Research on Belief in God

Page 31 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
hrotha said:
Somehow I doubt humankind is expected to be around by the time the Earth becomes uninhabitable for any life form. :p
Yep, good point - I also have my doubts!

I suppose Christians could also believe that the Apocalypse will come before the planet will be swallowed by the sun
 
Christian said:
"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth"

I had to think of something recently and have some questions to all Christians on here:

Do you believe God created the universe?
Do you believe that there are life forms in the universe other than humans?
If there is other life in the universe, do you believe God created it?
Or did he just create mankind?
If there are other life forms that have been created by God, do they also have an after life?
Will we have to share our after life with other life forms, or do each have their own heaven?


If you believe that humans are the only life form in the entire universe, then all these questions become futile of course. Of course the existence of "aliens" has not been proven. But I think many Christians believe that we are not alone in the entire universe. So if any of you find yourself among those, I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the existence of other life with the existence of God.

Also, scientists have proven that the world will end when the sun starts to expand and will eventually destroy planet earth. Do you think this is God's will? Do you believe that is metaphorically described in the Apocalypse?
Why do you think Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in Campo dei Fiori in 1600?

It's been 500 years since Copernicus first posited, and then Galileo demonstrably proved, that Aristotle's geocentric theory of the universe was wrong. The crisis of course was that if you take humans and the insignificant planet they inhabit out of a divinely ordered cosmic centrality, then humanity itself becomes less unique and exceptional - a happenstance in the mystery of existence, with no paternal and hierarchic God either concerned with its life, or extinction.

The revelation was so dangerous to the established order that Bruno, who anticipated Galileo's perdicament, could have supposedly offered his inquisitors this retort: Perchance you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it.


 
RetroActive said:
:) Thus Spoke Zarathustra
..and thus spoke Nietzsche:

God does not exist and Man is nothing. The concepts of morality, Good and Evil are just nonsense. Only a few rare and superior men are able to emancipate from such constraints. The mass, on the contrary, the "flock", the "slaves" is not strong enough to get rid of all these codes. The vast majority of the population needs a God, a Good/Evil referent in order to be appeased while allowing superior beings to establish a minimum of social order. Those 'ubermensch's'/'atheistic priests' must provide hay to the mass.

Beautifully analyzed by Pierre Hillard in the Marche irrésistible du Nouvel ordre mondial .

It stinks. After that you won't convince me that atheism is not something for an arrogant elite. Nietzsche influenced Leo Strauss who in turn influenced all the modern neo-cons. The Iraq War was an atheistic war !!

rhubroma said:
It's been 500 years since Copernicus first posited, and then Galileo demonstrably proved, that Aristotle's geocentric theory of the universe was wrong. The crisis of course was that if you take humans and the insignificant planet they inhabit out of a divinely ordered cosmic centrality, then humanity itself becomes less unique and exceptional - a happenstance in the mystery of existence, with no paternal and hierarchic God either concerned with its life, or extinction.
:p:D:p Atheists can't help fooling themselves.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
RetroActive said:
So somehow one has to fold up the compass and go home. We all know that home is where the heart is...the center of all things...and that center is everywhere:)

So you want to be reasonable Rhub.? I don't know, what's it all about?:p
I, as in me not you the other, think that your statement here fits in with the poetry of John Dunne. Particular reference to The Sun Rising - last six lines.

Title “God and Religion”

Conclusion............God is the supreme moderator! The moderators moderator. And the 'mere' moderator is religion, the go between, the middle man. And the rest are the rest, those who wave their placards in herds, until they realise it's no good. Then it's on the knees.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
Netserk said:
Or maybe nothing in the bible is meant to be taken literally?
Yes that's why I asked whether Christians interprete the Apocalypse as a metaphore for the sun swallowing the earth. In any case it seems impossible that God, if he is the creator of Earth, should not have foreseen its destruction. So as far as I can tell, there seem to be three possibilities:

1) The end of our planet was left out of the Bible (seems unlikely)
2) The Apocalypse is a metaphore for the sun swallowing the Earth
3) The Apocalypse will happen before the sun swallows the Earth, thus making what happens to our planet irrelevant since mankind will already be in the afterlife

rhubroma said:
Why do you think Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in Campo dei Fiori in 1600?

It's been 500 years since Copernicus first posited, and then Galileo demonstrably proved, that Aristotle's geocentric theory of the universe was wrong. The crisis of course was that if you take humans and the insignificant planet they inhabit out of a divinely ordered cosmic centrality, then humanity itself becomes less unique and exceptional - a happenstance in the mystery of existence, with no paternal and hierarchic God either concerned with its life, or extinction.

The revelation was so dangerous to the established order that Bruno, who anticipated Galileo's perdicament, could have supposedly offered his inquisitors this retort: Perchance you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it.
Thanks for sharing this nice quote, I did not know it. In school I once studied the play "Galileo" by Bertolt Brecht. It was an interesting read - it deals mostly with the problem that you talk of.

The reason I brought this up is that I feel there is so much discussion about the origins of the universe and of mankind, but very little about how the Earth will end. Critics will always be able to question the Big Bang and Evolution, but we know for certain how our planet will end (unless there is a Deus ex maquina). It's interesting that the end sparks relatively little controversy in comparison to the beginning.

I completely agree with you that religion is something that makes people feel important, to think that there is a supreme being out there that concerns itself with whether you eat pork or not.

Another thing that I find interesting is "saying grace" before eating. This to me seems like a way for people to feel less guilty. If you say "may all the world be clothed and fed" before you stuff your face with turkey and mashed potatoes, then you don't have to feel bad about it afterwards.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Why do you think Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in Campo dei Fiori in 1600?

It's been 500 years since Copernicus first posited, and then Galileo demonstrably proved, that Aristotle's geocentric theory of the universe was wrong. The crisis of course was that if you take humans and the insignificant planet they inhabit out of a divinely ordered cosmic centrality, then humanity itself becomes less unique and exceptional - a happenstance in the mystery of existence, with no paternal and hierarchic God either concerned with its life, or extinction.

The revelation was so dangerous to the established order that Bruno, who anticipated Galileo's perdicament, could have supposedly offered his inquisitors this retort: Perchance you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it.
:) If we go back to our 7 vices/7 virtues that's the descending and ascending order in man, the 7 ductless glands/chakras in the human body (pure coincidence). Another happy coincidence is that Saturn has a hexagon on it's pole , the hex of Saturn is time. :cool:
 
Echoes said:
..and thus spoke Nietzsche:

God does not exist and Man is nothing. The concepts of morality, Good and Evil are just nonsense. Only a few rare and superior men are able to emancipate from such constraints. The mass, on the contrary, the "flock", the "slaves" is not strong enough to get rid of all these codes. The vast majority of the population needs a God, a Good/Evil referent in order to be appeased while allowing superior beings to establish a minimum of social order. Those 'ubermensch's'/'atheistic priests' must provide hay to the mass.

Beautifully analyzed by Pierre Hillard in the Marche irrésistible du Nouvel ordre mondial .

It stinks. After that you won't convince me that atheism is not something for an arrogant elite. Nietzsche influenced Leo Strauss who in turn influenced all the modern neo-cons. The Iraq War was an atheistic war !!


:p:D:p Atheists can't help fooling themselves.
Thanks for your brief synopsis of how the religious establishment, through the various priesthoods, has found a way to exercise it's authority over society and why Nietzsche was merely flipping the coin in this sense. We can thus juxtapose his ubermensche with "the elect" of the religious doctrines. Other than an arrogant atheist elite, the fundamentalist sentiment driving both is what's concerning.
 
Echoes said:
..and thus spoke Nietzsche:

God does not exist and Man is nothing. The concepts of morality, Good and Evil are just nonsense. Only a few rare and superior men are able to emancipate from such constraints. The mass, on the contrary, the "flock", the "slaves" is not strong enough to get rid of all these codes. The vast majority of the population needs a God, a Good/Evil referent in order to be appeased while allowing superior beings to establish a minimum of social order. Those 'ubermensch's'/'atheistic priests' must provide hay to the mass.

Beautifully analyzed by Pierre Hillard in the Marche irrésistible du Nouvel ordre mondial .

It stinks. After that you won't convince me that atheism is not something for an arrogant elite. Nietzsche influenced Leo Strauss who in turn influenced all the modern neo-cons. The Iraq War was an atheistic war !!



:p:D:p Atheists can't help fooling themselves.
Calling man nothing is arrogant and elite?

You can debate the religiosity of the architects in the Iraq war, but it's equally debatable whether they'd have been able to so easily advance their agenda without the cover of religion.

Priests have not comprised the arrogant elite at various moments in history?

So Nietzsche should not have existed, in turn not enabling Strauss and the rise of the neo-cons? Nietzsche should be blamed for those who misread him? Your posts themselves frequently seem to miss the potential import of the thinkers you cite. Are they to be blamed for your interpretations?
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
aphronesis said:
Calling man nothing is arrogant and elite?

You can debate the religiosity of the architects in the Iraq war, but it's debatable whether they'd have been able to so easily advance their agenda without the cover of religion.

Priests have not comprised the arrogant elite at various moments in history?

So Nietzsche should not have existed, in turn not enabling Strauss and the rise of the neo-cons? Nietzsche should be blamed for those who misread him? Your posts themselves frequently seem to miss the potential import of the thinkers you cite. Are they to be blamed for your interpretations?
This works every which way. So much confusion, so many tears.:rolleyes:
 
aphronesis said:
You can debate the religiosity of the architects in the Iraq war, but it's equally debatable whether they'd have been able to so easily advance their agenda without the cover of religion.
Don't you remember? The cover was that Hussein owned WMD and was a threat to the USA and also bringing democracy to the Savages (White Man's Burden). That is still how atheistic liberals justify today. The few liberals that do not advocate for it would of course blame it on religion, because they don't understand anything at anything (e.g. Paxman).

aphronesis said:
So Nietzsche should not have existed, in turn not enabling Strauss and the rise of the neo-cons? Nietzsche should be blamed for those who misread him? Your posts themselves frequently seem to miss the potential import of the thinkers you cite. Are they to be blamed for your interpretations?
Then you'll have to show me how Strauss misread Nietzsche. We know since Georg Lukacs that Nietzsche was a thinker of the parasitical intelligentsia that promoted hedonism for his own class, while the common men were working like dogs. Neither Nietzsche nor Strauss believed in charity, morality, etc. The Nietzschean "atheistic Priests" became the "Philosophers". For Strauss, religion was just a mere "noble lie" helping the "Philosopher" to direct the people to the aim that he defines himself, but that MOST OF ALL he does not believe in himself and of course that he does not apply to himself.

Each time I'm criticizing Big Moustache, his fans would tell me he was misread. But of course the same people will always see Religion behind any war and never consider the fact that the Gospel might be misread. That's just what you've done above, by the way.
 
Echoes said:
Each time I'm criticizing Big Moustache, his fans would tell me he was misread. But of course the same people will always see Religion behind any war and never consider the fact that the Gospel might be misread. That's just what you've done above, by the way.
How, though, does the Gospel having perhaps been misread excuse centuries of prepotency and power abuses at the hands of clericalism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadores (whose terrible actions against the natives were "justified" by the papal bull Dudum Siquidem - doctrine of absolute superiority of the European Christian world over the Americas, propagating the use of force and constraint to impose Christianity as the only divinely revealed religion), or the two centuries of religious wars in Europe between Catholics and Protestants, before secularism curbed the most horrific faults of religious doctrine in our civilization? It's not enough to say that this was only an instrumental use of religion, when religion itself provided the bases for such historical phenomena.

Post scriptum: I'm still not sure how you equate the Iraq War with an atheist agenda, when it was founded upon a neocon theological concept of international politics for oil in light of superpowerdom. Bush also claimed that God was on America's side, while his neocon cabinet met for daily prayer sessions in the oval office, before setting off in dealing with the day's business.
 
Echoes said:
Don't you remember? The cover was that Hussein owned WMD and was a threat to the USA and also bringing democracy to the Savages (White Man's Burden). That is still how atheistic liberals justify today. The few liberals that do not advocate for it would of course blame it on religion, because they don't understand anything at anything (e.g. Paxman).



Then you'll have to show me how Strauss misread Nietzsche. We know since Georg Lukacs that Nietzsche was a thinker of the parasitical intelligentsia that promoted hedonism for his own class, while the common men were working like dogs. Neither Nietzsche nor Strauss believed in charity, morality, etc. The Nietzschean "atheistic Priests" became the "Philosophers". For Strauss, religion was just a mere "noble lie" helping the "Philosopher" to direct the people to the aim that he defines himself, but that MOST OF ALL he does not believe in himself and of course that he does not apply to himself.

Each time I'm criticizing Big Moustache, his fans would tell me he was misread. But of course the same people will always see Religion behind any war and never consider the fact that the Gospel might be misread. That's just what you've done above, by the way.
I think you'll have to back off the sweeping generalizations a bit or at least qualify your terms. I didn't say the war was because of religion or caused by. I said (or implied) that a conservative religious agenda and climate--one that domestically, in fact, declared a tacit civil war on so--called secular atheists--was one enabling aspect of that war. One that followed quite ably from the engagement in Afghanistan.

I've no doubt that the Gospel has been misread since the time it hit print--and was written for that matter. I don't really see how you can instrumentalize, readings, actions, events like that though.

Will have to read a bit more Strauss and get back to you. In the meantime since which Lukacs is it that we know these things you claim?
 
rhubroma said:
How, though, does the Gospel having perhaps been misread excuse centuries of prepotency and power abuses at the hands of clericalism,[...]
First, there's no reason to talk about excuses. You are making a connection between the Gospel and historical events that occured afterwards, not me.

Second, even if we accept that Christianism is connected with many historical events throughout centuries, I can't take atheist/anti-Christian lies on face value ! All of these periods that you mentioned (and plenty of others) have been re-written after the Enlightenment. Let's just take the Crusades... It's now seen as dark period for Christianity while they were obviously justified !!

Many Catholics have internalized all these horrors and are now saying "my religion is the Gospel and not the Church" (which is partly true), while it's rather high time they stroke back. Everything we've been taught, we need to forget and get back to square one. It's about time Catholics woke up. Chesterton already said he assumed all that the Church has done ... Of course the Church made mistakes, I'm a Lefebvrian, which means I disagree with the Church but usually the Church's true mistakes are the things that atheists believes are acceptable (e.g. Vatican II)

rhubroma said:
It's not enough to say that this was only an instrumental use of religion, when religion itself provided the bases for such historical phenomena.
You'll have to prove it.

rhubroma said:
Post scriptum: I'm still not sure how you equate the Iraq War with an atheist agenda, when it was founded upon a neocon theological concept of international politics for oil in light of superpowerdom. Bush also claimed that God was on America's side, while his neocon cabinet met for daily prayer sessions in the oval office, before setting off in dealing with the day's business.
That was all for the show, right? I have repeat like a parrot, the real excuse was the WMD ! Bush called on the American's need to safety and comfort (typically atheistic because a believer knows that life is unsafe by nature). Besides you had this typically colonialist attitude of bringing Democracy to the Savages, the white man's burden and that is still the way many leftists are justifying the Iraq War at present, despite being evidently a disaster.

It's not a coincidence if Hitchens advocated for the War, even long after it was started. Just like so many other (former) Trotskyists...

For the rest, I'm making connections: Atheism > Leo Strauss > Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. > Iraq War.


Aphronesis, it's very easy to instrumentalize anything for anything, right? Ignorance plays a big part, too. I was talking about the philosopher Lukacs, not the film director (homonym). The essay: the Destruction of Reason (1952). I don't even agree with all he's saying but it still is rather interesting.
 
@Echoes, yes it is easy to instrumentalize anything for anything. Ninety percent of people do most of the time.

However, since you want to argue a particular species of religion qua philosophy (and have recourse to "secular" philosophy while doing so) I'm asking that you consider doing otherwise than simply looking at nominal concepts and causal chains--let alone constantly invoking vehement epithets.

In that regard, I didn't think you were aligning the director of Star Wars with Nietzsche (not most people's first choice when trying to assess the philosophy of George Lucas).

I did expect, however that you were relying on a text by the (increasingly) reformed, late Lukacs rather than anything from, god forbid, "History and Class Consciousness" say or even "Theory of the Novel."

In other words, the absolutist, Cold war, totalizing and crudely dialectical Lukacs, rather than the faintly Bergsonian, i.e. nuanced and vitalist Lukacs. Per my my remarks below, this seems a bit of a chiasmatic (but thoroughly unsurprising) arrangement given the stances and ideologies you're claiming.

This wouldn't be my first choice in suggesting secondary literature on Nietzsche for most people, but since this is a thread on the ontic (in theory) I wonder how you'd fare with the Heidegger seminars on Nietzsche and their potential to be read much more entirely to both secular (modernized) and ontological ends. How would that ambivalence square with your adamant division between the atheists and the truly religious?
 
Echoes said:
I'm a Lefebvrian, which means I disagree with the Church but usually the Church's true mistakes are the things that atheists believes are acceptable (e.g. Vatican II)
I nailed it! You are a Catholic fascist, even more to the right than what has historically been acceptable among the highly conservative Vatican establishment. That's not my opinion of you, but the plain ideological truth of your reactionary (as in every bit of wild nonsense you expressed above) community. It's incomparably stupid your characterization of the neocon agenda that begot the Iraq war as being driven by atheism. Rather it was thoroughly embedded within a theological concept of divine providence and the civilizing role of the US, which was impregnated with religious calling to “defend freedom and export democracy” among the infedels to justify an indeological war for oil - a religious sentiment, by the way, like that which legitimized in the eyes of the Christian West its brutalities in the colonies among the so called primitives centuries ago. Except for a few, the neocons all claimed to be fervent Christians.

Yet we need to be thankful to the small Lefebrvian community for taking upon itself an immeasurable scandal (even before the case of Erich Priebke exploded here*), which has been so well exposed by their spokesman: it’s more grave – he says - to have given holy communion to Luxuria (a transexual Italian parliamentarian), than to have celebrated Priebke’s funeral in a Roman Catholic Church. Thus a transsexual is more at fault than an assassin; to transgress traditional morality is more grave than to order a massacre of innocents; to fornicate is more grave than to murder; to accept sexual liberty is more destabilizing than to accept genocide and, consequently, one can overlook the latter, whereas to the former one must remain absolutely inflexible and determined. It turns upside-down the old slogan: “Make war, not love.” Upon this – I repeat – immeasurable scandal, is based, if not all, but a good part of the pain and suffering, bloodshed and hate that has afflicted humanity (you were looking for proof of how religion has been at fault for its doctrines, etc…). A terror of sex is the driving force behind this vision of life and society, which is sheer paranoia, and is still active even if much debilitated over the last couple of centuries by the forces of liberty under the sway of secular culture. I’m certain, though, that not only among the bunch of Lefebrvian kata-fascists out there (including the Taleban), but also many you wouldn’t suspect among the conformists, they would feel greater discomfort before a “f-agot” than before a Nazi.

* For those that don't know, the scandal regards the recent funeral of the Nazi responsible for the Fosse Ardeatine massacre just outside Rome in 1944 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeatine_massacre
 
What can I say to such huge display of disgusting demagogy !! Scary. Now it even comes to the point of Godwin Law insults (Fascist Catholic, lol at the oxymore!). I guess I'll take it because an insulter always places himself below the insulted. Fascist Catholic truly is an oxymore and the true Fascists even appreciate that phrase. You did not even back it up... It's just a free insult.

The Iraq War was an atheist/left-wing undertaking. There are so many hints for this. All those who keep/kept supporting that war even long after we could see its disastrous effects were atheist leftists: Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Levy, André Glucksmann, Romain Goupil, Bernard Kouchner, Sam Harris, etc. It's not my fault. I just note !! The excuse for entering the war was the WMD, okay? Not religion. Bringing Democracy has nothing to do with religion. It's more Freemasonic in its ideal than religious.

The idea of a "Christian West" is ludicrous. The West hasn't been Christian for years. Philippe Muray made a great essay to debunk that myth: "Dear Jihadists" (an English version exists). The Clash of Civilizations theory is massively wrong.

But the most disgusting bit of your post is this comment on Priebke's funerals.
For the canonical Law, EVERYBODY has the right to a Catholic funeral if he repents, whatever his sins/faults might have been. The Conciliarist Church refused to celebrate his funeral, to their shame ! For you it seems that some mistakes may be forgiven and some others not. It's vengeance and I hate vengeance. It's blind. It's the SBSPX's honour to remain true to the Church's doctrine. On top of that Priebke cannot be held responsible for that massacre. He did not have the power to order it. he just had to obey and has regretted multiple time having been involved in it.

It's really shocking to read such posts. I thought I wouldn't have to read anymore but ...

aphronesis said:
This wouldn't be my first choice in suggesting secondary literature on Nietzsche for most people, but since this is a thread on the ontic (in theory) I wonder how you'd fare with the Heidegger seminars on Nietzsche and their potential to be read much more entirely to both secular (modernized) and ontological ends. How would that ambivalence square with your adamant division between the atheists and the truly religious?
Primarily I'm trying to think by myself. Lukacs was not an influence of mine. I just realized he came to the same conclusion as me, though from a Marxist point of view. I'm not a Marxist by any means but the way I see it is that Marx and Engels were very much inspired by some traditionalist authors of the early 19th century (Burke, Balzac,etc.) and it's widely accepted that Christianity served as an inspiration for the "young" Marx on the economy, even though he eventually mixed it with the "progressive" teleology and hence became a traitor to real socialism ("Opiate of the People" theory). Both Marxism and Liberalism advocate for the destruction of the family structure for example.

That's how I think it's not surprising that on the economy, a Marxist like Lukacs may reach the same conclusion as me. I have to be honest about it.
 
Hmm, Hard to have this discussion when you're so entrenched in nominalism. To the extent that he ever was one, Lukacs was hardly a "Marxist" by the time of the text you cite. Other than the fact that he was well within the Stalinist geo-political orbit. But again, that's a very emaciated (and obsolete) definition of "Marxism."

On topic then, so you're working with a politically overdetermined and sixty year out-of-date reading of Nietzsche and "parasitical" atheism of an intellectual tangent, yet using secular signposts do it?

Interesting. To what end? Doesn't sound very religious. Are you defining God negatively?

(On that score: your categorization of Hitchens viz Iraq is wildly off the mark and irrelevant. Got any more useful examples?)

You may find Rhub's post offensive, but to date your posts have been mostly on the sweeping attack and very few explanatory so that doesn't leave much out.
 
Echoes said:
For the canonical Law, EVERYBODY has the right to a Catholic funeral if he repents, whatever his sins/faults might have been. The Conciliarist Church refused to celebrate his funeral, to their shame ! .

It's really shocking to read such posts. I thought I wouldn't have to read anymore but ...
Cattholic fascist isn't my revelation, just look the evidence. At any rate, as far as canonical law is concerned, why did Pope Benedict XVI remove the excommunication of four Lefebvre bishops, while the paraplegic Welby was denied funeral in the Church, but not a Nazi?

Priebke simply followed orders? How, then, do you define assasin?

As far as the Christian West is concerned, I was refering to five centuries ago, so deal with it.
 
Echoes said:
What can I say to such huge display of disgusting demagogy !! Scary. Now it even comes to the point of Godwin Law insults (Fascist Catholic, lol at the oxymore!). I guess I'll take it because an insulter always places himself below the insulted. Fascist Catholic truly is an oxymore and the true Fascists even appreciate that phrase. You did not even back it up... It's just a free insult.

The Iraq War was an atheist/left-wing undertaking. There are so many hints for this. All those who keep/kept supporting that war even long after we could see its disastrous effects were atheist leftists: Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Levy, André Glucksmann, Romain Goupil, Bernard Kouchner, Sam Harris, etc. It's not my fault. I just note !! The excuse for entering the war was the WMD, okay? Not religion. Bringing Democracy has nothing to do with religion. It's more Freemasonic in its ideal than religious.

The idea of a "Christian West" is ludicrous. The West hasn't been Christian for years. Philippe Muray made a great essay to debunk that myth: "Dear Jihadists" (an English version exists). The Clash of Civilizations theory is massively wrong.

But the most disgusting bit of your post is this comment on Priebke's funerals.
For the canonical Law, EVERYBODY has the right to a Catholic funeral if he repents, whatever his sins/faults might have been. The Conciliarist Church refused to celebrate his funeral, to their shame ! For you it seems that some mistakes may be forgiven and some others not. It's vengeance and I hate vengeance. It's blind. It's the SBSPX's honour to remain true to the Church's doctrine. On top of that Priebke cannot be held responsible for that massacre. He did not have the power to order it. he just had to obey and has regretted multiple time having been involved in it.

It's really shocking to read such posts. I thought I wouldn't have to read anymore but ...



Primarily I'm trying to think by myself. Lukacs was not an influence of mine. I just realized he came to the same conclusion as me, though from a Marxist point of view. I'm not a Marxist by any means but the way I see it is that Marx and Engels were very much inspired by some traditionalist authors of the early 19th century (Burke, Balzac,etc.) and it's widely accepted that Christianity served as an inspiration for the "young" Marx on the economy, even though he eventually mixed it with the "progressive" teleology and hence became a traitor to real socialism ("Opiate of the People" theory). Both Marxism and Liberalism advocate for the destruction of the family structure for example.

That's how I think it's not surprising that on the economy, a Marxist like Lukacs may reach the same conclusion as me. I have to be honest about it.
Find me a quote of Sam Harris supporting the Iraq War.

Your posts look like a parody, except they're real... scary ****.
 
Descender said:
Find me a quote of Sam Harris supporting the Iraq War.

Your posts look like a parody, except they're real... scary ****.
Fascism, of course, wasn't just a historical political movement of the twenties till WWII, but is also an ideological mindset that continues to permeate cultures to which it isn't strictly bound organically in an ongoing dialectic between present and the past. Thus one can speak of the fascist mindset: which is characterized by obvious hubris that's accompanied with the intransigence of the sectarian, by those who have self-appointed themselves as more intelligent, more moral and more spiritual than anyone else and therefore well able to direct the affairs of everyone else, which aims at control over lives. Their traditionalist idealism, though, is bound to a purely arrogant self-righteous calling to return the nation (or whatever represents it), back to - this, their highly spurious contention - its lost state of purity; a nation which has thus been contaminated, has been poisoned and debased by the interjection of foreign elements and the ineluctable progress of history that's perverted its true identity.

Such thinking is typical of the ultra conservative, right-wing religious, and not only among Lefebvrians. The following article gives some indication of their rather disturbing worldview.

http://www.vice.com/read/just-who-are-the-lefebvrians

Last year I had a phone conversation with Father Tam, a Lefebvrian priest who was banned from the Church, entered the Italian far-right party Forza Nuova, and is no longer allowed to preach. Father Tam can be seen in Predappio—where Benito Mussolini was born—every year, marching a massive wooden cross to his grave to celebrate his birth and escalation to power. When I spoke to him, I was told that fascist values were "the real values" and that he believed in them and still does, whether people like it or not.

I was told that the Lefebvrians take care of those to whom nobody listens, especially if those people happen to preach "traditional" (i.e. fascist) values. According to the Catholic sect, there are a few inarguable rules concerning Catholocism: inter-religious dialogue is bad, other religions don’t have the right to exist and the biggest crime that the Church is accountable for is ending the Crusades against the heretics.

The Anti-Defamation League, a US-based group fighting anti-semitism, considers the SSPX an anti-semite organization. And it's hard to argue with them, as the Lefebvrians have very clear ideas when it comes to Judaism: to them, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are unequivocally true and accusations of Jewish blood rituals are totally credible.

In 2009, an English member, Bishop Richard Williamson, took it one step further and declared that the Nazi gas chambers never existed and that WWII actually "only" killed 300,000 Jews. Following his remarks, Williamson was fined and ejected from the SSPX for "purely disciplinary reasons that had been going on for years, and had nothing to do with his previous statements."
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Fascism, of course, wasn't just a historical political movement of the twenties till WWII, but is also an ideological mindset that continues to permeate cultures to which it isn't strictly bound organically in an ongoing dialectic between present and the past. Thus one can speak of the fascist mindset: which is characterized by obvious hubris that's accompanied with the intransigence of the sectarian, by those who have self-appointed themselves as more intelligent, more moral and more spiritual than anyone else and therefore well able to direct the affairs of everyone else, which aims at control over lives. Their traditionalist idealism, though, is bound to a purely arrogant self-righteous calling to return the nation (or whatever represents it), back to - this, their highly spurious contention - its lost state of purity; a nation which has thus been contaminated, has been poisoned and debased by the interjection of foreign elements and the ineluctable progress of history that's perverted its true identity.

Such thinking is typical of the ultra conservative, right-wing religious, and not only among Lefebvrians. The following article gives some indication of their rather disturbing worldview.

http://www.vice.com/read/just-who-are-the-lefebvrians

Last year I had a phone conversation with Father Tam, a Lefebvrian priest who was banned from the Church, entered the Italian far-right party Forza Nuova, and is no longer allowed to preach. Father Tam can be seen in Predappio—where Benito Mussolini was born—every year, marching a massive wooden cross to his grave to celebrate his birth and escalation to power. When I spoke to him, I was told that fascist values were "the real values" and that he believed in them and still does, whether people like it or not.

I was told that the Lefebvrians take care of those to whom nobody listens, especially if those people happen to preach "traditional" (i.e. fascist) values. According to the Catholic sect, there are a few inarguable rules concerning Catholocism: inter-religious dialogue is bad, other religions don’t have the right to exist and the biggest crime that the Church is accountable for is ending the Crusades against the heretics.

The Anti-Defamation League, a US-based group fighting anti-semitism, considers the SSPX an anti-semite organization. And it's hard to argue with them, as the Lefebvrians have very clear ideas when it comes to Judaism: to them, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are unequivocally true and accusations of Jewish blood rituals are totally credible.

In 2009, an English member, Bishop Richard Williamson, took it one step further and declared that the Nazi gas chambers never existed and that WWII actually "only" killed 300,000 Jews. Following his remarks, Williamson was fined and ejected from the SSPX for "purely disciplinary reasons that had been going on for years, and had nothing to do with his previous statements."
Any glue will due to form a herd. Religion, politics, economics, education, sports, fashion, hairstyles; people love pre-fab. identities. The more base the message the louder it resonates. It's all tribalism, there's something for everyone.:eek:

One of the most tragic ironies of modern times is Israel and the Zionist myth. This is taboo to talk about though so we need to be careful. Regardless the myth is completely falling apart and yet the most brutish rise to power and simply scream louder.

I can enjoy people as individuals (unfortunately they're few and far between) but herds scare me, they tend to stampede when the herd dogs start barking.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS