They act as idols, not because we are not conscious of them, but rather because we aren't conscious of them as what they are in their essence. And in their essence they are that which arrests our gaze, and prevents it from reaching beyond them [onto God].Though our modern societies, which claim to be secular, are, on the contrary, governed by secularised theological concepts, which act all the more powerfully because we are not conscious of their existence. — Beebert
I think you are quite close. We live in an age dominated by idolatry, and this is what makes idolatry special. Those who are engaged in it, are not aware of what they are doing - the idol blinds and masks the Truth. It conceals it. The death of God is really the concealment of God behind our modern idols, including capitalism, science, and technology - all three which are inseparable. To see God, one must destroy the idols.And I believe this is a main reason for the death of God in society. — Beebert
Quoting from here:capitalism has replaced God. — Beebert
I count Schopenhauer as a religious philosopher, whose philosophy does descend into mysticism. Same with Aquinas as well. Obviously Aquinas is my favorite philosopher, so I do appreciate him (and Schopenhauer) but this doesn't change this fact. I'm disillusioned with their potential of being of help in re-Christianising the West - and rightfully so I'd say.
The main enemy to re-Christianising the West is libertarianism/liberalism, especially of a social kind, which is very intertwined with corporate "crony" capitalism, sexual promiscuity & technological development. Go to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. - you reckon you'll find Christians there? No. You'll find Christians labouring away on construction sites and the like, but not at the large corporate behemoths, especially those that are driving technology - they are as progressive as your college Marxists and postmodernists are.
These people control (1) technology, (2) education (via the Academia), and (3) culture (via the Media and Hollywood, including the internet). Remember what Marx said: — Agustino
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production [ TECHNOLOGY ], and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. … Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned … — Karl Marx
And remember also who Marxists opposed - it wasn't the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, it was the proletariat AND the bourgeoisie vs what he termed as the Reactionaries. It is the Reactionaries who are opposed to the dialectical process of proletariat-bourgeoisie - the dialectical process which leads to COMMUNISM - the abolition of private property. No bourgeoisie - no capitalism. No capitalism - no proletariat. No proletariat - no communism. The Reactionaries are hence identified as "feudal socialists" and "half echo of the past, half menace of the [Communist] future". The secret behind this is that CAPITALISM IS COMMUNISM.
So control of technology is absolutely critical - it is this control which guarantees the survival of the bourgeoisie. This control is associated with profaning what is holy, creating everlasting uncertainty and agitation, disturbing social conditions. That's why the CEO of Facebook and your Marxist university professor share the same goal. Indeed corporations are the way through which Communism will manifest itself. As time goes on, everyone will be renting, not owning property, and people will have less and less to pass on to their descendents - apart from debts. So we are actually approaching at a fast rate the Communist paradise.
Now, the continuous quest for new and better technologies at all costs leads to the structuring of education (the Academia is now controlled by corporations which finance it) to fulfil the needs of technology. Corporations need technology in order to maintain their dominance over the means of production. Culture is likewise geared to fuel more and more consumption - sexual promiscuity for example is merely a justification for our consumerism. Consumerism is required to fuel increased sales, which are required to fuel increased production and market diversification. — Agustino
Yes, I agree Nietzsche did not attack the real God.In this light we can also understand Nietzsche IMO, who actually tried to find the living God beyond language and concepts. — Beebert
I think that quite the contrary, St. Paul's faith was absolutely based in his direct experience of God, and not in theories. Actually, St. Paul warned against them:That is Why he blamed Paul, for starting to theologize and make theories and define things. That is part of the revaluation of all values, to do away with concepts that doesnt build up anymore — Beebert
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world… — Colossians 2:8
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? — 1 Corinthians 1:20
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. — 2 Corinthians 10:5
Yes, the macro-sense is what I'm talking about. You don't live in the micro world of your family, relatives, neighbours, etc. Thanks to technology the macro world impinges on your wherever you are.In a macro sense, sure. Not in a micro sense. — Buxtebuddha
The idea of God emerges from the experience of God. The fact that the idea of God has withered away is a sign that something has blocked the experience of God, which until now was present - or more present than today.You have to distinguish between whatever God is in himself and the idea of God. I would agree that the idea of God seems to have withered away in the West, but you'd be a crackpot to say that God himself isn't still "ruling" people's lives. — Buxtebuddha
I've not seen God in either good times or bad, so I'm not convinced of this viewpoint. — Buxtebuddha
Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior! — Isaiah 45:15
It's not nigh-impossible. All one has to do is behold their cultures and compare them to our own materialistic one.You'd have to argue that previous "ages" were more in line with God, which would be nigh-impossible to do without donning rose-colored glasses. — Buxtebuddha
Certain things are required of you to "have a career", "be accepted in society" (have a family), have friends, etc. The world is so structured to push Godly men to the periphery. That isn't so in all ages, but it is so in ours.Explain this, lol. — Buxtebuddha
Good, how much will you charge to accept me as a patient? :PYou really are sounding like a crackpot now... — Buxtebuddha
The idea of God emerges from the experience of God. The fact that the idea of God has withered away is a sign that something has blocked the experience of God, which until now was present - or more present than today. — Agustino
It's not nigh-impossible. All one has to do is behold their cultures and compare them to our own materialistic one. — Agustino
Certain things are required of you to "have a career", "be accepted in society" (have a family), have friends, etc. The world is so structured to push Godly men to the periphery. That isn't so in all ages, but it is so in ours. — Agustino
Good, how much will you charge to accept me as a patient? — Agustino
I don't think Marx was wrong, except for the fact that he thought Communism would be a utopia, while I think quite the contrary. He was also wrong about the way communism would be brought about - he did not foresee corporatism, and the role it would play in leading to communism.So Marx wasn't as wrong as one might think... — Beebert
It depends how you read Paul. His letters were meant as guidance to newly formed Christian communities, which had just converted and were struggling to keep the faith alive. If you read them in that light, then all this changes.Regarding Paul, I agree he didnt theorize in that sense; but he did create a theological understanding of how the atonement Works, how salvation comes about by God "paying " for man's sins and guilt etc. — Beebert
But Schopenhauer had a different concept of the Will than Nietzsche. For Schopenhauer the Will was effectively evil and cruel - it was the worm from man's heart. In that Schopenhauer was prescient for he understood that if man gives in to his impulses and selfishness, then he will wreak havoc around him. And I think Schopenhauer was right - the Will is what is left when God is gone, and the Will is the opposite of compassion and self-restraint - it is pure ego - it's Dostoyevsky's "everything is permitted". So by the denial of the will Schopenhauer didn't mean a denial of "life" exactly. Rather he meant a denial of our corrupt nature, in order to affirm the noumenon, which in his later writings he separated from the Will, and left as an unknown, which is what remains, or what shows itself, after the Will has been denied. But this noumenon which is affirmed through the denial of the will remains unreachable for those of us who are still full of will.Interesting, that is how I see Nietzsche. I can't agree with Schopenhauer that christianity is a denial of the Will to live. Rather it is an affirmation of the Will to live. Sure Christ was crucified... But he was also resurrected. — Beebert
You can consider the idea of God, but for that idea to arise in society and gain prevalence in the first place (so that you get to discuss it today), the experience of God needs to be presupposed.Questionable. Surely one can consider the idea of God, consider belief in him, without having to acknowledge any supposed experiences of him. Like right now, I'm discussing ideas about God, but I wouldn't claim to have experienced God. — Buxtebuddha
If we look at the moral codes and cultures of different ancient societies we will see something that is starkly different from our modern, consumer based mass society.You act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not. — Buxtebuddha
It's not about being a slave. Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief.I can have a career without being a slave to society. — Buxtebuddha
>:O Is poor hospitality common in the US? :PI'll turn you away at the door. I only accept Jeebus. — Buxtebuddha
You can consider the idea of God, but for that idea to arise in society and gain prevalence in the first place (so that you get to discuss it today), the experience of God needs to be presupposed. — Agustino
If we look at the moral codes and cultures of different ancient societies we will see something that is starkly different from our modern, consumer based mass society. — Agustino
Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. — Agustino
Is poor hospitality common in the US? — Agustino
How can there be belief if there is no experience?No, I don't think so. There only needs to be belief, not experience. — Buxtebuddha
I really don't understand what you mean here. The difference is quite easy to see for me at least, why do you find it difficult?I'll say it again - you act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not. — Buxtebuddha
What the fuck? >:O >:O >:O — Buxtebuddha
It's not about being a slave. Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief. — Agustino
Wait wait wait, I thought I was coming as a patient to your office, not your home >:OAmericans usually don't let crazy people into their home. We notify the police. — Buxtebuddha
How can there be belief if there is no experience? — Agustino
I really don't understand what you mean here. The difference is quite easy to see for me at least, why do you find it difficult? — Agustino
Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief. — Agustino
Yes, actually Mithras does represent an experience of the transcendent that was revealed to the Romans. My entire point is that such theophanies weren't uncommon in the past, but they are uncommon now - almost entirely absent.Mithras is real because ancient Romans believed in him because they had experiences of him........sure, lol. — Buxtebuddha
Depends what you understand by having a career. But the point I'm making is that to - say - work for Facebook - the community there will force one to give up on some of his/her beliefs, especially if they want to be appreciated, promoted, etc.The rest clarifies nothing. Clearly someone in modern society can have a career and still believe in God. Like, what the fuck? Again, you're mad, bro. — Buxtebuddha
Mithras does represent an experience of the transcendent that was revealed to the Romans. — Agustino
Depends what you understand by having a career. But the point I'm making is that to - say - work for Facebook - the community there will force one to give up on some of his/her beliefs, especially if they want to be appreciated, promoted, etc. — Agustino
Why the dots? It's true, how else do you think they came to believe in Mithras?! :s............. — Buxtebuddha
Nope, I didn't say that.You have a career in programming, therefore, you do not, and cannot, believe in God. — Buxtebuddha
:s No, I'm quite sure hell doesn't include rape, killing of innocents, etc.I think he does-- the nature of morality is such that it advocates things violence, rape and killing. Morality is a justification for such actions. By Christian doctrine, billions are sent to burn for all eternity and it is moral greatness — TheWillowOfDarkness
Why the dots? It's true, how else do you think they came to believe in Mithras?! — Agustino
Nope, I didn't say that. — Agustino
Well, no, I don't think rape, etc. are okay towards the guilty. This doesn't seem to be what Nietzsche is saying at all either.The point wasn't about innocents. It was about those God sends to the torture of Hell: the guilty. Nietzsche is entirely right. If you're guilty, then violence, rape and death are fine. Such cruelty cannot be intrinsic immoral (or moral). It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is just a non-sequitur for example, confusing an is with an ought.No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise.
And here, behold! It is the aristocracy, the noble races, those who came before Christianity, that murder, arson, rape and torture! It is the masters, not the slaves. So it is not the Christian morality that Nietzsche is speaking about, but quite the contrary, the pre-Christian morality, which he actually praises!Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They [ the nobles ] revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise.
Yes, but not in the sense of raping them, and so forth. It demands cruelty in that the immoral are told that they must change their ways, repent. In a certain sense this is a cruelty. One is even being cruel to themselves when they demand that they change. But this is absolutely not the same as the cruelty of violence, being raped, etc.It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this would be wrong. Moral greatness - even according to Nietzsche actually - comes from strength, and is not a reaction to the weakness of others. It is a self-affirmation of one's own greatness, it is not being cruel and possessing the immoral.No doubt it's a positive... that's the point: moral greatness is found in the cruelty to and possession of the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness
And how does the idea of Mithras arise? :s And by the way, the ancients relate to gods in a different way than you imagine. They prayed and offered sacrifices, etc. in the hope the deity would aid them in battle, but they were also aware of the possibility that they couldn't control the transcendent, and it was much the other way, the transcendent controlled them - so the possibility that the gods would lead them to defeat was also real, and accepted as such.They experience the idea of Mithras, the idea that there is a deity of war watching over them in battle, that praying to him before battle will ensure victory. — Buxtebuddha
They couldn't believe in what he represented without experiencing the world as such. It's that underlying experience that made them believe.In other words, Roman soldiers would have believed in what Mithras represented, not in he himself, because no one had ever directly experienced him. — Buxtebuddha
What does being real mean? Being real doesn't have only one understanding. Clearly the transcendent is not real in the same sense an immanent object is - for one the transcendent cannot be object. Numbers are also real in a different sense than chairs are, etc.This experience of Mithras as an idea does not mean that Mithras is real and that he is, therefore, directly experiential. — Buxtebuddha
What does being real mean? Being real doesn't have only one understanding. Clearly the transcendent is not real in the same sense an immanent object is - for one the transcendent cannot be object. Numbers are also real in a different sense than chairs are, etc. — Agustino
Of course, he's Jewish! >:OBuber did not believe that Jesus took himself to be divine — Beebert
I think the two are not opposed, but supplementary to each other.You can find that it is Paul and to some extent John who changed the hebrew understanding of trust proclaimed also by Christ, trust as openness to an encounter Into Faith in an image, in an idea of Christ's role as sacrifice etc. — Beebert
Somewhat, but not "very familiar". I have his work "I and Thou" and it's another one of those that I started but not finished yet.Are you familiar with Martin Buber? — Beebert
I would say that Buber is wrong in his interpretation of Christ. Christ did have a salvific role, in that Christ came to deify human nature (where forgiveness of sins is only a part of that). To treat Christ merely as a man with a close relationship with God as opposed to Saviour would be blasphemy from a Christian point of view. Unless Christ died and rose from the dead, as Paul said, there is no Christianity and our faith is in vain.How would you respond to this? — Beebert
I disagree that we always perceive God's presence in our lives. We see darkly.faith in God’s continual presence in the life of each person — Beebert
And how does the idea of Mithras arise? :s And by the way, the ancients relate to gods in a different way than you imagine. They prayed and offered sacrifices, etc. in the hope the deity would aid them in battle, but they were also aware of the possibility that they couldn't control the transcendent, and it was much the other way, the transcendent controlled them - so the possibility that the gods would lead them to defeat was also real, and accepted as such. — Agustino
They couldn't believe in what he represented without experiencing the world as such. It's that underlying experience that made them believe. — Agustino
What does being real mean? — Agustino
Sure, the number 2 also exists, and yet you cannot touch it or see it. (Nor can you "verify" it for that matter). Not all beings exist in the same manner.Perceptible, experiential, verifiable, and fundamentally private. This keyboard I'm typing on is real, being a part of and existing within reality, because it is perceptible, tangible, and so on (I can touch it, type on it, bash my head into it if I wanted to), I can experience its tangibility, which also means, therefore, that the keyboard is verifiable through both its tangibility and experiential quality. It is additionally not contingent upon any outside agent's confirmation. Me and the keyboard is all that is needed. — Buxtebuddha
Spiritual experiences are subjective and therefore not objectively verifiable to begin with. There may be intersubjective verification though it cannot achieve the degree of objectivity that is possible when dealing with objects. Obviously if you adopt your new form of scientism, you'll now reject anything which is not an object (and thus not "verifiable") as nonexistant - basically objectifying the entire world.Is Mithras in and of himself perceptible, i.e., can he be smelled, touched, etc.? No. Is Mithras in and of himself experiential if he's not perceptible? No. Is Mithras in and of himself verifiable, then? Obviously not, as we have no other means with which to confirm interaction with ourselves by outside agents. Is Mithras in and of himself a perceptible experience that is verified through one's own privacy? Again, clearly not, seeing as Mithras is not perceptible or experiential. — Buxtebuddha
Again, where does this idea come from? If you tell me they had an idea of Mithras - where the hell did they get it from? :sBut what about the idea of Mithras - all that which is attributed to be him, of him, and from him? — Buxtebuddha
No, I don't think I've answered it at all. Clearly there was an underlying experience of trying to relate with a transcendent being/force which was capable of influencing the outcome of their affairs, otherwise they wouldn't think of doing it in the first place, nor would they invest resources to do it - they were quite pragmatic.You answer your own question here. — Buxtebuddha
the spiritual reality signified by Mithras' name does exist. — Agustino
Yes — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.