Renaissance and Christ: the best perspective for man

[the_dwarf]

would you say that one can gain 'salvation' through Nietzsche?

but you said there was no 'salvation' except through your God, and according to that part of your religion which you haven't mentioned yet (to keep from ruining its altruistic claims) whoever doesn't obey -for His Holy Sake not theirs- is damned by your jealous, vengeful, resentful God to burn in hell. or, as with Onasander's God, to burn in a barrel of pitch.

if 'salvation' was truly what you just said it was, your God would be irrelevant. and so, acquiescence to your God being a necessary part of the 'salvation' you speak of, it is not what you just said it was.

so tell me how "Salvation is the movement away from spiritual affliction towards spiritual wellbeing" yet "There is no complete salvation outside of God". there is no "movement away from spiritual affliction" without God? what lies! what entrapment! what slanderous insensibility!

[Christian]

would you say that one can gain 'salvation' through Nietzsche?

Yes, of course- like I said:

there is a substantial amount of salvation to be had outside of God, but like I've said, it's wanting.

but you said there was no 'salvation' except through your God, and according to that part of your religion which you haven't mentioned yet (to keep from ruining its altruistic claims) whoever doesn't obey -for His Holy Sake not theirs- is damned by your jealous, vengeful, resentful God to burn in hell. or, as with Onasander's God, to burn in a barrel of pitch.

I said that there is no complete salvation outside of God. Refer to my previous quote above.

so tell me how "Salvation is the movement away from spiritual affliction towards spiritual wellbeing" yet "There is no complete salvation outside of God". there is no "movement away from spiritual affliction" without God? what lies! what entrapment! what slanderous insensibility!

Again, there is no complete movement away from spiritual affliction towards spiritual wellbeing for those outside of God's stead.

[the_dwarf]

oh? and what happens to those poor souls outside of God's stead? they burn in hell. mm hmm

better get in God's Stead, and be his (your) buddy, or else you're going to burn in hell!

it's not about salvation, and you're a liar

[Onasander]

but you said there was no 'salvation' except through your God, and according to that part of your religion which you haven't mentioned yet (to keep from ruining its altruistic claims) whoever doesn't obey -for His Holy Sake not theirs- is damned by your jealous, vengeful, resentful God to burn in hell. or, as with Onasander's God, to burn in a barrel of pitch.

Slow down there, my God has nothing to do with burning you in a barrel of boiling oil- that's all my doing, and he get's no credit for it- not if I'm the one who has to chase your ass down and prod you into the barrel with a iron pole all by my lonesome. Yes, God exsists, but give me some credit as a individual as well here. I'm bored, I have no TV, this is the kind of thing people with no good entertainment do. Cinema killed the tradition of public executions.

Second, your logic is bounded up in a duality of a particular logic designed to differentiate God on the basis of conception via perspection. This is cute... I can claim the same of you, My 'The Dwarf' is a little whiny bitch, while Taz's 'The Dwarf' is a whatever the fuck he thinks of you. As a result, you have no existence in and of yourself, and 'The Dwarf' becomes a Solipist paradox.... even though I am fairly certain none the less he is off somewhere jacking off right now as I type. The arguement demands a gullibility in accepting historic norms of a buildup and acceptance of philosophical methodology via dialects to win. No religion behaves like this- infact, remarkably few sciences or systems of knowledge that have a noticible effect on human civilization actually do. The age of reason and rationality is just that- a adherence to a particular portion of the intellect, and damning the rest. It's a form of meditation, and hence mysticism, no different from the cave bound monastics of yesterday.

[the_dwarf]

the 'God' you claim gives your excuses to the rest of society, gives rationalizations to yourself, and thrusts righteousness and slander at the same time toward your enemies. everything you wish you could provide yourself but don't think you have the wherewithal or the authority to anyways.

God does not exist, it's a lie perpetuated by you, even to yourself. if I were to ask you if that made sense you would of course say no, because you lie to yourself. but it makes perfect sense to me, in fact it's obvious, because I don't share the lie-delusion.

you have these writings about the figures in your religion, their miracles, and the creation mythology, but you refuse to acknowledge that they are simply fictitious.

you have a foundation of support established by churches and lots of other believers, but you refuse to acknowledge that numbers mean nothing regarding whether any of it is true.

you have your observations about the world around you, which you claim verify the existence of your God, but you refuse to see how it could mean nothing, or anything you make it to be, so denying proof of your beliefs.

your God is a lie. why do you cling to this lie, this delusion? "because", you ask yourself, "what else is there?" YOU! I tell you there is something else, Nietzsche, for one, shows you something else. but you would deny that and tell me there is nothing else, in favor of this God that you created. what a joke.

Second, your logic is bounded up in a duality of a particular logic designed to differentiate God on the basis of conception via perspection. This is cute... I can claim the same of you, My 'The Dwarf' is a little whiny bitch, while Taz's 'The Dwarf' is a whatever the fuck he thinks of you. As a result, you have no existence in and of yourself, and 'The Dwarf' becomes a Solipist paradox...

yes, you can claim that. it's true. 'the dwarf' is as many different things to as many people who look. so are you, and everybody else. what somebody or something 'is', is entirely in the eye of the beholder. go drink some beers and see if I'm not something different yet; go sniff some glue and see if I'm not different yet; get to know me more and see if I'm not different yet; listen to some lies and slander from other people and see if I don't become something different yet.

same with your God.

you tell me what it is to you; I tell you what it is to me. one of us is a lot more right, a lot more sober.

[Onasander]

See.... this is why I'm going to going to have to light you on fire in that barrel. You can't even offer a useful heresy. I can tolerate heresy so long as it gives hints of a virtue in a alternative lifestyle.

You made a massive list of suppositions and exclamations that have no source in anything I said, all it did was show what your perspectives of the mechanics of what my metaphysics should be.... and furthermore, you presented them in a dialectic format of defualt opposition to your analysis.... as if the universe issued forth not just from your mind, but from your A Posteri Judgments!

Fucking wow! You gotta love the limited range of syllogisms possible in terms of psychology for such a logic to exist in a invective. At least it's honest. I liked in some ways Zizek's much more cleverer, somewhat dishonest (he always has to set up a confusing storyline coming out of left field) and yet still very honest urgings of all of society to just give it up and become good atheistic marxist.... his propaganda is very clever but the results of the majic act leaves one stiffled for a minute, then bursting out loud with the impossible to link results. A + B = Om.... your left asking WTF, are you serious? But at least he gives you a good honest laugh about it, and comes out with his intent in the end. I'm going to try that some time, set up a magic show.... claiming I will make poverty disappear..... put a hat on the table.... with rabbit ears just sticking out of it, twitching, clearly visible to all.... and reach in the hat..... and pull out a fold up sign, unraveling it with the words 'Vote Obama'! Or 'Vote Sarah Palin'- something silly, illogical and non-align, but a statement non the less.

There are many ways to approach a arguement. Certain methods do not work on a philosophy forum, who's members inherently know the arts of logic and deception. A honest statement, so long as it is rooted in your views, is good- even if wrong, as long as it represents you and how you ACTUALLY think (not just the convinient contrived end product), can be respected. But once you start operating in shaky and untenable ground, it's a no-no, and your going to get laughed at..... unless you can pull off a goof-ball curve in propaganda like Zizek. But even in his case, though widely enough read, few take him seriously. No one can take you seriously in your current form.

Sincerity is the best blade in any debate. It cuts the psychology of all opponents, and makes them look and pay heed- not just endorsed enemies who may or may not know of their status to you in your mind.

[the_dwarf]

no, that didn't have a source in your immediate paragraph above it. so what? I know you. you're a christian. what was it you suppose that was insincere or deceptive? or even untrue?

...unless you're merely being insincere and deceptive with me.

[Onasander]

Insincerity and Deception do not contradict, ask any strategist or combat-arms soldier. However, know neither in the case above.

My Christianity is as broad as my intellect and actions, it stretches quite well to fit the persona. It's never too small to fit to any individual, but some individuals can be too small minded to take it in.

You pout about the loss of your old pagan rites. You can have new ones... no one cares to take them away or repress them anymore. The revolution already happen, every rite and every action shows only a deficit in comparision to the greater and far more powerful norm. The human spirit is far more expansive and broader than it once was. Any attempt to compete at this stage will only result in a pathetic mirroring, much as the old Tibetian pagans of the Bon tradition now monkey the structure amd philosophy of the more Orthodox factions of Buddhism prelevant in Tibet. This is the essential effect of religion.... you can't help but become more Catholic as a result now. The Protestants are growing in every respect more and more Catholic everyday as the anthisis they once clung to fades away. We merely need to survive to triumph. We are forever, and will see every tranmutation and maleviolence projected against to it's end- either adopting it as our guiding rudder, or discarding it as a maligned memory of the distant past.

I find it interesting Taz's fascination with the acceptance of induction and experimentations of the quattrocentro. I do not think he is aware of the other similar Christian revolutions, in the eastern or western empire- before and since. I cannot hate such a philosophy, it's the central tennant of our strenght after the recognition of the means of reproduction and social minded man as our central tenant- this is a philosophy of what endures. The trinkets of philosophies and technologies and social movements, and revolutions and bold and decisive governments are excess steam in comparision to the greater underlying engine of the great machine. Yes, we have the greatests repositiores of ancient and modern learnings, of arts and ancient books, of scholars.... we are hardly ignorant of it's value, and are more than willing to take anyone in who is willing to sacfrifice a few masses for it- but this is hardly the main strength of the church- even though this accidental, secondary accomplishment is greater by itself than the vast majority of works produced in most other empires and religions to date. Our primary accomplishment is much more expansive and more glorious than this. Can you begin to ponder what it is? It is a understanding of our own inherent nature, and the exploration of our relationship to god, man, and the universe. Men will die for this- they will evolve in this regard. No one cares to die for Hermes- and if they do, they are a damn fool. But we have the luxury now of being able to tolerate fools. Wasn't always so. Men died harshy and young once. The did a great many stupid, ignorant things that kept all men in thier small communities ignorant and stupid. It was overcome, despite plagues and barbarian invasions, brutality and near universal illiteracy of entire nations composed of inhabitants with very childish minds. For almost every modern movement, even the most anti-catholic, you can find it's roots in the Catholic church. You can hate it, but know it will outlast anything your mind can contrive to subdue it. No emperor, genocide, or corrupt conclave can break it- it's too damnentrenched in the universal psyche.

[perpetualburn52]

A major problem with Christianity, isn't the belief in God(for one actual "belief" is not the most important thing), but the need to obey moral guidelines/laws... The introduction of Christ as a savior does NOT introduce a new way of life(Christ's way of life) but a new medium to enforce traditional Jewish values. This can in a way be attributed to the unforgivable sin.... forgiveness is NOT granted to those that are too obstinate to be repentant(for breaking moral laws). Instead of divining a new way of life(with Christ..and unconditional forgiveness(to be beyond ressentiment)... Christ just becomes a way for priests to re-enforce the same moral laws(i.e. if you remain obstinate you will not be granted salvation...Christ becomes a new power to affect obedience(to Jewish moral law).... of course.. only "God" knows who is saved... and even a priest will admit as much obviously...so if you die with an unrepentant sin you will "most likely" go to hell... but the fact remains that in the philosophy of Christianity there does not exist "unconditional" forgiveness)... There also remains the problem of the division between heaven and hell in Christianity... and the fact that "evil" does not carry the same power as good.

One of the most ridiculous sins, of course, has to be homosexuality... In this sense, the Church is really holding itself back, clinging to the old Jewish moral division(vs Greeks that understood sexuality purely in a passive active way without the need to morally demonize homosexual behavior), in which they sought to sublimate man's sexual desire solely to woman.


Maybe you can chime in on this issue, Onasander.

[War God]

I don't think Christian has said anything about the Ten Commandments. I think that at least part of his claim can actually be found in Nietzsche: see The Antichrist, sections 32-34.

According to Nietzsche, Jesus was no Christian but a Buddhist. And from a Nietzschean perspective, we may call Buddhism "the Aryan winter-hygiene". Perhaps Christian has a point, then: in order to get within God's stead, that is, into the sun, one has, like Jesus, to become a Buddhist. That one is not within God's stead already means that one is a decadent. In order to become an ascendant, one has to adopt a good hygiene (and not a bad one like Christianity, which only makes things worse). Nietzsche suggests in Ecce Homo that he himself, in the periods where his vitality was lowest, adopted a kind of Buddhism. In fact, he initially called his amor fati a "resignedness to God" (Gottergebenheit).