'One diluted the other...to the detriment of BOTH!!!'
Well observed. And what is Christianity itself but an interpretation of Christ's teachings?
Hey, D! Do you believe Christ was a man, or God in the flesh? Do you believe he walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the sick with his hands, was of an immaculate conception and born of a virgin womb?
Just interested to know where you are coming from in defense of Christianity?
In philosophy we have an adage: there was one true Christian, and he died on the cross. A true Christian therefore is an aspirant of Christ.
I find it a most agreeable psychological affliction. It’s other people who don’t find it agreeable. The sad thing is this only makes you become MORE narcissistic.
'Some of the most screwed-up and unhappy people I know or have ever met were all highly educated with several degrees...all in Philosophy. Can that be taken as a clue...a warning...?'
I have seen fellow and femellow philosophers fall out like flies. The study of philosophy is not for the faint of heart, it is a system of natural selection in itself.
Ah but self-admirers fascinate me! Indeed I am fascinated by myself . . .
Especially when I consider how many people are looking for someone similar to themselves. Hah! How modest they are in their self-admiration! How modest indeed!
They place their subconscious self-admiration under the guise of compatibility, and what is compatibility in relations but the path of least resistance to be taken? Incompatibility makes for a fine relationship; makes for something . . . interesting. Something . . . progressive . . . something self-progressing.
If you can start a relationship with incompatibility as a basis you can only become more compatible or remain incompatible. Whereas if you start a relationship with compatibility you can only become more INcompatible or continue to work on your increasing incompatibility.
We are least compatible with ourselves; least satisfied by ourSELVES. Yet we seek someone similar.
Unless, of course, you are a Narcissist and then you only seek yourself. Well . . . it's one way to self-progress.
I am something of a secret admirer of you, did you know that? I have found your mentality in the past to be very much in keeping with German philosophy. Particularly in your views on truth in the ‘why do some people believe in a lie’ thread. I found your posts the most notable upon it.
And you have that darkness to you . . . that . . . traditional German darkness that only a true romantic knows how to admire. It is like you cannot beat the darkness and so you embrace it.
Like in all your pictures.
Ah Indeed!. . . I am something of a dainty secret admirer of you.
What you are here saying reminds me of that German adage: supposing truth is woman – suffice it to say then that all men have hitherto had unseemly ways of winning her.
'Some of the most screwed-up and unhappy people I know or have ever met were all highly educated with several degrees...all in Philosophy. Can that be taken as a clue...a warning...?'
That's what I'm asking YOU guys! What should I wear? My greatest fear is that when I die, what do I wear to the after party?
I'm not going in my birthday-suit . . .
Am I?
In that case, I intend to wear only a bowtie.
And, in the after life, is it possible to take showers? In that case, I intend to bring a towel.
But IS there an after-party and IF there is - where is it being held? And who is holding it? Because . . . How can I now believe in God when yesterday I got my big toe caught in the bath tab while listening to Wagner and fantasizing about conquering Poland?
Life is strange, and humans are still stranger by virtue of being the only animal in existence that stiffs a waiter.
'People don't usually believe what they read -- they read what they believe-- '
What a splendid piece of wisdom from Omega for a change (just had to be a bit nasty there at the end in keeping with my . . . noble, elitist, aristocratic character and indeed disagreeable attitude)!
However, ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ is a complete contradiction of God’s Law, regardless of the context in which either was given IN A SENSE because they both appear in the same book/Holy Bible. Because it makes one wonder! If biblical laws must be re-evaluated as the world progresses and people and technology evolve (and that is the supposed justification for such a contradiction or contradictions), why must we then hang on to even Christ’s teachings two thousand years later? Surely they need a reappraisal also in accordance with the same justification Omega gives? And what is more vehemently apposed nowadays than a reappraisal of anything biblical!
The Holy Bible is one book. In the first Testament we are told eye for eye, tooth for tooth; in the second, to turn the other cheek. What a contradiction indeed! There is something already wrong with the moral teaching of an eye for an eye in the first place (regardless of the times, it is inciting revenge!), and there is also something wrong with ‘turn the other cheek’ as a moral prerogative, that is all to clear to any realist. I say: preempt a strike or defend the other cheek from being struck. But I do not condone striking. I condone protecting yourself from harm and your right to. Nay, your instinct to!
No greater contradiction may be drawn in the entire Holy Bible than between the Old Testament and New Testament by virtue of being both found in the same book.
And yet we are told that Christ did not come to change the Old Testament laws but enforce them?
However, in his defense, my own philosophical interpretation is that when Christ said he did not come to change the Old Testament laws but enforce them, he was not lying
He came to enforce them – but WITHOUT force. I believe there is much to be said for my interpretation - to do away with the ‘contradiction conundrum’ between the Old Testament and the New.
Christ was a revolutionary!!!
I have even called Christ in the past, ‘the rebellious son of God’: God saying we will all return to dust, and Jesus saying ‘in me you will have eternal life’
But enforce them without force he did indeed, and wrote them in many hearts. One way or another, Christ marks a remarkable change in human morality forever!!!
Yes, I agree he is an easy target. He is doing a little too much exercise, namely stretching the truth too far and jumping too quickly to conclusions.
It is my opinion he is going to sprain himself soon – again.
However this may be said for what he seems to be saying (after his moronic prejudgment of the whole of philosophy without a prior investigation of even one text in its entirety – ha ha)
I find Detente a man whose religious ideas and insights, however contrary to mine/ours, are most worthy of note!!! Particularly in defense of the respect owed to The Religious texts themselves regardless of those who are everywhere poor ambassadors of them. Enlightening others to the unfair treatment of the texts and making a plea to a necessary separation of their scrutiny! This surely can only advance us all in our critique of religion itself and thus of our human understanding of Religion on the whole – and again I have only praise for it! And I give praise where I feel it is due and vise versa.
I say again: The defense of our greater virtues should not stop for the Christmas festivities!!!
I may also hijack your thread here to say that, said and done, I find Detente a man whose religious ideas and insights, however contrary to mine, are most worthy of note!!! Particularly in defense of the due respect (as apposed to the disrespect) owed to The Religions regardless of those who are everywhere and have been everywhere poor ambassadors of them. Enlightening others to the unfair treatment of the texts and making a plea to a necessary separation of their scrutiny! This surely can only advance us all in our critique of religion itself and thus our human understanding of Religion itself - and I have only praise for it!
EastbayRay Forum Posts (781)
RE: does anybody really beleive that jesus christ is still coming back ?...it has been 2000 years !
'One diluted the other...to the detriment of BOTH!!!'Well observed. And what is Christianity itself but an interpretation of Christ's teachings?
Hey, D! Do you believe Christ was a man, or God in the flesh? Do you believe he walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the sick with his hands, was of an immaculate conception and born of a virgin womb?
Just interested to know where you are coming from in defense of Christianity?
In philosophy we have an adage: there was one true Christian, and he died on the cross. A true Christian therefore is an aspirant of Christ.