The power of Jesus

[Robert]

Relax, I'm not trying to convert anybody here, at least not knowlingly. But I first noticed a phenomenon in a barroom some years ago that I've seen repeated elsewhere. This was a trashy, kind of dangerous, biker honky tonk. I was enjoying the graffiti on the bathroom wall and noticed this: One guy had posted something crude and offensive, and then 10 other smartasses each tried to out-do him by writing progressively more vulgar things below his remark, after first drawing a line through the remark above.

Then I saw where one guy had scratched out the last line, which was "suck my _____" or something equally profound, and just wrote "Jesus loves you," and that ended the whole thread. Nobody defaced it, nobody argued with it, nobody tried to trump it. It may have been coincidence, but it occurred to me, just as a possibiity, that not one of the ruffians and thugs that went into that men's room, no matter how drunk, was inclined or willing to challenge the central idea of Jesus Christ.

And isn't it pretty much the same everywhere, even here? Commies and capitalists fight over Jesus. ("Was Jesus a socialist?") Christianity and Christians are abused pretty roundly, here and everywhere, and with some justification, but no one seems to have an argument with anything Jesus Christ himself ever said, or with that which is attributed to him anyway. Even the Jesus jokes I've heard seem directed at his followers, not at the man himself.

Isn't this your general experience as well?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

"Love your enemies, do good to those who treat you badly. To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well."

I object to that.

[PCommie]

For all you know, the guy just wrote it on the stall. If God exists, he ought to give us an actual sign of his existance. Fuck him. He's going to send us all to hell in the end of the world if we are unbelievers or whatever and he doesn't give us evidence to support this? Jesus loves you no matter what, and yet, if you're a bad person, rather than make you perfect in Heaven, he burns you in Hell forever? Bullshit.

But here's the clincher: Evolution. I present my case based on the scientifically proven fact of radiometric dating. Here it is:

-RD has said that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

-God created animals after Earth. We don't really know how long, yet still, God created them "as is." The fowl of the air, the cattle, the fish, they were modern-type beings. So, at some point in history, these fossils should appear.

-They don't. Genesis is thus fucked. There is no God. The rest of the Bible is fucked. The Bible is bullshit.


"Love your enemies, do good to those who treat you badly. To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well."

I object to that.

Bullshit. If a guy hits me, I'll hit him back. I admittedly don't get into fights (I should, and might, but I'm not very strong. I need to get stronger, lol. :)). But still, this is some kind of bullshit. So Jesus loves us, but he'd rather we die than defend ourselves? People who go around beating people up for no reason are bad. They will give way to murderers if we follow Jesus's policy. So, Jesus is indirectly promoting a world full of murderers.

There is no God. No es un Dios. Es ist nicht ein Gott. Не есть Бог.

(English, Spanish, German, Russian [I think ;)]).

H&S forever,
-PC

[benhur]

Isn't this your general experience as well?

Very true. That's because Jesus is arguably the greatest man ever, and I am not saying this as a religious person (because I am not). It's a fact of life. No other human being has influenced the world as much as Jesus Christ; even the most anti-religious communist isn't gonna deny that. There's simply no comparison at all, the man is still worshiped after 2000 years and has a billion followers, churches and all the rest. This is why every religion, every political ideology, wants to claim Jesus for itself.

[Sasha]

jezus loves me but he is not my type...

[Kronos]

was inclined or willing to challenge the central idea of Jesus Christ.

There is nothing mysteriously profound about this. Average, ordinary people who are raised and indoctrinated to consider the existence of God would never, as a matter of moral principle, intentionally condescend the cornerstone of Christianity, while they may certainly speak negatively about organized religion, churches, evangelists, etc. "Jesus" is the good guy....all the other religious authorities are suspicious.

Furthermore, their affinity to Jesus is not the result of careful, rational, critical thinking; they are obedient to Jesus because Jesus is part of a religion that will punish for disobedience. Therefore, submission to Christianity is based on a consequentialism- the redneck thinks "God may or may not exist...I dunno....but if he does....I better respect him so my ass don't get fried."

This is the not-so-wonderful truth about the atmosphere of Christianity. One falls under one of two categories: either one is too stupid to realize the religion is absurd, or, one is a liar and pretends to be obedient to the religion for his own sake.

Ask yourself this. How committed would people be to Christianity if it didn't promise eternal reward or eternal punishment?

Submission to Christianity is an expediency. One has something to lose if they do not submit to it.

This case is best exemplified in Pascal, as Nietzsche explains. Christianity requires a means to threaten so to subordinate. It is in every way a religion that must first weaken men to control them. The religion at its origins became a creative deed as a form of resentment, out of reaction to greater, stronger men by weaker natures....so that the weaker could gain power. It was the invention of "another world" in spite of this world, that was the symptom of weakness- this world was too brutal for the weak man to endure. He needed another to "redeem" it.


We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts--the strong man as the typical reprobate, the "outcast among men." Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually destroyed by Christianity!- Nietzsche

http://www.swan.ac.uk/german/fns/ac.htm

[Kronos]

You might also want to look closer at Nietzsche's analysis of Jesus in contrast to Christianity in Paul's hands. Nietzsche actually admired Jesus. Here is a good summary of Nietzsche's perspective:


This idea is vital, in that it relates directly with Nietzsche's conception of the historical Jesus. Nietzsche paints a picture of the Jesus of history as being a true evangel, which means that he did not subscribe to the concepts of guilt, punishment, and reward. He did not engage in faith, but only in actions, and these actions prescribed a way of life which Nietzsche sees as rather Buddhistic. The evangel does not get angry, does not pass judgment, and neither does he feel any hatred or resentment for his enemies. He rejected the whole idea of sin and repentance, and believed that this evangelical way of life was divine in itself, closing the gap between man and God so much that it is God, according to Nietzsche. Therefore, he saw prayer, faith, and redemption as farcical, instead believing that the "kingdom of heaven" is a state of mind that can be experienced on earth by living this type of peaceful, judgment-suspending existence, free from worry, guilt, and anger. Nietzsche argues that this was the life of Jesus and nothing more, and this way of life was the "glad tidings" which he brought. In Section 35, Nietzsche writes:

The "bringer of glad tidings" died as he had lived, as he had taught--not to "redeem men" but to show how one must live. This practice is his legacy to mankind: his behavior before the judges, before the catchpoles, before the accusers and all kinds of slander and scorn--his behavior on the cross. He does not resist, he does not defend his right, he takes no step which might ward off the worst; on the contrary, he provokes it. And he begs, he suffers, he loves with those, in those, who do him evil. Not to resist, not to be angry, not to hold responsible--but to resist not even the evil one--to love him.5
This conception of Jesus is entirely alien to the one which the church has given us. For the creation and dissemination of this misconception, Nietzsche blames Paul. He also blames Jesus' immediate followers as well. Once Jesus had been executed, according to Nietzsche, his followers could not come to grips with the shock of his sudden loss. Filled with a want of revenge, they wanted to know who killed him and why. They determined that the rulers of the existing Jewish order had killed him because his doctrine went against that order. Not wanting his death to have been in vain, they saw him as a rebel against the Jewish status quo in the same way that they saw themselves as such. In this way, argues Nietzsche, his followers completely misunderstood him. The truly "evangelic" thing to do, he says, would have been to forgive his death instead, or to die in like manner without judgment or need of vindication. However, Jesus' followers, resentful about his loss, wanted vengeance upon those of the existing Jewish order. The way that they accomplished this vengeance is the same as the way in which the Jews exacted their revenge on their Roman oppressors. They considered Jesus to be the Messiah of whom they were foretold by Jewish scripture, and in this way they elevated him to divine status--as the Son of God (since he referred to himself metaphorically as a "child of God"). Faced with the question of how God could allow Jesus' death to occur, they came up with the idea that God had sent down his own Son as a sacrifice for their sins, as a sacrifice of the guiltless for the sins of the guilty, even though Jesus himself refused to engage in feeling guilt. They then used the figure of Jesus and their misunderstanding of his doctrine of the "kingdom of God" for making judgments against their enemies in the existing Jewish order, just as the Jews themselves had turned their God into something universal for the purpose of passing judgment on the Romans:

On the other hand, the frenzied veneration of these totally unhinged souls no longer endured the evangelic conception of everybody's equal right to be a child of God, as Jesus had taught: it was their revenge to elevate Jesus extravagantly, to sever him from themselves--precisely as the Jews had formerly, out of revenge against their enemies, severed their God from themselves and elevated him. The one God and the one Son of God--both products of ressentiment.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/travis_denneson/antichrist.html

[RedAnarchist]

Maybe there are more Christian bikers than you think? I'm sure some of them must be, as I'm sure not all suburban-dwelling middle class people are Christian.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I can't believe I just wasted three minutes of my life reading that groundless crap.

I'd cross it out.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Bullshit. If a guy hits me, I'll hit him back. I admittedly don't get into fights (I should, and might, but I'm not very strong. I need to get stronger, lol. :)). But still, this is some kind of bullshit. So Jesus loves us, but he'd rather we die than defend ourselves? People who go around beating people up for no reason are bad. They will give way to murderers if we follow Jesus's policy. So, Jesus is indirectly promoting a world full of murderers.

There is no God. No es un Dios. Es ist nicht ein Gott. Не есть Бог.

(English, Spanish, German, Russian [I think ;)]).

H&S forever,
-PC

I said I object to it. My reasons are about the same as yours.

[Decolonize The Left]

Relax, I'm not trying to convert anybody here, at least not knowlingly. But I first noticed a phenomenon in a barroom some years ago that I've seen repeated elsewhere. This was a trashy, kind of dangerous, biker honky tonk. I was enjoying the graffiti on the bathroom wall and noticed this: One guy had posted something crude and offensive, and then 10 other smartasses each tried to out-do him by writing progressively more vulgar things below his remark, after first drawing a line through the remark above.

Then I saw where one guy had scratched out the last line, which was "suck my _____" or something equally profound, and just wrote "Jesus loves you," and that ended the whole thread. Nobody defaced it, nobody argued with it, nobody tried to trump it. It may have been coincidence, but it occurred to me, just as a possibiity, that not one of the ruffians and thugs that went into that men's room, no matter how drunk, was inclined or willing to challenge the central idea of Jesus Christ.

And isn't it pretty much the same everywhere, even here? Commies and capitalists fight over Jesus. ("Was Jesus a socialist?") Christianity and Christians are abused pretty roundly, here and everywhere, and with some justification, but no one seems to have an argument with anything Jesus Christ himself ever said, or with that which is attributed to him anyway. Even the Jesus jokes I've heard seem directed at his followers, not at the man himself.

Isn't this your general experience as well?

It's tough to consider seriously an argument based upon chauvinist bathroom stall writings...

- August

[Kronos]

I can't believe I just wasted three minutes of my life reading that groundless crap.

Are you referring to the Nietzsche?

If so, I ask you: when a book and a head come into collision, is it always the book that sounds hollow?

[Communist Theory]

Не есть Бог.
Ha, it says "it is god"

[PCommie]

Ha, it says "it is god"

How? Не = "not", есть = "there exists", Бог = God. "There does not exist a God" is how I'd translate it.
EDIT: And then I remember: Бога нет. ;)


I said I object to it. My reasons are about the same as yours.

I was agreeing with you.


-PC

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Well great when we're done congratulating ourselves on the presence of basic survival intincts maybe we can discuss something more important like why the fuck are we ascribing such poetry and meaning to some lashed-up bikers drunken bout of religiously deluded graffiti?

[Led Zeppelin]

Very true. That's because Jesus is arguably the greatest man ever, and I am not saying this as a religious person (because I am not). It's a fact of life. No other human being has influenced the world as much as Jesus Christ; even the most anti-religious communist isn't gonna deny that.

I am an anti-religious communist and I deny it.

So you're wrong.

[Robert]

There is nothing mysteriously profound about this.

Oh, I know that. I just thought it interesting. I also thought that it might be useful to find less divisive models for your revolution than those who were adopted by communist -- sorry, "state capitalist" -- totalitarians of the 20th century and, fairly or not, tainted by the adoption.

Note that the derision in this thread is not directed at Jesus or his message. Someone above even went so far as to say something complimentary about him.

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh, I know that. I just thought it interesting. I also thought that it might be useful to find less divisive models for your revolution than those who were adopted by communist -- sorry, "state capitalist" -- totalitarians of the 20th century and, fairly or not, tainted by the adoption.

Note that the derision in this thread is not directed at Jesus or his message. Someone above even went so far as to say something complimentary about him.

If you seek derision regarding Jesus and his message, I suggest you check out the anti-theist user group. Or you could read Nietzsche... the fact that you read drunken ramblings on a bathroom wall, induced some sort of theory, and feel it confirmed by the responses to your inane question, proves nothing.

Well, it does prove that religion, especially in the individual mind, is in such stress that it must assert its validity in any way possible - including seeking desperately faith in poop chambers.

- August

[al8]

As an anti-theist I would have been inclined write; "Eat him yourself, nutbag!" - on the wall as a comeback, if I would've had a pen handy, of course.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

al8 I like your style.

Religious tolerance is the problem WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE RELIGION!

[Kronos]

Lysdexia, I stand by you in your decision, but we must distinguish what aspects of religious belief are detrimental to our will to power.

Religious belief that claims there is another world to redeem this one, that there is such a thing as "sin", that there is such a thing as "responsibility", that there is such a thing as "guilt", and that there is such a thing as a "God" as judge. So far these ideas have deprived everything in the world of its innocence, and caused great men (the moraline-free, renaissance style heroic men, artists and conquerors) to internalize their creative power and turn against themselves. By making them shameful, by giving them conscience, by stinging them with feelings of guilt through sin.....this is the work of the priests! Oh how cunning they are, perhaps even the most intelligent (that is another matter we will save for later).

But what is left after this swamp is dried up? Dare we call it nihilism? No god, no purpose, no meaning. No! This is precisely why religion came about- man did not mind suffering, provided he found a purpose for it....even if he had to lie to himself about it.

But we, those beyond good and evil, embrace this tragic pathos and will that it should eternally recur. Fine! Let meaninglessness be its meaning. Let the circle redeem itself in its eternal recreation. And everytime it happens we will be there, I promise you.

We add nothing to nature by calling it "God", but we lose nothing of the splendor of this thought when we call it only nature. We must become Gods, Lysdexia. We have too, lest we fall to our knees to be nailed to the cross of eternity like Jesus.

Our burden, as Nietzsche called it, is that we are like asses; to perish under the weight of something we can neither bear nor throw off. Only dionysus can save us.

Verily, I speak thus.

[Bud Struggle]

Our burden, as Nietzsche called it, is that we are like asses; to perish under the weight of something we can neither bear nor throw off. Only dionysus can save us.

Verily, I speak thus.

Well I must say I am confused by you Kronos--throwing off religion and tradition and morality only to join together with a bunch of other nameless faceless schmos to form a happytime society doesn't make sense at all. This philosophy leads one to be conquer other and to become their master. To take advantage of other's weaknesses and exploit them--as far as I can see it Nietzsche has nothing to do with Communism.

What am I missing?

[RGacky3]

Not one person really follows Neitzchien philosophy, not does it actually apply in the real world.

No one, not one person, is amoral.


Verily, I speak thus.

Do you give speaches to yourself? seriously I have no read so much self-fellatiating psudo-indelectual meaningless "philosophy" from one person ever.

[Robert]

Religious belief that claims there is another world to redeem this one, that there is such a thing as "sin", that there is such a thing as "responsibility", that there is such a thing as "guilt", and that there is such a thing as a "God" as judge.

Back to Jesus ... there is much in the Gospels where he simply addresses the question "how shall we live?" (Turn the other cheek, judge not, lest ye be judged, etc.) That part of his message has nothing to do with sin and guilt or his divinity vel non as I read it, but rather with love, understanding and forgiveness.

There are also the mystical messages: "I and my father are one," and "for this is my body." I don't understand the messages in this other category and do not trust the interpretation's I have read.

[Kronos]

What am I missing? I have more contempt for the bourgeois than I do for the working classes. The modern bourgeois are not the noble, artistic type Nietzsche spoke about in his evaluation of the master class- they are squandering opportunists who's only distinction from the working classes is a stroke of good luck and "being at the right place at the right time".

There is nothing extraordinarily unique about this class, something which sets them apart from the working classes unconditionally. In a sense they are of the same inferior people, who just happened to rise above them arbitrarily. It is not so much who they are that separates them...there is no greater quality of character, no greater virtue, principle, or integrity. It is what they have that separates them.....and this feature is insignificant, not a quality that distinguishes types. The only thing left to notice in the bourgeois class that sets them apart is that they are excessive. Stripped of their possessions....they would be equivalent to the working classes. Therefore, superiority is a facade, a farce, a hoax.

My interests turn toward the class that struggles the most, and therefore acquires greater character through this suffering. The ascetic ideal, as Nietzsche spoke polemically about, is in fact reversed in the struggling classes and becomes a virtue of strength, not denial, as in the case of the resignation of the pious type. The working classes acquire this trait not because they deny the world and want to "will no more", but because they must endure their struggle, and love it, and take pride in it.

They have a secret the bourgeois cannot touch- they know they carry the world on their shoulders. They develop a pathological dignity and self appreciation, a "pathos of distance" from the bourgeois. They have a confidence because they are necessary, and this gives them mastery over those who oppose them and exploit them. Such is a sign of strength and constitution when compared to the opposing class, those excessive strokes of good luck and fortune who, if removed from the machinery of civilization, would not be noticed as missing.

The opus of Nietzsche's estimation of the master/slave dichotomy requires a second re-evaluation- today it has inverted again. The rabble, the masses, the herd, the zeros....these pertain to the invisible bourgeois class who have a hand in nothing as much as they pertain to the menial laborer with his monotonous existence.

Now the question of "great individuals" cannot be asked. Now is the time to forget class dichotomies and imagine a single, magnificent organism of a state. Not a state than levels man into obscurity, as communism, nor a state that raises one class above another carelessly, haphazardously, as if by accident, which is not necessary for the state to function, which, if removed, would make no difference or cause no loss.

Of course there is no argument against the fact that life is a struggle for power or that exploitation is fundamental to life. But in order to justify this there must be an obvious, irrefutable condition of ascent, of excellence, of progress for the type, or else it makes no difference to the species whether this were true or not. Man has not yet justified himself through his exploits. He has not become something better, only something excessive and arbitrary. This is the state of capitalsm.

[Kronos]

Do you give speaches to yourself?

No, but I do love Nietzsche's prose and like to pretend I can write as good as him. I stress the "pretend".


Not one person really follows Neitzchien philosophy, not does it actually apply in the real world.

Oh but they do, and oh but it does. Watch this excellent skit, then deny it is true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLsfqzBDnaA

[JimmyJazz]

Relax, I'm not trying to convert anybody here, at least not knowlingly. But I first noticed a phenomenon in a barroom some years ago that I've seen repeated elsewhere. This was a trashy, kind of dangerous, biker honky tonk. I was enjoying the graffiti on the bathroom wall and noticed this: One guy had posted something crude and offensive, and then 10 other smartasses each tried to out-do him by writing progressively more vulgar things below his remark, after first drawing a line through the remark above.

Then I saw where one guy had scratched out the last line, which was "suck my _____" or something equally profound, and just wrote "Jesus loves you," and that ended the whole thread. Nobody defaced it, nobody argued with it, nobody tried to trump it. It may have been coincidence, but it occurred to me, just as a possibiity, that not one of the ruffians and thugs that went into that men's room, no matter how drunk, was inclined or willing to challenge the central idea of Jesus Christ.

And isn't it pretty much the same everywhere, even here? Commies and capitalists fight over Jesus. ("Was Jesus a socialist?") Christianity and Christians are abused pretty roundly, here and everywhere, and with some justification, but no one seems to have an argument with anything Jesus Christ himself ever said, or with that which is attributed to him anyway. Even the Jesus jokes I've heard seem directed at his followers, not at the man himself.

Isn't this your general experience as well?

Jesus can suck it.

People only fight over Jesus because he is popular, not because he wasn't insane. Jesus was very egalitarian, as most religious thinkers are, but trying to make him out as a "socialist" is no different than wrapping yourself in an American flag so people will listen to you--a move which does not make nationalism any less insane.

"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum."--Thomas Paine

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh but they do, and oh but it does. Watch this excellent skit, then deny it is true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLsfqzBDnaA

That skit was terrible. Some of the recent comments even noted the glaring holes in the author's interpretation of Nietzsche. It is people like this who continue to reinforce the idea that Nietzsche was a sadist and a nihilist - I somewhat expected better of you.

- August

[Killfacer]

Relax, I'm not trying to convert anybody here, at least not knowlingly. But I first noticed a phenomenon in a barroom some years ago that I've seen repeated elsewhere. This was a trashy, kind of dangerous, biker honky tonk. I was enjoying the graffiti on the bathroom wall and noticed this: One guy had posted something crude and offensive, and then 10 other smartasses each tried to out-do him by writing progressively more vulgar things below his remark, after first drawing a line through the remark above.

Then I saw where one guy had scratched out the last line, which was "suck my _____" or something equally profound, and just wrote "Jesus loves you," and that ended the whole thread. Nobody defaced it, nobody argued with it, nobody tried to trump it. It may have been coincidence, but it occurred to me, just as a possibiity, that not one of the ruffians and thugs that went into that men's room, no matter how drunk, was inclined or willing to challenge the central idea of Jesus Christ.

And isn't it pretty much the same everywhere, even here? Commies and capitalists fight over Jesus. ("Was Jesus a socialist?") Christianity and Christians are abused pretty roundly, here and everywhere, and with some justification, but no one seems to have an argument with anything Jesus Christ himself ever said, or with that which is attributed to him anyway. Even the Jesus jokes I've heard seem directed at his followers, not at the man himself.

Isn't this your general experience as well?

If jesus existed then he was some fucking nut job cultist who believed himself to be the son of god and surrounded him with a bunch of freaks. Charles Manson comes to mind.

[Kronos]

I somewhat expected better of you.

That skit was by college kids for college kids. I figured since I was talking to Gacky, who is no philologist or philosopher, I ought to avoid a comprehensive discussion of Nietzsche and hand him the pop culture cardboard Nietzsche instead.

Regarding the "glaring holes", I'd disagree. I would call the skit incomplete and lacking in eloquence and grace...but the key points were made clearly. It is probably the misinterpretation by Nietzsche's readers that earns him the title of a nihilist. The sadist, however, is not something altogether disagreeable, provided that cruelty is justified (and it can be).

[RGacky3]

Oh but they do, and oh but it does. Watch this excellent skit, then deny it is true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLsfqzBDnaA (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLsfqzBDnaA)

What a crock of shit, whether its true or not does'nt matter, the fact is none of it is relevent to anything, so its pointless, his philosophy, be it true or not, does'nt make a difference at all in the real world.


That skit was by college kids for college kids. I figured since I was talking to Gacky, who is no philologist or philosopher, I ought to avoid a comprehensive discussion of Nietzsche and hand him the pop culture cardboard Nietzsche instead.

Most "philosophers" are either college kids or college professors, or people with way too much time on their hand, and that video you gave me was just a reiteration of meaningless bullshit in conversation form. All of what was "discussed" was what nietzche thought, no rational or empirical evidence, no logic behind it, just meaningless bullshit that does'nt make a difference and is irrelivent.


The sadist, however, is not something altogether disagreeable, provided that cruelty is justified (and it can be).

If there is no Morality, THEN NOTHING CAN BE JUSTIFIED, EVER, because there is nothing to judge by.

[Kronos]

All of what was "discussed" was what nietzche thought, no rational or empirical evidence, no logic behind it, just meaningless bullshit that does'nt make a difference and is irrelivent.LOL. Quite the contrary. There is no "rational empirical evidence" or "logic" that proves the case is otherwise.

To understand the direction Nietzsche is coming from you might investigate some of those who he is indebted to: Thrasymachus, Heraclitus and Spinoza.

It is not that your political ideas- anarchy, classless society, socialism, etc., etc., are not relevant concerns, but that such things pale in comparison to the breadth and lineage of Nietzsche's ideas. In a word, he undermines your "ideals" in every sense. You may certainly "philosophize", and I encourage it, but without a thorough understanding of Nietzsche....you haven't even begun.


If there is no Morality, THEN NOTHING CAN BE JUSTIFIED, EVER, because there is nothing to judge by. Well woulda look at that. You just did some philosophy, G. I'm impressed. Now you must learn to distinguish between "justify" as that which is is granted through objective, universal standards which apply to everyone (through contractual agreement...or....bless their hearts for trying..."epistemological certainty"), and "justify" as that which pertains only to the individuals relative convictions and ends, despite the opinions of anyone else and without any "rational" basis.

In the latter, I may call something justified if I, and only I, have a reason for it as a means toward my own ends. Never does an act need moral consensus to be justified, and indeed, no morality at all is necessary either.

Nice try, though. You played the self-referential paradox card the objectivists use to refute relativist claims. I'm very proud of you.

[Robert]

Charles Manson comes to mind. "Take ye these fish and these loaves, and injecteth concentrated juice of the bella donna therein, and killeth ever fascist ye can find."

[RGacky3]

LOL. Quite the contrary. There is no "rational empirical evidence" or "logic" that proves the case is otherwise.

Thats because the issue is meaningless to begin with, so really, you spitting out all your philisophical bullshit, its not "philosophy" perse, its just you opinions and statements, that video was really just (bitter) opinions with nothing behind them, so a waste of everyones time. When your saying "there are no morals objectively" of coarse your right, no one will argue with you, but the fact is, in the real world, every one holds morals, even those who fancy themselves a-morals have some natural moral code, so really the fact that its not an objective fact is irrelivant.


To understand the direction Nietzsche is coming from you might investigate some of those who he is indebted to: Thrasymachus, Heraclitus and Spinoza.


I really could give a rats ass who Nietzche is indebted to, unless what he's saying is of any real significance in the real world, its a waste of time, all its good for is mental masturbation. At least Spinoza tried to back his theories up.


It is not that your political ideas- anarchy, classless society, socialism, etc., etc., are not relevant concerns, but that such things pale in comparison to the breadth and lineage of Nietzsche's ideas. In a word, he undermines your "ideals" in every sense. You may certainly "philosophize", and I encourage it, but without a thorough understanding of Nietzsche....you haven't even begun.

My ideas are about the nature of powre structures and how to overcome them and why to overcome them. they are relevant in the real world because EVERYONE is affected by power structures.

Nietzches ideas are just opinions on stuff that makes no differnece either way.

Also, what do you mean by "philosophize" if by philosophize you mean think rationally about deep subjects then by no means do you even need to know who Nietzsche is to do that.

If by philosophize you mean ramble about meaningless bullshit while quoting people that will make you look smart, then you can pick many philosophers to do that with.


Well woulda look at that. You just did some philosophy, G. I'm impressed.

What on earth is "doing philosophy"? Also try to leave the pretentous douchebaggery out of it, save it for the coffee shop and post-modern art gallery.


Now you must learn to distinguish between "justify" as that which is is granted through objective, universal standards which apply to everyone (through contractual agreement...or....bless their hearts for trying..."epistemological certainty"), and "justify" as that which pertains only to the individuals relative convictions and ends, despite the opinions of anyone else and without any "rational" basis.


Justify means to show your actions consistant with your principles. In otherwords, if you say stealing is wrong, yet you download music, justifying it would be explaining why downloading music is'nt really stealing, if you don't bleieve stealing is wrong there is nothing to justify. It has nothing to do with "universal standards". It has to do with personal principles as opposed to actions.

The fact is (for whatever reason) many principles and moral standars are pretty universal.


In the latter, I may call something justified if I, and only I, have a reason for it as a means toward my own ends. Never does an act need moral consensus to be justified, and indeed, no morality at all is necessary either.

What your talking about "means towards your own ends" theres nothing to justify, who are you justifying it to? Against what standard (If you have no moral code then there is none). In that case your essencially just changing the meaning of the word justify to the point where its meaningless.

You said cruelty can be justified, under your definition of justified, ANY creulty or sadism, as long as the sadist is enjoying it, or diong it for his on ends (be it sexual pleasure, getting information, really anything) is justified, regardless of what morality he claims, regardless of anything.

[welshboy]

*ahem*
Jesus of Nazareth
a)Jesus didn't exist.
b)Nazareth didn't exist.
Case closed.
K THX BAI

[welshboy]

And isn't it pretty much the same everywhere, even here?
No, not at all. Only in the US. Most folk in the UK couldn't give a flying fuck about the jewish zombie aside from the free chocolate at easter and the prezzies at chrimbo.


Commies and capitalists fight over Jesus. ("Was Jesus a socialist?")I think a more pertinent, and contemporaneous question is "is Harry Potter a Stalinist?"


Christianity and Christians are abused pretty roundly, here and everywhere, and with some justification, but no one seems to have an argument with anything Jesus Christ himself ever said,Hard to argue with a fairy tale.


or with that which is attributed to him anyway.
Aside from all the render unto Caesar, turn the other cheek bullshit.


Even the Jesus jokes I've heard seem directed at his followers, not at the man himself.Jew boy is hanging out on his cross and he decides to call out for his homeboy Peter. The first time he calls out "Peter, Peter", but Peter doesn't answer him, the second time he calls out "Peter, Peter" and again Peter is like 'Whateva' and ignores him again. The third time Jaysus hollers out "Peter, Peter" and this time Peter comes a'runnin up that green hill.
"what, what my lord" He ask.
"I can see yo house from up here"speketh the lord.

[Trystan]

I really could give a rats ass who Nietzche is indebted to, unless what he's saying is of any real significance in the real world, its a waste of time, all its good for is mental masturbation. At least Spinoza tried to back his theories up.

Well according to Nietzsche, "truth" is just interpretation and therefore he obviously didn't go about the usual route of "logic" and "reason" in trying to justify himself. "Truth" varies from person to person, and so just because it doesn't have any significance to your world doesn't mean that it naturally means nothing to anybody else. And I don't think it's "mental masturbation" at all. I think Nietzsche's philosophy was above that.

So . . . yeah.

[RGacky3]

Well according to Nietzsche, "truth" is just interpretation and therefore he obviously didn't go about the usual route of "logic" and "reason" in trying to justify himself. "Truth" varies from person to person, and so just because it doesn't have any significance to your world doesn't mean that it naturally means nothing to anybody else. And I don't think it's "mental masturbation" at all. I think Nietzsche's philosophy was above that.

So . . . yeah.

My point exactly.