Somehow I doubt humankind is expected to be around by the time the Earth becomes uninhabitable for any life form.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
hrotha said:Somehow I doubt humankind is expected to be around by the time the Earth becomes uninhabitable for any life form.
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?
RetroActive said:Thus Spoke Zarathustra
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.
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?
Netserk said:Or maybe nothing in the bible is meant to be taken literally?
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.
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.
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 !!
Atheists can't help fooling themselves.
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 !!
Atheists can't help fooling themselves.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
rhubroma said:How, though, does the Gospel having perhaps been misread excuse centuries of prepotency and power abuses at the hands of clericalism,[...]
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.
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.
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)
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?
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 ...
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.
Descender said: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 ****.
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."