i'd like to know how we , as humans and a Microcosm, are similar to our Macrocosm, the universe?"

Your question is very vague and subjective as I already said. If you were more specific, maybe people could answer you, or at least discuss the matter with you. It's like if I simply came here on the forum and started a discussion with the follwing phrase:

"What is Existence"

How should I know, we have been trying to answer this question for more than millenia right now and we still can't answer it.

I just think it's an unpopular discussion in general, since it's based on old beliefs and religion. — Brian the wise

Just take a look around the forum. Every page has at least one discussion about religion, so no, it's not because of that.

I don't doubt that the forum is great — Brian the wise

It is not great, it is what it is. Sometimes good, sometimes really bad.

but i don't believe i have much to bring to the table. — Brian the wise

If you feel that way, ok. However, the forum is an open place, and being open, any proposition - be it the most intelligent or the most stupid - is welcome. As I said, if you formulated your question more profoundly, people probably would have interacted more.

i shouldn't half-ass things and expect great things in return. — Brian the wise

If that's what you got from my answer, I'm glad you noticed. :smile:

never return here. — Brian the wise

Why is that? The forum has its ups and downs but in general it is a good forum.

it's fair to say that i have failed miserably. — Brian the wise

First things first: If you want to engage people into your discussion, try to formulate it in a way that attracts the reader's interest so that they feel comfortable arguing against or in favor of your position. In this post you simply threw your question without any basis into why this question is important to you, and without any construction that specifies your point with the question.

And I think it's terrible that you focus only on people's engagement. You have to post discussions about something that really interests you. If the goal is to have readers, this is not how you will get them.

:smile:

a lot of intelligent people on this forum, — Brian the wise

Debatable.

I can't say I agree with it being egoistic — Darkneos

How can it not be an act of egoism, since you acquire the love of someone as you sell your love to another person. It is an exchange of good-feelingness. If love were not something that brought realization to your individual, you probably wouldn't want to experience it.

or that there is no unconditional love. I have unconditional love for my dogs — Darkneos

There is not.

I doubt that you would sacrifice yourself to save the life of one of your dogs, and why? Because your individual is worth much more - to you - than an irrational animal. The fact that you'll deny my point above simply shows that the act of saying "I have unconditional love for my animals or" I believe that unconditional love exists "makes you feel good about yourself and be well regarded by yourself; as a virtuous person, someone worthy of the egoism of others...

At least this forum has helped me understand mathematics better. Doesn't that count in our age of hedonism? — ssu

Any knowledge is worth as long as it does not corrupt your notion of how smart you are. I have seen - I will not quote names - many people affirming things here on the forum simply because they heard, or read from some "trusted" source, and were completely wrong. It is almost comical when a person learns something new and begins to preach it as if it is a new religion, yet what he knows is simply the basic of that knowledge. It is as if their new truths cannot be torn down because they are absolute - to them -.

Doesn't that count in our age of hedonism? — ssu

One of the symptoms of this "hedonism" - which I prefer to call as nihilism - is the "cultured" masses that "break standards" even though they're governed by them.

I am a bit saddened by your thought that philosophical thought will not be made from this forum because it is so alive with issues at the heart of thinking, including your own theories about the ego.

It is a sad state of affairs if philosophy must remain in the hands of the academic professionals alone. This site offers an alternative but of course we do not want philosophy to be made as insignificant, a mere everyday chit chat but an informed way of thinking about the world with critical thinking and insight. — Jack Cummins

The problem I see in current philosophy is that it is only valid if you are part of the academic niche, and if that is not enough, to even have some mere prestige within that same niche, you must have the same political views as the majority. The current academic philosophy is simply a certificate that ensures that you'll agree with the view of the instituition. That is why I defend the ideas of amateurs - even if they are the most bizarre and strange - because unlike academic philosophy, which is simply built to maintain the status quo of those who are already established in it, amateur philosophy seeks new questions and answers. Even new ways of existing and witnessing the world. However, I do not think that posting these ideas on a philosophy forum will cause such a person to add prestige and "fame" - for lack of a better synonym - to his work or his self. I myself only post my writtings here for the purpose of studying the public's reaction, their attitudes in question to my scriptures, and how they behave about certain issues.

I'm not saying that it is impossible for someone to be inspired by some content they read on the forum and then to start producing their own ideas, articles, etc ..., however, I doubt that any "revolutionary" thinking that is created here will eventually "explode" in recognition.

It is possible that the real philosophers will emerge in the process, or will the aspiring ones be lost in the Tower of Babel of endless threads? — Jack Cummins

Anyway, I very much doubt that any philosophical thought will be built out of this forum.

We all care what we can get in return. There is no such thing as unconditional love. It does not exist. For any love to last, the two partners should be of substance.

Even the perfect love of our Heavenly creator (if you're a theist) has its terms –commandments –or else you're thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone.

We only day dream and chase unconditional love, it is a fantasy because it does not exist. No matter how hard we chase after it. — Konkai

Love is an egoistic concept, where you make your partner property and let yourself be the partner's property. Love is nothing more than an established "Egoistic Union". As long as they are both getting what they want, the relationship will continue to exist. If only one of the partners is being fullfiled, something went wrong and it's no longer a egoistic union.

Yes to all that. Thales also said to have studied in Egypt. — Olivier5

I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to reading the ancient Egyptian works. It will bring us a new spectrum of how philosophical thought developed and what tranformed it into what Tales would eventually call "philosophia".

My problem is that I can't accept blindly any idea (scientific or spiritual) provided by another. So yes, I have a personal view of existence (mine and of the world I live in). This view had to be based always on my own observations and analyses. — KerimF

You have completely distorted my comment. What I really meant is that if you believe with dogmatic faith in your opinions - even if they can sometimes make sense only to you - there is no way to discuss your point.

And you are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impression you mentioned here 'resentment'. My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. — KerimF

Still, here you affirm that a "Will" forced you to exist:

"{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence."

Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while. — KerimF

Also known as "the masses" and "those who live by aesthetics". They are usually the majority of the population. I - personally - have a certain prejudice against this type of person. We are rational beings, with the ability to fight against our animalistic instincts to give life to the creativity that made us and continues to make us what we are — ambitious and beings of purpose and principle. Letting oneself exist simply to indulge in one's instinctual desires is not the reason why we are counscious of our actions.

I think I have to point out that the 'Will' behind Creation, which I perceive, is surely not of one being; otherwise I cannot see my nature as being an image of 'IT', even to some extent. So when someone sees 'IT' as nothing or just one being, he simply describes his deep nature, with or without his knowledge — KerimF

Here you have dismissed in favor of your argument the fact that every monotheistic religion - except Islam - preaches that humanity is a projection of God - your "Will" -. Your "IT" fits perfectly with the argument that God is eternal, being pure, static present, that precedes existence. If it was not withdrawn directly, your thinking is very much inspired by Christianity.

I wonder if you noticed my post about death and afterlife: — KerimF

No, I'm gonna take a look.

Perhaps I will understand the practical meaning of your version about 'existence and non-existence' if I will be born again :D — KerimF

The problem that I noticed in your argument is that you have a personal view of existence and a certain resentment - perhaps - for existence. Obviously, if this is completely supported by your faith, there is no discussion about it, because then is dogma.

You decided to apply the concept of "reincarnation" in my argument, and at no time did I place the premise that "reincarnation" is something real and that can be experienced.

For existence to emerge, simple non-existence is enough. — Gus Lamarch

Done. There it is your transcendental "will to existence", but I prefer the term "The will of nothing", or "the will for egoism".

The best way to get them to demonstrate their true intentions is to let them speak. Obviously by banning them in the first post, you only give an argument against the forum, as they have not yet shown their teeth. Obviously, if a person creates a post with the title "The Holocaust was Good" - for example - it should be banned immediately, but those who just "sympathize" with certain ideas - like Nazism - but do not make it clear, it is better to let them self-acuse with their posts.

"We would be ashes
We would be silent and old
We would be wisdom
We would be left in the cold"

Is not the purpose of discourse to expose bad ideas? If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it according to certain rules of discourse) then that becomes impossible, and discourse has failed.
Isnt discourse more important than whether or not we agree with the person? — DingoJones

:100:
Well said.

Existence is the craving for the craving for existence. This primordial "will" - if it can be named that way - did not necessarily need a transcendental entity to desire existence. For existence to emerge, simple non-existence is enough.

Well, you see, the Christian Roman Empire actively suppressed traditional pagan religion. Not necessarily Constantine, who seemed to prefer Apollo/Sol Invictus sometimes, finally consenting to be baptised when near death. Shrewd fellow, Constantine; he played the field as needed. He may have been the beginning, but the real persecution of pagans took place under his successors. — Ciceronianus the White

The point of deliberately quoting Constantine before Theodosius is in reference to the beginning of the favouritism of Christianity - with Constantine - and complete Christian dominance - with Theodosius -. Obviously we will have a Constantine before the rise of a figure like Theodosius, as it is a change over time, and even though it is drastic at certain times, such as with the Edict of Thessalonica - 380 AD -, they would already be realized in a society further weakened by the tolerance imposed on the civilization by its predecessors - such as Constantius II, Valentinian I, and Gratian -. I suppose the same will happen to the West at some point in the future - about 100, 200 years if we are already living during our period equivalent to the Roman "Crisis of the Third Century", or 300 to 400 years if we are still at the end of our period equivalent to the Roman "Principate" -.

"Constantine I", in Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions:

"Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult. "

I do not say that the first people who sympathize with Islam - in our case - will convert by faith, but by pragmaticity in terms of their political agendas.

For anything similar to take place here, substituting Islam for Christianity, Christians for pagans, imperial power would have to be imposed in the U.S., on behalf of Islam, for centuries. — Ciceronianus the White

You did not take into account the context of the people who lived at that time, and who still believed that they were living in a republic. What happened during the "Dominatus" was that the figure of the "Princeps Civitatis" - First Citizen - was completely distorted and inverted to the concept of "Dominus" - Lord, and/or Master - with the rise of Diocletian. What we call the "Roman Empire" was nothing more than the period of Roman civilization where republican values ​​and principles were gradually being inverted and distorted, where the final transformation would now be recognized as the "Byzantine Empire" - which in fact , in official documents until the 9th century, was denominated as a republic -.

Currently we have:

Inversion of republican values ​​and principles;
Extremism and polarization of the masses;
Beginning of censorship;
Populism and personality cult;
Economic crisis - although localized, it may eventually become global -;
Immigration and integralization of foreigners;
Plague.

All these and other more symptoms afflicted Roman civilization between the 3rd, 4th, 5th centuries until Rome was no more.

The attitude of thinking that Western civilization will never fall, and that it will become better is the very cause of its fall.

For one things, traditional pagan religion was non-exclusive and tolerant. Christianity in the U.S. is neither of those things. — Ciceronianus the White

Yet they worshiped a pantheon of Gods, and Christianity today has a pantheon of interpretations of God. For Islam, Christianity is a polytheistic religion because of the Trinity. Christianity, as the Roman religion, is secularized, with secularization you have decay, and with decay, you become weak, with weakness your values and principles are shaterred, and with that, only a new belief system can save the masses, and most importantly, their purpose - God -.

For generations that were born after the 2nd century, in a majority, the Greco-Roman religion was as frowned upon as Christianity is now seen by decadent generations. It is not surprising that they - the Romans - would use Christianity's perfect justification to destroy their civilization.

The leader of the Egyptian monks who participated in the sack of temples replied to the victims who demanded back their sacred icons: "I peacefully removed your gods... there is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ."

And then you have people today burning down churches in Chile and making priests prostate while the vandals are reciting passages of the Quran...

But don't worry, the West won't fall. It is already falling...

At times I am tempted to cave into depression and despair on a personal level and in interaction with the daily world. — Jack Cummins

We are all tempted by giving up daily, but the grace of existence is being able to let time feel the anguish of waiting for your eventual death.

I hope that you are not right that the worst is yet to come. — Jack Cummins

Me too friend...

I bet you didn't like hearing me say: "the science I know...". Well, even about scientific knowledge, I had the chance to discover things that the world (at the universities in the least) is not aware of. But, at the same time, many other persons in the world had also the chance to know things that, in my turn, I am not aware of.
So while in speeches we talk about absolute 'science', actually and speaking practically, many people, as individuals or groups, have their 'own' knowledge of science from which they, unlike others, can take advantage of it in their own projects.

By the way, ANY new discovery starts from ONE person only who knew it. Then, how it will be seen by others as useful, harmful or even non-sense is another question — KerimF

If you eventually develop and structure your thoughts in a way that doesn't look like religious dogmatic fanaticism, I ask that you post it as a discussion proposal here on the forum, at least I'm always looking for thoughts that will revolutionize, and disturb the intellect of the "Inteligencia" and the masses. But of course, there is a difference between new, strange and dificult thought to bizarre, mad and conspiratory.

Being a man of reason, I don't have faith in the first place. — KerimF

Then you're lost, because even science is dependent on faith.

Uh... no. They don't care about knowledge that it is against their preconceived beliefs, and also don't mind censoring. The lack of interest in getting to know miracles, on the part of people who nevertheless express their opinions about Christianity, reveals that these people prefer to know only the edges of the subject of which they speak, for fear of getting too close to the center and being singed. The fact that the forum has philosophy in its name is a comic pretension and inversion. — hithere

People with a strong faith cannot be argued because their truths are absolute. Good day / Good night :smile:

The neo-atheist mods would ban the thread. Not worth discussing here. — hithere

Probably not if well written and with a good premise.

I think that the problems were around long before Covid_19. In a previous thread comment I said that at times I wonder if the Covid_19 situation and the whole lack of its management is in some ways a deliberate strategy to reduce population control. This may be a bit conspiracy theory but I do believe that there is more going on politically than portrayed in the media. I question it all really. — Jack Cummins

The pandemic was a plate full of arguments for the media and for politics. Quarantine was one more way for the state to demonstrate its strength over the population. Step by step, you'll eventually destroy the world...

I would also say that I am not a complete optimist but I would like to see possible positive ways forwards. I get depressed and my whole approach is about personal and global healing. We all have biases and the need to acknowledge them is important. — Jack Cummins

It is good that you are optimistic, as this will be the necessary mindset when the bad times come. I'm not trying to appear apocalyptic or pessimistic, but, by my studies, we are very close (1) or to the end of our current way of life and not for the better or (2) close to the total collapse of society. Between the two, I still don't know which one will be the real one.

Jesus said "this is my blood, take and drink". You have to think multi-dimensionally, going from one set of beliefs to another. If this was in an Indian religion, the Christian unaware of communion would declare it pagan and immoral. When he finds it in his own religion, suddenly it's fine. That is why I said aspects of Christianity, if seen as only in another religion, would be declared wrong. But when seen under the aspect of Christianity, suddenly it's ok. As for the substance view of God, it trivializes virtue. You don't realize the principalities and powers behind it though — Gregory

I have already stated and will say again:

The fight against Christianity was fought and lost by the Roman civilization; we, our world, our civilization - the West - is based on more than 1700 years of Christian dogma, so why turn against the values ​​and morals that this same thought has brought us? Christianity created who I am and who you are, because without it, there would be no Protestant Reformation, Renaissance, Enlightenment, contemporary democracy, etc ... Obviously, the Christian religion, today ended up becoming a weird kind of mythology where everyone has their own personal interpretations thanks to secularism and with it decadence and nihilism, however, without that same Christian purpose, of reaching the divine, what will become of the West? If one group of people is concerned with questioning their own values, another group, confident of their truths, will take possession and control of the weak, history proves it. The Christians worshiped a convicted criminal, refused to swear by the emperor's genius, harshly criticized Rome in their holy books, and suspiciously conducted their rites in private, the romans saw this as horrendous and decadent, and yet, they lost. The same is happening right now minus the religious movement - or if you consider "ideologies" the new type of religion, then it is happening -. The cycle happens again and again, I see it, you seem to see it, but you still want to go with the flow of time, alright then, you already know what will happen ...

Has antinatalism increased in popularity the last few years? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Even if this type of ideology and philosophy grows, it fails on its own premise. Let them not reproduce, because the future of humanity will be decided by those who will.

You got a death wish, child
Four cans of pesticide to drink
4:30 Western Time
The boy's been arrested, why do you think?

But the period of time for which they hid is 40 days, not 30 or 50 :)
These 40 days have their particular meaning anywhere on earth. — KerimF

And? Just because Sumerian mythology also has the flood tale as the Christian religion, does that make it true? Obviously not. And why not? There is not enough evidence to prove that something like what we are told has occurred; same thing with the 40 Christian days, and the 40 Babylonian days, there is no proof of it happening. Now, its up to you to have faith and believe in it, in this case, it's a whole other story.

The formal religious systems, I am referring to, are also all well-known Christian Churches and Denominations in the world.
By the way, I was ignored (if not worse) in all Christian forums I heard of and joined, anytime I referred to what Jesus says (on their own Gospel!) about a certain subject, instead of what their doctrine says.

But, I also understand that my point here could not be clear to you. Perhaps, you didn't have the time or interest to notice the few but crucial contradictions between Jesus sayings and the teachings of any Christian Church. After all and truth be said, if they preach openly Jesus sayings exactly as Jesus does on the Gospel, a formal Church won't have the chance to survive for long (due to lack of serious donations). So they used reviving Judaism to hide what they like ignoring in Jesus sayings. — KerimF

The fact - that I had already told you - is that Christian theology, at the time of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, practically did not exist, and to transform it into a strong and stable religious movement, it was necessary to encode its message, Saint Paul noticed this, and worked on it. In the Catholic Church's own words:

"The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles, and that the pope is the successor to Saint Peter, upon whom primacy was conferred by Jesus Christ. It keeps that it practices the original Christian faith, reserving infallibility, passed down by sacred tradition. "

The Christian faith - for the most part - is based on the canonized interpretation by the institution of the Church. When you start to have individual interpretations of the message of Christ, it is no longer Christianity, but Gnosticism. It is what the Romans saw between the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and what we currently see in the church.

How could I not notice the contradictions in the Bible, since I was the one who stated in the discussion with the OP that the use of "sôma pneumatikos" contradicts the message of Saint Paul?

Of course there are many social inequalities but these are not going to be eradicated easily. — Jack Cummins

I don't think you understood my previous point. These inequalities will NEVER be eradicated as there will always be a group claiming to have less than the rest. Humanity does not exist to live in conformity and equality with everyone, it lives to compete and be the best, which in itself is already a biological structure of the social hierarchy. If that is already part of our biology, it is a waste of time to be resentful for the cause of the weakest, unless it is used as a tool to exacerbate his ego towards his social niche - ex: I regret the misery in Africa and how I am very saddened for the afflicted. With this act, I am well seen in the eyes of those around me, while said Africans remain in misery and suffering -. This is horrendous and disgusting, this negative-egoism...

There are many dangers of the current time, especially world wars. The fight could be over the vaccine for Covid_19. American government was first scapegoating China for the virus but if the vaccine launched works it could be a fierce political fight over resouces. — Jack Cummins

I can say that WWIII will not be due to a poor vaccine. I do not give 40 years that we will be fighting for the last sources of oil in the world, or we will be fighting for the simple offended ego of this intolerant mass ...

Perhaps the philosophers' role is to steer thinking in a way which is transformative rather than nihilistic. — Jack Cummins

In fact, this type of thinking can be useful if a given philosopher is not biased and turns his philosophy into a mere vehicle through which he will preach his political bias - something that happens and a lot today -.

You see "kids" of 30 acting they just got let out of school.
A lot of them still live with mom and dad even. — Sir2u

The heirs of our world! :rofl:

But people are waking up to social inequalities more than ever in the time of Covid_19. — Jack Cummins

Social inequality has always existed and will always exist. Decay itself is the act of this new generation to take advantage of the possibility of lamenting and resenting the poorest even though they do nothing to help them. To believe that you can have economic, and social equality in a finite Universe, where things are finite and possibilities are too, is crazy.

Perhaps philosophy will be part of the ethical dilemmas of our time, especially the core values needed for the survival of many. — Jack Cummins

Philosophy will simply be another political tool for the eventual indoctrination of the masses - as it was in Late Antiquity -, and after its function is accomplished, it will be discarded completely - in the form of the creation of another school of thought that is dogmatic, like theology during the Middle Ages -. You really don't believe that philosophy - let us be honest, from the moment it became accesible for the masses, it was no longer philosophy - will endure the way it is currently described and established, do you?

people are waking up — Jack Cummins

The status quo of our time is "breaking the status quo". Everyone is special and unique, until everyone is not anymore...

Christ's life, death, passion and resurrection is a fact. His resurrection alone had more witnesses than Caesar's murder. Of course, for those who have no faith, not all the miracles in the world will convince. — hithere

This is the type of "argument" that is not worth discussing, as the writer is based entirely on faith and biblical scriptures, which are already essentially dogmatic.

To me in the least, the resurrection of Jesus' body is not as miraculous as the resurrection of Jesus message that contradicts the human instincts of survival, hence the man-made law of any ruling system around the world.

Please note that any reader here, deist or atheist, is not familiar with what I will say.

The day Jesus was condemned to death there was not even ONE person in the world who dared saying he believes him or in him. In fact, Jesus knew how to let even Peter "his Rock" deny him 'three' times on that day (it wasn't a mere coincidence that Peter only used his sword, soon after Judas kissed Jesus). And, by Peter clear reaction (3 times, not just once or twice), Jesus made very clear that, on that day, both his body and teachings (message) died on the cross (not his body only).

But this wasn't enough. — KerimF

It is to be expected - from the people of the period - that they feared the might of Rome. Less than 40 years earlier, the Romans had completely destroyed Jerusalem for their rebellion, and Christians could expect a punishment as severe for Jesus' actions - after arguing with bankers and fighting with them -. Therefore, the betrayal of all his followers - being that, the twelve apostles, after a long study, it was concluded that they were not people of a great intellectual level and that they were easily carried away, in this case, by Jesus of Nazareth preachings - is not something that impresses because Jesus himself - taking him as a historical figure - warned them of the dangers he would face.

Then, even after 2000 years (thru too many generations), I hear Jesus saying:

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Isn't it a miracle? But, perhaps it is not, and someone here knows one ruling system in the least (in the past or now) that asks its subjects to love their enemies and not applying its justice on the evil and on the unjust.

Yes, while all formal systems (religious or political) around the world don't allow preaching OPENLY (via satellites for example) many Jesus teachings 'as clear as he did', no one of them dares considering the printing of the Gospel (as hard copies or eBooks) as a crime that deserves punishment.
Yes, this is a 'fact' that the world lives while it is beyond human logic... In other words, it is a living miracle that no one, even atheists, can deny — KerimF

I cannot understand how you can see the existence of Christianity as a miracle. Religions are built with the aim of being a political tool, obviously if useful, there would be no reason why Europe would abandon this system. In addition, Christianity continues to exist because it had 2000 years of history to establish itself. It looks like you just ignored the entire Middle Ages for the sake of your argument.

But having just read arguments in favour that it would be better if people were no longer brought into the world and in favour of murder I am wondering about the loss of highest aspirations for philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Secularism, Decadence and Nihilism. The three virtues of the new generations that seek destruction. Don't worry about such thoughts, as things will get even worse...

The substance view of God that Christians have is illogical, for how can a person be striving, working, fighting, and doing in itself? A person can't just be those things. But I don't really care though what people think or want to think. I like to send my ideas out into the world though. Christians can expect no end to their toil — Gregory

The problem is that you focus mainly on the Christian branch with (1) the bigest number of followers, (2) well-established dogmas and (3) the one that most represents the values ​​and morals of the masses, because if it is the most adopted religion, probably something has been seen in it by people. If you are looking for evidence in Christianity about traditions and views that might be considered "satanic" - whatever that term means to you - simply study about the Gnostics. There you have the hedonism and maleficity of satanism, sanctified by the use of Christ.

Let's take for example the Phibionites:

As the great christian priest Epiphanius described the sect:

"Phibionite feasts begin with the men shaking hands with the women, while secretly tickling their palms underneath. This may be a secret code to alert members to the presence of outsiders, or an erotic gesture. After dining, married couples begin to have sex, each with another member. The man, however, has to withdraw before climax, so that he and his partner can collect the semen and ingest it together, saying, “This is the body of Christ.” Leaders of the sect who have already reached perfection can perform the rite with a member of the same sex. There is also sacred masturbation, where one can take the body of Christ in the privacy of one’s room. The reason for this sex ritual? The Phibionites believe that this world is separated from the divine realm by 365 heavens. So to reach the highest world, a Phibionite redeemed must pass through all 365 heavens—twice. But each heaven is guarded by an Archon, and to be granted safe passage, a Phibionite must call out the secret name of one of the Archons, while doing the sex act. This belief guarantees every Phibionite male sex with a female member at least 730 times."

The largest branches - Catholicism, Orthodoxism and Protestantism - still are satanic?