The Antichrist

[SpheresOfBalance]

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

I am relating an alternate reading of the commandments and how it might relate to N.

So you're quoting someone, and you, yourself don't fully understand what this, 'correct understanding of reality,' really is?

For one, I was responding to your health thing, and I offered a philosophical/religious idea of Christian Science: that ill health is seen to be a manifestation of a misunderstnding of God.
Really? Now you see, I'm really surprised by this, because you and I have already discussed man's GOD and you know that I hate him. He's bogus, it's bullshit. So all the religions based upon him, are as well. Remember, I told you that as far as anything beyond our being here as a result of the chance, in an infinite universe of chaos, of an infinite time goes, I only believe that "the creator" is possible. The creator has absolutely nothing to do with traditional religions, whatsoever. There is not a religion on the face of this earth, that covers it. So I'm perplexed that you would offer such, as a response to my 'health thing,' which is why I missed it. I see it as synonymous with you saying: "the peach fell into oblivion starting the light of the circular redundancy principal, such that the meatloaf fell sideways" or something similar as a response to my 'health thing,' as it would make exactly the same amount of sense to me.

All that GOD crap is fiction, merely a reflection of an archaic tradition, of repeating the words of a few men, that lived before any level of real knowledge existed, such that superstitions, based upon man's fears, ruled the age old day! Such that what would be the point of mentioning such a thing to me? I mean, were you trying to get a laugh out of me or something?

I forget his/her name, then responded with something about religious hypocricy. about no one with a terminal illness has been healed through CS or something life that,

So I asked if s/he knew about the founder of CS, Mary Baker Eddy.

then I offered her basic tennent: that the commandments are not "you better or else" commandments, but are more life natural laws that occur because they are just that way.

thus, the 1st commandment would be that when one sees the commandments this way, that the 1st commandment would be read as a common sense. That one would not have to make themselves 'obey', for example, say, the laws of gravity, the laws simply function in that way without effort by the agent.

If we apply this idea to this Christian Science view, we have an interesting issue because we then have 'ways of knowing', As opposed to the natural laws, which function regardless of what we know of them. Since, Chrisitan Science is poseing that one would need to understand correctly (The Church is actually called "Church of Christ, Scientist", because in Eddy's view 'science' is meant to connote 'the application of correct understanding'.)

I find such a reading of the commandments interesting.

Yet there is a further dynamic, but i will withhold this for the sake of further discussion if anyone wishes to undertake such an exploration as it relates to N, his "antichrist", and his works in general. If not, then we can get back to discussing personal issues. Or phychology.

PS. I was incorrect in my implication of Mary Baker Eddy, but she did have a bad injury that prompted her to find this 'correct understanding' and thus was 'healed'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon. As far as what has happened to you in your past, I know it's hard to fathom...but you must forgive your father for your own sake and move on. Too much punishment you put yourself through by hanging on to your abusive past.

But this is exactly why I hate psychology. It makes us focus too much on the thought we have been 'harmed.' It almost becomes a game of "who feels the most pain". Causing us to glorify our abusive past and totally devalue our 'happier' side. Almost making our positive side unworthy of any deep insight. I feel N does this too much in his general tone. I also feel that is why he is more popular than K. Because N uses anger to make his point...it is cool in a militant way. K does not do this...K's message is basically the same...only he doesn't blame a particular group. He simply makes a statement and says, "what are your thoughts?' Leaving you to imagine much more and perhaps take on much more personal responsibility. Unlike N...he doesn't give you a way out.

I am not so sure of your synopsis of K here. K often rebukes "those" and "they", he speaks against "philsophers" and does actual take up against "Christians who are not christians".
To me, K doesnt get mad at peoploe or groups (till his later years), he makes fun of them, and is pointing a finger by using one's assertions against one.
I do not see K as asking anyone 'what is your thoughts' nor even implicating the question. I see him as understanding what the thought already is and addressing its silliness and offering a solution in the silliness.
I see both as basically posing the same problem but addressing it in different fashions.
And yes, N is easier to misread and appropriate by those who just want to be mad.
Speculative, as how could one possibly know this, with a hint of self elevation thrown in.

K is just to silly for this, and no one want to be silly; we live in a world where you gotta be pissed off and aggressive.
WOW! if your view is that of the average, then we're doomed. Those aggressive's should be wary of those of a firm defense, as they shall end up hurting themselves.


But, we should really move this to another thread, but then the motion might be effected.

[lancek4]

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

I am relating an alternate reading of the commandments and how it might relate to N.

So you're quoting someone, and you, yourself don't fully understand what this, 'correct understanding of reality,' really is?

For one, I was responding to your health thing, and I offered a philosophical/religious idea of Christian Science: that ill health is seen to be a manifestation of a misunderstnding of God.
Really? Now you see, I'm really surprised by this, because you and I have already discussed man's GOD and you know that I hate him. He's bogus, it's bullshit. So all the religions based upon him, are as well. Remember, I told you that as far as anything beyond our being here as a result of the chance, in an infinite universe of chaos, of an infinite time goes, I only believe that "the creator" is possible. The creator has absolutely nothing to do with traditional religions, whatsoever. There is not a religion on the face of this earth, that covers it. So I'm perplexed that you would offer such, as a response to my 'health thing,' which is why I missed it. I see it as synonymous with you saying: "the peach fell into oblivion starting the light of the circular redundancy principal, such that the meatloaf fell sideways" or something similar as a response to my 'health thing,' as it would make exactly the same amount of sense to me.

All that GOD crap is fiction, merely a reflection of an archaic tradition, of repeating the words of a few men, that lived before any level of real knowledge existed, such that superstitions, based upon man's fears, ruled the age old day! Such that what would be the point of mentioning such a thing to me? I mean, were you trying to get a laugh out of me or something?

I forget his/her name, then responded with something about religious hypocricy. about no one with a terminal illness has been healed through CS or something life that,

So I asked if s/he knew about the founder of CS, Mary Baker Eddy.

then I offered her basic tennent: that the commandments are not "you better or else" commandments, but are more life natural laws that occur because they are just that way.

thus, the 1st commandment would be that when one sees the commandments this way, that the 1st commandment would be read as a common sense. That one would not have to make themselves 'obey', for example, say, the laws of gravity, the laws simply function in that way without effort by the agent.

If we apply this idea to this Christian Science view, we have an interesting issue because we then have 'ways of knowing', As opposed to the natural laws, which function regardless of what we know of them. Since, Chrisitan Science is poseing that one would need to understand correctly (The Church is actually called "Church of Christ, Scientist", because in Eddy's view 'science' is meant to connote 'the application of correct understanding'.)

I find such a reading of the commandments interesting.

Yet there is a further dynamic, but i will withhold this for the sake of further discussion if anyone wishes to undertake such an exploration as it relates to N, his "antichrist", and his works in general. If not, then we can get back to discussing personal issues. Or phychology.

PS. I was incorrect in my implication of Mary Baker Eddy, but she did have a bad injury that prompted her to find this 'correct understanding' and thus was 'healed'.

Well sometimes when men's resources fail, they find something beyond men's resourses.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

I am relating an alternate reading of the commandments and how it might relate to N.

So you're quoting someone, and you, yourself don't fully understand what this, 'correct understanding of reality,' really is?

For one, I was responding to your health thing, and I offered a philosophical/religious idea of Christian Science: that ill health is seen to be a manifestation of a misunderstnding of God.

Really? Now you see, I'm really surprised by this, because you and I have already discussed man's GOD and you know that I hate him. He's bogus, it's bullshit. So all the religions based upon him, are as well. Remember, I told you that as far as anything beyond our being here as a result of the chance, in an infinite universe of chaos, of an infinite time goes, I only believe that "the creator" is possible. The creator has absolutely nothing to do with traditional religions, whatsoever. There is not a religion on the face of this earth, that covers it. So I'm perplexed that you would offer such, as a response to my 'health thing,' which is why I missed it. I see it as synonymous with you saying: "the peach fell into oblivion starting the light of the circular redundancy principal, such that the meatloaf fell sideways" or something similar as a response to my 'health thing,' as it would make exactly the same amount of sense to me.

All that GOD crap is fiction, merely a reflection of an archaic tradition, of repeating the words of a few men, that lived before any level of real knowledge existed, such that superstitions, based upon man's fears, ruled the age old day! Such that what would be the point of mentioning such a thing to me? I mean, were you trying to get a laugh out of me or something?

I forget his/her name, then responded with something about religious hypocricy. about no one with a terminal illness has been healed through CS or something life that,

So I asked if s/he knew about the founder of CS, Mary Baker Eddy.

then I offered her basic tennent: that the commandments are not "you better or else" commandments, but are more life natural laws that occur because they are just that way.

thus, the 1st commandment would be that when one sees the commandments this way, that the 1st commandment would be read as a common sense. That one would not have to make themselves 'obey', for example, say, the laws of gravity, the laws simply function in that way without effort by the agent.

If we apply this idea to this Christian Science view, we have an interesting issue because we then have 'ways of knowing', As opposed to the natural laws, which function regardless of what we know of them. Since, Chrisitan Science is poseing that one would need to understand correctly (The Church is actually called "Church of Christ, Scientist", because in Eddy's view 'science' is meant to connote 'the application of correct understanding'.)

I find such a reading of the commandments interesting.

Yet there is a further dynamic, but i will withhold this for the sake of further discussion if anyone wishes to undertake such an exploration as it relates to N, his "antichrist", and his works in general. If not, then we can get back to discussing personal issues. Or phychology.

PS. I was incorrect in my implication of Mary Baker Eddy, but she did have a bad injury that prompted her to find this 'correct understanding' and thus was 'healed'.

Well sometimes when men's resources fail, they find something beyond men's resourses.

Yes I agree, but I see it slightly differently:

If one sees the flaws within one of mans currently unknowable beliefs, and yet see's a potential need for something similar, as a potential answer for a grand unknowable question, he is free to construct his own potential solution, devoid of flaws.

[lancek4]

So perhaps I am using the term 'god' here colliquially to Mean just as much. As to health, when the doctors have no more options, that may be a human failure, that mans resourses have failed, and I one then does not relinquish his effort to suffering and death, what is one to do?

[chaz wyman]

So perhaps I am using the term 'god' here colliquially to Mean just as much. As to health, when the doctors have no more options, that may be a human failure, that mans resourses have failed, and I one then does not relinquish his effort to suffering and death, what is one to do?

Maybe you should look up the word colloquialism?

A colloquialism of God might be Gawd.

[lancek4]

So perhaps I am using the term 'god' here colliquially to Mean just as much. As to health, when the doctors have no more options, that may be a human failure, that mans resourses have failed, and I one then does not relinquish his effort to suffering and death, what is one to do?

Maybe you should look up the word colloquialism?

A colloquialism of God might be Gawd.

I would say more 'a local expression', meaning if I pull the meaning away from its objective,general,historical,categorical,traditional meaning - the meaning by which I distance my self from existence, then 'in more local ' terms it could mean 'the effect' of one's activity of thought upon itself.

[lancek4]

So perhaps I am using the term 'god' here colliquially to Mean just as much. As to health, when the doctors have no more options, that may be a human failure, that mans resourses have failed, and I one then does not relinquish his effort to suffering and death, what is one to do?

Maybe you should look up the word colloquialism?

A colloquialism of God might be Gawd.

I would say more 'a local expression', meaning if I pull the meaning away from its objective,general,historical,categorical,traditional meaning - the meaning by which I distance my self from existence, then 'in more local ' terms it could mean 'the effect' of one's activity of thought upon itself. Or the effect by which one has agency.

[chaz wyman]

So perhaps I am using the term 'god' here colliquially to Mean just as much. As to health, when the doctors have no more options, that may be a human failure, that mans resourses have failed, and I one then does not relinquish his effort to suffering and death, what is one to do?

Maybe you should look up the word colloquialism?

A colloquialism of God might be Gawd.

I would say more 'a local expression', meaning if I pull the meaning away from its objective,general,historical,categorical,traditional meaning - the meaning by which I distance my self from existence, then 'in more local ' terms it could mean 'the effect' of one's activity of thought upon itself. Or the effect by which one has agency.

Crumbs.
And I thought it was just a delusion!!

[lancek4]

The Grand Delusion.

So, I find intersections of interest in all these things that I have mentioned. Centered sound N. does not anyone see them. ?

Can we discuss ? N offers and 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wide be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he sssociates with sickness.

Christian science offers an alternate reading of a moral code, where one is no longer constrained by 'you better or else'. Where this 'Science', or proper understanding and application, connotes health over sickness.

N also in AC actually describes Christ aligned in his dialectic, as one polemic with Christanity.

Do these similarities interest anyone?

[chaz wyman]

The Grand Delusion.

So, I find intersections of interest in all these things that I have mentioned. Centered sound N. does not anyone see them. ?

Can we discuss ? N offers and 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wide be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he sssociates with sickness.

Christian science offers an alternate reading of a moral code, where one is no longer constrained by 'you better or else'. Where this 'Science', or proper understanding and application, connotes health over sickness.

N also in AC actually describes Christ aligned in his dialectic, as one polemic with Christanity.

Do these similarities interest anyone?

it would seem similarities are in the eye of the beholder.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The Grand Delusion.

So, I find intersections of interest in all these things that I have mentioned. Centered sound N. does not anyone see them. ?

Can we discuss ? N offers and 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wide be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he sssociates with sickness.
OK specify the wise's ("wide's") you speak of, delineate their differences, define them. Because I see your mention of them as a void of assumption.



Christian science offers an alternate reading of a moral code, where one is no longer constrained by 'you better or else'. Where this 'Science', or proper understanding and application, connotes health over sickness.

N also in AC actually describes Christ aligned in his dialectic, as one polemic with Christanity.

Do these similarities interest anyone?

[lancek4]

This was more a comment on health and sickness, since they both offer a solution by this discourse. Sob has offered himself as a concrete example of sickness, I wad attempting to bring it back into the topic of this thread.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This was more a comment on health and sickness, since they both offer a solution by this discourse. Sob has offered himself as a concrete example of sickness, I wad attempting to bring it back into the topic of this thread.

What a "I can't answer that question, because it's over my head so I'll change the subject and assert something that absolutely holds no water, as a cheap shot, to place my opponent in a defensive stance," response.

Answer the question if you can, because your understanding, that you've asserted, rests on it. Here to refresh your memory:

Can we discuss ? N offers an 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wise be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he associates with sickness.

OK specify the wise's you speak of, delineate their differences, define them. Because I see your mention of them as a void of assumption.

Do I have to lead you by the hand? You have referred to two modes of concern. Define not just the other mode of concern but the initial. You say that "one would not otherwise," explain the conditionals for both modes of concern. Here let me help you, one is that of the over man and the other is that of...

And then of course define them both as to their conditionals.

This is definitely on topic, you just fear to tread!

[lancek4]

This was more a comment on health and sickness, since they both offer a solution by this discourse. Sob has offered himself as a concrete example of sickness, I wad attempting to bring it back into the topic of this thread.

What a "I can't answer that question, because it's over my head so I'll change the subject and assert something that absolutely holds no water, as a cheap shot, to place my opponent in a defensive stance," response.

Answer the question if you can, because your understanding, that you've asserted, rests on it. Here to refresh your memory:

Can we discuss ? N offers an 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wise be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he associates with sickness.

OK specify the wise's you speak of, delineate their differences, define them. Because I see your mention of them as a void of assumption.

Do I have to lead you by the hand? You have referred to two modes of concern. Define not just the other mode of concern but the initial
. You say that "one would not otherwise," explain the conditionals for both modes of concern. Here let me help you, one is that of the over man and the other is that of...

And then of course define them both as to their conditionals.

This is definitely on topic, you just fear to tread!

Indeed! It is indeed the irony that you point out here, that you have difficulty with. If I am correct in your implication - that N appears to be asserting an ethics that thus contradicts his assertion. That in that he is asserting an 'un' ethics that somehow is 'more ethical '.

Is this the contradiction to which you refer ?

Perhaps I do need to be lead. What are the two modes of concern?

You refer to a question I have avoided but I see no question marks. Please be more specific.