Christ will always be kicking the living shit out of Kant

We all know Kant's "Golden Rule". It's not even worth mentioning.

Christ on the other hands says: "I accept your flaws but not my own."


My own rule, which i have lived by as far as Ive been able to, is to treat others better than I expect them to treat me.
(scorn & laughter)
But that is what standards are for:  to be just out of reach. A standard makes man into an arrow.

Fuck yes.

And for Sisyphus, this isnt a theological post. God is irrelevant here, or subservient to the ethics on display.

All religious prophets are simply people who succeed in attaching their real world standards to the fantasmagoric label "God".
By this competition, where that name is the gold-medal of ethical effort, a label you get to stick on your standards if you've basically killed or subjected everyone you didn't convert, our cultural ethics were formed.

So what happened in Judea, Greece and Rome when we mark the beginning of our calendar, is the usurping of the name God in the spirit of a couple of beliefs about right and wrong. And as it happened this vision, unlike that of for example the Babyloneans, was to do with man himself attaining to godhood.
This put a grandiose load of responsibility on the mind of men, that they were supposed to be somewhat like this Christ, because he was after all a man, even if son of god and thus god. It caused a lot of cognitive dissonance, to begin with. That is why these martyrs went into the Collosseum with glad hearts - their unfathomable pain in the brain, of being Christ-torchbearers but by long shot no Christs - would be allowed to kill them, and death would wash them clean of pain and imperfection, the latter being their greatest source of pain.

What happened to them after death? They rotted away and became examples to new ones of the same spirits, and eventually, this made such an impression on the thinned out Romans, no longer Etruscans in blood but Europeans, that they began to get the ethical virus, lost their resistance and had to aim for an entirely new notion of health --
which is really the most perverted thing that ever was. Medieval healthcare... ok.

But healthcare, care, wasn't the issue - health was supposed to be the passion for the Christ.
And we can be assured that health was required and attained in the building of this.



This is Christianity qua France.
Unprovoked, unexpected glory.
Ive actually spent some time on the courtyard all the way on top in the monastery, the now glass-walled patio garden that would in the real days be wrecked with storms. To be a monk there, that was no lowly fate.

Somber, stoic trees have their roots in the walls and walkways of the fortress.

Fixed Cross wrote:

And for Sisyphus, this isnt a theological post. God is irrelevant here, or subservient to the ethics on display.

We already know that I will have nothing to do with Kant.

As to the word "God"; I really don't have a problem with it when it is used to label an unidentifiable Prime Mover of the universe.

It is when the unidentifiable is then personified and given magical powers but yet that unidentifiable Supreme Power created a universe with innumerable flaws. I mean, really, if there were such a thing as n Omni-potent Power wouldn't he want to create something he could be proud of?

To have faith in a personified Prime Mover requires one to hold to delusions. The only purpose of personifying the Prime Mover of the universe is for the creator of the lie to have control of the people. That is all.

The initial intent of religions is to be able to explain events that are otherwise unexplainable because of man's ignorance of the processes of nature. This is not a problem, IMO. It is when the religion becomes a tool for controlling the mind of the people that religion becomes hypocritical.

All cultures like having religions and their "God" so that they can be "God's chosen people". The Jews said it straight out, most other religions believe the same thing but keep the thought behind a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Institutionalized religions are designed for dumbing down the believers. And the priests are the only avenue through which a believer can communicate with their God. Power to the maximum.

All of the original great societies were destroyed by their own religion. Rome was ruined by religion. I could do research and likely find about a hundred more societies that were ruined by their own religion.


Now, I have nothing against religious spirituality. And this will remain pure as long as one does not attempt to personify something that is beyond the understanding of the human mind. We will never know of anything that happened before the beginning. It is a waste of mental power to attempt such an endeavor.

Fixed Cross wrote:

But healthcare, care, wasn't the issue - health was supposed to be the passion for the Christ.
And we can be assured that health was required and attained in the building of this.



This is Christianity qua France.
Unprovoked, unexpected glory.
Ive actually spent some time on the courtyard all the way on top in the monastery, the now glass-walled patio garden that would in the real days be wrecked with storms. To be a monk there, that was no lowly fate.

Somber, stoic trees have their roots in the walls and walkways of the fortress.

People like Kant only "believe in God" because they don't actually believe anything of the sort. They are incapable of value proper but have been guilted into whatever world of symbols happen to exist around them at the time.

Yes. Kant is a symptom of "the problematic side of German" in this sense, like Wittgenstein was in a more graceful and honest (and overtly silly) way. They actually assume that things exist in as much as there is a word for them.

True Christians in the sense of "in the beginning was the word".
Heidegger is a direct attack on this.

Fixed Cross wrote:

We all know Kant's "Golden Rule". It's not even worth mentioning.

Christ on the other hands says: "I accept your flaws but not my own."


My own rule, which i have lived by as far as Ive been able to, is to treat others better than I expect them to treat me.
(scorn & laughter)
But that is what standards are for:  to be just out of reach. A standard makes man into an arrow.

I don't know... I've been taught the lifeguard's method. Save my self first. Then work to save others, when possible.

The other issue here is "expectations." When we have lower expectations, it is easier to be delighted. However, when we have higher expectations, the quality and level of delightment is much more satisfying when achieved. - Personally, I rather have a few high quality friends than many fair weather friends of low quality.

A lifeguard obviously treats the drowning person better than he expects the drowning person to be able to treat him.

My standard applies to all nobility.

I deleted your post on Maslov, since you claimed there was a logic to it but then you didn't show that logic. Im getting a bit tougher on stupidity and pretentiousness.

I nearly removed your membership on account of this pretentiousness, but then I saw you are Sisyphus' friend. I like Sisyphus.

I have nothing to say right now. Just letting Y'all know that I am reading this thread.

Quote :

I deleted your post on Maslov, since you claimed there was a logic to it but then you didn't show that logic. Im getting a bit tougher on stupidity and pretentiousness.

I nearly removed your membership on account of this pretentiousness, but then I saw you are Sisyphus' friend.

^ Yeah, that.