Tuesday, July 17, 2007
mercedo wrote today at 12:24 AMI met a couple of people in my real life that claim God is Almighty and I've been just wondering do they really know the meaning of almighty?
God is Almighty means as I pointed out in my article that God can do anything, and it's our turn to think what Almighty God can do.
God is Almighty means as I pointed out in my article that God can do anything, and it's our turn to think what Almighty God can do.
Re:Bollocks(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.17 0:04 (#19876423) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
My asumption was as follows.
Men used to be in his mother's womb, in there he had been nourished through umbilical code. I must say he had been passive. Those who feel affectionate to hips must have a strong yearning to the state in the womb, where he was able to stay in passive protection.
But once he got out of his mother, he had to start feeding himself. Its first step is to suck the nipples of his mother. This action is based on his intention to fulfil his hunger and this is the very first step of socialisation. This action is active. Those who love bosoms are more socialised than the bottom lover, because sucking the nipples is first active action to people other than him.
Mother complex is in other words the desire to be protected by his original homebase.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.17 0:04 (#19876423) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
My asumption was as follows.
Men used to be in his mother's womb, in there he had been nourished through umbilical code. I must say he had been passive. Those who feel affectionate to hips must have a strong yearning to the state in the womb, where he was able to stay in passive protection.
But once he got out of his mother, he had to start feeding himself. Its first step is to suck the nipples of his mother. This action is based on his intention to fulfil his hunger and this is the very first step of socialisation. This action is active. Those who love bosoms are more socialised than the bottom lover, because sucking the nipples is first active action to people other than him.
Mother complex is in other words the desire to be protected by his original homebase.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:What if(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.17 0:12 (#19876529) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
I remember I was particular about women's hip for a long time when still I was in minor. Time goes by, I realised hips are only for artistic appreciation. Besides hips are not sex organs, but nipples are.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.17 0:12 (#19876529) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
I remember I was particular about women's hip for a long time when still I was in minor. Time goes by, I realised hips are only for artistic appreciation. Besides hips are not sex organs, but nipples are.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Monday, July 16, 2007
morosoph wrote today at 10:39 PMNietzsche had a theology, but it was anti-theistic and pantheistic.Nietzsche thought that transcendental theology is false, and that this universe was a war; the war of wills seeking dominance, including will that manifests in the mass, rather than the individual. Nietzsche decidedly sides with the individual against the mass, and therefore in favour of genius against mass religion.Nietzsche puts the self-defining man first, and considers the idea of a common god not only false, but harmful, for the mass is defined as "good", and the groundbreaking individual as "evil", being separated from the god of the mass by his deviance. To the theist, Hell is separation from God; but to Nietzsche, Hell is other people; that is: the mass, as opposed to the friend.If God existed, Nietzsche would be his enemy, seeking to wrest self-determination in the face of God's design. The eternal recurrence has a dual meaning in my view. First, there is a simple misunderstanding born of the deterministic physics of the time, where it was believed that the universe would repeat itself over immense stretches of time; but I think that there is another aspect that hasn't been outdated with advances in physics, and that is simply what is meant by the phrase "history repeats itself".Nietzsche's conception of the Overman represents one who has expelled religion from his being, replacing god's will within with his own will to power, and to transcendence of that same will, so that he rises beyond good and evil; a place where he can see several islands of morality "from above".To Nietzsche, it is Christianity that is nihilistic, for it denies this life, diluting it in eternity. Nietzsche's conception of the Eternal Recurrence is to multiply up the present so that it contends with eternity: to replace the diluting presence of an infinite God and an infinite life with a repetition of the same choices, the same actions, so as to replace the humbleness of the believer with the arrogance of genius.
Bosoms lover? or hip lover?
Jul 16, '07 1:53 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Hey, guys..which do you prefer to love, bosoms or hip?
I have heard that a man who is obsessively affectionate to women's hip is likely to be suffered from mother complex, who loves his mother in unconsciousness.
How about the cases of a man who loves particularly bosoms? Womb is where he used to stay before his birth. In this case he was formed a part of his mother. Instead bosoms are where he had been nourished after he was separated from his mother. It is natural to love bosoms because they are where he was able to acquire his first food. At least desire to fulfil his hunger is more socialised than the nostalgic yearning to his home before birth.
Tags: hip, bosoms, oedipus complex
Prev: On Vacation...
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
iamthefallen wrote today at 5:58 AMSo what does that say about us ass guys?
mercedo wrote today at 9:35 PMMy assumption was basically as follows.
Men are once in his mother's womb and in there all nutrients were served through umbilical cord. I must say men are passive in a womb. Men who prefer a hip must have a strong yearning to the state in a womb. His interest is inward, he is not trying to find a partner but satisfy in protection.
Once he came out of his mother he had to feed himself by trying to suck his mother's bosom. This is an active action. He just started to learn he has to do something to feed himself. This is the very first step to socialisation.
If still mother's influence strongly sheds light on his life, he must be a hip lover. Or those who prefer hip rather than nipple must be still under his mother's control -that is so called a mother-complex.
mikemol wrote today at 11:03 AMI prefer the face...There's a lot more I can tell about a personality from their face than I can tell from their chest or hips. And I've come to learn that physical appearance has much less to do with skill than Hollywood would have us believe.But nothing beats sitting down and talking with someone. If there's one thing I miss about not having dated in a couple years, it's the chance to sit down with someone and explore each other's personalities.
justarb wrote today at 11:08 AM
mikemol saidBut nothing beats sitting down and talking with someone. If there's one thing I miss about not having dated in a couple years, it's the chance to sit down with someone and explore each other's personalities. I dunno... Titty-fucking a chick with huge tits has a lot going for it... ;^)
iamthefallen wrote today at 11:50 AMWhy oh why doesn't Multiply have mod points.
siliconjesus wrote today at 12:33 PMGood thing it doesn't. Arb would have involuntarily caused a buffer overflow.
mercedo wrote today at 10:17 PMI agree face is first and foremost important to know our opposite sex. We need to talk them to know more, that is as important as their face. Hip's good shape indicates how safe pregnancy will take place.Abundant bosoms foretell how well children will be nurtured. I must say a hip and bosoms show more biological factor. Face and character tell more about their personality that is more human.
Jul 16, '07 1:53 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Hey, guys..which do you prefer to love, bosoms or hip?
I have heard that a man who is obsessively affectionate to women's hip is likely to be suffered from mother complex, who loves his mother in unconsciousness.
How about the cases of a man who loves particularly bosoms? Womb is where he used to stay before his birth. In this case he was formed a part of his mother. Instead bosoms are where he had been nourished after he was separated from his mother. It is natural to love bosoms because they are where he was able to acquire his first food. At least desire to fulfil his hunger is more socialised than the nostalgic yearning to his home before birth.
Tags: hip, bosoms, oedipus complex
Prev: On Vacation...
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
iamthefallen wrote today at 5:58 AMSo what does that say about us ass guys?
mercedo wrote today at 9:35 PMMy assumption was basically as follows.
Men are once in his mother's womb and in there all nutrients were served through umbilical cord. I must say men are passive in a womb. Men who prefer a hip must have a strong yearning to the state in a womb. His interest is inward, he is not trying to find a partner but satisfy in protection.
Once he came out of his mother he had to feed himself by trying to suck his mother's bosom. This is an active action. He just started to learn he has to do something to feed himself. This is the very first step to socialisation.
If still mother's influence strongly sheds light on his life, he must be a hip lover. Or those who prefer hip rather than nipple must be still under his mother's control -that is so called a mother-complex.
mikemol wrote today at 11:03 AMI prefer the face...There's a lot more I can tell about a personality from their face than I can tell from their chest or hips. And I've come to learn that physical appearance has much less to do with skill than Hollywood would have us believe.But nothing beats sitting down and talking with someone. If there's one thing I miss about not having dated in a couple years, it's the chance to sit down with someone and explore each other's personalities.
justarb wrote today at 11:08 AM
mikemol saidBut nothing beats sitting down and talking with someone. If there's one thing I miss about not having dated in a couple years, it's the chance to sit down with someone and explore each other's personalities. I dunno... Titty-fucking a chick with huge tits has a lot going for it... ;^)
iamthefallen wrote today at 11:50 AMWhy oh why doesn't Multiply have mod points.
siliconjesus wrote today at 12:33 PMGood thing it doesn't. Arb would have involuntarily caused a buffer overflow.
mercedo wrote today at 10:17 PMI agree face is first and foremost important to know our opposite sex. We need to talk them to know more, that is as important as their face. Hip's good shape indicates how safe pregnancy will take place.Abundant bosoms foretell how well children will be nurtured. I must say a hip and bosoms show more biological factor. Face and character tell more about their personality that is more human.
morosoph wrote today at 8:24 AM
infinitemonkey saidUntrue. God can create Nature in the sense of a parent, yet maintain that connection of having Nature be within and part of God. The two need not be entirely separate.As a simple, basic example, you create new parts of yourself all the time, even if you aren't aware of it. New cells. Not a terribly useful parallel to God and the Universe, but still, you get the idea. "Pantheism" means that (one believes that) Nature and God are essentially synonymous; that God is in, and beyond the universe is a common belief, but Pantheist wouldn't be the term for someone who believed this.I believe that the universe has emergent intelligence, or at the very least, there is intelligence other than that exhibited by neurons. Natural selection is an example of this, as is the simultaneous arrangement of atoms in a quasicrystal, which cannot be done with classical "sticklebrick" chemistry.I agree that the universe's intelligence could be a small part of an intelligence beyond what we call universe, but that intelligence would itself need a medium in order to operate; ie. we initially defined our universe too small.With respect to Nietzsche, I will certainly give you that the bulk of his writing is against the Protestant faith, but surely his conception of nobility is incompatible with pretty much any faith which is more than just a belief about the universe.
infinitemonkey saidUntrue. God can create Nature in the sense of a parent, yet maintain that connection of having Nature be within and part of God. The two need not be entirely separate.As a simple, basic example, you create new parts of yourself all the time, even if you aren't aware of it. New cells. Not a terribly useful parallel to God and the Universe, but still, you get the idea. "Pantheism" means that (one believes that) Nature and God are essentially synonymous; that God is in, and beyond the universe is a common belief, but Pantheist wouldn't be the term for someone who believed this.I believe that the universe has emergent intelligence, or at the very least, there is intelligence other than that exhibited by neurons. Natural selection is an example of this, as is the simultaneous arrangement of atoms in a quasicrystal, which cannot be done with classical "sticklebrick" chemistry.I agree that the universe's intelligence could be a small part of an intelligence beyond what we call universe, but that intelligence would itself need a medium in order to operate; ie. we initially defined our universe too small.With respect to Nietzsche, I will certainly give you that the bulk of his writing is against the Protestant faith, but surely his conception of nobility is incompatible with pretty much any faith which is more than just a belief about the universe.
mercedo wrote today at 10:17 PMI agree face is first and foremost important to know our opposite sex. We need to talk them to know more, that is as important as their face. Hip's good shape indicates how safe pregnancy will take place.Abundant bosoms foretell how well children will be nurtured. I must say a hip and bosoms show more biological factor. Face and character tell more about their personality that is more human.
mercedo wrote today at 9:35 PMMy assumption was basically as follows.
Men are once in his mother's womb and in there all nutrients were served through umbilical cord. I must say men are passive in a womb. Men who prefer a hip must have a strong yearning to the state in a womb. His interest is inward, he is not trying to find a partner but satisfy in protection.
Once he came out of his mother he had to feed himself by trying to suck his mother's bosom. This is an active action. He just started to learn he has to do something to feed himself. This is the very first step to socialisation.
If still mother's influence strongly sheds light on his life, he must be a hip lover. Or those who prefer hip rather than nipple must be still under his mother's control -that is so called a mother-complex.
Men are once in his mother's womb and in there all nutrients were served through umbilical cord. I must say men are passive in a womb. Men who prefer a hip must have a strong yearning to the state in a womb. His interest is inward, he is not trying to find a partner but satisfy in protection.
Once he came out of his mother he had to feed himself by trying to suck his mother's bosom. This is an active action. He just started to learn he has to do something to feed himself. This is the very first step to socialisation.
If still mother's influence strongly sheds light on his life, he must be a hip lover. Or those who prefer hip rather than nipple must be still under his mother's control -that is so called a mother-complex.
Re:This is(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.16 3:28 (#19869233) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
This was my philosophical conclusion and I was amazed to hear there was a precedent.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.16 3:28 (#19869233) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
This was my philosophical conclusion and I was amazed to hear there was a precedent.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Bosoms lover? or hip lover?
Jul 16, '07 1:53 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Hey, guys..which do you prefer to love, bosoms or hip?
I have heard that a man who is obsessively affectionate to women's hip is likely to be suffered from mother complex, who loves his mother in unconsciousness.
How about the cases of a man who loves particularly bosoms? Womb is where he used to stay before his birth. In this case he was formed a part of his mother. Instead bosoms are where he had been nourished after he was separated from his mother. It is natural to love bosoms because they are where he was able to acquire his first food. At least desire to fulfil his hunger is more socialised than the nostalgic yearning to his home before birth.
Jul 16, '07 1:53 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Hey, guys..which do you prefer to love, bosoms or hip?
I have heard that a man who is obsessively affectionate to women's hip is likely to be suffered from mother complex, who loves his mother in unconsciousness.
How about the cases of a man who loves particularly bosoms? Womb is where he used to stay before his birth. In this case he was formed a part of his mother. Instead bosoms are where he had been nourished after he was separated from his mother. It is natural to love bosoms because they are where he was able to acquire his first food. At least desire to fulfil his hunger is more socialised than the nostalgic yearning to his home before birth.
Bosoms Lover? or Hip Lover?
2007.07.16 2:34
I have heard that a man who is obsessively affectionate to women's hip is likely to be suffered from mother complex, who loves his mother in unconsciousness.
How about the cases of a man who loves particularly bossoms? Womb is where he used to stay before his birth. In this case he was formed a part of his mother. Instead bosoms are where he had been nourished after he was separated from his mother. It is natural to love bosoms because they are where he was able to acquire his first food. At least desire to fulfil his hunger is more socialised than the nostalgic yearning to his home before birth.
2007.07.16 2:34
I have heard that a man who is obsessively affectionate to women's hip is likely to be suffered from mother complex, who loves his mother in unconsciousness.
How about the cases of a man who loves particularly bossoms? Womb is where he used to stay before his birth. In this case he was formed a part of his mother. Instead bosoms are where he had been nourished after he was separated from his mother. It is natural to love bosoms because they are where he was able to acquire his first food. At least desire to fulfil his hunger is more socialised than the nostalgic yearning to his home before birth.
The Meaning of 'God is Almighty'
The Meaning of 'God is Almighty'
2007.07.16 1:46
Have you ever thought about the meaning of God is almighty?
If God is almighty, he can be outside the universe or inside, can be omnipresence or somewhere, he can banish himself so he can be nowhere at the same time. He can live forever and even be dead. Of course later he can resurrect himself. He can even bo back to the past.
God is almighty and God is omnipresence, both are different in expression, but in reality the former includes the latter in notion.
Is there any omnipotent being? That is the eternal theme humans keep on raising. Omnipotent being can banish himself. Under the notion of Almighty God even atheism becomes just one phenomenon of theism.
2007.07.16 1:46
Have you ever thought about the meaning of God is almighty?
If God is almighty, he can be outside the universe or inside, can be omnipresence or somewhere, he can banish himself so he can be nowhere at the same time. He can live forever and even be dead. Of course later he can resurrect himself. He can even bo back to the past.
God is almighty and God is omnipresence, both are different in expression, but in reality the former includes the latter in notion.
Is there any omnipotent being? That is the eternal theme humans keep on raising. Omnipotent being can banish himself. Under the notion of Almighty God even atheism becomes just one phenomenon of theism.
morosoph wrote on May 28You're allowed some friends, and a different camera angle.Remember to smile! ^-^
mercedo wrote on May 27Oh, that's so encouraging..I write for the sake of my few readers in the present, and for many readers in the future.I accepted your advice and replaced all photos but one.Friend's advice is heavier than the Earth.
morosoph wrote on May 26Thank-you Mer Cedo.I enjoy your writings for a rare insight into Japan and investigations into Western culture...
mercedo wrote on May 21Hi, Tim also known as Morosoph...You are always wonderful..
mercedo wrote on May 27Oh, that's so encouraging..I write for the sake of my few readers in the present, and for many readers in the future.I accepted your advice and replaced all photos but one.Friend's advice is heavier than the Earth.
morosoph wrote on May 26Thank-you Mer Cedo.I enjoy your writings for a rare insight into Japan and investigations into Western culture...
mercedo wrote on May 21Hi, Tim also known as Morosoph...You are always wonderful..
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Flavia pts has invited you to be her friend.
Hi! I find your site very interesting. Would you be my contact?
flavia
Of course I do. Thanks.
Hi! I find your site very interesting. Would you be my contact?
flavia
Of course I do. Thanks.
mercedo wrote today at 2:07 AMCar is a convenient tool for transportation, but also it is dangerous. But if someone claims 5 times in ten minutes talk that we ought not to use a car because a car is dangerous, how do you react? Yes, a car is dangerous is a true but only reflects a part of truth. The truth is a car is convenient if we drive carefully. IIf someone claims a car is dangerous 5 times in ten minutes talk, he is the very danger itself that might try to destroy a car or motorisation society.
mercedo wrote today at 1:40 AMOk, I get the point, population issue has a strong connection to the rise of prostitution, of course.
God cares for you
Jul 14, '07 1:29 AMfor everyone
Until a few days ago I had taken it for granted for a long time that Nietzsche denied the existence of God by declaring Gott ist tot or God is dead. But if God were almighty, he could resurrect himself. If Jesus were God before he arrives on the Earth, he or God experienced human's inevitable destiny through the crucification.
If so, the real meaning of Gott ist tot is different from what I thought. God experienced death because he wanted to give his best creature, that is all humans, an eternal life in Eucharist and wanted to share the same suffering all humans once had to experience, that is death -sharing in other words, Communion.
So real meaning of Gott ist tot is God experienced death through which he was able to give us an eternal life and also share the same suffering. The real meaning of faith was giving and sharing.
God is dead was an ultimate expression of God cares for you.
Tags: god, eucharist, communion
Prev: Obsessed
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
imelnychenko wrote on Jul 14Hmmm...It depends what do you mean under "God". To the opinion of most theologies, even the most primitive ones, God is a reality that transcedes our physical, "touchable" reality. Our experience is the only source of information about Universe. All our experiences have very similar pattern: object appeares, lives and dies; our senses have a physical messenger and are limited in space and time. The smartest of us can observe and describe the transformation and interconnection of objects. The later are sometimes referred to as scientists. These created Euclidian geometry, Aristotelic logic, Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity - the process of exploring the World is endless*. They admit though that all these facts are teared out of global context not percievable to normal human being at its fullest. And this is God. The endlessness itself. A non-material and non-personal one. It is immanent with the world but transcedes it.*exploring the World in the way the western people used to do.
mercedo wrote today at 12:08 AMThank you for a very poetic prose that is your comment. My assumption was if humans were dead, they would just return to soil since they were born from soil. Any humans are mortal, with limited knowledge and power. So when I heard the expression ' Gott ist tot' I though God was dead and disappeared for good, but on second thought I realised I had forgotten God is almighty, limitless, immortal when I asserted God was gone. The truth was God just experienced death to redeem human error, thus through this -the death of God, humans can now acquire the eternal life once humans had before Eden. This idea consists in central theology of Christianity whatever the dominations might be. God gives back life to humans through experiencing death and sharing the same destiny humans came to experience accidentally by having the forbidden fruits. God is a reflection of humans in the future. Now we are heading for God that trans-cedes.
morosoph wrote on Jul 14Nietzsche most likely meant that the idea of God was no longer tenable. Hence "We have killed him - you and I"; our research; our knowledge makes the idea of God - the kind of God that created the world, and Man and Woman separately from the rest of creation - implausible.Some kind of God is still possible, such as a Pantheistic God that is co-existent with the universe, but the old Transcendental God of the main religions is looking somewhat shaky.It is possible to read into the phrase something like the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but Nietzsche's emphasis is that the whole decent into Christianity was a wrong turning. Christian assumptions of equality are incompatible with noble values, and the pre-eminence of the creative genius. The emphasis of morality shifts from cause to effect, and from an emphasis of creating new moral wealth to deviances from an uncreative "perfection" that is the state of no sin.
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 14
morosoph saidSome kind of God is still possible, such as a Pantheistic God that is co-existent with the universe, but the old Transcendental God of the main religions is looking somewhat shaky. Why should be there any difference between the two? I see none. One can involve the other, or at least they don't exclude one another.I agree that Nietzsche didn't really mean the Eucharist, but Mercedo did understand the Eucharist at least -- that is in fact the central message of Communion: God's death is intended to share our lives with us.However, Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity, I should point out, tended to attack a very narrow Protestant version of Christianity. There are many, many other strains of Christianity that contain quite different models of viewing our relationship with God, free will and so on that he barely was aware of or touched on. I believe he made the mistake of viewing Christianity very nearly as a monolith, which it isn't and hasn't been almost since it began (there is really only unity in some very basic things, but in the rest there is an extraordinarily wide range of opinion, almost by design).Cheers,Ethelred
morosoph wrote on Jul 14
infinitemonkey saidWhy should be there any difference between the two? I see none. One can involve the other, or at least they don't exclude one another. No, the two are exclusive. If God is one with nature, he is not beyond nature. In particular, he is not the creator of the universe.With regards to Nietzsche, he drew from Schopenhauer's conception of the world as will and representation; arguably a form of pantheism. He later discovered Spinoza. I take after Spinoza in theistic outlook, and although I value Nietzsche's insights, I am certainly not Nietzschian, although I used to think that I was a few years ago.Nietzsche's view of Christianity was certainly informed by his experience of religion, but he was strongly informed by the Bible itself in his critique, and much of it was directed against Jesus's teaching. Nietzsche was infamous for his attack on pity, for example, which he viewed as love mixed with contempt. Christianity was, to Nietzsche profoundly unnaturalistic, and by nature opposed to nobility. Any realistic interpretation takes the highest level of self-definition out of the hands of the individual, and therefore leads to a contempt for greatness.I don't know how far I go with this reasoning myself, for I believe that there is natural law and natural right rooted in human nature and the nature of human interaction. However, natural law has a voluntary character: it is a law for society rather than individuals. That said, it does limit the ability of 'creators' to fashion society as they will.Being fair to Nietzsche, the last thing that he wanted was society to be ruled. The will to power was to him an engine for competition rather than monopoly, so it is possible for his scheme to find natural law through the rejection of conventional law.
mercedo wrote today at 12:49 AM, edited today at 1:02 AMNietzsche couldn't get out of the realm of Christianity. By saying Gott ist tot, Ubermensch, Eternal recurrence, he mad another theology similar to Christianity.
According to his theology, God is dead but since he is almighty, he resurrected himself. If he were an atheist, he definitely ought to have said that God doesn't exist.
By saying Ubermensch or Super-man, he created another man who try to overcome any situation he faces, he had known that the ultimate form of Super-man was God. If he were an atheist, he just should have said that men only exist.
By saying eternal recurrence, he tried to understand the notion of eternal life. For Nietzsche, eternal life was just an unbearable thing. He went too far to say there would be an eternal recurrence, which is just the expression that is more nihilistic than eternal life. Even if we have aims, eternal life was too long to pursue our objectives. If he were an atheist, he would have pointed out that humans have only limited time to live.
God exists, God, eternal life are all an ultimate form of nihilism, and he tried to get over those nihilisms by advocating those three new theologies.
briangriffith wrote on Jul 14We don't know what God thinks. Maybe he likes us and maybe he doesn't. Anyway, Jesus thought animal sacrifices were stupid and immoral, much less human sacrifices.
mercedo wrote today at 1:01 AM
briangriffith saidAnyway, Jesus thought animal sacrifices were stupid and immoral, much less human sacrifices. Can you show some Bible reference on that matter?
paji2 wrote on Jul 14"If so, the real meaning of Gott ist tot is different from what I thought. God experienced death .."That presupposes the idea that Jesus was God, something he - throughout his ministry - consistently denied. He insisted he was "son" of God, not God himself. Even at his baptism, when God spoke, He called him "son". Jesus then, was a divine human - according to the traditional Christian belief.I agree that Nietzsche's viewpoint was a narrow one - and from that point, he was right, God was dead, in that he abandoned the wrong practices of those claiming to follow Him. His followers lost "Love" (Agape), therefore God, to them, was dead - for the Bible says, "God is Love.."
mercedo wrote today at 1:21 AMIn unitarian theology that is arianism, Jesus is human. In trinity theology that is athanasian creed, Jesus, as well as Holy Spirit and Father consists of one God.
For non-believers, he is merely a human, but a human that intended to redeem all sins humans had made, so as you pointed out he was indeed a divine human.
His followers lost "Love" (Agape), therefore God, to them, was dead - for the Bible says, "God is Love.."
Totally new perspective we ought to hark.
Jul 14, '07 1:29 AMfor everyone
Until a few days ago I had taken it for granted for a long time that Nietzsche denied the existence of God by declaring Gott ist tot or God is dead. But if God were almighty, he could resurrect himself. If Jesus were God before he arrives on the Earth, he or God experienced human's inevitable destiny through the crucification.
If so, the real meaning of Gott ist tot is different from what I thought. God experienced death because he wanted to give his best creature, that is all humans, an eternal life in Eucharist and wanted to share the same suffering all humans once had to experience, that is death -sharing in other words, Communion.
So real meaning of Gott ist tot is God experienced death through which he was able to give us an eternal life and also share the same suffering. The real meaning of faith was giving and sharing.
God is dead was an ultimate expression of God cares for you.
Tags: god, eucharist, communion
Prev: Obsessed
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
imelnychenko wrote on Jul 14Hmmm...It depends what do you mean under "God". To the opinion of most theologies, even the most primitive ones, God is a reality that transcedes our physical, "touchable" reality. Our experience is the only source of information about Universe. All our experiences have very similar pattern: object appeares, lives and dies; our senses have a physical messenger and are limited in space and time. The smartest of us can observe and describe the transformation and interconnection of objects. The later are sometimes referred to as scientists. These created Euclidian geometry, Aristotelic logic, Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity - the process of exploring the World is endless*. They admit though that all these facts are teared out of global context not percievable to normal human being at its fullest. And this is God. The endlessness itself. A non-material and non-personal one. It is immanent with the world but transcedes it.*exploring the World in the way the western people used to do.
mercedo wrote today at 12:08 AMThank you for a very poetic prose that is your comment. My assumption was if humans were dead, they would just return to soil since they were born from soil. Any humans are mortal, with limited knowledge and power. So when I heard the expression ' Gott ist tot' I though God was dead and disappeared for good, but on second thought I realised I had forgotten God is almighty, limitless, immortal when I asserted God was gone. The truth was God just experienced death to redeem human error, thus through this -the death of God, humans can now acquire the eternal life once humans had before Eden. This idea consists in central theology of Christianity whatever the dominations might be. God gives back life to humans through experiencing death and sharing the same destiny humans came to experience accidentally by having the forbidden fruits. God is a reflection of humans in the future. Now we are heading for God that trans-cedes.
morosoph wrote on Jul 14Nietzsche most likely meant that the idea of God was no longer tenable. Hence "We have killed him - you and I"; our research; our knowledge makes the idea of God - the kind of God that created the world, and Man and Woman separately from the rest of creation - implausible.Some kind of God is still possible, such as a Pantheistic God that is co-existent with the universe, but the old Transcendental God of the main religions is looking somewhat shaky.It is possible to read into the phrase something like the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but Nietzsche's emphasis is that the whole decent into Christianity was a wrong turning. Christian assumptions of equality are incompatible with noble values, and the pre-eminence of the creative genius. The emphasis of morality shifts from cause to effect, and from an emphasis of creating new moral wealth to deviances from an uncreative "perfection" that is the state of no sin.
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 14
morosoph saidSome kind of God is still possible, such as a Pantheistic God that is co-existent with the universe, but the old Transcendental God of the main religions is looking somewhat shaky. Why should be there any difference between the two? I see none. One can involve the other, or at least they don't exclude one another.I agree that Nietzsche didn't really mean the Eucharist, but Mercedo did understand the Eucharist at least -- that is in fact the central message of Communion: God's death is intended to share our lives with us.However, Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity, I should point out, tended to attack a very narrow Protestant version of Christianity. There are many, many other strains of Christianity that contain quite different models of viewing our relationship with God, free will and so on that he barely was aware of or touched on. I believe he made the mistake of viewing Christianity very nearly as a monolith, which it isn't and hasn't been almost since it began (there is really only unity in some very basic things, but in the rest there is an extraordinarily wide range of opinion, almost by design).Cheers,Ethelred
morosoph wrote on Jul 14
infinitemonkey saidWhy should be there any difference between the two? I see none. One can involve the other, or at least they don't exclude one another. No, the two are exclusive. If God is one with nature, he is not beyond nature. In particular, he is not the creator of the universe.With regards to Nietzsche, he drew from Schopenhauer's conception of the world as will and representation; arguably a form of pantheism. He later discovered Spinoza. I take after Spinoza in theistic outlook, and although I value Nietzsche's insights, I am certainly not Nietzschian, although I used to think that I was a few years ago.Nietzsche's view of Christianity was certainly informed by his experience of religion, but he was strongly informed by the Bible itself in his critique, and much of it was directed against Jesus's teaching. Nietzsche was infamous for his attack on pity, for example, which he viewed as love mixed with contempt. Christianity was, to Nietzsche profoundly unnaturalistic, and by nature opposed to nobility. Any realistic interpretation takes the highest level of self-definition out of the hands of the individual, and therefore leads to a contempt for greatness.I don't know how far I go with this reasoning myself, for I believe that there is natural law and natural right rooted in human nature and the nature of human interaction. However, natural law has a voluntary character: it is a law for society rather than individuals. That said, it does limit the ability of 'creators' to fashion society as they will.Being fair to Nietzsche, the last thing that he wanted was society to be ruled. The will to power was to him an engine for competition rather than monopoly, so it is possible for his scheme to find natural law through the rejection of conventional law.
mercedo wrote today at 12:49 AM, edited today at 1:02 AMNietzsche couldn't get out of the realm of Christianity. By saying Gott ist tot, Ubermensch, Eternal recurrence, he mad another theology similar to Christianity.
According to his theology, God is dead but since he is almighty, he resurrected himself. If he were an atheist, he definitely ought to have said that God doesn't exist.
By saying Ubermensch or Super-man, he created another man who try to overcome any situation he faces, he had known that the ultimate form of Super-man was God. If he were an atheist, he just should have said that men only exist.
By saying eternal recurrence, he tried to understand the notion of eternal life. For Nietzsche, eternal life was just an unbearable thing. He went too far to say there would be an eternal recurrence, which is just the expression that is more nihilistic than eternal life. Even if we have aims, eternal life was too long to pursue our objectives. If he were an atheist, he would have pointed out that humans have only limited time to live.
God exists, God, eternal life are all an ultimate form of nihilism, and he tried to get over those nihilisms by advocating those three new theologies.
briangriffith wrote on Jul 14We don't know what God thinks. Maybe he likes us and maybe he doesn't. Anyway, Jesus thought animal sacrifices were stupid and immoral, much less human sacrifices.
mercedo wrote today at 1:01 AM
briangriffith saidAnyway, Jesus thought animal sacrifices were stupid and immoral, much less human sacrifices. Can you show some Bible reference on that matter?
paji2 wrote on Jul 14"If so, the real meaning of Gott ist tot is different from what I thought. God experienced death .."That presupposes the idea that Jesus was God, something he - throughout his ministry - consistently denied. He insisted he was "son" of God, not God himself. Even at his baptism, when God spoke, He called him "son". Jesus then, was a divine human - according to the traditional Christian belief.I agree that Nietzsche's viewpoint was a narrow one - and from that point, he was right, God was dead, in that he abandoned the wrong practices of those claiming to follow Him. His followers lost "Love" (Agape), therefore God, to them, was dead - for the Bible says, "God is Love.."
mercedo wrote today at 1:21 AMIn unitarian theology that is arianism, Jesus is human. In trinity theology that is athanasian creed, Jesus, as well as Holy Spirit and Father consists of one God.
For non-believers, he is merely a human, but a human that intended to redeem all sins humans had made, so as you pointed out he was indeed a divine human.
His followers lost "Love" (Agape), therefore God, to them, was dead - for the Bible says, "God is Love.."
Totally new perspective we ought to hark.
mercedo wrote today at 1:21 AMIn unitarian theology that is arianism, Jesus is human. In trinity theology that is athanasian creed, Jesus, as well as Holy Spirit and Father consists of one God.
For non-believers, he is merely a human, but a human that intended to redeem all sins humans had made, so as you pointed out he was indeed a divine human.
His followers lost "Love" (Agape), therefore God, to them, was dead - for the Bible says, "God is Love.."
Totally new perspective we ought to hark.
For non-believers, he is merely a human, but a human that intended to redeem all sins humans had made, so as you pointed out he was indeed a divine human.
His followers lost "Love" (Agape), therefore God, to them, was dead - for the Bible says, "God is Love.."
Totally new perspective we ought to hark.
mercedo wrote today at 1:01 AM
briangriffith saidAnyway, Jesus thought animal sacrifices were stupid and immoral, much less human sacrifices. Can you show some Bible reference on that matter?
briangriffith saidAnyway, Jesus thought animal sacrifices were stupid and immoral, much less human sacrifices. Can you show some Bible reference on that matter?
mercedo wrote today at 12:49 AM, edited today at 12:58 AMNietzsche couldn't get out of the realm of Christianity. By saying Gott ist tot, Ubermensch, Eternal recurrence, he mad another theology similar to Christianity.
According to his theology, God is dead but since he is almighty, he resurrected himself. If he were an atheist, he definitely ought to have said that God doesn't exist.
By saying Ubermensch or Super-man, he created another man who try to overcome any situation he faces, he had known that the ultimate form of Super-man was God. If he were an atheist, he just should have said that men only exist.
By saying eternal recurrence, he tried to understand the notion of eternal life. For Nietzsche, eternal life was just an unbearable thing. He went too far to say there would be an eternal recurrence, which is just the expression that is more nihilistic than eternal life. Even if we have aims, eternal life was too long to pursue our objectives. If he were an atheist, he would have pointed out that humans have only limited time to live.
God exists, God, eternal life are all an ultimate form of nihilism, and he tried to get over those nihilisms by advocating those three new theologies.
According to his theology, God is dead but since he is almighty, he resurrected himself. If he were an atheist, he definitely ought to have said that God doesn't exist.
By saying Ubermensch or Super-man, he created another man who try to overcome any situation he faces, he had known that the ultimate form of Super-man was God. If he were an atheist, he just should have said that men only exist.
By saying eternal recurrence, he tried to understand the notion of eternal life. For Nietzsche, eternal life was just an unbearable thing. He went too far to say there would be an eternal recurrence, which is just the expression that is more nihilistic than eternal life. Even if we have aims, eternal life was too long to pursue our objectives. If he were an atheist, he would have pointed out that humans have only limited time to live.
God exists, God, eternal life are all an ultimate form of nihilism, and he tried to get over those nihilisms by advocating those three new theologies.
Nietzsche couldn't get out of the realm of Christianity. By saying Gott ist tot, Ubermensch, Eternal recurence, he mad another theology similar to Christianity. According to his theology, God is dead but since he is almighty, he resurrected himself. If he were an atheist, he definetely ought to have said that God doesn't exist.By saying Ubermensch or Super-man, he created another man who try to overcome any situation he faces, he had known that the ultimate form of Super-man was God. If he were an atheist, he just should have said that men only exist.By saying eternal recurrence, he tried to understand the notion of eternal life. For Nietzsche, eternal life was just an unbearable thing. He went too far to say there would be an eternal reccurence, which is just the expression that is more nihilistic than eternal life. Even if we have aims, eternal life was too long to pursue our objectives. God exists, God, eternal life are all an ultimate forms of nihilism, and he tried to get over those nihilism by advocating those three new theologies.
mercedo wrote today at 12:08 AMThank you for a very poetic prose that is your comment. My assumption was if humans were dead, they would just return to soil since they were born from soil. Any humans are mortal, with limited knowledge and power. So when I heard the expression ' Gott ist tot' I though God was dead and disappeared for good, but on second thought I realised I had forgotten God is almighty, limitless, immortal when I asserted God was gone. The truth was God just experienced death to redeem human error, thus through this -the death of God, humans can now acquire the eternal life once humans had before Eden. This idea consists in central theology of Christianity whatever the dominations might be. God gives back life to humans through experiencing death and sharing the same destiny humans came to experience accidentally by having the forbidden fruits. God is a reflection of humans in the future. Now we are heading for God that trans-cedes.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Obsessed
Re:No(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.14 4:05 (#19851927) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.14 2:26)
God resurrected himself. I think you get the message.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.14 4:05 (#19851927) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.14 2:26)
God resurrected himself. I think you get the message.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
God cares for you
God cares for you
2007.07.14 2:26
Until a few days ago I had taken it for granted for a long time that Nietzsche denied the existence of God by declaring Gott ist tot or God is dead. But if God were almighty, he could resurrect himself. If Jesus were God before he arrives on the Earth, he or God experienced human's inevitable destiny through the crusification.
If so, the real meaning of Gott ist tot is different from what I thought. God experienced death because he wanted to give his best creature, that is all humans, an eternal life in Eucharist and wanted to share the same suffering all humans once had to experience, that is death -sharing in other words, Communion.
So real meaning of Gott ist tot is God experienced death through which he was able to give us an eternal life and also share the same suffering. The real meaning of faith was giving and sharing.
God is dead was an ultimate expression of God cares for you.
2007.07.14 2:26
Until a few days ago I had taken it for granted for a long time that Nietzsche denied the existence of God by declaring Gott ist tot or God is dead. But if God were almighty, he could resurrect himself. If Jesus were God before he arrives on the Earth, he or God experienced human's inevitable destiny through the crusification.
If so, the real meaning of Gott ist tot is different from what I thought. God experienced death because he wanted to give his best creature, that is all humans, an eternal life in Eucharist and wanted to share the same suffering all humans once had to experience, that is death -sharing in other words, Communion.
So real meaning of Gott ist tot is God experienced death through which he was able to give us an eternal life and also share the same suffering. The real meaning of faith was giving and sharing.
God is dead was an ultimate expression of God cares for you.
hi
Jul 14, '07 1:20 AMby Mer for users girishduppalli and mercedo
I'm sorry, but I don't know you anything. Could you introduce me a little bit about you so that I can know you more?
Jul 14, '07 1:20 AMby Mer for users girishduppalli and mercedo
I'm sorry, but I don't know you anything. Could you introduce me a little bit about you so that I can know you more?
Twins
mercedo wrote today at 1:00 AMMany times they are identical. However there are cases that are not identical especially in the case of Siamese twins and in those cases one is talented while the other is less talented. For example Siamese twin Bek and Dok in Vietnam, one became a medical doctor and the other is still in vegetable. It might be much easier to get disproportionate from one to another through the body part that is still connected.
Friday, July 13, 2007
:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 9I'm an only child - but I can easily imagine I'd have killed a younger sibling. :-)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 10In a family tree of one genius, insane or subnormals are often found among his siblings, cousins and relatives as if one genius got all the nutrients from his surroundings. Brothers and sisters are not win-win relations, but win-lose. We need to survive this first competition society.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 10I have one cousin who's "subnormal" - he suffers from Down's syndrome. The other 20-something are normal, so I don't think he proves that I'm a genius.Interesting theory: a sort of survival of the fittest in a family. What do you think about twins?
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 9I'm an only child - but I can easily imagine I'd have killed a younger sibling. :-)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 10In a family tree of one genius, insane or subnormals are often found among his siblings, cousins and relatives as if one genius got all the nutrients from his surroundings. Brothers and sisters are not win-win relations, but win-lose. We need to survive this first competition society.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 10I have one cousin who's "subnormal" - he suffers from Down's syndrome. The other 20-something are normal, so I don't think he proves that I'm a genius.Interesting theory: a sort of survival of the fittest in a family. What do you think about twins?
:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 9I'm an only child - but I can easily imagine I'd have killed a younger sibling. :-)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 10In a family tree of one genius, insane or subnormals are often found among his siblings, cousins and relatives as if one genius got all the nutrients from his surroundings. Brothers and sisters are not win-win relations, but win-lose. We need to survive this first competition society.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 10I have one cousin who's "subnormal" - he suffers from Down's syndrome. The other 20-something are normal, so I don't think he proves that I'm a genius.Interesting theory: a sort of survival of the fittest in a family. What do you think about twins?
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 9I'm an only child - but I can easily imagine I'd have killed a younger sibling. :-)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 10In a family tree of one genius, insane or subnormals are often found among his siblings, cousins and relatives as if one genius got all the nutrients from his surroundings. Brothers and sisters are not win-win relations, but win-lose. We need to survive this first competition society.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 10I have one cousin who's "subnormal" - he suffers from Down's syndrome. The other 20-something are normal, so I don't think he proves that I'm a genius.Interesting theory: a sort of survival of the fittest in a family. What do you think about twins?
The real meaning of Gott ist tot
mercedo wrote today at 1:11 AMNow I realised the real meaning of Gott ist tot.God had to die because he wanted to give thanks to and also be connected with all humans that he made as the word Eucharist, Communion indicate. He loved his best creature as much as he had the same suffer his creature just one time has. As if I saw the essence of religion. Very persuasive sermon.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
mercedo wrote today at 2:40 AMIn a family tree of one genius, insane or subnormals are often found among his siblings, cousins and relatives as if one genius got all the nutrients from his surroundings. Brothers and sisters are not win-win relations, but win-lose. We need to survive this first competition society.
Re:Cain & Abel(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.11 1:09 (#19814323) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
If they are friendly, their power adds up to more than 2. If they hate one another, one of them goes so far as to kill another one.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.11 1:09 (#19814323) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
If they are friendly, their power adds up to more than 2. If they hate one another, one of them goes so far as to kill another one.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Hamlet?(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.11 0:58 (#19814181) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
The title Hamlet refers to late King Hamlet, not his son who went mad.
Father Hamlet appeared in his son Hamlet telling he was killed by his younger brother. I think the main theme of this famous play is the overwhelming influence of Father Hamlet even after he was killed by his younger brother who also married his wife. I think Shakespeare didn't give the son of late King Hamlet a name emphasising how feeble and fragile his son's character was. Son Hamlet and Ophelia are described as they lived in a fantasy in comparison with the realistic and strong figures of Father Hamlet, his brother, his wife.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.11 0:58 (#19814181) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
The title Hamlet refers to late King Hamlet, not his son who went mad.
Father Hamlet appeared in his son Hamlet telling he was killed by his younger brother. I think the main theme of this famous play is the overwhelming influence of Father Hamlet even after he was killed by his younger brother who also married his wife. I think Shakespeare didn't give the son of late King Hamlet a name emphasising how feeble and fragile his son's character was. Son Hamlet and Ophelia are described as they lived in a fantasy in comparison with the realistic and strong figures of Father Hamlet, his brother, his wife.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)