Comments

  • On Nietzsche...
    Mithras is real because ancient Romans believed in him because they had experiences of him........sure, lol. — Buxtebuddha
    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.

    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
    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.
  • Post truth
    That'll work. 8-) — Erik
    Okay, I finished it! It was good, I agree with Heidegger on quite a few issues there, so thanks for sharing. Just as a warning for other people, secondary sources on this work - as on most other philosophical works I've read - are absolutely useless. I almost have no clue how people are writing their secondary sources, since I see very little resemblance to the message of the original. For example, this was crap:

    https://belate.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/heidegger-letter-on-humanism/

    Whoever wrote that should shut down his blog immediately.

    To qualify what I agree on would be difficult since he covers quite a bit of ground. But I basically agree with the overall gist, and had similar thoughts before myself too, but coming more from the phenomenology of Max Picard. The part I found most agreement with is page 263 until page 266, especially where he goes over showing the importance of thinking about values, morality, God, etc. without taking these for granted. We take the symbols for granted, and this masks the fact that we don't actually know them at all. So a denial of the superficial symbol isn't a denial of its true meaning.

    I also developed a skepticism of logic - I don't view logic and rationalism as primary, not even the law of noncontradiction - largely because of my study of Pseudo-Dionysus, the Bible, the Tao Te Ching and also Zhuangzi. So in that I agree with Heidegger that before we can think of logic and metaphysics we must think Being (although I would say we must think God). The importance of meditation on the Logos on page 265 was also quite good.

    And of course, regarding the forgetfulness of Being (and all our problems emerging from there), I completely agree, that is pretty much what Max Picard says as well, except that he says it's a forgetfulness of God. So I also agree that "escaping" our age can only happen through remembrance - anamnesis - as Plato would say - of God. But I wouldn't think that is something that we can do by ourselves so to say... at least on a collective level. A single man cannot be the light of an age.

    But on an individual level it's about remembering an experience (for thinking Being presupposes it), which is so difficult to remember or become aware of precisely because it is, as Heidegger says, so close to us, which actually makes it so far in the sense that we do not see it.

    I also agree with his interpretation of Materialism (where every being appears as the material of labor - as a tool, or an object to do something with, instead of in-itself).

    And I agree with his dismissal of metaphysics as too superficial an analysis - so to speak by the time we're going metaphysics, we have already forgotten that which metaphysics itself presupposes.

    There's a few more things there, but that's a quick outline of the things that I found most productive in there.

    Overall, I think that Heidegger, much like other previous thinkers, are trying to recover, or remember in their own age, the same essential "thing" (for lack of a better word), and in this philosophy is perennial and not historical, although we ourselves are historical beings, who nevertheless transcend our place in history (his discussion of transcendence was also interesting).

    However, I will say that he is difficult to read which reminded me of the time I was ploughing through Being and Time - this letter clarified through some of Being and Time for me. There are thinkers who express the same ideas as Heidegger (I mentioned some of them), but I found them more accessible. Although perhaps being accessible has the fault that it doesn't make you think through the symbols, and rather has you take them for granted rather than relating them to your own experience.

    You seem to interpret Heidegger in a more immanent sense than I do (for example your focus on this life, which is too Nietzschean for me, although I will say that being "spiritually rich" in my sense of the term enriches this life in much the same way as you intend to enrich it, rather than depreciating it).
  • On Nietzsche...
    No, I don't think so. There only needs to be belief, not experience. — Buxtebuddha
    How can there be belief if there is no experience?

    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
    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?

    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

    Americans usually don't let crazy people into their home. We notify the police. — Buxtebuddha
    Wait wait wait, I thought I was coming as a patient to your office, not your home >:O
  • On Nietzsche...
    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
    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.

    You act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not. — 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.

    I can have a career without being a slave to society. — 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'll turn you away at the door. I only accept Jeebus. — Buxtebuddha
    >:O Is poor hospitality common in the US? :P
  • On Nietzsche...
    So Marx wasn't as wrong as one might think... — Beebert
    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.

    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
    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.

    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
    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.

    Nietzsche re-interpreted the Will as something positive, to be affirmed - but just because the Will was all that was left when God (the noumenon) was gone. This is in fact why I find Schopenhauer deeper than Nietzsche in that he saw something of the transcendent, whereas Nietzsche was desperate to see some of it, but it seems to have eluded him. The will-to-power in my vision is inadequate at explaining anything that is transcendent. It can explain the behaviour of most people in todays society, I can grant that. But it cannot explain the behaviour of the holy, except in the sense that the holy are the strong - they are holy out of strength, not out of weakness (but I don't think Schopenhauer would disagree here).

    I also think you are misreading Schopenhauer. Christ was resurrected, but that wasn't an affirmation of the Will to Live in the sense that Schopenhauer understood it. Quite the contrary, Christ did not accept life at all costs, but rather chose to die out of his Love and Compassion. So he denied the will to life - that will which would do anything to stay alive, even the highest immoralities. It was an affirmation of the noumenon and a denial of the will to live.
  • Post truth
    All the stuff about Heidegger is irrelevant to the thread. — creativesoul

    The Heidegger tangent is relevant due to Heiddy's use of the term "truth" — creativesoul

    Make up your mind will you? >:O
  • On Nietzsche...
    I will tell you later! — Beebert
    Well do say, because it is hard otherwise for me to know what you're struggling with. Not all sins are alike.
  • On Nietzsche...
    In a macro sense, sure. Not in a micro sense. — Buxtebuddha
    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.

    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
    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.

    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

    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
    It's not nigh-impossible. All one has to do is behold their cultures and compare them to our own materialistic one.

    Explain this, lol. — 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.

    You really are sounding like a crackpot now... — Buxtebuddha
    Good, how much will you charge to accept me as a patient? :P
  • On Nietzsche...
    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
    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].

    And I believe this is a main reason for the death of God in society. — 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.

    capitalism has replaced God. — Beebert
    Quoting from here:

    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

    In this light we can also understand Nietzsche IMO, who actually tried to find the living God beyond language and concepts. — Beebert
    Yes, I agree Nietzsche did not attack the real God.

    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
    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:

    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
  • On Nietzsche...
    I don't venture to define God as being this and not that. Attempting to define God is a theist's first mistake. — Buxtebuddha
    Oh, have you been reading Pseudo-Dionysus? That's good to hear!

    What? I was a believing Christian for the majority of my life, so I don't know what you're trying to suggest here. — Buxtebuddha
    Sure, but even if you personally were a Christian, you lived in a non-Christian world.

    Well, yes, this is the point. I don't expect a heavenly vision any more than I expect to hear from the dead 'neath the earth. — Buxtebuddha
    Your expectations are governed by the modern zeitgeist in which you find yourself. An age governed by spiritual darkness isn't going to be an age where God appears very clearly at all, even to most "believers". Especially while they make their abode on college campuses :P

    Forgetfulness of what? — Buxtebuddha
    God.

    Also, I understand Nietzsche's "God is dead" to mean his assertion that God doesn't rule society anymore, which I think is true. — Buxtebuddha
    It's deeper than that, it's that God doesn't rule people's lives anymore, God is no longer a discernible presence as He once was. Nietzsche's madman came amidst people who still "believed" - and he proclaimed that God is dead, and they understood him not. Their problem was that they weren't even aware that God is dead - that God is not communicating with them. That's how alienated they were from the experience of God, even though they still claimed to believe and went to Church as they were used to. The truth was that they didn't know God, that's why they didn't even know He was dead. For them, God was an empty symbol, an idol. It was just going to be a little bit more time until they finally dropped the empty symbol as well, and stopped pretending, showing their true face.

    Today if we shall go in the multitudes and mention God, we shall not be heard. They will ignore us. They will look at us as if we're crazy, as if we don't even know what we're talking about. They will not understand the meaning of the word "God". It will be as meaningless as sadakdhald.

    When I say you have forgotten God, I don't mean just you - I mean our entire age. You yourself are a member of this age, and therefore inherit its problems. You cannot accept the rules of today's world - be a member of it - and believe in God at the same time. For one cannot serve both God and Mammon, one cannot have the mark of the beast on their forehead and yet serve the Lord. The way society is built, it's almost predicated on a rejection of God. To live in modern society, even amongst most believers, means to reject the mystery of God (most of the time). That is why people like Max Picard chose to retreat like hermits on a mountain. Where else could they live in communion with God?!

    I feel that the time is not right yet. All we can do is wait. But one day the clock will strike 12 and the world will awaken anew. We alone cannot save the world. A human being cannot be the light of an age, regardless of how great they personally are. The time needs to be right.
  • On Nietzsche...
    I'm saying that a voice could be anything. — Buxtebuddha
    Yes, that is because you do not understand God - God for you could be anything.

    This suggests that God was real and no longer is, which isn't my position. I don't believe in God, which means at the barest minimum he never was and never is. — Buxtebuddha
    Yes of course, because you are born after the loss of faith. You are born in a faithless world. So why would you expect to hear God? From your perspective, it looks like there never was a God. That is precisely why it is a forgetfulness. It is almost impossible to even think God today.
  • On Nietzsche...
    ↪Buxtebuddha
    But really, you're saying nothing new. What you're saying is that God is dead - you cannot hear His voice anymore. Old news. We already know that we live in a culture and world which has forgotten God, and where those who hear God are the madmen.
  • On Nietzsche...
    And hearing something and calling it God isn't also a mere interpretation? — Buxtebuddha
    Sure, but there is always the underlying experience of hearing.

    ↪TheWillowOfDarkness

    I agree that morality is cruel in the sense that you speak about it here. However, Nietzsche obviously can't be speaking about the cruelty of morality when he speaks about going out there to pillage, rape, murder, etc. can he?
  • On Nietzsche...
    The thing stopping us from hearing the voice is there not being a voice to hear. — Buxtebuddha
    That is not a fact (it would be if you stopped at not hearing the voice) it's an interpretation. But could it be that you do not hear because you have forgotten God?
  • On Nietzsche...
    wut — Buxtebuddha
    Exactly my point.
  • Post truth
    ↪Erik
    I am still reading it, I will finish soon and comment.

  • On Nietzsche...
    You don't get that same sort of trust between a soldier and God, though, because God has no track record. — Buxtebuddha
    Yes He does. God has the greatest track record anyone could ever ask for. One is willing to suffer for God, because God suffered for us in Jesus Christ!

    He's never on the battlefield giving orders, nobody can sit down and tally a list of decisions made by him. A reality where an army has no commanding officer but God is one that won't ever make decisions because no orders are actually being given. — Buxtebuddha
    I think it is modern society's forgetfulness of God - or Flight from God as Max Picard would say - that stops us from hearing the voice of our Shepherd.
  • On Nietzsche...
    It depends. Mainly on God's intentions, of which I know not anything. — Beebert
    Neither do you know the general's intentions in the army. For all you know, he could have sold all of you to the enemy, so he is ordering you to simply rush to your death. But you have to make a choice. That's where faith and trust come into play - relying not on your own understanding.
  • On Nietzsche...
    Let us take Kierkegaard once: For Kierkegaard, one must go first from the aesthetic to the ethical then to the religious right? — Beebert
    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.

    But if you have come to the ethical state where it is possible to take a leap of faith, but you for some reason decide to suspend your ethics and go back to the aesthetic life, then you have devolved. This is what I have done in nu lite — Beebert
    What have you done to be more precise?

    However, he seems to indicate that this situation would lead to despair because, having already been in the ethical, you are now conscious about your choices and about right and wrong, which is the opposite of the aesthetic, but yet you are aesthetic and have lost the "possibility". You are spiritually paralyzed. Right? — Beebert
    Try to be open to the ethical and religious spheres of life - look at your own face, maybe for the first time, without being afraid. Remembrance - anamnesis as Plato says.
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    I showed very well the racist things they said and why they were so. — Thanatos Sand
    Want some vanilla ice-cream? >:O
  • On Nietzsche...
    ↪Beebert
    Tell me this. If you are in the army, and your general asks you to charge into the open fire of the enemy lines, what will you do? Will you cower in your trench, refusing to listen to your general, preferring to live and die like a coward?! Or will you man up, and overcome your fear? For what can be more crippling and life-denying than fear?

    How much more should you be ready to go even to Hell when God orders you, his soldier, to do so?
  • On Nietzsche...
    I said I MIGHT have 60 more years not that I will have it — Beebert
    Ahh okay, sorry I misread you because of the spelling error, my bad!
  • On Nietzsche...
    I am damned and night have 60 more years to live, what do I do in the meantime? — Beebert
    We don't know how much time we have left to live. You say you have 60 more years - how do you know? A car could run you over, you could get an incurable disease, and a million and one things could happen. The world and life is very fragile. Only God knows when we will die. The world may look peaceful at times, and nothing much is happening. Boring in other words. But things generally tend to change very fast when they do.

    As for what to do in the meantime. Apart from following the commandments, living a moral life and having faith in God and Christ - God is awaiting, as Berdyaev says, a creative response from YOU. What will YOU do? It seems that you're really despairing at the fact that you have to choose - at the reality of your freedom. At the fact that you are given no role to play in the world, and yet, somehow you feel like you're expected to do something.

    Maybe you won't do anything for 10-20 years. And then you'll do something significant for God and for the world. Who knows.

    What would you do if God said you were damned and in 59 years from now Will be thrown in to a Fire worse and more painful than material fire in terms of physical pain, — Beebert
    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.
  • On Nietzsche...
    what is God's moral law? — Beebert
    God's commandments.

    He just wants me to exist in this tormenting way of imagining a scary deity who threatens with hell and who I can not understand at all? — Beebert
    Why are you afraid though? You must go into this fear. Why are you really afraid of hell? Why are you really afraid of suffering? You are already suffering now. And you - not God - is making yourself suffer. So why - why are you doing it? You say you don't want to be in hell. But behold, you keep yourself in hell every second. Why?

    Then Why not keep being immoral? — Beebert
    That's like asking me why not keep your hand in the fire? :s

    Why not kill myself? — Beebert
    What's the use of that? What do you think you'll achieve with it?

    Dont you see what this in combination with the idea that God wants Abraham to kill Isaac at first can do to a man? — Beebert
    I do, but do you want to better understand God or do you want a comfortable superficial belief? You said you don't like the superficial believers. And yet it seems that you would rather be one of them.
  • On Nietzsche...
    "God is Himself the Law."
    The law of the Old Testament?     — Beebert
    My expression means to show you that God is the source of morality. That is why Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky were right: if there is no God, then everything is permitted. Furthermore, because we have killed God, we have no right to hold onto our moral values either.
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    Maybe ya'll will finally come around to all of my hair-brained mystical psuedo-philosophy now that I've proved my supernatural powers... :P >:O — Noble Dust
    Well I was always a fan of your hair-brained mystical pseudo-philosophy, so that's not much of a change for me :P
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    Watch out, it's only a matter of time before Thanatos will cut you off and stop reading your posts! :’( — Noble Dust
    you and I are done. I won't be reading anymore of your posts. — Thanatos Sand
    Your powers of clairvoyance are amazing Noble... (Y) >:O
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    The rest of your post was incoherent nonsense. So, since you've degraded into mere babbling, you and I are done. I won't be reading anymore of your posts. I suggest you go get help for that racism of yours; it can be helped. — Thanatos Sand
    Yes, in my first response to you I laughed, because you brought up child labor and racism out of nowhere. So equally out of nowhere I said that at least 200 years ago a doctor who finished medical school wouldn't have to slave away for 10s of years before becoming a full-time doctor. Effectively I'm saying yes, the racism + child labor of that period was a bad thing, but there were also good things in the past. So you gave examples of bad things, I gave an example of a good thing - better education relative to the standards of that day.

    I won't be reading anymore of your posts. — Thanatos Sand
    Thank you :) Took you a long time!
  • On Nietzsche...
    Do you agree that there might be a possibility that a man rebels against God, or at least his conception of God since God is impossible to understand, for moral reasons? — Beebert
    Yes, and his rebellion would be no different than the rebellion of the very first rebel, Lucifer. The rebellion of someone who becomes so proud and thinks that he can judge God, and condemn Him as a totalitarian tyrant, just because he cannot hold God in his pocket - in other words just because he isn't God.

    The presence of God’s moral standard in the world is an burden that men can neither throw off nor endure — Beebert
    Yes, that's why salvation is not achieved by works but rather by faith and grace. And the fact that the Cross is a scandal to the world isn't anything new. Christians knew this from the very beginning.

    I have heard that orthodox say that baptism effectively washes away all sins, but I ask; how can it do that on a man who doesn't believe, for example a newborn child? Yet the Orthodox Church baptizes children, then why is that? — Beebert
    Why do you presume that a newborn child doesn't believe first of all? I think that quite the contrary, children are born with a desire for God - they are like a clean mirror. But because of Adam's sin, dust sticks to the surface of the mirror very easily. But they are still very receptive to God compared to most adults, since they haven't accumulated so much dust. So yes, children can be baptised, just like adults can.

    Does that mean that he can, just for some random impulse that we can not understand, something he does perhaps only because he enjoys it, kill and torture innocent people for example? — Beebert
    I wouldn't think God would do that, why would you? You don't realise that God is the absolute centre of morality - God is the final moral standard, God is Himself the Law. There is no moral standard above and beyond God that you can use to judge God. It is impossible to judge God. That's why Kierkegaard speaks in Fear and Trembling of a religious sphere which is above the ethical - that's what the teleological suspension of the ethical is. It was RIGHT for Abraham to lift up the knife to sacrifice his own son when God requested it and by faith believe that God would return him Isaac.

    I would appreciate if you could answer my other two posts too; the one about orthodox infant baptism and this one: — Beebert
    The rest of your Dostoyevsky essay can be addressed by this
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    The fact you have to ask that proves you're an ignoramus. Only racists would prefer times when Blacks suffered great racial discrimination over periods when they don't. That's syllogisitically self-explanatory. If you don't get that, I'll get you a bigger ignoramus hat...:) — Thanatos Sand
    Please acquire this large ignoramus hat, it would make for an excellent gift!

    And no I never said I prefer periods of great racial discrimination over periods of no racial discrimination. The fact that there was racial discrimination during the renaissance is an accidental fact (in terms of what I was talking about) that has nothing to do with why I admire the renaissance over today's society.

    It's just as stupid as me telling you I like vanilla ice-cream over chocolate ice-cream because of its taste, and you responding that I'm a racist because I like vanilla ice-cream because it is white while chocolate ice-cream is black. The whiteness of it is an accidental feature with regards to my reason for liking it. I wouldn't expect even a retard to make such an error in thinking...

  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    No, it's more like all racists like you today want to keep being racist, but get your feelings hurt when people actually call them racist. How very boring. — Thanatos Sand
    No, I'm just finding it incredibly funny that you call me a racist :)

    You know those horrible conditions existed back then for Blacks and you still think it was better back then. That makes you a racist. — Thanatos Sand
    So how does that make me a racist? Can you please explain? If you like vanilla ice-cream because of its taste are you a racist because it is white? :s And like all racists today, of course you don't want to admit that you really like it because it's white! Racist! >:O >:O >:O >:O
  • On Nietzsche...
    No, if God was a totalitarian tyrant, I would not worship him. Never. You reason a bit like Calvin here — Beebert
    How can God be a totalitarian tyrant? Totalitarian tyranny implies unlawful and immoral use of power. But God is justified to use His power however He will. We as human beings are not, however.
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    Watch out, it's only a matter of time before Thanatos will cut you off and stop reading your posts! :’( — Noble Dust
    But wait Noble Dust, is it bad if an ignoramous ignores you? Instead of crying, may it not be that you need to rejoice at the possibility, and proceed to prepare a gift for the said ignoramous, thanking him for freeing you? X-)
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    ↪Thanatos Sand
    Please quit writing in bold, it certainly doesn't make what you say any truer.

    And, since you do admit things were better back then when they were worse for Blacks, and you don't back up your "possibilities rendered meaningless" claim at all, you just further affirm your racism. — Thanatos Sand
    This is a huge red herring and non sequitur. I specifically told you I didn't mean that it was better back then for the reason that white people had access to more resources than black people. Rather I said it was better because those who did have access to resources (whether they were white or black - skin color is irrelevant to me because I'm not a racist) could actually do something meaningful with them. So no, I don't think I'm a racist at all.

    But it seems that like all progressives today, you are obsessed about racism, sexism, etc. :-} How boring.
  • On Nietzsche...
    Are you actually suggesting that poets aren't "deep" thinkers? :-| — Buxtebuddha
    Yes, now put down your poetry book! >:) (joking)
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    Because doctors weren't professionals with the same requirements as now. But the fact you think it was better then when a black child had decidedly sufficient facilities to a white child and had a much worse chance of getting into med school because of discriminatory admissions show you're an unrepentant racist.

    Congratulations...:)     — Thanatos Sand
    :s I never claimed it was better in that sense. But living in a world where we all have such possibilities but they are rendered meaningless (because we have to spend 10s of years slaving away before we can properly do what we went to university for) is worse, yes - for all of us, even for the black person. It's worse than not having such a possibility in the first place.

    Because doctors weren't professionals with the same requirements as now. — Thanatos Sand
    No, much rather we have set up bullshit requirements in order to create a bureaucracy which supports the old doctors who are steps away from senility in holding on to their positions while the young have to slave away for them, effectively doing their own work. Also we have "robotised" life, by making everything a procedure - in hospitals, everyone is treated like a statistic today, not like a person. Doctors are those who apply procedures, not those who use their brain to treat the individual conditions that each person has. Bureaucracy has crippled us - the West is crippled by bureaucracy everywhere. Bureaucracy makes life very difficult for the up and coming, for the new, for the young. It is a game that they cannot win. And it's rigged. Because if things were fair, our hospitals wouldn't be run by 80 year old men who can barely speak two words anymore. Our politicians wouldn't be old dinosaurs who are a step away from the grave, and who struggle to even lead themselves. Our world has made an Alexander impossible.

    Look at the Renaissance - that great era of human history in which culture flourished, genius was common, some of history's greatest artistic achievements came into being, science advanced, theology developed, trade blossomed! Apart from technological advances, which indeed are something we didn't have back then, we're absolutely not better than we used to be.
  • I think I finally figured out why I struggle to apply the progressive/liberal label to myself
    The fact you ask that is very sad. Of course it was worse. At least 1/2 had the money for school and ended up doing child labor on to terrible labor the rest of their life, and the facilities for Blacks were decidedly inferior to those for Whites. Your nostalgia for horror is disturbing. — Thanatos Sand
    >:O At least, back 200 years ago, a doctor who finished medical school didn't have to slave away for 10s of years before he could become a full-time doctor ;)
  • On Nietzsche...
    Please name some member on the orthodox forum that you find great to follow — Beebert
    To follow? As in be their disciple? None. But some have very interesting things to say, though not on all topics. Anastasios, Iconodule, GiC, Fr. George, Jetavan, Papist to name a few. Not all listed here are Orthodox though.

    though understandable in a way because I provoke them constantly, but I do it because their conformity to things that to me seems to be of no help provokes me — Beebert
    Yes, they are because you don't leave them alone. Again, not everyone is meant to be an intellectual, or to explore God's mysteries in depth. There's people and people. You have to understand and value everyone.

    But how can you stand being in a church where most people are hypocrites? — Beebert
    I wouldn't say they're hypocrites, but they're just more superficial believers. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone was made for the life of thought, or for going into depths into God's mysteries. Most of them to tend to keep the commandments of God and try to live moral lives.

    why then does the infallible Orthodox Church claim that baptism actually effectively saves you, when combined with the Eucharist? — Beebert
    Baptism and the Eucharist are symbolic of spiritual movements.

    And why is confession demanded? — Beebert
    Because otherwise most people wouldn't go over their sins and ask to be forgiven.

    Why does the Church call itself the ark of salvation or sometimes in history even that there is no salvation outside it? — Beebert
    The Church doesn't claim it's impossible to be saved while officially outside of it. In other words you can be spiritually inside the Church without being physically in it, or before being physically in it.

    But I think that if christianity IS the truth, then the superficial believers are the greatest problem, because they give the outside world the completely wrong picture of what true christianity is. — Beebert
    They CAN be, for people like you.

    But before the fall, man didn't even know what was meant by death, since there was no death before the fall according to christianity. — Beebert
    I'm sure he could understand what is meant by it, you don't need to experience a thing to know what it means afterall. But obviously he didn't know spiritually and subjectively what death meant.

    But the whole tree is called the tree of knowledge between good and evil. So as Berdyaev said, in the paradise state, man was beyond good and evil, because the distinction didn't exist within his soul. — Beebert
    Or in your friend, William Blake's words, man was innocent, and thereby incapable of doing evil by himself - that's why an outside force, the serpent, was needed to encourage and pressure him to do evil.

    There is a difference between Nietzcshe's thought and eternal punishment. — Beebert
    Well yes, but it is in the spirit of Nietzsche. For Nietzsche just meant to ask the hardest and most horrifying question and answer it affirmatively, thereby affirming life, whatever it may be.

    Your anxiety presupposes your desire to have it your way - your will be done. If you had no concern for yourself, because all your concern was for God, then you would not be afraid. You would willingly go to hell if you had to!
  • Question on Plato's cave analogy
    That is What I have been trying to say about Plato — Beebert
    >:O
  • On Nietzsche...
    But we cant say "this is evil" if we dont know evil at all, right? — Beebert
    What do we mean to "know" evil? Because there's two different senses here. One is to know that something is evil - which we can know even before the Fall - and two is to know the effects of evil, to know evil subjectively, which we don't.

    When God said that Adam will die if he eats the tree, he cant have understood what God meant. — Beebert
    Why not? He could have known that breaking God's commandment is evil, but he couldn't know subjectively the effects this would have.

    Please explain to me how it doesnt make sense, that would be exceptionally important for me to understand since that doctrine seems like the Only logical conclusion to me and is the main reason I object to christianity... I can tell you why I believe in this doctrine as the Only conclusion to draw from Christian doctrines about God etc (för example, that God is completely uncontrolable and does what he wills also means that it is entirely possible that he wants a person to be destroyed, which my own inability to Believe seems to suggest to me... And also Scripture supports it: Romans 9 etc) — Beebert
    Well we've already gone over those sections of Scripture though, and I've explained them. With regards to predestination and election, your question is borne out of fear, which is a problem. Why are you afraid? If you are unrighteous, you should want God to punish you. You should go to God and ask for punishment. Why are you afraid of His punishment? Look what Jesus says:

    “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

    This is like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Are you willing to accept not your will, but God's, even if it means your destruction?

    I know the orthodox church believes in sacraments etc. but I find it hard to adjust my thinking to their view, and I have a hard time trusting in priests etc. Also, if the internal movements of the soul aren't there, I object to the idea that external signs and mysteries will be of any help(like confessions, the eucharist etc)... — Beebert
    The Church by all means can be a controlling institution, but I think you can appreciate that holding a group of people together is difficult. Also ensuring that this group of people has the core of the faith correct is also difficult. I agree with you regarding the internal movements of the soul. Why do you think you need to trust in a priest? A priest can be helpful, but it depends on the priest. Not all priests are good at what they do.

    Many orthodox seem to reason like that if they only confess to a priest and drink wine and eat bread in the church, they will be saved... That is also to try to control God it seems to me — Beebert
    Yes, I agree. But even these "superficial" believers are closer to God than the apathetic atheists who don't even care. Like those in Nietzsche's fable as you pointed out. Those superficial believers are one of the reasons why I haven't yet joined the orthodox forum. Though there are some great people there that I've been following!

    When our moral character is shaped according to the dictates of a universal moral power, the question of “what kind of man should I be” or "how shall I behave?" is simply a given where the answer lies not with the will of the individual, but with the will of God, right? — Beebert
    Yes.
Home » Agustino