Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Religion?

Re: Religion?
August 17, 2009, 04:19:10 AM
I think we'd live more enjoyable lives if we didn't know we were going to die.

Hmm. I think the opposite. Every time I think of the end, I begin to love life even more, and treat it more and more like a dream. Death is also a great way to set my priorities straight.

Re: Religion?
August 18, 2009, 08:44:47 PM
I'm done with the "we hate x" people. They're always looking for something to blame. The situation is, in contrast, quite simple: there are good people and bad people. Evil is not a mystical force, but a tendency toward selfish oblivion and hatred of life. Find those who hate life and kill them; find those who love life and want to make it better, and put them in charge. That's how you become the next great empire and make life more fun.

this is what it all boils down to for me.  reverential or resentful?

Re: Religion?
August 18, 2009, 10:21:40 PM
Life haters have a character defect. Kill all defectives. The stupid, the deranged, the criminal, the ugly. The planet grows quiet again and greenery returns.

Re: Religion?
August 18, 2009, 11:15:35 PM
What exactly is a "life hater"?

Re: Religion?
August 20, 2009, 08:34:55 AM
What exactly is a "life hater"?

Someone who exhibits what Nietzsche calls ressentiment.

Re: Religion?
August 20, 2009, 11:25:10 AM
I don't think that one should be called a "life-hater" just because one believes in the immortality of the Soul (as outlined by Plato); here Nietzsche's critique is not justifiable. As I have understood them the monotheistic religions do not ask the believer to hate life, but to put it in perspective; they do not negate the beauty that this life has to offer but the notion that it were all that is important for man. As long as we remember God, so to speak, we can and in fact must beautify our lives.

Re: Religion?
August 20, 2009, 11:39:06 AM
I don't think that one should be called a "life-hater" just because one believes in the immortality of the Soul (as outlined by Plato)

Horrible move. By decontextualizing the term, you've sidetracked the debate. Not really a smart or honorable idea.

Re: Religion?
August 20, 2009, 07:10:01 PM
I don't think that one should be called a "life-hater" just because one believes in the immortality of the Soul (as outlined by Plato)

Horrible move. By decontextualizing the term, you've sidetracked the debate. Not really a smart or honorable idea.

I may not have made much sense, but I didn't really want to enter a debate with my question. It's just the term "life-hater" that I didn't understand in its implications. When you mentioned Nietzsche, I got suspicious of the move to call people "life-haters" just because they don't participate in the cult of life (actionism); one should not hate life, but life is not all, and must be appreciated in context.

Re: Religion?
August 21, 2009, 09:50:47 PM
To answer the person who started this thread: we must first come to the conclusion that God is not an anthropomorphic being sitting on a throne.  God does not have human qualities other than those we have taken notice of, like the Ninety-Nine Best Names of God.  To limit the size and power of God is indeed a great blasphemy for it imposes limits on that which can only be understood by few and is indeed beyond total comprehension even for those few who are blessed by an ascetic's life.

It is also important for us to remember death and what lies beyond as a means to keep our priorities straight; to remember The King, for it is hu that we must be in remembrance of; and to then put into practice these suggestions and commands.  Regardless of what you do, how you live, where you are, you will die and return to the Earth after a process of decomposition.  It is up to you to choose whether you want a just, upright, and honorable life which will move others and leave a mark upon not just souls, but the planet itself.  Or one can choose a life of being indulgent to our lower selves, the nafs, which may not necessarily be amoral, but can offer little good beyond the possibilities which are entwined: infections, illness, early death, no love because you killed it for sexual lusts, and so on.

Re: Religion?
August 22, 2009, 05:30:34 AM
I don't think that one should be called a "life-hater" just because one believes in the immortality of the Soul (as outlined by Plato)

Horrible move. By decontextualizing the term, you've sidetracked the debate. Not really a smart or honorable idea.

I may not have made much sense, but I didn't really want to enter a debate with my question. It's just the term "life-hater" that I didn't understand in its implications. When you mentioned Nietzsche, I got suspicious of the move to call people "life-haters" just because they don't participate in the cult of life (actionism); one should not hate life, but life is not all, and must be appreciated in context.

Eh, thanks for the clarification, but Nietzsche is both an ultimate realist and a "material idealist," meaning that he recognizes (a) ultimate reality determines all value and (b) no patterns are independent of matter or a common patterning to matter and thought.

Re: Religion?
August 22, 2009, 10:05:28 AM
Then he's wrong; but at least now it is plainly visible how universal knowledge cannot co-exist with this false belief and thus he must deny the immortality of the Soul. It is impossible to reconcile religion with Nietzsche's atheist "philosophy".

Re: Religion?
August 23, 2009, 06:54:30 PM
Then he's wrong; but at least now it is plainly visible how universal knowledge cannot co-exist with this false belief and thus he must deny the immortality of the Soul. It is impossible to reconcile religion with Nietzsche's atheist "philosophy".



Is that related to what you guys are discussing here? By "universal knowledge" do you mean "Truth" (not just "truth")?

Apologies for derailing, I'm just trying to understand all this.

Re: Religion?
August 24, 2009, 01:58:43 PM
Is that related to what you guys are discussing here? By "universal knowledge" do you mean "Truth" (not just "truth")?

Yes.

I recently came across this short film clip, in which "James Cutsinger compares what he calls "Perennialist scholarship" to other prevailing approaches to religious study in the academic world." A good summary of this thread.

Re: Religion?
August 24, 2009, 05:29:30 PM
...remember The King...

someone asked a while back (either in this thread or that other religion thread that kind of got derailed):  why do we need the God-concept, at all?  To me, the usefulness of the God CONCEPT is that it completes the grand hierarchy of the universe.  otherwise, what is at the top?  it is good for man to have to submit to something, ultimately.  The God concept represents a perspective beyond all perspectives.  If you want to call this "nature," I'm good with that, but "God" seems even more vast.  just musing.

Re: Religion?
August 27, 2009, 04:15:39 AM
reverential or resentful?

This sums up a lot of what Nietzsche was trying to say: rejecting life because it "isn't fair" is not a useful approach. Sacralizing life, no matter the method, gives us a sane starting point so we don't whine like babies.