8 Bit Philosophy: Does Christianity Make Us Weak? (Nietzsche)

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Strazdas said:
Gorrath said:
What's more, nearly half the U.S. is left leaning and 85% are Christian, there is a ton of overlap between left and religious. Irreligiosity may be commonly thought of as being a "left" movement, but it isn't. There's plenty of religious people on the left and plenty of irreligious people on the right. Left-leaning =/= not irreligious or anti-religious.
i find that quite odd, considering that US does not have a single left leaning political party.
Also from what i read the "God believers" amount dropped to around 66%.
Do you not think our Green Party and Communist party are left leaning? You may wish to argue that our Democrats don't lean far enough left for you to consider them left, but saying that we have no left-leaning political parties is absurd. Not sure where you got your source but it really depends on how the questions on the poll are asked. But just because someone does not believe in a God does not mean they aren't religious. I am an atheist and practice zen. I have a religion and don't believe in a God. Some polls have people identifying as Christian in the upper 70% range, others higher and some lower. But this all misses my original point; we can quibble over which poll to accept but it will not change the fact that religiosity isn't relegated to the right, whether you want to think of the Democrats as left or not.
 

JLF

New member
Mar 2, 2010
51
0
0
I wonder if Nietzsche ever elaborated to whom he compared to when he said that christian values make one weak. The traits the video points out seem to idealize individual strength over group strength. Which in a social animal is a bit shortsighted when taking the perspective of evolution. The individual might thrive but that does not mean that the species will. A violent powerful individual will dominate over others but that individual will have trouble when a large group takes offence. Also one that has all the power will not thrive when all humans need to have some as well.

Darwin understood this quite well when he said "survival of the fittest" not the strongest. Conformity can be quite adaptive in an enviroment with homogeneous values.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Gorrath said:
Strazdas said:
Gorrath said:
What's more, nearly half the U.S. is left leaning and 85% are Christian, there is a ton of overlap between left and religious. Irreligiosity may be commonly thought of as being a "left" movement, but it isn't. There's plenty of religious people on the left and plenty of irreligious people on the right. Left-leaning =/= not irreligious or anti-religious.
i find that quite odd, considering that US does not have a single left leaning political party.
Also from what i read the "God believers" amount dropped to around 66%.
Do you not think our Green Party and Communist party are left leaning? You may wish to argue that our Democrats don't lean far enough left for you to consider them left, but saying that we have no left-leaning political parties is absurd. Not sure where you got your source but it really depends on how the questions on the poll are asked. But just because someone does not believe in a God does not mean they aren't religious. I am an atheist and practice zen. I have a religion and don't believe in a God. Some polls have people identifying as Christian in the upper 70% range, others higher and some lower. But this all misses my original point; we can quibble over which poll to accept but it will not change the fact that religiosity isn't relegated to the right, whether you want to think of the Democrats as left or not.
Green Party:
Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper House Seats
0 / 1,972
State Lower House Seats
0 / 5,411
Other elected offices
128 (2014) http://www.gp.org/election-news/officeholders
(most of whom are to the level of "office clerk")

Communist party:
Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper Houses
0 / 1,922
State Lower Houses
0 / 5,411


So no, those parties pretty much dont exist in the political spectrum of US.

Democrats are just Right leaning party that isnt extremist, but with a strong extremist present it is more left than the Republicans.

I do agree that religiuosity and political leaning is not equivalent, however both US political parties have strong leanings towards Christianity to the point where to claim Atheism is political suicide in US.
 

Emanuele Ciriachi

New member
Jun 6, 2013
208
0
0
No,I really don't think so. Actually it's the other way around, as it requires us to willingly limit our instinctive selfishness.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Strazdas said:
Gorrath said:
Strazdas said:
Gorrath said:
What's more, nearly half the U.S. is left leaning and 85% are Christian, there is a ton of overlap between left and religious. Irreligiosity may be commonly thought of as being a "left" movement, but it isn't. There's plenty of religious people on the left and plenty of irreligious people on the right. Left-leaning =/= not irreligious or anti-religious.
i find that quite odd, considering that US does not have a single left leaning political party.
Also from what i read the "God believers" amount dropped to around 66%.
Do you not think our Green Party and Communist party are left leaning? You may wish to argue that our Democrats don't lean far enough left for you to consider them left, but saying that we have no left-leaning political parties is absurd. Not sure where you got your source but it really depends on how the questions on the poll are asked. But just because someone does not believe in a God does not mean they aren't religious. I am an atheist and practice zen. I have a religion and don't believe in a God. Some polls have people identifying as Christian in the upper 70% range, others higher and some lower. But this all misses my original point; we can quibble over which poll to accept but it will not change the fact that religiosity isn't relegated to the right, whether you want to think of the Democrats as left or not.
Green Party:
Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper House Seats
0 / 1,972
State Lower House Seats
0 / 5,411
Other elected offices
128 (2014) http://www.gp.org/election-news/officeholders
(most of whom are to the level of "office clerk")

Communist party:
Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper Houses
0 / 1,922
State Lower Houses
0 / 5,411


So no, those parties pretty much dont exist in the political spectrum of US.

Democrats are just Right leaning party that isnt extremist, but with a strong extremist present it is more left than the Republicans.

I do agree that religiuosity and political leaning is not equivalent, however both US political parties have strong leanings towards Christianity to the point where to claim Atheism is political suicide in US.
I understand that neither of those parties are represented in the government, I wasn't arguing that they were, just that the United States does, in fact, have left leaning parties. You said we don't have any, I didn't interpret that to mean we don't have any of those reps in office.

I do not agree with you that the Democrats learn right, not by any stretch of the imagination. You may seem them as not leftist enough for your tastes, but they are certainly not on the right. The big play of the Democrats was an attempt to nationalize the healthcare system of the U.S., that is not in any way a right-leaning move. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, the Republicans aren't even on the right, even if their rhetoric is. But this is all within the context of the American political system. Our right isn't someone else's right and our left isn't someone else's left. I am quite aware about the problems Atheist candidates face, I am an Atheist myself. That's precisely why I challenged the person I initially responded to.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,909
118
Lightknight said:
Cooperation and tribalism in general was instrumental to us becoming full fledged societies able to carry out complex tasks on a global scale. I'm not sure calls to play fair or not run up the score can be attributed to a religion. Maybe we've evolved to have an innate sense of decency and things like Christian values came out of those values instead of merely instilling them? Because it was evolutionarily more beneficial to work together and to consider the feelings of one another than it was to try and do everything on our own with no respect for other people.
What you are referring to is called empathy. xD And it has no intrinsic basis in religion. Most religions like to take credit for the good natured deeds that people do, because it makes them look better, but the simple fact is that empathy is a biological trait of our species, and many other species too actually. And yes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to the species to be empathetic, as it increases the likelihood that the species will survive, thrive, and reproduce at an accelerated rate.

As to the posts about "Christianity teaches humility, love, etc." I have to say "That really depends on which of the several thousand flavors of Christianity you are talking about." Plenty of them are all about shit talking the people who are not part of their denomination, and especially shit talking people who aren't Christian. I live in Alabama USA, and let me tell you, this fucking place is infested with ego-centric religious nutbags, who take every opportunity to preach about the sinners (as they define them), in public, and threaten them with eternal damnation for their evil ways, all the time. And plenty of the random people passing by will agree with them. So yeah, I call a small bit of bullshit on the "Christianity teaches humility" bit, as I don't actually see any of that in actual practice in real life. I see a bunch of self-grandizing, confrontational, argumentative blowhards, who revel in their salvation superiority over the rest of the masses, and take every opportunity to remind those of us who don't buy into their bullshit, that we are the scum of the earth, and are hell bound for eternal damnation.

And yes, they do revel in mediocrity. My coworkers, who are all highly religious, frequently talk in ways that clearly display a worship of ignorance and mediocrity. Of directly disregarding the opinions of specialists in various fields of knowledge, because "hey, they just practice medicine, they don't really know anything. They're not God, and that's where my faith is. So I don't really pay any attention to what they tell me, and just trust the Lord that he will heal me as he sees fit." And yet they go to the doctor anyway, take the treatments suggested, and then attribute their recovery to "God making them better." I've actually heard them say that quote, I'm not paraphrasing there. And the other people around were all nodding along like "yep, yep that's the proper course of action. Ignore advice from knowledgable sources, embrace your ignorance, and just trust that it will work out. And be sure to throw in some arrogant digs as to the folly of those who do pay attention to the information source you decry as foolish." Though I will allow that this isn't necessarily a Christian specific thing, as most religions exhibit this trait to some degree or other. Whenever current data and knowledge contradicts with their believed doctrines, the point at which they bend is with the data, not their beliefs.

Anyway, *gets off his soapbox*. Back to work.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
Chris Whitney - This comment seems to indicate either a sever lack of knowledge on the subject or a base dishonesty in articulating its point. When a Christian refers to "The Bible" it is most commonly understood to mean the Christian protestant Bible comprising 66 books believed to be divinely inspired whereas the second most commonly referred bible by a Christian is the collection of 73 books of the catholic bible believed to be divinely inspired. The difference here is due to the counsel of Trent removing 7 books in the reformation in 1546 AD. The same 7 books were attempted to be removed back in 90 AD by the Counsel of Jamnia around the formation of the new testament itself. It is also important to note that all 7 of these books are related to the early part of the old testament and that none of the new testament is in depute which is the foundation of Christianity. This entire "dispute" within Christianity relates to extremely well thought out and debated theologies on how the individual relates to God on both sides. Not political agendas as you claim. What you may be thinking of are other variations outside of these instances commonly identified as "cults" by Christians the world over which do aim to change the substance, narrative, and nature of the bible for political aims or personal aims. The are easily identifiable because they seek not to differentiate between what is inspired and what is not based off of the narrative as a whole but rather to make changes to the narrative itself either with subtraction or addition to the material.

This standard is not unique to the Christian religion and is present in historical and scientific fields as well and I would venture to say any field that is concerned with the truth. Many of histories accounts are questioned concerning what should or should not be counted as part of the narrative due to authenticity however universally those seeking to inject their own biases or subtract their own prejudices are recognized for the hacks and quacks they are. You would be ridiculed for pointing to such instances in any other account and making the same statements concerning those as you are for the bible.

Here is a 7 minute video of Ravi Zacharias answering the question phrased slightly differently but gets at the heart of the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c24okgroOiw

I hope if nothing else this is educational for you and prompts your own pursuit for answers to deeper questions.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
I tried watching this video. I really did. But I couldn't. It was hard listening to it basically attack my faith, but then when it got to the point where "good and evil" are just words and don't matter, I was done. I've seen that type of thinking before, from the made up Sith in Star Wars, to dictators and murderers justifying their actions.
They were quoting Nietzsche words even if it was to agree with his point. As a Christian you should get used to criticisms and even more persecution as Christ counsels you that you are blessed when you encounter such things on his behalf. It would be better listen to the argument made against your faith and make an articulate response on why the argument is flawed and your faith is superior. If you are unable to do this it should prompt you to seek out answers concerning your questions.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
Strazdas said:
I tried reading nietche because everyone keeps mentioning him. after a few books i just couldnt do it anymore. his blatant racism, crazy ideas and self-contradiction just turned me off constantly. and this is a great example on one of those crazy ideas.
Well yes moral relativism does tend to emerge in that way.

Strazdas said:
Mr.Mattress said:
OT: Christianity is a religion that wishes for people to be kind, fair, just, charitable and humble
christianity is a very strange religion. its like soviet union. it pretends to be all that great thing for people, but when you examine it it is nothing btu cruel dictatorship. at least islam is open about its goals.
I don't really think comparing a government that killed 120 million of its own people to the life and work of Christ and those aspiring to follow his example really shows a lot of understanding concerning those two accounts or frankly a lot of intelligence from the poster.

Strazdas said:
leviadragon99 said:
Christian morality represents equality?

Welp, lost me within the first minute, good job there Freddy.

Oh, and compassion isn't a weakness.
no, christian morality forces equality. that is, it will force everyone into being exactly same thing and therefore equal.
Um, the message of Christ seems to be pretty clear that man is in need of a savior to be made right with God due to his own nature of sin and that he should resist this nature focusing instead to treat others as man would like to be treated and show them freely the love of God which God has shown to them. Which included Christ allowing them to maliciously crucify him in order to benevolently save them. - Honestly did you even bother to read the accounts of the gospel before spewing your opinions?
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
Gorrath said:
Strazdas said:
Gorrath said:
Strazdas said:
Gorrath said:
What's more, nearly half the U.S. is left leaning and 85% are Christian, there is a ton of overlap between left and religious. Irreligiosity may be commonly thought of as being a "left" movement, but it isn't. There's plenty of religious people on the left and plenty of irreligious people on the right. Left-leaning =/= not irreligious or anti-religious.
i find that quite odd, considering that US does not have a single left leaning political party.
Also from what i read the "God believers" amount dropped to around 66%.
Do you not think our Green Party and Communist party are left leaning? You may wish to argue that our Democrats don't lean far enough left for you to consider them left, but saying that we have no left-leaning political parties is absurd. Not sure where you got your source but it really depends on how the questions on the poll are asked. But just because someone does not believe in a God does not mean they aren't religious. I am an atheist and practice zen. I have a religion and don't believe in a God. Some polls have people identifying as Christian in the upper 70% range, others higher and some lower. But this all misses my original point; we can quibble over which poll to accept but it will not change the fact that religiosity isn't relegated to the right, whether you want to think of the Democrats as left or not.
Green Party:
Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper House Seats
0 / 1,972
State Lower House Seats
0 / 5,411
Other elected offices
128 (2014) http://www.gp.org/election-news/officeholders
(most of whom are to the level of "office clerk")

Communist party:
Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper Houses
0 / 1,922
State Lower Houses
0 / 5,411


So no, those parties pretty much dont exist in the political spectrum of US.

Democrats are just Right leaning party that isnt extremist, but with a strong extremist present it is more left than the Republicans.

I do agree that religiuosity and political leaning is not equivalent, however both US political parties have strong leanings towards Christianity to the point where to claim Atheism is political suicide in US.
I understand that neither of those parties are represented in the government, I wasn't arguing that they were, just that the United States does, in fact, have left leaning parties. You said we don't have any, I didn't interpret that to mean we don't have any of those reps in office.

I do not agree with you that the Democrats learn right, not by any stretch of the imagination. You may seem them as not leftist enough for your tastes, but they are certainly not on the right. The big play of the Democrats was an attempt to nationalize the healthcare system of the U.S., that is not in any way a right-leaning move. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, the Republicans aren't even on the right, even if their rhetoric is. But this is all within the context of the American political system. Our right isn't someone else's right and our left isn't someone else's left. I am quite aware about the problems Atheist candidates face, I am an Atheist myself. That's precisely why I challenged the person I initially responded to.
You may enjoy reading Glenn Greenwald over at the Intercept you seem to have similar views.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
Lightknight said:
Cooperation and tribalism in general was instrumental to us becoming full fledged societies able to carry out complex tasks on a global scale. I'm not sure calls to play fair or not run up the score can be attributed to a religion. Maybe we've evolved to have an innate sense of decency and things like Christian values came out of those values instead of merely instilling them? Because it was evolutionarily more beneficial to work together and to consider the feelings of one another than it was to try and do everything on our own with no respect for other people.
What you are referring to is called empathy. xD And it has no intrinsic basis in religion. Most religions like to take credit for the good natured deeds that people do, because it makes them look better, but the simple fact is that empathy is a biological trait of our species, and many other species too actually. And yes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to the species to be empathetic, as it increases the likelihood that the species will survive, thrive, and reproduce at an accelerated rate.

As to the posts about "Christianity teaches humility, love, etc." I have to say "That really depends on which of the several thousand flavors of Christianity you are talking about." Plenty of them are all about shit talking the people who are not part of their denomination, and especially shit talking people who aren't Christian. I live in Alabama USA, and let me tell you, this fucking place is infested with ego-centric religious nutbags, who take every opportunity to preach about the sinners (as they define them), in public, and threaten them with eternal damnation for their evil ways, all the time. And plenty of the random people passing by will agree with them. So yeah, I call a small bit of bullshit on the "Christianity teaches humility" bit, as I don't actually see any of that in actual practice in real life. I see a bunch of self-grandizing, confrontational, argumentative blowhards, who revel in their salvation superiority over the rest of the masses, and take every opportunity to remind those of us who don't buy into their bullshit, that we are the scum of the earth, and are hell bound for eternal damnation.

And yes, they do revel in mediocrity. My coworkers, who are all highly religious, frequently talk in ways that clearly display a worship of ignorance and mediocrity. Of directly disregarding the opinions of specialists in various fields of knowledge, because "hey, they just practice medicine, they don't really know anything. They're not God, and that's where my faith is. So I don't really pay any attention to what they tell me, and just trust the Lord that he will heal me as he sees fit." And yet they go to the doctor anyway, take the treatments suggested, and then attribute their recovery to "God making them better." I've actually heard them say that quote, I'm not paraphrasing there. And the other people around were all nodding along like "yep, yep that's the proper course of action. Ignore advice from knowledgable sources, embrace your ignorance, and just trust that it will work out. And be sure to throw in some arrogant digs as to the folly of those who do pay attention to the information source you decry as foolish." Though I will allow that this isn't necessarily a Christian specific thing, as most religions exhibit this trait to some degree or other. Whenever current data and knowledge contradicts with their believed doctrines, the point at which they bend is with the data, not their beliefs.

Anyway, *gets off his soapbox*. Back to work.
You seem to be looking at the actions of those claiming to be followers of Christ without making the effort to discern Christian behavior. If I went around claiming "America hates black people." or even "I hate black people and I'm an American." It would not be fair to make the conclusion that America or even Americans hate(s) black people but this seems to be your thought process on the subject. I'd encouraged you to look at the guidance and testimony in the life of Christ and then discern if the behavior exhibited by the examples you cite are in line with his teachings while at the same time asking yourself the same tough questions concerning your motives for the reactions and views you espouse.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
JLF said:
I wonder if Nietzsche ever elaborated to whom he compared to when he said that christian values make one weak. The traits the video points out seem to idealize individual strength over group strength. Which in a social animal is a bit shortsighted when taking the perspective of evolution. The individual might thrive but that does not mean that the species will. A violent powerful individual will dominate over others but that individual will have trouble when a large group takes offence. Also one that has all the power will not thrive when all humans need to have some as well.

Darwin understood this quite well when he said "survival of the fittest" not the strongest. Conformity can be quite adaptive in an enviroment with homogeneous values.
The only legitimate use of power is to protect minorities and by definition the smallest minority is that of the individual. Whenever someone speak of the benefits of society over the rights of an individual it is almost exclusively to the individually beneficial to themselves. Thomas Jefferson put it thus, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

If you can't understand that see if this quote helps to clarify, "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
I remember this one infuriating moment in my childhood where in a race where there was only me and one other... I ended up in second place. For whatever reason, my first thought even as a child was that "I came last" and that no matter how much it was true I came "second" the second place ribbon I had was no more that a participation award.

I felt annoyed, embarrassed, and straight up sad that I had to be dragged up to "celebrate" coming last. I was something like 5 or 8 years old at the time. In the end... It wasn't the loss itself that annoyed me... It was that they actually expected me to pretend it was a good thing in front of the "Herd". For whatever reason I wanted to be as adamant as I could that the 2nd place ribbon I was given was "FAKE".

... And so it came to be that I began to hate the time of year that school competitions came around, even when teachers and otherwise urged everyone to participate. I knew the others were better at sports so it made no sense to expose my weakness, and it made even less sense to give up my sense of pride and accept the condescending "participation" awards.

Instead... I eventually took up martial arts, one of the skills that wasn't paraded about on those days. And I was free to practice it and thrive or fail on my own terms without anyone around to pay attention.

So in the end... I understand the sentiment that Christianity's herd mentality is bad.
I fail to see any logical connection between your poor sportsmanship and "Christianity's herd mentality" unless the point is that you are as bad at supporting your conclusions as were are at obtaining first place.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Go around telling the 99% that speak out against the wealthy 1% that "It's just the way it is. They're better than you because they just played the game better," and you're probably gonna have a bad time.

Christianity teaches moral humility and the virtue of being humble, the extreme of which is described by Neitzsche as a celebration of mediocrity. The opposing side, however, has the extreme of giving approval to those who use their gifts to stand up as our "betters" and should not be admonished for exploiting these gifts for their own benefit on those who do not have such gifts.

How about instead of circle-jerking with Neitzsche, we accept that a balance of such morals is probably the best course. Do not be ashamed of your gifts, but do not flaunt them about in the face of those who have none. Encourage those who have potential, do not bring them down to suit everyone else. If you have a gift, you have the responsibility to use it; not just to benefit yourself at the cost of others, but to benefit those around you.
Unless I have taken a serious blow to the head I'm pretty sure this is the general advice that Paul gives to Christians in the Bible.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Go around telling the 99% that speak out against the wealthy 1% that "It's just the way it is. They're better than you because they just played the game better," and you're probably gonna have a bad time.

Christianity teaches moral humility and the virtue of being humble, the extreme of which is described by Neitzsche as a celebration of mediocrity. The opposing side, however, has the extreme of giving approval to those who use their gifts to stand up as our "betters" and should not be admonished for exploiting these gifts for their own benefit on those who do not have such gifts.

How about instead of circle-jerking with Neitzsche, we accept that a balance of such morals is probably the best course. Do not be ashamed of your gifts, but do not flaunt them about in the face of those who have none. Encourage those who have potential, do not bring them down to suit everyone else. If you have a gift, you have the responsibility to use it; not just to benefit yourself at the cost of others, but to benefit those around you.
Unless I have taken a serious blow to the head I'm pretty sure this is the general advice that Paul gives to Christians in the Bible.
Matthewmagic said:
I'm going to have to be the one to say it huh?

While he may be wrong about the cause, the symptom is a very real problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA

I wish we did put more value in thinking for ones self, and in achievement. Maybe fewer people would be so utterly mediocre, and seek to better themselves.

Before anyone makes the accusation I'm not an objectivist or a nihilist. I just see where they are coming from here, and I think the problem has to do with worrying to much about the feelings of other people. If your feelings get hurt, you become stronger. You learn more from failing then you do from succeeding yet, we treat failure like it is some kind of plague.

Do you remember that time you missed a jump in super mario brothers and proceeded to cry yourself to sleep? Me neither, I remember using my next life to figure out that jump. I am better at video games because of it. I'm better at programming because I failed so often when I first started out, and I'm better at math because I have the self esteme to admit to myself when I need to work harder. Yeah, I feel bad when I fail, but that bad feeling leads me to want to change whatever quality within myself that caused me to fail to begin with.

I know the intent is compassion, but the real world effect is duck face selfies and pictures of your dinner in place of substantive conversation and motivation.

maybe that is just me...
Thanks for the link. I had often heard this study cited but had never seen this clip. Very informative and thank you for taking the time to post it. I don't think anyone is advocating to insulate people from reality of failure but rather to use failure but rather to approach others in a spirit of love mercy. You can do this while still dishing out penalties and consequences its really the motives behind those actions that we are concerned with and even more so the fundamental views and philosophies behind those motives because philosophy and views determine motives and motives determine actions. Like any structural building the foundation is key to keep it standing the same is true for the foundation of worldview that ones holds and the structural integrity of their life.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
LiMaSaRe said:
He also didn't think that his philosophy applied to 99% of humanity; it was always written for the "free spirits" who, like he, listen only to themselves, and he thought those people were exceedingly rare.
Yeah and Marx was just a writer for the plebs. The scale or class of ones readership does not excuse the content and influence that the work plays to carry out its ideals. The damage done by Friedrich Nietzsche is in line with other contemporaries of his time and the prevailing attitudes of the following era perhaps arguable the darkest times of human history. Looking back it is hard from my vantage point to wonder what other possible conclusion there could have been to moral relativism but as we are currently in the process of attempting to revamp it in our own day and age I am giving pause to postulate that perhaps there is no evil great enough to confront mans desire to deny it.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
TruthInGaming said:
Um, the message of Christ seems to be pretty clear that man is in need of a savior to be made right with God due to his own nature of sin and that he should resist this nature focusing instead to treat others as man would like to be treated and show them freely the love of God which God has shown to them. Which included Christ allowing them to maliciously crucify him in order to benevolently save them. - Honestly did you even bother to read the accounts of the gospel before spewing your opinions?
I know enough of the bible to disagree with it.

The notion that we aren't capable of saving ourselves and need a perfect ubermensch to human-sacrifice to his father because "Something, something Sin, sin, sin, reasons" strikes me as sufficiently fascist in the dumping of a guilt/debt complex upon people to question the hell out of it.

Yes I am intentionally misrepresenting what you claim the point of it all is, but I'm doing so to prove a point, how easy it is to skew those events by a different perspective and different phrasing, not that the bible really needed your help to come across as one long incomprehensible rant, but you really did the text no favours with your "explanation"
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
leviadragon99 said:
TruthInGaming said:
Um, the message of Christ seems to be pretty clear that man is in need of a savior to be made right with God due to his own nature of sin and that he should resist this nature focusing instead to treat others as man would like to be treated and show them freely the love of God which God has shown to them. Which included Christ allowing them to maliciously crucify him in order to benevolently save them. - Honestly did you even bother to read the accounts of the gospel before spewing your opinions?
I know enough of the bible to disagree with it.

The notion that we aren't capable of saving ourselves and need a perfect ubermensch to human-sacrifice to his father because "Something, something Sin, sin, sin, reasons" strikes me as sufficiently fascist in the dumping of a guilt/debt complex upon people to question the hell out of it.

Yes I am intentionally misrepresenting what you claim the point of it all is, but I'm doing so to prove a point, how easy it is to skew those events by a different perspective and different phrasing, not that the bible really needed your help to come across as one long incomprehensible rant, but you really did the text no favours with your "explanation"
You don't need to know a lot about something to disagree with it for all that statement says.

Capable of saving yourself? You have some kind of eternal life potion in your pocket you wish to share with the rest of us? If you stand before an almighty God who created the universe and watched men screw it up then came himself in the form of his own son to die to fix it at the hands of the very lynch mob he was dying to save and you are asked to give an account of your wrong doing in life and why he should allow you into his heaven how can you respond? I don't think it's fascist to tell people they are doing something evil and they need be repentant. Christ offered people freedom from the guilt and slavery of their own behavior. That's the good part to the good news of the good gospel. God encourages you to ask questions. He discourages you from hurting other people and yourself. God isn't helped by your service and he doesn't need you to accept his salvation freely offered to you. He wants you to because its good for you. If you are drowning it doesn't hurt me at all if you choose not to climb onto the life boat. I want you to get in the life boat because its going to save your life.

I am at least glad to see you are honest about your dishonest but I'd rather you were just honest. It would be pretty hard and I would argue the modern church has worked almost round the clock to achieve it but then I would be speaking of organized religion not the life and example of Jesus Christ or the works surrounding his life. If you don't comprehend something maybe you should spend some time studying it or seeking clarification from a reputable expert instead of making some generally unfounded and non sequitur points that you yourself admit as misrepresenting. I am not trying to do the text "favors" by explaining it. My whole point was the text can stand on it's own and the point is fairly obvious to those who bother to read and study it.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
TruthInGaming said:
leviadragon99 said:
TruthInGaming said:
Um, the message of Christ seems to be pretty clear that man is in need of a savior to be made right with God due to his own nature of sin and that he should resist this nature focusing instead to treat others as man would like to be treated and show them freely the love of God which God has shown to them. Which included Christ allowing them to maliciously crucify him in order to benevolently save them. - Honestly did you even bother to read the accounts of the gospel before spewing your opinions?
I know enough of the bible to disagree with it.

The notion that we aren't capable of saving ourselves and need a perfect ubermensch to human-sacrifice to his father because "Something, something Sin, sin, sin, reasons" strikes me as sufficiently fascist in the dumping of a guilt/debt complex upon people to question the hell out of it.

Yes I am intentionally misrepresenting what you claim the point of it all is, but I'm doing so to prove a point, how easy it is to skew those events by a different perspective and different phrasing, not that the bible really needed your help to come across as one long incomprehensible rant, but you really did the text no favours with your "explanation"
You don't need to know a lot about something to disagree with it for all that statement says.

Capable of saving yourself? You have some kind of eternal life potion in your pocket you wish to share with the rest of us? If you stand before an almighty God who created the universe and watched men screw it up then came himself in the form of his own son to die to fix it at the hands of the very lynch mob he was dying to save and you are asked to give an account of your wrong doing in life and why he should allow you into his heaven how can you respond? I don't think it's fascist to tell people they are doing something evil and they need be repentant. Christ offered people freedom from the guilt and slavery of their own behavior. That's the good part to the good news of the good gospel. God encourages you to ask questions. He discourages you from hurting other people and yourself. God isn't helped by your service and he doesn't need you to accept his salvation freely offered to you. He wants you to because its good for you. If you are drowning it doesn't hurt me at all if you choose not to climb onto the life boat. I want you to get in the life boat because its going to save your life.

I am at least glad to see you are honest about your dishonest but I'd rather you were just honest. It would be pretty hard and I would argue the modern church has worked almost round the clock to achieve it but then I would be speaking of organized religion not the life and example of Jesus Christ or the works surrounding his life. If you don't comprehend something maybe you should spend some time studying it or seeking clarification from a reputable expert instead of making some generally unfounded and non sequitur points that you yourself admit as misrepresenting. I am not trying to do the text "favors" by explaining it. My whole point was the text can stand on it's own and the point is fairly obvious to those who bother to read and study it.
Yeahno, my entire point was that the text does not stand up by itself and even the most cursory explanation reveals massive contradictions and inconsistencies, but apparently you decided to get more mileage out of missing the point of my intentional hyperbole.

As to "saving ourselves" I referred to acting in a moral fashion without needing the coda of a supposedly gay-hating, demanding-subservience-of-women, insecure-to-the-point-of-intolerance-of-any-other-belief, evil deity, one that I do not believe even exists, thus the question of eternal life or needing to explain ourselves to this force becomes rather moot, and indeed if he did exist and is everything mainstream religion says he is, I would gladly lead the armies of hell against him, because THAT is how bad his PR department is right now.

The only thing modern religion as an institution has worked pretty hard to do is to keep women out of the clergy and prevent gay marriage, yeah that's really spreading the good word. The charitable efforts that they are involved in strike me increasingly as the actions of pockets of good people trying to make the best of a hopelessly morally bankrupt institution they're too scared to leave, good that they do despite their religion, not because of it.

Your allegories about god and his life boat lose a little lustre when god allegedly demands we blind, deafen and mute ourselves in order to be allowed into the boat. So while it may not be fascist to point out people are screwing up, it is definitely fascist to DEMAND they follow your every whim or else die in a fire.

At the end of the day, if you feel like god is a thing worth believing, an entity worth following, then you do that, you can call bullshit on all the horrible things that organised religion believes are true to him and view him as an actually nice guy... but don't expect everyone else to accept that distinction and fall neatly into line when organised religion demands we march in lockstep, because for many of us, what god actually wants is irrelevant, because the church is what we actually have to deal with in the real world.
 

TruthInGaming

New member
Apr 29, 2015
39
0
0
leviadragon99 said:
TruthInGaming said:
leviadragon99 said:
TruthInGaming said:
Um, the message of Christ seems to be pretty clear that man is in need of a savior to be made right with God due to his own nature of sin and that he should resist this nature focusing instead to treat others as man would like to be treated and show them freely the love of God which God has shown to them. Which included Christ allowing them to maliciously crucify him in order to benevolently save them. - Honestly did you even bother to read the accounts of the gospel before spewing your opinions?
I know enough of the bible to disagree with it.

The notion that we aren't capable of saving ourselves and need a perfect ubermensch to human-sacrifice to his father because "Something, something Sin, sin, sin, reasons" strikes me as sufficiently fascist in the dumping of a guilt/debt complex upon people to question the hell out of it.

Yes I am intentionally misrepresenting what you claim the point of it all is, but I'm doing so to prove a point, how easy it is to skew those events by a different perspective and different phrasing, not that the bible really needed your help to come across as one long incomprehensible rant, but you really did the text no favours with your "explanation"
You don't need to know a lot about something to disagree with it for all that statement says.

Capable of saving yourself? You have some kind of eternal life potion in your pocket you wish to share with the rest of us? If you stand before an almighty God who created the universe and watched men screw it up then came himself in the form of his own son to die to fix it at the hands of the very lynch mob he was dying to save and you are asked to give an account of your wrong doing in life and why he should allow you into his heaven how can you respond? I don't think it's fascist to tell people they are doing something evil and they need be repentant. Christ offered people freedom from the guilt and slavery of their own behavior. That's the good part to the good news of the good gospel. God encourages you to ask questions. He discourages you from hurting other people and yourself. God isn't helped by your service and he doesn't need you to accept his salvation freely offered to you. He wants you to because its good for you. If you are drowning it doesn't hurt me at all if you choose not to climb onto the life boat. I want you to get in the life boat because its going to save your life.

I am at least glad to see you are honest about your dishonest but I'd rather you were just honest. It would be pretty hard and I would argue the modern church has worked almost round the clock to achieve it but then I would be speaking of organized religion not the life and example of Jesus Christ or the works surrounding his life. If you don't comprehend something maybe you should spend some time studying it or seeking clarification from a reputable expert instead of making some generally unfounded and non sequitur points that you yourself admit as misrepresenting. I am not trying to do the text "favors" by explaining it. My whole point was the text can stand on it's own and the point is fairly obvious to those who bother to read and study it.
Yeahno, my entire point was that the text does not stand up by itself and even the most cursory explanation reveals massive contradictions and inconsistencies, but apparently you decided to get more mileage out of missing the point of my intentional hyperbole.

As to "saving ourselves" I referred to acting in a moral fashion without needing the coda of a supposedly gay-hating, demanding-subservience-of-women, insecure-to-the-point-of-intolerance-of-any-other-belief, evil deity, one that I do not believe even exists, thus the question of eternal life or needing to explain ourselves to this force becomes rather moot, and indeed if he did exist and is everything mainstream religion says he is, I would gladly lead the armies of hell against him, because THAT is how bad his PR department is right now.

The only thing modern religion as an institution has worked pretty hard to do is to keep women out of the clergy and prevent gay marriage, yeah that's really spreading the good word. The charitable efforts that they are involved in strike me increasingly as the actions of pockets of good people trying to make the best of a hopelessly morally bankrupt institution they're too scared to leave, good that they do despite their religion, not because of it.

Your allegories about god and his life boat lose a little lustre when god allegedly demands we blind, deafen and mute ourselves in order to be allowed into the boat. So while it may not be fascist to point out people are screwing up, it is definitely fascist to DEMAND they follow your every whim or else die in a fire.

At the end of the day, if you feel like god is a thing worth believing, an entity worth following, then you do that, you can call bullshit on all the horrible things that organised religion believes are true to him and view him as an actually nice guy... but don't expect everyone else to accept that distinction and fall neatly into line when organised religion demands we march in lockstep, because for many of us, what god actually wants is irrelevant, because the church is what we actually have to deal with in the real world.
Whoa, whoa easy there bud. If you were putting up intentional hyperbole I think it's understandable if I misunderstood it.

The only hate vibes I'm picking up here are not coming from the Christian God. You are throwing around a lot of accusations and you might want to back it up there a second to evaluate your own prejudice and bias coming into this and just question where all this is coming from before you go slinging and swinging. If you don't believe he exists then go live your life. He'll knock at the door and you can feel free to ignore him. He won't break in and force himself upon you but he also won't force you to live in his paradise either. If the other choice is hell then that's your choice. I do have to say though from reading you post I am given the inference that you choice not to believe in God sounds like its due to a desire not to be accountable to him.

So you want to save yourself in a your moral fashion while leading the armies of hell again God... because he has a bad PR department... OK. Yes apart from sanitation, education, wine, public order, irrigation,fresh water systems and public health... sure the church doesn't do much but besides all that the whole mission of inspiring others to follow and accept the teachings of Christ cause that's certainly bad right? On the gay issue how dare they insist that people who want to be leader in their religion actually follow and believe the things the religion espouses? How dare they! We should force them to do as we believe and we think right? Oh wait... I do believe there are a number of women clergy but traditionally yes I would agree that's not really a female role in the same way that a man isn't really a traditional role at playing wife to another man... at least their consistent no? Well your impression of charitable organizations and utterly fabricated motives for what other people do despite their actions indicating the exact opposite not withstanding I'd encouraged you to direct your rage to your nearest representative because this does seem to be the way that the government openly operates and you might find your efforts in that field only slightly more effective though slightly less appreciated.

I've never had God demand me to be blind, deaf or mute. Must have missed that verse. I don't see God asking me to follow his every whim he basically just gives me instruction on things that will hurt me or others and then advises me not to do them. He also tells me that even if I do them that he will forgive me if am sorry for hurting other people or myself which seems like a pretty straightforward and moral thing to do to me. However if someone was to hurt other people or themselves maliciously fully aware that they had been warned ahead of time not to do it then be unapologetic for their actions and the pain and suffering they had caused I can't very well think of a person more deserving to die in fire as you put it.

Well at the end of the day I do believe in that God. I am not aware of all the terrible things that my organized form pf religion has done and I don't accept responsibility for the terrible things that other religions have done nor do I think they should in any way reflect on my religion. I don't remember making demands that you march in lockstep or honestly making any demands of you at all. I would describe your comment as angry perhaps even hostile and I really don't see much reason for it. If the Christian body of believers has harmed you in some way that you find debilitating or difficult to overcome perhaps you should take it up with the courts if on the other hand this is some kind of pseudo outrage wannabe rebel of an over privileged atheist hipster please don't let me stop you in your search for someone who cares about your "struggles."

All that being said I wish a very good day to you. I wish you no harm and submit to you only what you are willing to accept on the basis of reason and truth. I am more then happy to share the message of Christ with you or anyone else who is willing to listen and I am not willing to give up that mission or be silence by any threat or force others may posses.

Best wishes.