Feel more love for everything, because if it was made by God, then in fact it must be worth loving.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,291
- 36,425
- 136
I believe the burden of proof rests with those bringing the creative explanations to the table...
My comment was in regards to raildog himself actually. I tire of watching him try to sound profound and insightful by contorting talking points, all the while displaying the very same behavior he accuses others of (his first words in the thread are an assumption, for instance).
My thoughts on the bible don't mirror your own accolades I'm afraid. The 'holes and gaps' as you put it, along with some contradictions and more than a little lunacy, are present in the bible without the benefit of propaganda. While I definetly consider, say the King James version, a great work of literature, I give it no more credence or plaudits than the Gita, the Koran, etc. If you really think 'the bible' hasn't been carefully filtered and edited throughout the ages, then I have some palm tree covered tropical beach property up here in Maine I'll sell ya cheap!
The Book of Kells - now there's a preserved work!
I don't think we translated the work yesterday from Hebrew, Arabic, etc. ect. ect. etc. This stuff had to have been passed on and on from generation until someone finally wrote it down. Granted of course a lot was written down then put together in the form we see now, a lot had to have been stories passed down.
In the sense that science is the study of the natural world, I guess so. However, naturalism as a philosophy (in opposition to supernaturalsm) has nothing to do with science; it is in a completely different field of study (which is why scientists shouldn't be preaching it).
It is true that alot of that is taught as well, alongside naturalism. Naturalism is the supposedly rational belief, for all the "objectivists" to latch onto. And for those who can't get rid of the religious idea that we should act in a certain way, environmentalism is thrown at them, inviting them to recycle and vote democrat to do their part for humanity.
Call it self-interest if you will (it does sound alot nicer, doesn't it?), but it is no more of a rational basis for a moral system than any other arbitrary basis.
"If nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligitory at all."
Nietzsche tried to develop a morality on the moral maxim "do what is good for posterity," arbitrarily raising it up as the highest virtue. Hitler did the same with Nationalism. Ayn Rand's raising up of self-interest as "the good" is in the same boat. Though all of these may be virtues, no one of them has a special claim of being the "highest" or "purest" human value.
Remember the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus. Is it better to be just, even when you don't stand to gain from it?
Abraxas
Golden Member
- Oct 26, 2004
- 1,056
- 0
- 0
Ah, but self-respect from one man is not the same as self-respect from another. One man may have trouble sleeping at night because he felt he probably could have spared an extra few cents from his paycheck for charity while another might derive great respect for himself by being better at the game than his opponents, by being good enough to get away with his crimes and abuses. A man may draw more self-respect from his own cunning than being just. Indeed, a man may define his getting as much for himself as just.
Which definition of justice do we elevate to the correct one and on what grounds do we make that judgment? I am inclined to agree that Ayn Rand's objectivism is as arbitrary as the next philosophy, though, honestly, as a philosopher I resent Ayn Rand being lumped in with us.
Apart from the fact that discussing Nietzche's work on an internet forum is absurd? Let's see:
a) If you read his work in anything but the original version it's wasted time. While this is true for most philosophers, even more so in the case of Nietzche.
b) The man was one of the greatest men of genius ever. 99% of the common interpretations of his writing are just wrong.
c) They should stop teaching his work in anything but doctoral school.
d) This statement was not asking for a factual interpretation. Most people understand it in the wrong way. I have studied his work for some time, and my only serious comment can be: "I have not, and probably never will, the instruments to understand it".
MAW1082
Senior member
- Jun 17, 2003
- 510
- 7
- 81
Nietzsche was obsessed with understanding the hierarchial structure of human society and he ultimately believed the church and religion were an evolved part of human society. That being said, he believed the church and religion were no longer relevant or important to society and needed to be eliminated.
When he said 'God is dead,' I believe he is referring to the fact that people have finally discovered and recognized that religion simply evolved out of man's own need to understand the world around him and is now being used to control an manipulate them. The people would recognize religion "for what is was and move past it." They would understand it used to be there, but also understand why it has been eliminated from the future.
When he said 'God is dead,' I believe he is referring to the fact that people have finally discovered and recognized that religion simply evolved out of man's own need to understand the world around him and is now being used to control an manipulate them. The people would recognize religion "for what is was and move past it." They would understand it used to be there, but also understand why it has been eliminated from the future.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Unfortunately, they aren't in large numbers.
Words are a start, to begin thinking on a different path than one would have come up with without a good nudge; being able to see that our major religions were born from a need to have an understanding of the world that did not need to be rational, and a way to tie us together.
Since the printing press, and growth of hard sciences and soft sciences, it has become a less necessary part of life. Eventually, everybody might find their own light, and even understand Moonie
.Yet, here you are discussing this on a internet forum!
As for being one of the greatest men of genius ever, I've maybe heard of him a only a couple times in my life. What makes this man so great exactly?
Abraxas
Golden Member
- Oct 26, 2004
- 1,056
- 0
- 0
This does:
Beyond Good and Evil, section 144
"When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexually. Sterility itself disposes one towards a certin masculinity of taste; for a man is, if I may say so, "the sterile animal.""
Frederich Nietzche, the great psychologist. Think it is pretty hard to misunderstand that one.
I think that you are evaluating the literary merits of the Bible from the wrong criteria. You shouldn't look at it as a literary whole. It is a mish-mash collection of stories, proscriptions and history.
Within that slag you can find nuggets of pure narrativium, waiting to be smelted.
And some of the King James Psalms are just pretty.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
They're pretty because talented writers wrote pretty psalms, they are only lossely part of the bible, and certainly divorced from the oral-tradition storytelling to which the main part of the book is owed.
I agree there are parts that aren't completely awful, but the book shouldn't be evaluated on literary merit because when it is, it does not fare well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter