Smith's Heresy
en...@enemies.com
jamz...@aol.com (JamzSimp) wrote:
> souix writes:
>
> >JamzSimp wrote:
> >>
> >> Chuck Smith teaches a heretical, Gnostic view of matter. In his tape on 2
> >> Corinthians 5, Smith teaches that the body is a "tent" that will be
> >discarded,
> >
> >I am a firm believer in this doctrine. The bible says the body is vain
> >and subject to corruption. After serving out its usefulness here on
> >earth, the body should certainly be discarded. With a description like
> >that, who'd want that thing lying around, eh?
>
> The body is transformed, not lying around. If you agree with this doctrine,
you
> embrace non-Scriptural heresy...and have a lot in common with some of the
first
> heretics, the Gnostics and the Manicheans.
>
> What is especially dangerous about it is that it also is a point supporting
the
> heresy that Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead, but that he also recieved
> a new spiritual body. This heresy is a denial of the bodily resurrection of
> Christ, and according to John, those who adhere to such a thing are of the
> spirit of the anti-christ.
I saw "Night of the Living Dead" myself. Great movie!
But I don't believe in the carnal resurrection for Christ through. Jesus is a
spiritual being, not a zombie.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Doug
> But I don't believe in the carnal resurrection for Christ through. Jesus is
> a spiritual being, not a zombie.
LUKE 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
--
Doug
Calvary Chapel Frequently Unanswered Questions
http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
leland palmer
could do the purely spiritual operations that the risen Jesus is
purported to have done: bilocation, spontaneous
appearance/disappearance, passing through solid objects.
The risen Jesus was not a resuscitated corpse, but a spirit manifesting
from heaven. A spirit who was not a ghost, but the exalted son
glorified to the Father's right hand.
THE POPESTER
that could do these things? Are you placing limitations on God's power?
leland palmer wrote in message <370D1CC2...@proaxis.com>...
leland palmer
I am recognizing the limits of language.
And I am taking the total NT evidence into account. Paul explicitly
states that the Lord is a spirit. Not a body. His 'risen body' is not
a body by any definition.
Douglas Nicholson
>And I am taking the total NT evidence into account. Paul explicitly
>states that the Lord is a spirit. Not a body. His 'risen body' is not
>a body by any definition.
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Klaus Schilling
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BE8211.113B33A0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> In response to leland palmer wrote in message =
> <370D5313...@proaxis.com>...
>
> >And I am taking the total NT evidence into account. Paul explicitly
> >states that the Lord is a spirit. Not a body. His 'risen body' is not
> >a body by any definition.
>
> How about what our Lord Jesus Christ describe about His state of being =
> after His resurrection?
>
> Luke 24:39
> 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; =
> for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.=20
> 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.=20
> 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto =
> them, Have ye here any meat?=20
> 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.=20
> 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.=20
> 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, =
> while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were =
> written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, =
> concerning me.=20
>
> How are you going to explain this away? Duuuuur
Easy. The NT has been faked by evil bastards like Irenaeus, thus can't be
used for any explanation.
Klaus Schilling
leland palmer
spacetime. The risen Lazarus is a resuscitated corpse and must die a
second time. The risen Jesus is not a resuscitated corpse. If he is a
resuscitated corpse, then he is still living in spacetime and is subject
to illness and death. On the contrary, however, 'the grave could not
hold him' and he is no longer a denizen of 'earthly plane' spacetime.
The NT pictures him as eating and offering his body for touching. On
the other hand, the NT pictures him as 'appearing', and the term used
for this connotes a visionary manifestation, not 'seeing' with the eyes.
Biblical literalists like to hurl the physical manifestations down as
evidence - against Paul and other NT testimony that the risen Jesus is a
spirit - that Jesus' resurrection was 'bodily'. Yet the 'bodily'
manifestations of the risen Jesus are opposed to those appearances in
which he acts as no body can act. No body can bilocate, spontaneously
appear and vanish, and pass through solid objects. Biblical literalists
who insist that the risen Jesus was a body contradict the NT testimony
that the risen Jesus is now an intimate, mysterious agent of God's own
life, and no longer bound by the constraints of spacetime. They insist
that the risen Jesus' body was a normal human body because it could be
touched and could ingest food. Yet this is this same 'body' which
bilocates and passes through solid objects. It is this same 'body',
which after breaking bread at Emmaus, then 'vanishes from their sight'.
It is clear that in the risen Jesus we are not dealing with a
resuscitated corpse, but with 'the Lord who is spirit'.
Doug
> The risen Jesus is a spirit.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
There is a reason that these cross posts are coming into the arcc-c
newsgroup from alt.religion.gnostic. John warned us about this doctrine.
2 John 2:7 For many deceivers have entered into the world, who confess
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist.
Doug
> And I am taking the total NT evidence into account. Paul explicitly
> states that the Lord is a spirit. Not a body. His 'risen body' is not
> a body by any definition.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and
see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
--
leland palmer
once he left/ascended to the Father, he is no longer flesh and blood.
You really need to read more carefully.
leland palmer
I'm surprised you haven't also dragged in John's scene of the doubting
Thomas being invited to touch Jesus's crucifixion wounds.
Funny how you ignore all the other scriptural evidence I cited that
Jesus's risen 'body' is not a body by any definition of the word. But
since you have a one-track mind, it's doubtful you will ever be able to
understand what the NT really says about the resurrection.
Doug
> Right, Doug, we can all see that you're stuck on the Luke 24 passage.
The words of Christ ring true in my ears. The words of men ring hollow.
Doug
And 2 John 7 says that's the doctrine of an antichrist and a deceiver.
Perhap you you follow your own advise and read more carefully.
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
> leland palmer wrote:
> >
> > Gee, Doug, I didn't say Jesus didn't come in the flesh. I said that
> > once he left/ascended to the Father, he is no longer flesh and blood.
> > You really need to read more carefully.
>
> And 2 John 7 says that's the doctrine of an antichrist and a deceiver.
>
> Perhap you you follow your own advise and read more carefully.
'...the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to
God who gave it. [Ecclesiastes 12:7]';
'...flesh and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God. [1 Cor. 15:50]'
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
http://www.enemies.com/
Ouroboros: the Gnostic Webring
http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
> leland palmer wrote:
>
> > And I am taking the total NT evidence into account. Paul explicitly
> > states that the Lord is a spirit. Not a body. His 'risen body' is not
> > a body by any definition.
>
<snip>
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<doug...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BE8211.113B33A0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> In response to leland palmer wrote in message =
> <370D5313...@proaxis.com>...
>
> >And I am taking the total NT evidence into account. Paul explicitly
> >states that the Lord is a spirit. Not a body. His 'risen body' is not
> >a body by any definition.
>
> How about what our Lord Jesus Christ describe about His state of being =
> after His resurrection?
>
> Luke 24:39
> 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; =
> for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.=20
> 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.=20
> 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto =
> them, Have ye here any meat?=20
> 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.=20
> 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.=20
> 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, =
> while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were =
> written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, =
> concerning me.=20
>
> How are you going to explain this away? Duuuuur
>
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
> leland palmer wrote:
>
> > The risen Jesus is a spirit.
>
> Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me,
> and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<thepo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Are you saying that it is impossible for God to make a flesh and bone body
> that could do these things? Are you placing limitations on God's power?
>
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
> en...@enemies.com wrote:
>
> > But I don't believe in the carnal resurrection for Christ through. Jesus is
> > a spiritual being, not a zombie.
>
Klaus Schilling
> And 2 John 7 says that's the doctrine of an antichrist and a deceiver.
The antichrist himself wrote that line in order to hide truth.
But righteous followers of truth, like Marcion, Mani, Cassianus, ...
do not fall for that lie and bestow the flesh with disgrace and
deprecation, as it deserves.
Klaus Schilling
Doug
In one sense, you are 100% correct. It's really a simple choice. Either
the apostles of the Lord were the deceivers, or the Gnostics like Mani
and the false brethren like Marcion were. Either one casts their lot
with the historical church in apostolic continuity of teaching, or one
looks into the crystal ball of history and picks and chooses heretics to
follow.
It's just sad that Chuck Smith chooses Gnostic heretics as his
inspiration and not the fathers of the church.
Doug
> '...the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to
> God who gave it. [Ecclesiastes 12:7]';
Yep. What's that got to do with the resurrection, though? At death, the
spirit goes to God. The body, at death, goes into the ground. Both await
the day of the resurrection when the bodies of the dead in Christ shall
rise.
> '...flesh and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God. [1 Cor. 15:50]'
Again, what's that passage got to do with the resurrection. Flesh, in
the scriptures, is a term for the carnally controlled person. No person
ruled by their fleshly desires, will enter the kingdom of heaven. When
Christ rose from the dead, He was in a body of flesh and bones. This
body was physical and substantial. It could be touched and felt. It was
not a materialized body for convenient explanations, but a real body.
There was no subsequent transformation of this body into any other form.
The very fact that the posters from alt.religion.gnostic have chosen to
be cross-posted here and are the defenders of Chuck Smith's heresy,
ought to be enough to give pause to his defenders. Smith's heresy is
Gnostic, as these cross-posters demonstrate.
leland palmer
and bones. The NT says that sometimes the risen Jesus appeared in a
substantial form, but at other times he appeared in a visionary,
nonphysical form. Flesh and bones cannot pass through solid objects,
spontaneously vanish and appear, and cannot bilocate. Jesus, who had
been glorified and exalted to the Father's presence, was no longer a
native of our spacetime plane. He was now a 'vivifying spirit' (1 Cor
15:45) manifesting from the heavenly realm. This is why his
'resurrection body' was not a body at all, but a symbolic manifestation
used to sustain faith in the disciples. Doug's heretical insistence
that Jesus' resurrection body was flesh and bones is contradicted by the
NT which clearly demonstrates that, as Paul said, 'The Lord is that
spirit' (2 Cor 3:17).
Doug
> The NT does not say Jesus' body was made of flesh and bones.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
All of the song and dance to avoid this passage simply does not take
into account the clear fact that Christ raised in a body of flesh and
bones. Christ's specific denial that He is a spirit can't be denied by
any fair reading of the passage. This is a direct and incontrovertable
statement.
This has always been the understanding of the Christian Church. How do I
know? I've spend hundreds of hours researching this in the Early Church
fathers. Want to see the paper that I wrote on this?
http://members.xoom.com/DouglasGG/bible/jcrose/resurr.htm
The Biblical and historical evidence is quite substantial on this.
leland palmer
A gnostic is someone who has an unmediated, direct experience of the
divine. That was Jesus. Not the unique 'son', Jesus as a good gnostic
desired that everyone should partake of his direct experience of the
Father, the Kingdom, and the Spirit:
That they all may be ONE, as thou, Father, art in me,
and I in thee, that they also may be ONE IN US...
And the GLORY which thou gavest me I HAVE GIVEN THEM;
That they may be ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be
made PERFECT in one...
John 17:21-23
Here the gnostic Jesus envisions his friends becoming one with the
Father and with Jesus. And this unity is not simply one of adoption.
It is existential and of the same quality as the unity that Jesus has
with his Father: the glory Jesus receives from the Father is not his
personal possession. Rather, he means to share it with his friends, to
the extent that his friends' oneness with Jesus will be the SAME AS
JESUS' ONENESS WITH THE FATHER. This is Jesus' notion of PERFECTION,
and it is echoed in Luke 6:40
The disciple is not above his master: but everyone
that is PERFECT shall be AS HIS MASTER.
- and in Galatians 4:7: -
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son..
- and in Hebrews 2:11: -
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified
ARE ALL OF ONE: for which cause he is not ashamed
TO CALL THEM BRETHREN...
The gnostic Christ invites us to share in the very consciousness which
he enjoyed in the direct gnosis of the Father. He invites us, through
this gnosis, to realize ourselves to be divine, to be 'christs', as is
stated in 2 Peter 1: 2-4:
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through
the GNOSIS of God and of Jesus our Lord.
According that his DIVINE POWER hath given unto us
ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN UNTO LIFE AND GODLINESS
through GNOSIS of him that hath called us to GLORY...
Whereby... ye might be PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE...
Yes, Jesus was a gnostic who, by sharing with his friends his own divine
consciousness, allowed them to become his 'brothers' and to actually
partake in his and his Father's divine nature.
+ Jesu dulcis memoria
Dans vera cordis gaudea;
Sed super mel et omnia
Ejus dulcis presentia. +
craftsman
> > '...flesh and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God. [1 Cor. 15:50]'
>
> Again, what's that passage got to do with the resurrection. Flesh, in
> the scriptures, is a term for the carnally controlled person. No person
> ruled by their fleshly desires, will enter the kingdom of heaven.
ROTFL!!!
Another lame dog defense.
--
Craftsman
craftsman
> Either one casts their lot with the historical church in apostolic
> continuity of teaching, or one looks into the crystal ball of history
> and picks and chooses heretics to follow.
Ahh... Doug, you have converted to RCC? or possibly EOC?
It appears you select your "heretics" just as all the other crystal ball
historian's.
--
Craftsman
craftsman
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> Flesh and bones cannot pass through solid objects,
> spontaneously vanish and appear, and cannot bilocate.
How do you know?
btw, where does it asssert that Jesus "bilocated" (assuming "bilocate"
means being in two places at once)?
--
Craftsman
Klaus Schilling
>
> It's just sad that Chuck Smith chooses Gnostic heretics as his
> inspiration and not the fathers of the church.
That's because the fathers of the church are followers of $atan.
They used religion for political purposes, thus turning it into
idolatry. Unlike Marcion and Cassianus, who followed the path
of truth.
Klaus Schilling
leland palmer
resurrection. However, I dispute the testimony of the Fathers, as they
generally don't know what they are talking about.
Jesus did not deny he was a spirit. He denied that the disciples were
seeing a ghost. As I said before, Jesus manifested as a body to instill
resurrection faith in 'those who doubted'. For those who believed
before-and-without having seen 'the body', no bodily proof was
necessary. It was only for the lacking and inferior faith of 'doutbing
Thomases' that Jesus manifested in the flesh.
Thus I do not deny that for those who lacked faith, Jesus manifested in
the flesh. But this is his prerogative as the vivifying spirit Lord.
But for those whose faith was perfect, Jesus did not need to present a
crude physical manifestation. For those whose faith lacked nothing -
such as the gnostics - Jesus the spirit, the vivifying or quickening
spirit Lord was already perceived with the eyes of faith.
leland palmer
through solid objects. No need to ask when the answer is available to
experiment: go ahead, craftsman, try to walk through solid obects.
Report back to us through the channeler or medium of your choice.
Doug
> That's because the fathers of the church are followers of $atan.
> They used religion for political purposes, thus turning it into
> idolatry. Unlike Marcion and Cassianus, who followed the path
> of truth.
This again demonstrates the divisive nature of the heresy that Chuck
Smith teaches.
Doug
> Really, Doug. Come down to earth and realize that Jesus was a gnostic.
yada yada yada.
No thanks.
Doug
An insufficient test.
I can't give birth to babies or do a quadrule flip turn on ice skates.
Doesn't mean it can't be done.
Doug
> Doug I respect your research of what the Church Father said about the
> resurrection. However, I dispute the testimony of the Fathers, as they
> generally don't know what they are talking about.
So I get to choose between your opinion and that of the Bible and the
Church Faither? Pardon me if I reject your opinion.
> Jesus did not deny he was a spirit.
Sure He did. You just don't believe Him.
I don't buy your explanation. Sorry.
leland palmer
point of my case for Jesus the gnostic. All my examples were taken from
the Christian NT, King James Version. Too bad for your literalist
interpretation of scripture, that you are so afraid of other views that
you find it necessary to snip them.
leland palmer
ghost. A ghost is the surviving personality of a dead person. The
risen Christ is a quickening spirit. Big difference. The risen Jesus
is not merely the surviving personality of an executed Jew. He is now
exalted to the Father's right hand, from whence he manifests on our
plane of spacetime to inspire resurrection faith. If you believe that
Jesus is the Word and the Second Trinitarian Person, then you by
definition believe that he is a spirit. Not a ghost. Not a body.
Jesus' resurrection body was one chosen way he manifested after his
crucifixion. Sometimes he manifested as a spirit (Pentecost, Peter's
visions, Paul's conversion). Sometimes in the OT, Yahweh manifested in
bodily form as 'angels' or 'visitors' to the ancient Hebrews, or as a
burning but never-consumed bush to Moses, as a pillar of fire, etc. You
see, the spirit in the Bible is in control of matter. Therefore spirit
is able to manifest through the operations - the appearances - of
matter. Sometimes it manifests through a burning bush, an angelic
wrestling partner, and once it manifested as a risen body. Its
manifestations are many and diverse. Its identity is one, eternal, and
nonmaterial. Thus, the nonmaterial identity of Jesus was manifested for
the purpose of faith as a resurrection body.
RE: the Church Fathers issue. I'm not telling you to agree with me. I
am stating that the Fathers were far removed in time and place from the
events which are recorded in the NT. They lacked all the indispensable
tools of hermeneutics, exegesis, linguistics, archeology, and
form-and-textual criticism which alone permit us to bring an informed
mind to the interpretation of scripture. Thus, the 'testimony of the
Fathers' is mostly pious reflection on their agreed-upon
interpretations, rather than an analytical and historically accurate
endeavor to examine scripture.
leland palmer
that flesh and bones can't walk through solid objects. That you as a
male cannot give birth, or as a non-stunt skater can't do fancy flips
has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is what flesh and blood
can't do. Flesh and blood, depending on biology or training, can do
respectively your examples of childbirth and skating. Flesh and blood
cannot pass through solid objects without destroying flesh and blood as
well as the solid objects. Your examples are irrelevant. Mine was, and
is, pertinent and wholly appropriate. You insist that Jesus'
resurrection body was a resuscitated corpse, 'not a ghost, but flesh and
bones'. No flesh and bones is capable of passing with perfect integrity
through solid objects, no matter its biological inheritance or athletic
training. Your category error here is glaring. You insist on defining
Jesus' risen body as flesh and bone as 'body of flesh and bone' is
normally defined. But flesh and bone as normally defined cannot pass
with perfect integrity through solid barriers. And you insist that
Jesus' 'flesh and bones' body CAN pass through solid barriers. Your
conclusion contradicts your premise. Your logic is flawed and your
argument is defeated.
craftsman
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> Craftsman wants to know how I know that flesh and bones can't
> walk through solid objects. No need to ask when the answer is
> available to experiment: go ahead, craftsman, try to walk through
> solid obects. Report back to us through the channeler or medium of
> your choice.
Thus the falicious nature of your assertion, ie; because I cannot do
something and you cannot do something then it cannot be done.
--
Craftsman
leland palmer
the episcopal monarchy - the web of bishops. They substituted the
original gnostic nature of the Church for a hierarchical legalist system
based on Roman patterns. To the extent that the Fathers and the bishops
gained ascendancy, the actual message of Jesus was lost.
leland palmer
Flesh and bone by definition do not pass through solid walls.
Spirits by definition can.
You are the one making the false assertion. First you say that the
risen Jesus was flesh and bone as those terms are normally defined. As
normally defined, flesh and bone cannot pass through solid barriers.
You maintain that Jesus' 'flesh and bone' body passed through solid
barriers. Your conclusion contradicts your premise. Your argument
fails.
Doug
>
> Nice snipping job, Doug. I notice you couldn't refute even one single
> point of my case for Jesus the gnostic.
It's too easy. You reject Luke's testimony of the Risen Savior. You
reject the words of the apostle John who condemned Gnostic teaching.
What more do I need? Why refute every single point when the main thesis
has been refuted? It's all over.
Doug
> NO, Doug, Jesus did not deny he was a spirit. He denied that he was a
> ghost.
Do you know ANY Greek at all? Or would I be wasting my typing?
Doug
>
> Doug: HUH? The issue - and I was answering craftsman, not you - was
> that flesh and bones can't walk through solid objects. That you as a
> male cannot give birth, or as a non-stunt skater can't do fancy flips
> has nothing to do with the issue.
The proof that you offered to Craftsman was that he should try to walk
through a wall and prove to himself that flesh and blood can't walk
through walls.
I pointed out that just because a particular person can't do a
particular thing does not make that thing impossible. Just because
Craftsman can't walk through walls, or disappear in the middle of a
crowd that's trying to throw him from a hillside, does not mean that
Jesus could not do those things - one of which Jesus did PRIOR to the
resurrection and one afterwards.
Remember the walking on water episode?
leland palmer
than the words, it's the words in context and them subjected to
scholarly scrutiny and cross-cultural religious studies, which uncovers
meaning in a text.
leland palmer
You are unable to refute the many points by which I demonstrated the
gnostic character of Jesus and early Christianity.
As long as you are tampering with the scriptures, it should be pointed
out to you that John does not condemn gnosticism. Some historians think
that he was opposed to Docetism or other forms of gnosticism, which is
possible. But John himself gives no clue that he is opposed to
gnosticism, as he does not use the term and does not name any schools of
gnosis. His quarrel is with those who denied that Jesus came in the
flesh, which was indeed a doctrine held by certain branches of
gnosticism. However, many gnostics affirmed that he came in the flesh.
I affirmed it in this thread. So John is not condemning those branches
of gnosticism, or me, for that matter.
Interestingly, John himself is gnostic.
Like the gnostics, John has no external authority to can rely on in his
quarrels with 'antichrist'.
Like the gnostics, John cannot use the Jewish Temple to support his
views, nor the 'Holy Bible' (the NT had not been canonized yet), nor
Christian 'saints', nor the 'presbyter/bishops'.
Like the gnostics, John can only resort to 'the Spirit' to buttress his
views. Like the gnostics, the indwelling of the Spirit is John's only
authority. Unlike you, Doug, and your biblical literalist peers, John
cannot rely on scripture, sacred tradition, salvation history, the
testimony of other Christian communities such as Matthew's Luke's or
Mark's, or the Church Fathers.
As a true gnostic, John knew that the living Spirit of the living risen
Jesus was the only source and arbiter of mystical authority.
leland palmer
physical feat.
The issue is whether a flesh and bones human body can do these things.
If a flesh and bones human body is observed doing these things, then:
1) It is an optical illusion
2) It is a deliberate trick
3) It never happened but is a legend
4) It really happened, but then:
A) It is a special power
B) It is a special miracle done for the agent
C) It is a special miracle done by the agent
D) It is a special suspension of bodily and natural law
done for, or performed by, the agent
But in whatever case, it is not something accomplished by a flesh and
bones human body. The question then becomes, why prior to the
resurrection, does Jesus's body seem to already have some of the
attributes of the resurrection 'body'? The answer is probably that
these stories are retrojected resurrection narratives, i.e., they found
their way into the biographical line of the ministry to anticipate (in
literature, to 'foreshadow') the glory that was to come upon the risen
Jesus.
However, these stories are not necessarily hints of the resurrection.
The walking on water could have been a misperception. Or if it
happened, it is not unheard of in nonChristian mystical traditions.
However, note that when the disciples see Jesus walking on water, they
think he is a ghost. His actual presence reassures them that this is
not the case, which places the intent of the story exactly in the
context of Luke's and John's resurrection narratives - where Jesus
assures the disciples he is not a ghost. Thus the walking on water, if
not misperception or mystical 'talent', still can easily be viewed as a
resurrection story retrojected into the public ministry.
The same with Jesus 'vanishing from their midst' in conflict stories.
If he vanished from sight, once again this could be a memory of one of
Jesus' many mystical talents. Or it could simply be another way of
saying, 'Jesus got away made his escape - in the crowd'. Certainly, if
it is a miracle story, the writer does not linger over it and unlike
most other miracle stories, does not attach a religious significance to
it, which is very unusual to say the least.
Therefore, it is doubtful that Jesus' 'resurrection body' was operative
prior to the resurrection. If it was, I put this query to you: when the
NT says Jesus got tired, thirsty, hungry, angry, sad, and that he
sweated blood in Gethsemane, and actually died on the cross on Golgotha
- then, if he was already a 'resurrection body', all of these gospel
descriptions of his bodily and emotional needs and of his death are
nothing but reports of acting. If the pre-Easter Jesus could really
vanish, walk on water, etc., then why did he 'go through the motions' of
the mortal human body including death? If he was already a resurrection
body, then all the human stuff is nothing but a fraud, an act staged for
our benefit, but fake nonetheless. If this is what you believe, Doug,
then you are a gnostic according to those schools which taught that
Jesus' human life was a mere projection and a kind of game.
Thus I see you left with two distinctly uncomfortable alternatives:
1) Jesus was mortal, but after Easter gained a spiritual resurrection
nature that included, but was not a completely, bodily manifestation;
2) Jesus was never a mortal, but a gnostic deity who temporarily fooled
human beings by taking on a fake mortal body which, despite external
appearances of thirst, hunger, dying, etc., was a mystical entity
temporarily pretending to be a human body.
Which alternative do you choose, Doug?
Douglas Nicholson
>..flesh and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God.
Could it possibly be a refernce to the RCC and false doctrine of
transubstantiation.
Deuteronomy 12:16
16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as
water.
Acts 15:20
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols,
and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Douglas N.
Klaus Schilling
Who the demiurge is Chuck Smith?
Klaus Schilling
Doug
>
> Doug, the issue isn't whether a particular person can or cannot do a
> physical feat.
Then why did you try to make it the issue when you told Craftsman to try
it?
Doug
> The walking on water could have been a misperception.
Hmmm...
Doug
> 1) Jesus was mortal, but after Easter gained a spiritual resurrection
> nature that included, but was not a completely, bodily manifestation;
>
> 2) Jesus was never a mortal, but a gnostic deity who temporarily fooled
> human beings by taking on a fake mortal body which, despite external
> appearances of thirst, hunger, dying, etc., was a mystical entity
> temporarily pretending to be a human body.
>
> Which alternative do you choose, Doug?
False dilemma.
None of the above.
Wynn Manners
>
> Doug: HUH? The issue - and I was answering craftsman, not you - was
If you're wanting the dialog to be STRICTLY between you and one person,
Leland, then post your responses via personal E-Mail -- & NOT to the
public NewsGroup. If you post it to the newsgroup anyone else is free
to join in & respond to any sentence you write in any manner they
choose. Nor are they compelled to address only topics you may prefer to
restrict the dialog to.
> that flesh and bones can't walk through solid objects. That you as a
> male cannot give birth, or as a non-stunt skater can't do fancy flips
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
> leland palmer wrote:
> >
> > Doug, the issue isn't whether a particular person can or cannot do a
> > physical feat.
>
> Then why did you try to make it the issue when you told Craftsman to try
> it?
>
I find it interesting that "demiurge" is a Greek epithet for "Public
Craftsman." <g>
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
http://www.enemies.com/
Ouroboros: the Gnostic Webring
http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
Wynn Manners
>
> Klaus Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Doug <do...@idt.net> writes:
> > > And 2 John 7 says that's the doctrine of an antichrist and a deceiver.
> >
> > The antichrist himself wrote that line in order to hide truth.
> > But righteous followers of truth, like Marcion, Mani, Cassianus, ...
> > do not fall for that lie and bestow the flesh with disgrace and
> > deprecation, as it deserves.
> >
> > Klaus Schilling
>
> In one sense, you are 100% correct. It's really a simple choice.
"Simple" only to (what i fear is a) simplistic simple-mindedness!
>Either
> the apostles of the Lord were the deceivers, or the Gnostics like Mani
> and the false brethren like Marcion were. Either one casts their lot
> with the historical church in apostolic continuity of teaching, or one
> looks into the crystal ball of history and picks and chooses heretics to
> follow.
_ALL_ of them COULD be "deceivers" -- or self-deceived. Or each and
every one of them could have been genuinely believing what they taught
-- & thus none of them were actually being deceptive (meaning attempting
to deceive others). Your view is strictly black & white & excessively
one-dimensional.
And you are presenting a very false either/or.
Rather: either one is in unity with the Living Holy Spirit or one is
not. If one is ONE with the Living Holy Spirit, one then has spiritual
*gnosis* of the Divine Truth -- just as Jesus did when HE was in unity
with the Holy Spirit. Without that unity one is prey to the egoic
delusions of the human consciousness, one is prey to the false teachings
of self-deceived false teachers (as you are proving yourself to be) &
one is prey to false spirits.
In that Unity one can pick out if & when Marcion, Mani, Jesus, the
apostles, etc. were, themselves, "in the Spirit." In that
union/commUNION with the Holy Spirit one can discern when the "heretics"
were "in the Spirit" & when the historical church was NOT.
You are clearly a follower-sort carbon-copying others' mere BELIEFS --
one who has never actually known the Living Spirit of Truth -- because
your view is that people have to either choose to follow orthodox
teaching or select a heretic to follow. There IS another choice. One
can choose the LIVING DIVINE HE/RSELF! Since you see only a choice as
to which human teachings to follow (frequently falsely ascribed to the
Divine in your own Scriptures) you are obviously blind to the ongoing
Creativity of the Divine Spirit.
"And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my
Spirit upon all flesh..." (Acts 2:17) (as Max has been fond of quoting,
of late...) Thus the Living Spirit is being poured out upon the
neo-Pagans, the Wiccans, the Gnostics, the Ba'hai, the atheistic
humanists, etc. etc. etc. Thus A COURSE IN MIRACLES comes thru an
atheist who thinks she's going crazy & finds it hard to believe what is
coming thru her, herself!
Now WHY did Christ choose an atheist to give further Christic
Revelations thru, rather than an orthodox Christian? BECAUSE NO PEOPLE
SHUT OUT THE AUTHENTIC LIVING HOLY SPIRIT _MORE_ THAN DO ORTHODOX
BELIEVERS!
The Spirit is poured out upon orthodoxy, too -- BUT NONE OF IT GETS
THRU! The blindness of their rigid indoctrinated beliefs SHUTS IT OUT.
Orthodox Christians would be the LAST to recognize Jesus Christ if he
stood before them in flesh & Spirit this very moment! Orthodox
Christians are the ones who would DENY him & call him an imposter, a
servant of Satan and the anti-Christ! It's inherent in their mental
matrix. Their whole mind-set is one of false expectations derived from
scriptures written "thru a glass darkly," falsely interpreted. The
"Jesus" that orthodoxy believes in is a projected fantasy of their
belief (which is not genuine faith, at all); their "Jesus" is a mental
delusion -- thus orthodoxy is inherently most BLIND to the Living
Reality.
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water
and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5
You HAVE to be genuinely (re)born of the Holy Spirit -- at which point
you can even discern when false teachings are attributed to Jesus
Christ, Himself, & to God the Father -- in THE HOLY BIBLE!
If and when any is borne of the Spirit then they HAVE the *gnosis* &
readily see that Jesus and Paul were BOTH "Gnostics," themselves.
> It's just sad that Chuck Smith chooses Gnostic heretics as his
> inspiration and not the fathers of the church.
There is much of the Holy Spirit speaking thru the heretics -- & very
little of it speaking thru the (anti-Christic) fathers of the church
(who worshipped a false god created by their own abstract mental
idolatry & taught others to worship the same thought-idol).
It is not "sad" at all that Chuck has made that choice. Let us, rather,
REJOICE -- for another soul will now (possibly) be "saved" from the
demiurgic delusions! i say to you, GOOD! for Chuck Smith, whoever he
might be. May all the Divine Blessings shower upon him, & upon each of
us. He appears to be renouncing the lies of the demiurge & to be
seeking genuine Divine Truth, ie: *gnosis*.
And may you, yourself, someday, someyear, somelife, cease being of the
blind who follow the blind to the pit.
> Doug
> Calvary Chapel Frequently Unanswered Questions
> http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Cordially,
~~wynn manners
leland palmer
own biblical literalist trap. Either Jesus' resurrection body was not
flesh and blood, or Jesus' entire life was a joke lived by an eternal
spirit entity pretending to be mortal.
Frank D.
>In article <enemy-10049...@enemy.vip.best.com>,
>en...@enemies.com (Rev. Illuminatus Maximus) wrote:> > > Gee, Doug, I didn't say Jesus didn't come in the flesh. I said that
> > > once he left/ascended to the Father, he is no longer flesh and blood.
> > > You really need to read more carefully.
Doug reads carefully enough on this topic.
"Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a
spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39, NKJV).
This is grammatically uncomplicated. The text states that Jesus possessed a
body of "flesh and bone" subsequent to His resurrection.
"Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to
him that of the fruit of his body, *according to the flesh*, He would raise
up the Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:30, emphasis added)
"he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that
His soul was not left in Hades, *nor did His flesh see corruption*" (Acts
2:31, emphasis added).
Again, the message is grammatically uncomplicated; Christ possessed a body of
flesh subsequent to His resurrection . Indeed, the body of flesh he possessed
subsequent to His resurrection possessd continuity to the body of flesh prior
to His resurrection.
"By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2, NKJV; cf. 2 John 7).
John's use of the perfect participle ("has come") indicates that Jesus was
flesh prior to John writing these words *and* Jesus was still in the flesh
when John wrote 1 John (circa A.D. 90--almost 60 years after the Resurrection
of Jesus).
Sadly, Alex Guldbeck adds to leland palmer's linguistic, grammatical,
historical and theological confusion by stating:
> '...the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to
> God who gave it. [Ecclesiastes 12:7]';
>
> '...flesh and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God. [1 Cor. 15:50]'
When citing a biblical passage (or any other source, for that matter), one
should do so *in context*, with careful consideration to grammar, history and
setting. Otherwise, asking the original question of what is being said is
pointless. Alex cites these verses completely out of context, with total
disregard for the totality of the Bible's message on the subject, and with
total disdain for their grammatical, historical and topical relation to other
verses on the subject.
"For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at the last on the
earth; And after my skin is destroyed (literally, "struck off"), this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God" (Job 19:25-26).
Job is considered to be the oldest extant book of the Old Testament (and the
entire Bible), demonstrating this was not some "late theological development,"
but a belief contained in the Bible from the very beginning.
The physical body which Jesus possessed ate food *subsequent* to His
resurrection a number of times (see Luke 24:30; 24:42-43; John 21:12-13; Acts
1:4).
The definitive and standard scholarly work on the subject of "the body" in the
New Testament is *Soma in Biblical Theology*, by Robert Gundry (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976). Dr. Gundry makes it quite clear that the
resurrection of Christ was (and, for that matter, for Christians in a future
event) physical in nature (see Gundry, *Soma in Biblical Theology*, p. 182).
The contextual consensus of the Biblical message is that Jesus Christ
possessed a body of flesh prior to the resurrection *and subsequent* to it.
Luke 24:39 and John 20:27 are particularly clear and germane.
Best Regards,
Frank
Copyright (C) De Angelis 1997-99 All rights reserved.
No authorization is given to send any unsolicited
electronic mail. (17 U.S.C. 401, 702).
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Doug
> I find it interesting that "demiurge" is a Greek epithet for "Public
> Craftsman." <g>
Another parallel.
--
Doug
> "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
> Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2, NKJV; cf. 2 John 7).
>
> John's use of the perfect participle ("has come") indicates that Jesus was
> flesh prior to John writing these words *and* Jesus was still in the flesh
> when John wrote 1 John (circa A.D. 90--almost 60 years after the Resurrection
> of Jesus).
The really sad part, for me, as a Calvary Chapel attendee, is that this
exposes my pastor, Chuck Smith, as an antichrist. The denial that Jesus
is in the flesh presently is heresy and is the doctrine of a deceiver
and antichrist (2 John 7).
I can only pray that Chuck Smith will repent of his heresy and warn
others about the poison that he's teaching.
Doug
>
> Frank D. wrote:
>
> > Doug reads carefully enough on this topic.
> >
> > "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see,
> > for a
> > spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39,
> > NKJV).
> >
> > This is grammatically uncomplicated.
>
> stated that the touching took place with the eyes. Why doesn't it say
> "as you feel I have", then?
Because it's all part of one sentence. Christ finished saying it before
they touched him. First they saw Him, then they felt Him.
AL Shaffer
Doug wrote:
leland palmer wrote:Also when Peter saw Moses and Elijah standing with Jesus , I believe they were in their bodily form also . Peter was going to make shelters for them , and the devil disputed with Michael about the body of Moses .> The NT does not say Jesus' body was made of flesh and bones.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.All of the song and dance to avoid this passage simply does not take
into account the clear fact that Christ raised in a body of flesh and
bones. Christ's specific denial that He is a spirit can't be denied by
any fair reading of the passage. This is a direct and incontrovertable
statement.This has always been the understanding of the Christian Church. How do I
know? I've spend hundreds of hours researching this in the Early Church
fathers. Want to see the paper that I wrote on this?
Amen Doug ,
Perhaps you should reply to these dreamers with Michael's answer
to satan (but you're to kind for that )
AL
leland palmer
in context. I read them in the context of the total testimony of the
NT, which may not be correct inasmuch texts do sometimes contradict each
other. However, I am operating on the premise that the four Gospels and
the other NT books were thought to have been doctrinally similar enough
to be compiled into one NT corpus. Therefore, taking Luke and John in
'the context of the NT', it is plain that, as I have already said many
times, that the risen Jesus sometimes manifested as a 'normal human
body', but that this body also functioned in a manner not possible to a
'normal human body'. People who maintain based on selected passages
that the risen Jesus had a normal human body are basing their
resurrection faith not on the eyes of faith, but on optical nerves
relaying signals to the brain of light reflecting off the skin, hair and
garments of the resuscitated corpse of Jesus. If by some trick of
history, the physical remains of Jesus were to be unearthed, physical
resurrection faith would be shattered. On the other hand, the wider
view taken by Paul and evidenced in those NT texts showing the risen
Jesus to have been something much vaster and stranger than a revived
corpse, would not be disturbed by the discovery of Jesus' bodily
remains. Jesus is the Lord, and the Lord according to Paul is the
Second Adam, who is a 'vivifying' or a 'quickening' spirit.
Biblical literalists' reliance on reports that Jesus ate after his
resurrection is a reliance deliberately made by rejecting reports that
Jesus's post resurrection 'body' was not a normal body at all. In fact,
the two reports are brought together in the Emmaus narrative. Jesus'
'physical' hands break physical bread. But then he immediately vanishes
from sight. As I have said all along, the NT presents the risen Jesus
as capable of manifesting as an apparently normal body, but also as
behaving as no normal body behaves. The best and simplest explanation
for this is the fact that in the Bible, spirit manifests in a variety of
physical ways, as a burning bush, a wind, an apparently but not actually
normal physical human body. The best and simplest description for these
types of events is Paul's: that the Lord Jesus is a quickening spirit.
De nederlandsche Cacaofabriek
> Doug reads carefully enough on this topic.
>
> "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see,
> for a
> spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39,
> NKJV).
>
> This is grammatically uncomplicated.
Right. One is given instructions to touch someone, and next it would be
stated that the touching took place with the eyes. Why doesn't it say
"as you feel I have", then?
Martijn.
De nederlandsche Cacaofabriek
> Because it's all part of one sentence. Christ finished saying it
> before
> they touched him. First they saw Him, then they felt Him.
So let me get this straight: I can mold whatever bollocks into a single
sentence, and subsequently the fact that its stated in the same sentence
would somehow be proof that it means something else then what is
flat-out stated.
Besides, your just wrong. It says: Handle me, and see. So the touching
comes first, not the seeing.
And there's not a single clue in this line that would support the
conviction that the touching really took place.
Martijn.
Wynn Manners
>
> "Frank D." wrote:
>
> > Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2, NKJV; cf. 2 John 7).
The demons, themselves (that he was casting out) were the FIRST to
recognize Jesus as being the Christ, in gospel accounts. The demons
recognized who he was BEFORE Peter or any of the other apostles did!
Demons have no difficulty confessing "Jesus Christ has come in the
flesh"!
> > John's use of the perfect participle ("has come")
Is this "perfect participle" original Greek, or is this English
(mis)translation?
> >indicates that Jesus was
> > flesh prior to John writing these words
No disagreement with this interpretation.
> >*and* Jesus was still in the flesh
> > when John wrote 1 John (circa A.D. 90--almost 60 years after the Resurrection
> > of Jesus).
NOT true. You are making a false interpretation, here -- & on the basis
of your own faulty interpretation are judging poor Chuck to be an
"antiChrist"?!
> The really sad part, for me, as a Calvary Chapel attendee, is that this
> exposes my pastor, Chuck Smith,
Well, finally we've found out who "Chuck" is!
> as an antichrist. The denial that Jesus
> is in the flesh presently is heresy and is the doctrine of a deceiver
> and antichrist (2 John 7).
All you're doing here is revealing your own delusions & false judgment
of your pastor.
The denial that "Jesus is in the flesh presently" is NOT "heresy" except
within the parameters of your own egoic illusions.
What IS "heresy", anyways? It's a castigating egoic judgment against
somebody who doesn't share your own religious beliefs. The only people
who judge something to be heretical are those who are locked into their
own religious delusions.
In point of fact, "Jesus" Christ never even EXISTED. "Jesus" was not
Yeshua's real name. So the name, "Jesus," is, itself, a fiction of
language, a metaphor.
But, don't misunderstand me. i'm not denying that Christ isn't manifest
"in the flesh" NOW. i would expect there are at least hundreds of
thousands of Living Christs on this planet, right now. In time it will
be millions. And a dozen of 'em may ACTUALLY be named "Jesus" -- as
Yeshua was NOT!
Of course not a single one of the REAL Living Christs will be making the
claim, that "I am the Second Coming of Jesus Christ!" THAT reveals an
egoic delusion! Across the past almost 2,000 years we're up to at least
the millionth Coming of Christ -- & only the blind following the blind
are still awaiting the "Second Coming"!
> I can only pray that Chuck Smith will repent of his heresy and warn
> others about the poison that he's teaching.
> --
> Doug
> Calvary Chapel Frequently Unanswered Questions
> http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Ummmm....Doug...let me *gently* suggest that it could well be *you* who
are spreading the "poison", here, about your pastor -- due to your *own*
confusion.
But i'm sure that your pastor WILL forgive you for this. And let the
rest of us be praying for Doug, that he "wakes up" out of his delusions.
Winsomely,
~~wynn manners
Wynn Manners
>
> "Frank D." wrote:
>
> > "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
> > Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2, NKJV; cf. 2 John 7).
> >
> > flesh prior to John writing these words *and* Jesus was still in the flesh
> > when John wrote 1 John (circa A.D. 90--almost 60 years after the Resurrection
> > of Jesus).
>
> is in the flesh presently is heresy and is the doctrine of a deceiver
> and antichrist (2 John 7).
>
> others about the poison that he's teaching.
>
> --
> Doug
> Calvary Chapel Frequently Unanswered Questions
> http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Doug, a few Second Thoughts, here.
First i want to apologize for my (retarded) s-l-o-o-o-w-ness in
understanding what this is all about.
Secondly i want to THANK YOU for the upROARious *amusement* you have
provided -- for at least *me* -- & perhaps a few others. And, perhaps,
Leland Palmer has much to thank you for, too!
Finally my mindlessness fully correlated what is (apparently) happening
here, in your post. You're declaring someone else to be a "heretic" &
an "antichrist" upon the basis of your *own* interpretation of an
English PARTICIPLE in a verse you ASSUME is accurately translated from
another language (which could, itself, be a faulty translation of the
original writing from another language, still) -- & you're deeply
TROUBLED by this?!
This is just amusing beyond words!
i assume you're posting from alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
whereas i'm (obviously) posting from alt.religion.gnostic. And after
this particular *revelation* from you i realize that maybe your pastor
isn't *really* Gnostic at all!
And since the very verse you are quoting to "prove" your point also
"proves" that demons have "the Spirit of God" (since some demons DO
"confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh") exactly what have you
*really* proven?!
Verily verily i DO believe that that Crown of Fools that Leland Palmer
has had the honor of wearing is flapping its donkey ears & it flying to
settle upon *your* head as your "Crown of Glory" until someone else
posts even greater folly than your own!
From personal experience in wearing that particular Crown of Fools far
longer than anyone else, let me assure you it sets very *lightly* upon
one's brow -- idiotic as one looks, wearing it -- for "the generation of
fools is endless" as Hairy recurrently posts -- so there's ever another
(it is almost hovering -- with those endlessly flapping donkey ears) --
to take flight to! <long hearty laughter>
Welcome to the club, Doug! It is not so *bad* to make of oneself a fool
-- for it lightens the heart of others. And once one can laugh at one's
own folly, one's own heart is lightened & delightened too!
Bless you (& the blessing is sincere),
~~wynn
Doug
> Finally my mindlessness fully correlated what is (apparently) happening
> here, in your post. You're declaring someone else to be a "heretic" &
> an "antichrist" upon the basis of your *own* interpretation of an
> English PARTICIPLE in a verse you ASSUME is accurately translated from
> another language (which could, itself, be a faulty translation of the
> original writing from another language, still) -- & you're deeply
> TROUBLED by this?!
Actually, I know what the text says because I read the Greek language. I
learned it at seminary. I am half way through my Master of Arts in
Theology Degree program at a major seminary. These points are first year
Greek for any seminary student. I guess you can blame my Greek professor
and and the textbooks I used if you are not happy with my translation of
the text.
I'm not declaring Chuck Smith to be a heretic based on the English
language. There's really no direct equivalent of the Greek present
participle. Least ways, nothing that can be expressed without being
translated as a phrase (the KJV translates this as "is come"). In this
case, the Greek text says Jesus both came and is presently in the flesh.
Denial of this fact is what earns the right to be called antichrist.
This is not my opinion, it's what the text says.
There's little chance for a faulty translation here. I've consulted a
number of commentaries on the 2 John 7 passage in particular and there's
unanimous consent about what the Greek text actually says. The best
argument against it is offered by those who would claim that John the
apostle misspoke and used an incorrect verb tense..
Doug
> i assume you're posting from alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
> whereas i'm (obviously) posting from alt.religion.gnostic. And after
> this particular *revelation* from you i realize that maybe your pastor
> isn't *really* Gnostic at all!
Pastor Chuck Smith teaches that the resurrection body of Christ seemed
to be a physical body. However, he denies that it was normally physical,
but rather more like a spirit which took on a physical form for
convincing unbelieving disciples that He raised from the dead. That's
Gnostic - at least as the term was historically defined. I don't know
what the people in a.r.g consider gnostic, we're merely discussing the
historical understanding from the perspective of the Christian church.
Doug
> And since the very verse you are quoting to "prove" your point also
> "proves" that demons have "the Spirit of God" (since some demons DO
> "confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh") exactly what have you
> *really* proven?!
I suppose it's more of an useful negative test. If someone denies that
Jesus either came or currently is in the flesh, then we know that they
are not of God by this test.
I'm not certain that demons are the target as much as false teachers in
the 2 John 7 passage.
Doug
> Is this "perfect participle" original Greek, or is this English
> (mis)translation?
From the Greek - and I suppose English as well. English does a really
poor job of expressing the Koine Greek, though. If it were translated
into English completely, 2 John 7 would show that Jesus both came in the
flesh and remained in the flesh through the time of the writing itself.
Hence, John's usage of the perfect tense participle.
> The denial that "Jesus is in the flesh presently" is NOT "heresy" except
> within the parameters of your own egoic illusions.
Check out a competent Christian commentary on the Greek text of 2 John
7. There are many out there. I could suggest such a list for you if you
wish.
> What IS "heresy", anyways? It's a castigating egoic judgment against
> somebody who doesn't share your own religious beliefs. The only people
> who judge something to be heretical are those who are locked into their
> own religious delusions.
Heresy is not subjective nor is it judged by my own standard.
> In point of fact, "Jesus" Christ never even EXISTED. "Jesus" was not
> Yeshua's real name. So the name, "Jesus," is, itself, a fiction of
> language, a metaphor.
A juvenile argument.
philip boucher
leland palmer <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:370DFF1D...@proaxis.com...
> The risen Jesus is a spirit. No longer a homo sapiens body partaking in
> spacetime. The risen Lazarus is a resuscitated corpse and must die a
> second time. The risen Jesus is not a resuscitated corpse. If he is a
> resuscitated corpse, then he is still living in spacetime and is subject
> to illness and death. On the contrary, however, 'the grave could not
> hold him' and he is no longer a denizen of 'earthly plane' spacetime.
>
> The NT pictures him as eating and offering his body for touching. On
> the other hand, the NT pictures him as 'appearing', and the term used
> for this connotes a visionary manifestation, not 'seeing' with the eyes.
> snip>
> No body can bilocate, spontaneously
> appear and vanish, and pass through solid objects. >
> snip>
>
> Wasn't Jesus supposed to be resurrected in 'Divine flesh' of which we
don't know much about.pb
leland palmer
which is an oxymoron. The fact is that Jesus, in the plain words of
Paul, is a vivifying or quickening spirit. Sometimes that spirit
manifested like a body, at other times it manifested unlike a body. This
is spirit's prerogative, as in the Old Testament where it manifested as
a burning bush, a miraculous wind, a pillar of fire, mysterious 'angelic
visitors', etc. In the Bible, spirit is the source and manipulator of
matter. Those who insist that Jesus' resurrection was the resuscitation
of a corpse commit the unbiblical error of giving the body priority over
the spirit.
leland palmer
creation of pagan myth. However, this is an old idea and one not
justified by biblical scholarship.
While there are mythic elements in the NT, the main facets of JC's
ministry have their equivalents not in myth but in reality. We know
from cross-cultural religious studies Jesus' social role to be
widespread and belonging to actual social types, i.e.:
1) movement founder
2) charismatic mediator
3) transformative sage
4) healer
5) exorcist
6) shaman
7) social prophet
8) teacher of subversive wisdom
9) teacher of a spiritual 'Way'
10) divine union mystic
....as well as several other social types/functions.
Inasmuch as the Gospels portray Jesus as belonging to various familiar
and widely-found social classes, types, and roles, mythology does not
need to be invoked. These figures - these 'spirit-people' - are found
globally and historically cross-culturally. They are real, authentic
human beings. Jesus was one of them. Thus, at least to this extent,
Jesus was not a myth, but an historical figure.
'Myth' has a bad rap. I hasten to add that even if Jesus did not
already correspond to these real, familiar social types, his _myth_ is
nevertheless still legitimate. The human soul is nourished not by
social and historical fact, but by myth. Myth, in fact, as CG Jung and
Joseph Campbell demonstrated, is the very language of the soul. Thus, a
Jesus stripped of myth is valueless from a soul-perspective, while a
Jesus stripped of fact can still be highly meaningful from the soul's
point of view.
philip boucher
read it but heard the authors talking about it on the radio.It proposes
that Jesus never existed in history, stating that his character was based on
older pagan stories about a dying and resurrecting god man.They mentioned
Mythras,Dionysus and Osirus as being previous incarnations of this god man
and the christians using some of this background to create Jesus.They
mentioned that at the time the NT was put together, there were a few hundred
such books about, but the books chosen to go in the bible were used for
political reasons more than anything.They (the authors) did though express a
great interest in the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi and considered
these to be the texts that people should take as being closer to the truth
than the NT.I wandered if you have any thoughts on the god man stories.I
hadn't heard this before and admit to knowing nothing about these other
guys.
Philip.
philip boucher
I didn't get the authors surnames,but their first names are Tim and Peter.
The book 'The Jesus Mysteries' published by 'Thorsons'(I think that's how
it's spelt)
Thanks for the insight.
leland palmer <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:37180E6D...@proaxis.com...
Wynn Manners
Author:
Doug <do...@idt.net>
Date:
1999/04/12
Forum:
alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Wynn Manners wrote:
> What IS "heresy", anyways? It's a castigating egoic judgment against
> somebody who doesn't share your own religious beliefs. The only people
> who judge something to be heretical are those who are locked into their
> own religious delusions.
Doug: Heresy is not subjective nor is it judged by my own standard.
Wynn: Heresy IS subjective. If you pass the judgment, it is a standard
you have subjectively adopted to believe in, yourself. So the standard
you are using is the subjective standard of someone else -- (some
ancient writing under the name of "John," in this case, howmanyever
others subjectively agree with it.
What is "heresy" to a Roman Catholic differs from what is "heresy" to a
Mormon or a Muslim.
Heresy is not Christic. It's believed in by those who are, themselves,
un-Christic.
Heresy is a creation of religious orthodoxy. Where the judgement of
heresy against others is being passed the Living Spirit is absent.
> In point of fact, "Jesus" Christ never even EXISTED. "Jesus" was not
> Yeshua's real name. So the name, "Jesus," is, itself, a fiction of
> language, a metaphor.
Doug: A juvenile argument.
Wynn: To argue is inherently juvenile. i was not arguing.
Therefore, when you are projecting "juvenile argument" upon a point i
made that you failed to understand, who is the "juvenile" & who is
"arguing?" As you judge you shall be judged.
The point i was making is valid. But the fiction, of course, runs much
deeper.
The "Jesus Christ" of your beliefs never existed -- historically. The
"Jesus Christ" of your pastor's beliefs never existed -- historically.
These variant versions of "Jesus Christ" are fantasies of your
respective belief-matrixes -- & only as those mental fantasies do these
Jesuses "exist". Believer's fantasies are based on the belief matrixes
of the fantasies of belief of those who originally wrote about him,
which have been canonized as "scripture."
No words we write about each other really convey the REALITY of the
person we write about. They convey only our own abstract mental (&
always distortively-false) representation of them.
Nothing you (nor even i) can ever write about me will capture the REAL
reality.
Nor has it been done for "Jesus" Christ by anything written about him.
Words do not capture the complex truth of any person's reality &
totality. They create a mental image that you can be self-deceived into
*believing,* however.
The scriptures mythologize the historical-Yeshua-who-was.
i repeat: The "Jesus" Christ you *believe* in never existed. He's a
fantasy in your head. The person you perceive *me* as being is a
fiction in your head, & likewise the person i perceive *you* as being.
You're condemning someone else as an "antichrist" because his fantasy
about Jesus is different from your own fantasy. It is much on the level
of children arguing about their notions about the tooth fairy -- based
on two variant stories told by their parents!
This is not to suggest that the fantasies we believe in don't
significantly feed our consciousnesses & that myths are not meaningful
"soul food." We *can* spiritually *grow* thru myths.
But a 20 year or older person still literally believing in the Tooth
Fairy... & adults believing _their_ beliefs about "Jesus" represent the
"only True Jesus"... are similar phenomena.
~~wynn manners
Frank D.
> > In point of fact, "Jesus" Christ never even EXISTED. "Jesus" was not
> > Yeshua's real name. So the name, "Jesus," is, itself, a fiction of
> > language, a metaphor.
Nonsense. "Jesus" most certainly was His name, as *translated into the Greek
language*. And since the extant New Testament was Greek in its autograph,
"Jesus" was most appropriate usage.
Wynn, where did you study textual criticism or Koine Greek? From your
comments it seems as if you don't have any knowledge of these fields.
It is not a "fiction" nor a metaphor (you need to take a deep breath and
loosen your grip on Joe Campbell's *Power of Myth*...), but his name
*correctly* rendered in the Greek language.
>
> Doug: A juvenile argument.
>
> Wynn: To argue is inherently juvenile. i was not arguing.
>
You're entire post is an "argument," Wynn. If you handed a paper to me with
that statement, I would write "idiot" over it in red ink, Wynn. Rationally
speaking, you can't exempt yourself from your own thesis.
Let me explain something to you. Any and every time you state your position
on any subject, *you are arguing*. Every book and every article and every
lecture is an *argument*. When you wrote your exercise in gnostic rambling
and post-modern silliness you were, however weakly, *arguing*.
There is nothing wrong and everything right about "arguing" (i.e., stating
one's position and presenting facts to support it). Indeed, it is
unavoidable unless we remain totally silent on a subject. Perhaps you should
remain silent, Wynn. That would help your thesis immensely.
ar*gue 1: to give reasons for or against something.
ar*gu*ment 1: to reason offered in proof.
See *The Merriam Webster Dictionary* (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster
Publishers, 1995), p. 27.
> No words we write about each other really convey the REALITY of the
> person we write about. They convey only our own abstract mental (&
> always distortively-false) representation of them.
Try that in a court of law, Wynn. Actually, Bill Clinton did try that and it
got him off (no pun intended). However, I must offer you the caveat that he
is the President and has a system that allows him to lie, steal and cheat.
You would be sent to prison for perjury if you tried that as a lowly
commoner--but I digress.
> Nor has it been done for "Jesus" Christ by anything written about him.
>
> Words do not capture the complex truth of any person's reality &
> totality. They create a mental image that you can be self-deceived into
> *believing,* however.
>
While we may not know something in "totality" (omniscience) we may know
something *truly*.
For example, the written statement, "Wynn wrote a brief article on UseNet
which demonstrated his ignorance of the word "argue" and his naive acceptance
of post-modern literary theory and neo-gnostic new age epistemology,"
absolutely conveys concrete facts about Wynn. While those facts do not
convey a "totality" of Wynn-related trivia, they do convey particular facts.
Wynn, if you respond in any way, you are *arguing*. And if you use words to
respond, you are investing them with value to convey propositional facts.
What should Wynn do?...Try to argue his position as correct and openly
demonstrate (yet again) that he *is* arguing, and use words which convey
particular propositions concerning particular facts which presuppose (and
demonstrate) that words do convey factual meaning concerning reality, or
should he remain silent and be consistent with his own statements?
That's a tough one, Wynn. If you write anything, your entire thesis crumbles;
if you remain silent, no one will know you are there.
If you respond, you are admitting you are simply incoherent and irrational; if
you don't respond, you don't matter.
> You're condemning someone else as an "antichrist" because his fantasy
> about Jesus is different from your own fantasy. It is much on the level
> of children arguing about their notions about the tooth fairy -- based
> on two variant stories told by their parents!
>
Faulty analogy, Wynn. You not only need a good dictionary but an
introductory work on Logic. If you say logic isn't applicable, you are
*arguing* a position that is based upon some major premise, minor premise and
conclusion--in short, based upon logic. Another tight spot for old Wynn.
> This is not to suggest that the fantasies we believe in don't
> significantly feed our consciousnesses & that myths are not meaningful
> "soul food." We *can* spiritually *grow* thru myths.
>
You should give credit where credit is due, Wynn. You're lifting material
from the late Joseph Campbell and not citing him.
> But a 20 year or older person still literally believing in the Tooth
> Fairy... & adults believing _their_ beliefs about "Jesus" represent the
> "only True Jesus"... are similar phenomena.
>
But perhaps the statement, "But a 20 year or older person still literally
believing in the Tooth Fairy... & adults believing _their_ beliefs about
"Jesus" represent the "only True Jesus"..." is merely a fiction that has no
meaning?
Your position is self-refuting on its very surface, Wynn. It does not
possess a rigorous self-assessment of its own contradictions.
The very statement you made presupposes that words are sufficient to express
certain propositional facts (such as saying that a "20 year or older
person...") and *argue* a case (you are arguing that Doug shouldn't believe
in the historical Jesus); indeed, you are *arguing* that his version is
incorrect and your perspective *is* correct.
In short, you are arguing that your version is reflective of the facts (i.e.,
is "orthodox") whild Doug's is somehow wrong or mistaken (i.e., is
"unorthodox").
Wynn Manners, your entire position is "full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing." In short, Wynn, your post was an excercise in mental masturbation.
I disagree with Doug in a number of areas regarding theology, but he has a
firm grasp of logic and is more than able to shred you apart with your
self-negating positions.
With deep sympathy,
Frank
Copyright (C) De Angelis 1997-99 All rights reserved.
No authorization is given to send any unsolicited
electronic mail. (17 U.S.C. 401, 702).
"The Internet is for lonely people."--Charlton Heston
Maanantai
>
> > Doug: A juvenile argument.
> >
> > Wynn: To argue is inherently juvenile. i was not arguing.
> >
>
> You're entire post is an "argument," Wynn. If you handed a paper to me with
> that statement, I would write "idiot" over it in red ink, Wynn. Rationally
> speaking, you can't exempt yourself from your own thesis.
>
> Let me explain something to you. Any and every time you state your position
> on any subject, *you are arguing*. Every book and every article and every
> lecture is an *argument*. When you wrote your exercise in gnostic rambling
> and post-modern silliness you were, however weakly, *arguing*.
This does not change the fact that there are many different kinds of arguments
possible, of which some are more juvinile then others. For example, your apperent
obsession with showing Wynn that she is wrong over a simple word definition is an
excellent example of a juvinile argument.
>
>
> There is nothing wrong and everything right about "arguing" (i.e., stating
> one's position and presenting facts to support it). Indeed, it is
> unavoidable unless we remain totally silent on a subject. Perhaps you should
> remain silent, Wynn. That would help your thesis immensely.
Silence is speech too, only of a different kind that we are used to. In the
silence, the soul speaks - however, as one transcends dualities the dichotomie of
action/inaction kind of dissappears, and one is able to be silent in speaking.
>
>
> ar*gue 1: to give reasons for or against something.
>
> ar*gu*ment 1: to reason offered in proof.
>
> See *The Merriam Webster Dictionary* (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster
> Publishers, 1995), p. 27.
People quoting from dictionairies are often very insecure.
>
>
> > No words we write about each other really convey the REALITY of the
> > person we write about. They convey only our own abstract mental (&
> > always distortively-false) representation of them.
>
> Try that in a court of law, Wynn. Actually, Bill Clinton did try that and it
> got him off (no pun intended). However, I must offer you the caveat that he
> is the President and has a system that allows him to lie, steal and cheat.
> You would be sent to prison for perjury if you tried that as a lowly
> commoner--but I digress.
>
> > Nor has it been done for "Jesus" Christ by anything written about him.
> >
> > Words do not capture the complex truth of any person's reality &
> > totality. They create a mental image that you can be self-deceived into
> > *believing,* however.
> >
>
> While we may not know something in "totality" (omniscience) we may know
> something *truly*.
>
> For example, the written statement, "Wynn wrote a brief article on UseNet
> which demonstrated his ignorance of the word "argue" and his naive acceptance
> of post-modern literary theory and neo-gnostic new age epistemology,"
> absolutely conveys concrete facts about Wynn. While those facts do not
> convey a "totality" of Wynn-related trivia, they do convey particular facts.
Not at all. Wynn might or might not be more ignorant on that specific term, but
overall her post seemed very far from the ignorance yours radiates.
> You're condemning someone else as an "antichrist" because his fantasy
> > about Jesus is different from your own fantasy. It is much on the level
> > of children arguing about their notions about the tooth fairy -- based
> > on two variant stories told by their parents!
> >
>
> Faulty analogy, Wynn. You not only need a good dictionary but an
> introductory work on Logic. If you say logic isn't applicable, you are
> *arguing* a position that is based upon some major premise, minor premise and
> conclusion--in short, based upon logic. Another tight spot for old Wynn.
Try read some Wittgenstein, or Nietschze. Logic is very limited in its own nature,
and besides, Wynn didn't argue about logic, she was making a point totally
different from the one you are making now.
Martijn.
--
"So now I believe in Jesus and I`m a bit of reincarnation man too. I want to go to
the astral plane with all the people I love-and all the people I hate so I can
kick their heads in -and play music and hang around in bars until eternity. No
human body to feel pain, no anxieties and fears and broken hearts".
Shane Macgowan, from a q98 Interview
Frank D.
Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl> mused:
<snipped sections of the previous post for brevity>
> This does not change the fact that there are many different kinds of arguments
> possible, of which some are more juvinile then others. For example, your
apperent
> obsession with showing Wynn that she is wrong over a simple word definition is
an
> excellent example of a juvinile argument.
>
Responding *once* to someone is an "obsession"? Well, now you're obsessed,
too.
Seriously, a significant position she was arguing was that she was "not"
arguing. As such, it was a major plank that her "non-position" stood upon.
Therefore, it was not merely a "simple word definition" but an important word
that needed to be properly defined, since she apparently does not know how it
is defined in American English and does not know its proper usage.
I know an even better example of a "juvinile" [sic] (it is spelled,
"juvenile") "argument" (such as it is): *your entire post*.
> Silence is speech too, only of a different kind that we are used to.
More post-modern nonsense.
Not according to the reasonable understanding of the word. "Speech," at least
in American English, means to communicate using spoken words.
Silence is the *lack* of speech (neo-gnostic/post-modern anti-intellectualism
notwithstanding).
>In the
> silence, the soul speaks - however, as one transcends dualities the dichotomie
of
> action/inaction kind of dissappears, and one is able to be silent in speaking.
>
That probably is more coherent in the original "silence". :)
> People quoting from dictionairies are often very insecure.
>
People that don't like their illiteracy pointed-out to them are often very
insecure about the use of dictionaries. It tends to highlight their
illiteracy.
Actually, people that do not know the meanings of words should spend more time
with their dictionary (or get their first one).
If you and Wynn learn standard American English and use words properly (that
does seem to be the language used on this newsgroup), I won't *cite* the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That's my offer. Do you accept?
> Not at all. Wynn might or might not be more ignorant on that specific term,
but
> overall her post seemed very far from the ignorance yours radiates.
Abusive ad hominem, pure and sweet. I pointed out that Wynn doesn't know what
"argue" and "argument" actually mean in American English (which she doesn't),
and pointed-out clearly that she did, in fact, *argue* a position (which she
claimed she didn't). And not only that, but that her entire position was
self-refuting. You respond with *only* abusive ad hominem (I don't mind a
little "ad hom" usage)--for that is all you are able to do.
> Try read some Wittgenstein, or Nietschze. Logic is very limited in its own
nature,
> and besides, Wynn didn't argue about logic, she was making a point totally
> different from the one you are making now.
"Try read some"?
"Nietschze"...did you sneeze? Gesundheit!
Say, that reminds me...have you read anything by Friederich *Nietzsche*? I
read every extant work of *Nietzsche* during my second master's program,
particularly his strong influence in the formulation and beliefs of Nazism.
See Friedrich Nietzsche, *The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals*
[Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956]; see also Nietzsche, *The
AntiChrist*, trans. by H.L. Mencken [Torrance, CA: The Noontide Press, 1980]
A particularly germane critique is found in: Will Durant, *The Story of
Philosophy* [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953], p. 322
Do you feel attracted to *Nietzsche's* philosophical outlook?
Regardless, the applicability of logic stands--any attempt to undermine a
logical critique is forced to *use* logic, and therefore defeats itself.
If you read my post in context, I never said she was arguing about logic; I
know your anti-intellectual position well from years of research and debate
in the academic realm, and true as a ship coming into port, you substantiate
my own comments concerning your avoidance of logic by stating its
"limitations".
Wynn's statements (and yours, for that matter) truly evidenced the truth of
*ex ungue leonem*.
You have to use logic to say that logic has "limitations". You must
presuppose that logic is fully applicable to come to the conclusion that
logic is not fully applicable. Not a good position to be in, intellectually
speaking.
Your entire post consisted of nothing but "just so" comments, with no
substantial support from any source, and, in fact, offered abusive ad hominem
comments that I dared to offer clearly defined words.
As with Wynn, your comments were "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Maanantai
> This does not change the fact that there are many different kinds of arguments
> > possible, of which some are more juvinile then others. For example, your
> apperent
> > obsession with showing Wynn that she is wrong over a simple word definition is
> an
> > excellent example of a juvinile argument.
> >
>
> Responding *once* to someone is an "obsession"? Well, now you're obsessed,
> too.
It depends on *how* you do it, like everything. Wynn wrote an excellent reply, and
the only thing you picked up from it was some silly argument about arguing itself,
which is a stern indication you either don't know how to read or are just a
self-righteous little fuckwit with nothing better on his hands.
>
>
> Seriously, a significant position she was arguing was that she was "not"
> arguing. As such, it was a major plank that her "non-position" stood upon.
> Therefore, it was not merely a "simple word definition" but an important word
> that needed to be properly defined, since she apparently does not know how it
> is defined in American English and does not know its proper usage.
Nobody cares, really.
>
>
> I know an even better example of a "juvinile" [sic] (it is spelled,
> "juvenile") "argument" (such as it is): *your entire post*.
Please do feel free to fuck off then, and stop calling me.
>
>
> > Silence is speech too, only of a different kind that we are used to.
>
> More post-modern nonsense.
If you knew anything about post-modernism (and you apperently don't) you would know
its not at all drawn to make flat out conclusions like I do above. You are, once
again, trying to masquerade your own ignorance.
>
>
> Not according to the reasonable understanding of the word. "Speech," at least
> in American English, means to communicate using spoken words.
Don't be silly. Spoken words in a newsgroup? Are you entirely sure your not
hallucinating?
>
>
> Silence is the *lack* of speech (neo-gnostic/post-modern anti-intellectualism
> notwithstanding).
Bollocks, frankly. You totally disregard thought.
> > People quoting from dictionairies are often very insecure.
> >
>
> People that don't like their illiteracy pointed-out to them are often very
> insecure about the use of dictionaries. It tends to highlight their
> illiteracy.
Your being silly again. Nowadays most people use spellcheckers. The greatest idiots
can write grammatically correct posts, and that's why I refuse to use those - other
then being too impatient for it. Even so, I'd gladly compare my literary skills to
yours - shall we post some poems to compare?
>
>
> Actually, people that do not know the meanings of words should spend more time
> with their dictionary (or get their first one).
Actually, dictionairies say very little about meanings of words. They are mostly
like microsoft help programs: you look for one term, and get another in return.
Meditation, poetry, kabbalah and associative writing are really much more useful in
deploying meaning with language.
>
>
> If you and Wynn learn standard American English and use words properly (that
> does seem to be the language used on this newsgroup), I won't *cite* the
> Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That's my offer. Do you accept?
You really like to beat your chest, don't you? That's the negative side of
spellcheckers. It gives the morons something to be proud of.
>
>
> > Try read some Wittgenstein, or Nietschze. Logic is very limited in its own
> nature,
> > and besides, Wynn didn't argue about logic, she was making a point totally
> > different from the one you are making now.
>
> "Try read some"?
Yes, it will probably be hard, but you can try anyway.
>
>
> "Nietschze"...did you sneeze? Gesundheit!
>
> Say, that reminds me...have you read anything by Friederich *Nietzsche*? I
> read every extant work of *Nietzsche* during my second master's program,
> particularly his strong influence in the formulation and beliefs of Nazism.
You really don't know fuck about philosophy, do you? Suggesting that Neitschze had
'strong influence in the formulation' of nazism is an utter piece of flagrurant
toss.
The guy hated nationalists, he called them 'moronic cows' who 'would steal his fresh
air'. Puhleeze, *do* try to *actually* read some Neiztsche before you start running
that little mouth again.
>
>
> See Friedrich Nietzsche, *The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals*
> [Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956]; see also Nietzsche, *The
> AntiChrist*, trans. by H.L. Mencken [Torrance, CA: The Noontide Press, 1980]
Both of which have absolutely *nothing* to do with nazism, thank you.
>
>
> A particularly germane critique is found in: Will Durant, *The Story of
> Philosophy* [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953], p. 322
>
> Do you feel attracted to *Nietzsche's* philosophical outlook?
He was an incredible writer, yes.
>
>
> Regardless, the applicability of logic stands--any attempt to undermine a
> logical critique is forced to *use* logic, and therefore defeats itself.
Yawn. Typical christian "the bible is truth, therefore, if we want to prove it, we
read the bible" kind of bollocks.
>
>
> If you read my post in context, I never said she was arguing about logic; I
> know your anti-intellectual position well from years of research and debate
> in the academic realm,
Sunday school, most likely. Your really a few centuries behind with your thoughts on
logic, you could well have escorted Kant on his daily walk into oblivion.
> and true as a ship coming into port, you substantiate
> my own comments concerning your avoidance of logic by stating its
> "limitations".
Yes.
>
>
> Wynn's statements (and yours, for that matter) truly evidenced the truth of
> *ex ungue leonem*.
Say what?
>
>
> You have to use logic to say that logic has "limitations". You must
> presuppose that logic is fully applicable to come to the conclusion that
> logic is not fully applicable. Not a good position to be in, intellectually
> speaking.
You have to use paint too to show that painting has its limitations. Are you trying
to hide the fact that you have nothing whatsoever to say? Then your not doing a very
good job at it. So stop making a fool of yourself in a public forum, and go to the
library to study some *real* philosophy.
Martijn.
Frank D.
Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl> blurted:
>It depends on *how* you do it, like everything. Wynn wrote an excellent reply,
>and the only thing you picked up from it was some silly argument about arguing
>itself, which is a stern indication you either don't know how to read or are
>just a self-righteous little fuckwit with nothing better on his hands.
Beautiful, articulate, well reasoned response...
When the f*** words start, I know they are falling to pieces... As George
Will aptly expressed it, "in the lack of substantive ideas, *ad hominem*."
Horrid display, "Maanantai".
> Nobody cares, really.
You cared enough to take the time to write your post, use f*** a number of
times and therefore establish that you are *very* emotionally involved (i.e.,
"care").
> Please do feel free to fuck off then, and stop calling me.
What a well reasoned, carefully articulated response. You are a vulgar person
and should be ashamed of yourself. Who is calling you?
>If you knew anything about post-modernism (and you apperently don't) you would
>know its not at all drawn to make flat out conclusions like I do above. You
>are, once again, trying to masquerade your own ignorance.
At this point you are merely ranting. You shouldn't use "its" in the above
sentence as a substitute for the contraction, "it's" (i.e., "it is"). And the
word is spelled "apparently". I must hand it to you. You don't try to
"masquerade your own ignorance," as you let it shine forth for all to see.
> > Silence is the *lack* of speech (neo-gnostic/post-modern
anti-intellectualism
> > notwithstanding).
> Bollocks, frankly. You totally disregard thought.
I disregard your lack of thought, that is certain.
>Your being silly again. Nowadays most people use spellcheckers. The greatest
>idiot scan write grammatically correct posts, and that's why I refuse to use
>those -other then being too impatient for it. Even so, I'd gladly compare my
>literary skills to yours - shall we post some poems to compare?
Too bad a great idiot (such as yourself) can't use a grammar check (or
possess knowledge of basic grammar). In the above sentence, you shouldn't
use the pronoun or adjective "your" in place of the contraction "You're" for
"you are".
I don't write poems. But once you learn English I'd be happy to compare
literary skills as evidenced by our prose. Since you display a fourth grade
grammatical understanding, it will be a few years until you are ready.
> Actually, dictionairies say very little about meanings of words.
What is tragic about your last statement is that you are serious.
And just think, if you had ever bothered to introduce yourself to a
dictionary you would have known how to spell the word, *dictionaries* (it is
*not* spelled, "dictionairies". Sad, very sad).
Actually, a dictionary, as a reference work, does have a good deal to say
about the meanings of words. In fact, that is a major function of a
dictionary, by definition.
"dictio*nary: a reference work containing words usually alphabetically
arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions,
etymologies, *meanings*, and syntactical and idiomatic uses."
*The Merriam-Webster Dictionary* [Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Publishers,
1995], p. 145, emphasis added.
I can assure you, I didn't conspire with the publishers of the
*Merriam-Webster Dictionary* to arrive at that definition.
>They are mostly like microsoft help programs: you look for one term, and get
>another in return.
Not if you know how to use a dictionary.
> Meditation, poetry, kabbalah and associative writing are really much more
>useful in deploying meaning with language.
:)
> You really like to beat your chest, don't you? That's the negative side of
> spellcheckers. It gives the morons something to be proud of.
You're coming apart, it would seem. Simply blurting the ad hominems, and
nothing more.
>Try read some"?
>
> Yes, it will probably be hard, but you can try anyway.
>
I was mocking your lack of knowledge of grammar. "Try read some" is not
proper English usage.
> You really don't know fuck about philosophy, do you?
I know a great deal more than you do, it would seem. You should relax and
get a grip on your emotions; the repeated use of the f*** word is making you
look like you are out of control.
>Suggesting that Neitschze had 'strong influence in the formulation' of nazism
>is an utter piece of flagrurant toss.
The word is spelled, "flagrant".
> The guy hated nationalists, he called them 'moronic cows' who 'would steal his
>fresh air'. Puhleeze, *do* try to *actually* read some Neiztsche before you
>start running that little mouth again.
I had to read every extant work of Nietzsche during my second Masters degree
program. And it is quite evident that you don't know very much about him, as
you can't even spell his name correctly--it is spelled *Nietzsche*, not
"Neiztsche" nor "Neitschze". Can't you even get your mistakes to be
consistent?
Truly sad. Are you this sloppy with your poetry?
> > See Friedrich Nietzsche, *The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals*
> > [Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956]; see also Nietzsche, *The
> > AntiChrist*, trans. by H.L. Mencken [Torrance, CA: The Noontide Press, 1980]
>
> Both of which have absolutely *nothing* to do with nazism, thank you.
You evidently haven't researched this carefully nor rigorously, as your
comments are naive and reflect that you haven't read his works carefully,
particularly within their historical milieu. Nietzsche most certainly laid
the foundation (in part) to the ideas and philosophies that would find
expression in Hitler's Third Reich.
"Both Nietzschean ethics and social Darwinism emphasized the value of the
superior individual but they also recognized the value of superior groups.
Nietzsche even extended his ethical standards to master and slave races. It
was necessary only to mix his ethics with Machiavellian statecraft, to
bouleverse his individualism into Marxian collectivism, to add the Hegelian
worship of the State, and the witches' brew of totalitarianism would be
complete. Thus, do our notions afflict us, and that which grows up in the
brains of philosophers and theoreticians may ultimately have to be debated on
the fields of battle."
(See Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene*
[Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169)
*Nota Bene*: Nietzsche laid the foundational, philosophical presupposition
(along with Heckel, Comte, Darwin and Bernhardi, et. al.) that would find
expression and fruition in National Socialism and the belief in the "Master
Race".
This may disrupt your "comfort zone" but it is nonetheless a fact.
> > Do you feel attracted to *Nietzsche's* philosophical outlook?
>
> He was an incredible writer, yes.
Interesting.
> > Regardless, the applicability of logic stands--any attempt to undermine a
> > logical critique is forced to *use* logic, and therefore defeats itself.
>
> Yawn. Typical christian "the bible is truth, therefore, if we want to prove
>it, we read the bible" kind of bollocks.
Who mentioned the Bible? Your comments, of course, have nothing to do with
my statement regarding the laws of necessary inference. Any cursory study of
logic would inform you that logic can't be attacked without presupposing the
validity of its use. It is a self-defeating premise.
> Sunday school, most likely. Your really a few centuries behind with your
>thoughts on logic, you could well have escorted Kant on his daily walk into
oblivion.
Not exactly. University of Virginia and New York University--master of arts
and Ph.D. studies. And remember, it is "You are" or "You're" if you want to
write in English. "Your" is not proper usage in the context of your
"sentence" above (i.e., you should have written, "You're really a few
centuries..." for it to have been in English).
My comments regarding logic are quite up to date and applicable. And to
disagree with me you have to utilize the very "thoughts on logic" you are
ignorantly (and probably innocently) deriding. Nothing personal, but I really
do not think you would know a syllogism if it were right in front of you.
> > Wynn's statements (and yours, for that matter) truly evidenced the truth of
> > *ex ungue leonem*.
>
> Say what?
>
It is Latin. Look it up.
> You have to use paint too to show that painting has its limitations.
In logic we call this a faulty analogy *and* a category mistake. It really has
no contextual nor category relationship to my comments regarding logic and its
unavoidable nature.
<snipped "Martijn's" concluding salvo of abusive ad hominem usage>
With astonishment,
Frank
Maanantai
(snipping grammar rants)
>
> > The guy hated nationalists, he called them 'moronic cows' who 'would steal his
> >fresh air'. Puhleeze, *do* try to *actually* read some Neiztsche before you
> >start running that little mouth again.
>
> I had to read every extant work of Nietzsche during my second Masters degree
> program.
That explains a lot, really. People who have to read books often don't read them
very well.
>
> Truly sad. Are you this sloppy with your poetry?
Yes, actually. But you would be surprised to know how many famous poets were
horrible spellers. For some strange reason grammar seems not to be their first
interest. Yeats, for example, was a spelling-disaster.
>
>
> > > See Friedrich Nietzsche, *The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals*
> > > [Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956]; see also Nietzsche, *The
> > > AntiChrist*, trans. by H.L. Mencken [Torrance, CA: The Noontide Press, 1980]
> >
> > Both of which have absolutely *nothing* to do with nazism, thank you.
>
> You evidently haven't researched this carefully nor rigorously, as your
> comments are naive and reflect that you haven't read his works carefully,
> particularly within their historical milieu. Nietzsche most certainly laid
> the foundation (in part) to the ideas and philosophies that would find
> expression in Hitler's Third Reich.
No. Nietzsche's *writings* perhaps laid those foundations, but not the guy himself.
Very, very important distinction. A lot of simularity between Christ and
christianity here - as Leonard Cohen sings : "Give me Stalin or St Paul - give me
Christ or give me Hiroshima..."
>
>
> "Both Nietzschean ethics and social Darwinism emphasized the value of the
> superior individual but they also recognized the value of superior groups.
> Nietzsche even extended his ethical standards to master and slave races.
Total bollocks. Let's see some evidence for this assertion.
> It
> was necessary only to mix his ethics with Machiavellian statecraft, to
> bouleverse his individualism into Marxian collectivism, to add the Hegelian
> worship of the State, and the witches' brew of totalitarianism would be
> complete.
ROFLMAO! "
>
>
> (See Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene*
> [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169)
One might as well refer to "Dawning of the magicians" as a good work to read on
Nietzsche!
>
>
> *Nota Bene*: Nietzsche laid the foundational, philosophical presupposition
> (along with Heckel, Comte, Darwin and Bernhardi, et. al.) that would find
> expression and fruition in National Socialism and the belief in the "Master
> Race".
Oh really. I'm surprised you forgot Confucius and Buddha.
>
>
> This may disrupt your "comfort zone" but it is nonetheless a fact.
Oh, sure.
>
>
> > > Do you feel attracted to *Nietzsche's* philosophical outlook?
> >
> > He was an incredible writer, yes.
>
> Interesting.
Yes, sometimes he was interesting as well.
>
>
> > > Regardless, the applicability of logic stands--any attempt to undermine a
> > > logical critique is forced to *use* logic, and therefore defeats itself.
> >
> > Yawn. Typical christian "the bible is truth, therefore, if we want to prove
> >it, we read the bible" kind of bollocks.
>
> Who mentioned the Bible? Your comments, of course, have nothing to do with
> my statement regarding the laws of necessary inference. Any cursory study of
> logic would inform you that logic can't be attacked without presupposing the
> validity of its use. It is a self-defeating premise.
Your being silly again. Showing that something has limits has nothing to do with
'attacking' it. There's nothing in this universe without limit, Frank, I would say
even your ignorance has its limits, in some obscure way.
>
>
>
> > You have to use paint too to show that painting has its limitations.
>
> In logic we call this a faulty analogy *and* a category mistake.
No we don't. It's in fact a very good analogy. I know for sure you have never tried
to read or understand Wittgenstein - your comments make that blatently obvious.
Even more so, you fail to adress the issues I bring at hand by overuse of terms like
'ad-hominem', 'faulty logic' etc which just shows you really *do* have nothing to
say about these issues, other then ducking them with foul play about language.
> It really has
> no contextual nor category relationship to my comments regarding logic and its
> unavoidable nature.
Yes it has. There's a limit as to what man can express of nature using a medium like
paint. There's a limit as to what man can express of nature using a medium like
logic.
To show these limits, you will have to use the medium. It's really a quite simple
analogy to follow, Frank.
Martijn.
Hairy
and this is a post from one of them
ha...@ophis.freeserve.co.uk
93
Love you till I falter
<en...@enemies.com> wrote in message news:7f9h5a$jtm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7euoe0$989$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Frank D. <fran...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > In article <7et40r$rfv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > en...@enemies.com wrote:
> > > In article <8821-371...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > Li1...@webtv.net (Lilith) wrote:
> >
> > So is Alex a serious and sober researcher? Here is what a close friend
has to
> > say regarding his personality type:
I take it you're close friend gave you permission to reproduce his words in
the context of this argument.
Frank D.
Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
> That explains a lot, really. People who have to read books often don't read
>them very well.
Of course... But at least they know how to spell and use proper grammar.
> No. Nietzsche's *writings* perhaps laid those foundations, but not the guy
himself.
> Very, very important distinction. A lot of simularity between Christ and
> christianity here - as Leonard Cohen sings : "Give me Stalin or St Paul - give
>me Christ or give me Hiroshima..."
> > "Both Nietzschean ethics and social Darwinism emphasized the value of the
> > superior individual but they also recognized the value of superior groups.
> > Nietzsche even extended his ethical standards to master and slave races.
>
> Total bollocks. Let's see some evidence for this assertion.
The work cited, Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social
Scene* [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169,
is a standard and recognized scholarly work on the subject.
>
> ROFLMAO! "
>
That's your scholarly refutation of Dr. Zirkle's thesis?
> > (See Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene*
> > [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169)
>
> One might as well refer to "Dawning of the magicians" as a good work to read
>on Nietzsche!
Citing a scholarly academic work frequently used at the doctorate level is the
same as citing "Dawning of the magicians"? I would have to respectfully
disagree.
> > *Nota Bene*: Nietzsche laid the foundational, philosophical
presupposition
> > (along with Heckel, Comte, Darwin and Bernhardi, et. al.) that would find
> > expression and fruition in National Socialism and the belief in the "Master
> > Race".
>
> Oh really. I'm surprised you forgot Confucius and Buddha.
Why do you behave in such an anti-intellectual and immature manner? A number
of historians and other scholars have studied the influences which shaped
National Socialism, and it is the general consensus of both European and
American scholarship that, as a point of fact, Nietzsche, Heckel, Comte,
Darwin and Bernhardi all contributed to the intellectual milieu which
produced Nazism. It doesn't mean that they were Nazis, but it does mean that
their writings and ideas paved the way for it. You see, ideas have
consequences.
> > > > Do you feel attracted to *Nietzsche's* philosophical outlook?
> > >
> > > He was an incredible writer, yes.
> >
> > Interesting.
>
> Yes, sometimes he was interesting as well.
>
I know you think you are being "clever," but you are not being scholarly.
> > > > Regardless, the applicability of logic stands--any attempt to undermine
a
> > > > logical critique is forced to *use* logic, and therefore defeats itself.
> > >
> > > Yawn. Typical christian "the bible is truth, therefore, if we want to
prove
> > >it, we read the bible" kind of bollocks.
> >
> > Who mentioned the Bible? Your comments, of course, have nothing to do with
> > my statement regarding the laws of necessary inference. Any cursory study
of
> > logic would inform you that logic can't be attacked without presupposing the
> > validity of its use. It is a self-defeating premise.
>
> Your being silly again. Showing that something has limits has nothing to do
with
> 'attacking' it. There's nothing in this universe without limit, Frank, I would
say
> even your ignorance has its limits, in some obscure way.
>
I provided scholarly citations, refrain from using vulgarity, interact with
the scholarly literature on the subjects being discussed, have a doctoral
level education, use proper English, and I am "ignorant".
In contrast, you use repeated vulgarity ("f***"), provide no scholarly
citations in any way (and, in fact, mock scholarly citations), seem totally
unfamiliar with the scholarly literature and offer no refutations or
substantive commentary, but you are somehow not ignorant?
One could easily get the impression that you are simply an uneducated,
unread, vulgar person that doesn't provide scholarly citations because you
*can't* provide scholarly citations, and really do not know what you are
talking about. As a substitute, you simply use profane language, mock
citations with childish comments and act like a general ignoramus.
> > > You have to use paint too to show that painting has its limitations.
> >
> > In logic we call this a faulty analogy *and* a category mistake.
>
> No we don't. It's in fact a very good analogy. I know for sure you have never
tried
> to read or understand Wittgenstein - your comments make that blatently
obvious.
> Even more so, you fail to adress the issues I bring at hand by overuse of
terms like
> 'ad-hominem', 'faulty logic' etc which just shows you really *do* have nothing
to
> say about these issues, other then ducking them with foul play about language.
>
That you provided no scholarly (nor popular, for that matter) citations or
sources, while I provided a number of scholarly sources germane to the topic
at hand would seem to negate your previous attempt as a red herring. And, by
the way, I *never* used the phrase "faulty logic," so it would be a little
hard to claim I "overused" it. You should read your own comment about not
reading well at the beginning of this post and heed your own sage advice.
> > It really has
> > no contextual nor category relationship to my comments regarding logic and
its
> > unavoidable nature.
>
> Yes it has. There's a limit as to what man can express of nature using a
medium like
> paint. There's a limit as to what man can express of nature using a medium
like
> logic.
> To show these limits, you will have to use the medium. It's really a quite
simple
> analogy to follow, Frank.
>
The analogy breaks down completely. Do you know what a syllogism is? Do you
have any idea of what constitutes a logical statement and what does not?
The analogy is faulty because one may certainly demonstrate the "limits" of
using paint by displaying his painting. There would be no self-refuting
aspect to this at all. Paint, with its limitations, would not be negated as
a way to express or describe the artist's chosen subject.
You see, if you had seriously studied logic on a formal basis you would
realize that logic does not apply to aesthetic expressions. Questions of
truth are open to logical critique, not art. For example, it is perfectly
acceptable to ask "is this true" in regard to a thesis which is being
affirmed or denied, and utilize logic to determine the answer.
But it is a serious category mistake to do this in regard to your painting
analogy. As such, *it is* a faulty analogy. No one would ask, "is this
painting true?" True and false propositions of fact are subject to logical
reasoning, not art.
In contrast, if one were to demonstrate any proposition to be true using logic
(or false, for that matter), and were successful in conveying this, then logic
was up to the task, and the original thesis of denying logic fails. So as a
point of fact, your analogy does break down and is thus a faulty analogy.
But there *is* one limitation to logic in regard to analyzing truth claims.
Logic only works with reasonable people; with unreasonable people, nothing
works.
*In regard to your lay comments regarding logic*, you do not possess a
requisite knowledge of its rudiments to discuss it intelligently. You may be
a fine poet, but you evidence by your comments that you have not spent any
serious, rigorous study of logic at the graduate or post-graduate level.
Consult the following to begin your study of logic:
Copi, Irving. *Introduction to Logic* Sixth ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1982)
Engel, S. Morris. *With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies*
Third ed. (New York: St. Martins, 1986)
Hurley, Patrick J. *Logic* Third ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988)
Ruby, Lionel. *Logic: An Introduction* (Chicago: J.B. Lippincott, 1960)
And of course,
Aristotle, *Prior Analytics*
Thanks for your comments!
Glenn Webb
<wynnNOSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Doug wrote:
>>
>> "Frank D." wrote:
>>
>> > "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
>> > Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2, NKJV; cf. 2 John 7).
>
>The demons, themselves (that he was casting out) were the FIRST to
>recognize Jesus as being the Christ, in gospel accounts. The demons
>recognized who he was BEFORE Peter or any of the other apostles did!
>
>Demons have no difficulty confessing "Jesus Christ has come in the
>flesh"!
>
>> > John's use of the perfect participle ("has come")
>
>Is this "perfect participle" original Greek, or is this English
>(mis)translation?
>
>> >indicates that Jesus was
>> > flesh prior to John writing these words
>
>No disagreement with this interpretation.
>
>> >*and* Jesus was still in the flesh
>> > when John wrote 1 John (circa A.D. 90--almost 60 years after the Resurrection
>> > of Jesus).
"still" if you refer to still here after the return, via the
resurrection AS the "comforter", that is the Holy Spirit.... but how
is the Spirit (without flesh), the flesh ? You should have explained
yourself better... Or do you know of how He has returned in the
flesh ? Seems to me you would not be able to avoid explaining this, if
you knew fully just what you are saying.
>
>NOT true. You are making a false interpretation, here -- & on the basis
>of your own faulty interpretation are judging poor Chuck to be an
>"antiChrist"?!
Wouldn't know about "Chuck" as I entered this thread late in the game.
But I suppose this person misinterprets "has come" as past-tense, as
refering to the first coming. Ignoring the present-tense of is. (Then
again, admittingly the Greek's wording had no tenses. Meaning they
could be rightly interpreted "was","is", or "will be". Which is
intended, leaving all three as correct, if the other two are not left
out of the mix)
>
>> The really sad part, for me, as a Calvary Chapel attendee, is that this
>> exposes my pastor, Chuck Smith,
>
>Well, finally we've found out who "Chuck" is!
I still don't.
>
>> as an antichrist. The denial that Jesus
>> is in the flesh presently is heresy and is the doctrine of a deceiver
>> and antichrist (2 John 7).
We Gnostics are a bit touchy about the word "heretic", it just means
we see things in a way you have trouble accepting. Know that we may
well see YOU as a "heretic" for throwing away "valid" Scripture for
those 27 books you agree with you omitted 195 plus books of the New
Testiment, many of which we accept to be as valid as your first and
second century writtings.
>
>All you're doing here is revealing your own delusions & false judgment
>of your pastor.
>
>The denial that "Jesus is in the flesh presently" is NOT "heresy" except
>within the parameters of your own egoic illusions.
Very well put, considering how harsh they can be about our "heretical"
beliefs. But I would have been less "judgmental".
>
>What IS "heresy", anyways? It's a castigating egoic judgment against
>somebody who doesn't share your own religious beliefs. The only people
>who judge something to be heretical are those who are locked into their
>own religious delusions.
Agreed, see above, I would have used the word "opinions" instead of
"delusions" though.
>
>In point of fact, "Jesus" Christ never even EXISTED. "Jesus" was not
>Yeshua's real name. So the name, "Jesus," is, itself, a fiction of
>language, a metaphor.
Nit picking, niether here nor there... I know of, and use both names
in my prayer life, He answers equally to both.
>
>But, don't misunderstand me. i'm not denying that Christ isn't manifest
>"in the flesh" NOW. i would expect there are at least hundreds of
>thousands of Living Christs on this planet, right now. In time it will
>be millions. And a dozen of 'em may ACTUALLY be named "Jesus" -- as
>Yeshua was NOT!
Very GOOD !!! See also Matt.25:31-46; John 10:25-38; John 17 and
Eph.5. They explain His being here IN THE FLESH (our flesh, via the
"indwelling")
>
>Of course not a single one of the REAL Living Christs will be making the
>claim, that "I am the Second Coming of Jesus Christ!" THAT reveals an
>egoic delusion! Across the past almost 2,000 years we're up to at least
>the millionth Coming of Christ -- & only the blind following the blind
>are still awaiting the "Second Coming"!
Not realizing that it takes place in EACH of us, but is manifest only
in the collective us. To claim to be the Whole christ in one person,
is to make Satan's mistake, trying to take the throne for himself
alone.
There is no "second coming" to wait for, such denies His existing IN
THE FLESH already.
>
>> I can only pray that Chuck Smith will repent of his heresy and warn
>> others about the poison that he's teaching.
>> --
>> Doug
>> Calvary Chapel Frequently Unanswered Questions
>> http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
>
>Ummmm....Doug...let me *gently* suggest that it could well be *you* who
>are spreading the "poison", here, about your pastor -- due to your *own*
>confusion.
>
>But i'm sure that your pastor WILL forgive you for this. And let the
>rest of us be praying for Doug, that he "wakes up" out of his delusions.
>
>Winsomely,
>
>~~wynn manners
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Puss in Boots
>>> Say, that reminds me...have you read anything by Friederich *Nietzsche*? I
>>> read every extant work of *Nietzsche* during my second master's program,
>>> particularly his strong influence in the formulation and beliefs of Nazism.
Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl>:
>>Suggesting that Neitschze had 'strong influence in the formulation' of nazism
>>is an utter piece of flagrurant toss. The guy hated nationalists, he called
>>them 'moronic cows' who 'would steal his fresh air'. Puhleeze, *do* try to
>>*actually* read some Neiztsche before youstart running that little mouth
>>again.
Frank:
>I had to read every extant work of Nietzsche during my second Masters degree
>program. And it is quite evident that you don't know very much about him, as
>you can't even spell his name correctly--it is spelled *Nietzsche*, not
>"Neiztsche" nor "Neitschze". Can't you even get your mistakes to be
>consistent?
Non-responsive. Maanantai made an accurate and meaningful
observation: Nietzsche's philosophy is at odds with Nazi
thinking in basic ways -- he rejected nationalism, for instance,
while the Nazis glorified it. You reply with an assertion
about your reading, plus a spelling-flame. Nothing about Uncle
Fred, orthography aside.
Frank:
>>>See Friedrich Nietzsche, *The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals*
>>>[Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956]; see also Nietzsche, *The
>>>AntiChrist*, trans. by H.L. Mencken [Torrance, CA: The Noontide Press, 1980]
Maanantai:
>> Both of which have absolutely *nothing* to do with nazism, thank you.
Frank:
>You evidently haven't researched this carefully nor rigorously, as your
>comments are naive and reflect that you haven't read his works carefully,
>particularly within their historical milieu. Nietzsche most certainly laid
>the foundation (in part) to the ideas and philosophies that would find
>expression in Hitler's Third Reich.
You're both guilty of wild overstatement. Nietzsche's got
at least something to do with Nazism -- the Nazis eagerly
appropriated him. So it's silly to deny that N and Nazism have
an historical relationship. But to claim N "laid the
foundation" of Nazism is no improvement.
>"Both Nietzschean ethics and social Darwinism emphasized the value of the
>superior individual but they also recognized the value of superior groups.
>Nietzsche even extended his ethical standards to master and slave races. It
>was necessary only to mix his ethics with Machiavellian statecraft, to
>bouleverse his individualism into Marxian collectivism, to add the Hegelian
>worship of the State, and the witches' brew of totalitarianism would be
>complete. Thus, do our notions afflict us, and that which grows up in the
>brains of philosophers and theoreticians may ultimately have to be debated on
>the fields of battle."
>(See Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene*
>[Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169)
Interesting assertion. It works against you, tho. If you
believe this Zirkle, then to get from Nietzsche to
totalitarianism you've gotta add Machiavelli, Hegel, _and_ Marx.
("Only," he says!) What's more, several of the elements
Zirckle adds are antithetical to Nietzsche's thinking. Z mixes
in "worship of the state." But Nietzsche was one of its
severe critics -- not one of its worshippers. And even Zirckle
admits you can't reconcile N and collectivism unless you
"bouleverse his individualism."
>*Nota Bene*: Nietzsche laid the foundational, philosophical presupposition
>(along with Heckel, Comte, Darwin and Bernhardi, et. al.) that would find
>expression and fruition in National Socialism and the belief in the "Master
>Race".
Yep, you keep saying that. Do you realize you have yet to
make a case? Although now you've added Darwin and Comte to
the list I'm not sure it would be worthwhile. It's unclear who
you could leave off: seems like there must be dozens, even
hundreds of candidates. That makes sense, in a way, since "the
intellectual milieu which produced Nazism" is ultimately
Western civ.
> This may disrupt your "comfort zone" but it is nonetheless a fact.
That, or an interpretation.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
>>>"Both Nietzschean ethics and social Darwinism emphasized the value of the
>>>superior individual but they also recognized the value of superior groups.
>>>Nietzsche even extended his ethical standards to master and slave races.
Maanantai:
>> Total bollocks. Let's see some evidence for this assertion.
Frank:
> The work cited, Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social
> Scene* [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169,
> is a standard and recognized scholarly work on the subject.
An argument from authority isn't evidence.
Maanantai:
>> That's your scholarly refutation of Dr. Zirkle's thesis?
>>One might as well refer to "Dawning of the magicians" as a good work to
>>readon Nietzsche!
Frank:
>Citing a scholarly academic work frequently used at the doctorate level is
>the same as citing "Dawning of the magicians"? I would have to respectfully
>disagree.
You sure it's frequently used? Not that it matters -- I'm
just asking out of curiosity. Seems like a pretty obscure
reference. How much is it taught and which depts. is it taught
in? How often has it been cited by Nietzsche scholars in
the last ten or twenty years? Where and by who? "Standard and
recognized scholarly work on the subject" seems pretty
doubtful, but maybe I'm wrong.
[...]
>A number
>of historians and other scholars have studied the influences which shaped
>National Socialism, and it is the general consensus of both European and
>American scholarship that, as a point of fact, Nietzsche, Heckel, Comte,
>Darwin and Bernhardi all contributed to the intellectual milieu which
>produced Nazism. It doesn't mean that they were Nazis, but it does mean that
>their writings and ideas paved the way for it. You see, ideas have >
>consequences.
Well, sure. But what's the consequence of that idea? I'm
serious: what conclusions do you draw from it?
>I provided scholarly citations, refrain from using vulgarity, interact with
>the scholarly literature on the subjects being discussed, have a doctoral
>level education, use proper English, and I am "ignorant".
>In contrast, you use repeated vulgarity ("f***"), provide no scholarly
>citations in any way (and, in fact, mock scholarly citations), seem totally
>unfamiliar with the scholarly literature and offer no refutations or
>substantive commentary, but you are somehow not ignorant?
>One could easily get the impression that you are simply an uneducated,
>unread, vulgar person that doesn't provide scholarly citations because you
>*can't* provide scholarly citations, and really do not know what you are
>talking about. As a substitute, you simply use profane language, mock
>citations with childish comments and act like a general ignoramus.
Your "scholarly citations" consist of a quote from someone
who repeats your own claim and a gesture toward Will Durant.
Oh, and you named a couple of Nietzsche's books -- very helpful
for anyone who didn't know the titles. Maanantai has done
better: he's specified one of the conflicts between Nietzsche's
philosophy and Nazism, namely N's firm rejection of
nationalism -- especially German nationalism, I'll add. That's
no foundation for the Nazis. Just the opposite -- it
contradicts a central element of the National Socialist program.
-- Moggin
Maanantai
"Frank D." wrote:
>
> > That explains a lot, really. People who have to read books often don't read
> >them very well.
>
> Of course... But at least they know how to spell and use proper grammar.
You will have to refrain from using two capitals in the same sentence, Frank.
It's a small "b", in this instance.
>
>
> > No. Nietzsche's *writings* perhaps laid those foundations, but not the guy
> himself.
> > Very, very important distinction. A lot of simularity between Christ and
> > christianity here - as Leonard Cohen sings : "Give me Stalin or St Paul - give
> >me Christ or give me Hiroshima..."
>
> > > "Both Nietzschean ethics and social Darwinism emphasized the value of the
> > > superior individual but they also recognized the value of superior groups.
> > > Nietzsche even extended his ethical standards to master and slave races.
> >
> > Total bollocks. Let's see some evidence for this assertion.
>
> The work cited, Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social
> Scene* [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169,
> is a standard and recognized scholarly work on the subject.
Ah, a "standard" and "recognized" scholarly work. Some jackass throws at least three
totally different scientific disciplines on one giant heap, and tries to do his best
to come to sociological conclusions on basis of his assumptions. Well.
Let me tell you this: you keep throwing around terms like 'acedemic' and
'scholarly', and you seem to make it want to look like the whole acedemic world
agrees with your points of view on Nietschze. That is a very, very gross
overgenerilisation.
In fact, most philosophy acedemics I know have a at least mild dislike of Nietzsche,
because he someone really hard to classify.
In order to be able to understand the man, you must be able to adopt his points of
view on the whole. There are very few people indeed who are able to comprehend
Nietschze in that way, and citing Zirkle as being one of those is good for a laugh,
nothing more. You are such a typical american, I may add, for the only people I have
encountered on the net that would criticise on basis of spelling or terms like
'scholarly' or 'acedemic' are americans. I wonder why this is so, considering that
english is my second language - considering that it will never be my first; it's
like picking a fight with someone who has a handicaped arm, and taking advantages
over just that fact. Where I live, people consider this to be both unsportive and
serious bad taste. This is probably because in Europe there are so many differenyt
languages in such a small region, we have learnt to become tolerant in these kind of
issues. Further on about 'academism': there are some excellent scholars on
Nietzsche, no doubt, but I remember this american guy who had a phd in Nietzsche
studies and reffered to the alfamous"Dost thou go to see thy wife? Take thy whip!"
as a ''wife-beating quotation", claiming it would be somekind of instruction from
Friedrich's side to slap women.
The very thought that such an ass *gets paid* for making such ridiculous assertions,
is a serious attack on my nervous system.
>
>
> >
> > ROFLMAO! "
> >
>
> That's your scholarly refutation of Dr. Zirkle's thesis?
Yes. The guy should go back to school. There is indeed a lot of 'law of the strong'
rhetoric to be found in Nietzsche, but he's very tricky in this aspect, and though
he did speculate on one or two occasions about somekind of Aristocracy as a
political system, his ideas about this were based on spartan notions, not
nationalistic or fascist ones. Furthermore, to assert that Hitler based his theories
on Darwin is a laugh also. The two are really not related, since Darwin's 'survival
of the fittest' theorems have nothing whatsoever to do with moralism. I may add at
this point that I consider such remarks in itself evidence of at least anti-sematic
tendency, since, if Hitler *was* 'darwinistic' it would mean that the Jewish race is
to be considered 'weaker'.
Now ofcourse, mr.Hitler may well have been influenced by Darwin or Nietszsche - that
is in fact, quite, quite likely - but this is an altogether different thing; just
think about the amount of mass-murderers who were bible-inspired.
>
>
> > > (See Conway Zirkle, *Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene*
> > > [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959], pp. 168-169)
> >
> > One might as well refer to "Dawning of the magicians" as a good work to read
> >on Nietzsche!
>
> Citing a scholarly academic work frequently used at the doctorate level is the
> same as citing "Dawning of the magicians"? I would have to respectfully
> disagree.
You have an almost naive, childisch believe in the term 'acedemic'.
>
>
> > > *Nota Bene*: Nietzsche laid the foundational, philosophical
> presupposition
>
> > > (along with Heckel, Comte, Darwin and Bernhardi, et. al.) that would find
> > > expression and fruition in National Socialism and the belief in the "Master
> > > Race".
> >
> > Oh really. I'm surprised you forgot Confucius and Buddha.
>
> Why do you behave in such an anti-intellectual and immature manner?
Don't even go there. Give me some evidence that Nietzsche ever wrote about a 'Master
Race' in the way the national socialists used the term.
> A number
> of historians and other scholars have studied the influences which shaped
> National Socialism, and it is the general consensus of both European and
> American scholarship that, as a point of fact, Nietzsche, Heckel, Comte,
> Darwin and Bernhardi all contributed to the intellectual milieu which
> produced Nazism.
Oh my, oh my. So now 'nazism' is an offspring of somekind of 'intellectual elite'.
Did you ever study mr Hitlers works? Or even consider the backgrounds of most
national socialists? Fuck sake, Himmler was a chicken farmer - Hitler himself was
nothing but someone who couldn't make it into the wiener art acedemy. It's a bit
typical you would regard this as an 'inteelectual mileu', and it doesn't surprise me
in the least that it is you who has such ideas about the human intellect.
> It doesn't mean that they were Nazis, but it does mean that
> their writings and ideas paved the way for it. You see, ideas have
> consequences.
Oh really. So you would hold Christ responsible too for the millions that have been
slaughtered in his name?
Have you ever heard the term 'misinterpretation'? Ideas may well have consequences,
but consequences are not necessarily related to those same ideas.
>
>
> > > > > Do you feel attracted to *Nietzsche's* philosophical outlook?
> > > >
> > > > He was an incredible writer, yes.
> > >
> > > Interesting.
> >
> > Yes, sometimes he was interesting as well.
> >
>
> I know you think you are being "clever," but you are not being scholarly.
So, to assert that Nietzsche wrote some interesting things is not 'scholarly' in
your book? Really, I'm beginning to wonder about what the term constitutes of, in
your case.
>
>
> > > > > Regardless, the applicability of logic stands--any attempt to undermine
> a
> > > > > logical critique is forced to *use* logic, and therefore defeats itself.
> > > >
> > > > Yawn. Typical christian "the bible is truth, therefore, if we want to
> prove
> > > >it, we read the bible" kind of bollocks.
> > >
> > > Who mentioned the Bible? Your comments, of course, have nothing to do with
> > > my statement regarding the laws of necessary inference. Any cursory study
> of
> > > logic would inform you that logic can't be attacked without presupposing the
> > > validity of its use. It is a self-defeating premise.
> >
> > Your being silly again. Showing that something has limits has nothing to do
> with
> > 'attacking' it. There's nothing in this universe without limit, Frank, I would
> say
> > even your ignorance has its limits, in some obscure way.
> >
>
> I provided scholarly citations, refrain from using vulgarity, interact with
> the scholarly literature on the subjects being discussed, have a doctoral
> level education, use proper English, and I am "ignorant".
Nope.
1) Citations very dubious, hardly related to Nietzsche's work at all.
2) Very vulgar attack on grammar and ad hominems like 'anti-intellectual' etc.
3) Hardly any substantial comments about the content, just the form.
That's really enough to conclude you're at least 'ignorant' in my book, sir.
>
>
> In contrast, you use repeated vulgarity ("f***"),
What the fuck are you talking about. This is not the Jerry Springer show, mister.
If you want to bleep out words, join the nazi's, asshole.
>
> > > > You have to use paint too to show that painting has its limitations.
> > >
> > > In logic we call this a faulty analogy *and* a category mistake.
> >
> > No we don't. It's in fact a very good analogy. I know for sure you have never
> tried
> > to read or understand Wittgenstein - your comments make that blatently
> obvious.
> > Even more so, you fail to adress the issues I bring at hand by overuse of
> terms like
> > 'ad-hominem', 'faulty logic' etc which just shows you really *do* have nothing
> to
> > say about these issues, other then ducking them with foul play about language.
> >
>
> That you provided no scholarly (nor popular, for that matter) citations or
> sources, while I provided a number of scholarly sources germane to the topic
One quote from Dr Jerkle is a 'number of scholarly sources germane to the topic'?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Do you have any brains of your own at all? Fuck sake, you claim it to be impossible
to declare logic to have limits using logic as an instrument, and the next thing you
know *you yourself* are using this very logic to argue that logic cannot be applied
to aesthistic expressions. So, you have defeated your own point of view, mister.
You're booked. Logic has limits, if it doesn't apply to aesthetic expression. You
used logic to show us this.
Take him away.
Martijn.
Frank D.
Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
> Of course.... But at least they know how to spell and use proper grammar.
>
> You will have to refrain from using two capitals in the same sentence, Frank.
> It's a small "b", in this instance.
You are incorrect. The above statments are not "the same sentence".
"Of course...." possessed its own thought, ending with ellipsis points to
indicate omission at the end of the sentence. "But at least they know how to
spell and use proper grammar" possesses its own thought in answer to the
previous statement, thus *beginning* (and therefore properly in uppercase)
with the coordinating conjunction, "But".
Nice try on your part, though.
To help you out in this important area, see the following:
*Harbrace College Handbook* Tenth ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers, 1986), p. 165
*Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style* (Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster Publishers, 1995)
Shertzer, Margaret D. *The Elements of Grammar* (Macmillian, 1996)
Strunk, William and E.B. White, *Elements of Style* Third ed. (Allyn & Bacon
Publishers, 1995)
*The Merriam-Webster Dictionary* (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Publishers,
1995), p. 689
> Ah, a "standard" and "recognized" scholarly work. Some jackass throws at least
Amazing...
> three
> totally different scientific disciplines on one giant heap, and tries to do
> his best
> to come to sociological conclusions on basis of his assumptions.
Do you always offer summaries of books you have never read? It must be
wonderful. It must save you a great deal of time to not have to engage their
content and actually think.
Your response possesses no serious content, simply emotional outbursts.
And regarding the work offering a multi-disciplinary critique (or in your
words, "one giant heap"), you are correct. You need to realize it is not a
high school text nor a popular-level treatment, but a work generally intended
for serious research at the graduate level. As such, it does approach the
subject from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
> Well.
> Let me tell you this: you keep throwing around terms like 'acedemic' and
> 'scholarly', and you seem to make it want to look like the whole acedemic
world
> agrees with your points of view on Nietschze.
It is not controversial to state that Nietzsche's writings and philosophy
contributed in a significant way to Hitler's view regarding the superiority of
the Aryan race (the notion of a "Superman" and the "Will to Power," et. al.).
No *ad populum* argument was being suggested.
> In fact, most philosophy acedemics I know have a at least mild dislike of
> Nietzsche,
> because he someone really hard to classify.
> In order to be able to understand the man, you must be able to adopt his
> points of
> view on the whole. There are very few people indeed who are able to comprehend
> Nietschze in that way, and citing Zirkle as being one of those is good for a
> laugh,
> nothing more.
Since you have never read Dr. Zirkle's work (and intimated that you had never
even heard of it), how do you presume to offer a review of its thesis and
content? Strictly speaking, you are being irrational.
> You are such a typical american, I may add, for the only people
> I have
> encountered on the net that would criticise on basis of spelling or terms like
> 'scholarly' or 'acedemic' are americans.
And now you are being a bigot. How do you feel about Jews? Since there is
such a thing as a "typical american," how would you describe the "typical"
Jew? What about the "typical" Mexican? Your comment was in poor taste.
> I wonder why this is so, considering
> that
> english is my second language - considering that it will never be my first;
> it's
> like picking a fight with someone who has a handicaped arm, and taking
> advantages
> over just that fact. Where I live, people consider this to be both unsportive
> and
> serious bad taste.
Almost as bad taste as saying "typical american" or other bigot comments.
> This is probably because in Europe there are so many
> differenyt
> languages in such a small region, we have learnt to become tolerant in these
> kind of
> issues.
Like your "tolerant" statement, "typical american"? Substitute "american"
with "Jew" and the underlying bigotry of your statement is obvious.
> Further on about 'academism': there are some excellent scholars on
> Nietzsche, no doubt, but I remember this american guy who had a phd in
> Nietzsche
> studies and reffered to the alfamous"Dost thou go to see thy wife? Take thy
> whip!"
> as a ''wife-beating quotation", claiming it would be somekind of instruction
> from
> Friedrich's side to slap women.
> The very thought that such an ass *gets paid* for making such ridiculous
> assertions,
> is a serious attack on my nervous system.
>
Then go through the labor of earning a Ph.D. and publish on the subject. It
carries much more sincerity and weight than simply calling him an "ass".
> > > ROFLMAO! "
> > >
> >
> > That's your scholarly refutation of Dr. Zirkle's thesis?
>
> Yes. The guy should go back to school.
It's absolutely amazing that you can make such statements while never having
read the work in question, and being totally ignorant of its content and
thesis. You are displaying blatant anti-intellectualism.
<snipped emotional pleading for Nietzsche>
> Furthermore, to assert that Hitler based his theories
> on Darwin is a laugh also.
"Darwin's notion of the survival of the fittest was a key element both in the
Marxist concept of class warfare and of the racial philosophies which shaped
Hitlerism."
See Paul Johnson, *Modern Times* rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), p.
5
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that
forced every people to try and dominate all others; without struggle they
would rot and perish..."
See L.H. Gann, "Adolf Hitler: The Complete Totalitarian," *Intercollegiate
Review* (Fall 1985): 24.
"Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) was the man who brought *Darwinismus* into German
intellectual life. Not only did he succeed in establishing his interpretation
of the strictly scientific aspects of Darwin as the correct view for a
generation of scholars, but he went far beyond science to establish a unique
form of social Darwinism. This social Darwinism combined almost mystical,
religious belief in the forces of nature (i.e., natural selection as the
fundamental law of life) with a literal and not analogical transfer of the
laws of biology to the social and political arena. It included the standard
Darwinian ideas of struggle (*Kampf*) and competition as the foundation for
natural law, and therefore social law..."
See George J. Stein, "Biological Sciences and the Roots of Nazism," *American
Scientist* 76 (Jan./Feb. 1988): 53-54
> The two are really not related, since Darwin's
> 'survival
> of the fittest' theorems have nothing whatsoever to do with moralism.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to
the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942.
We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis
for a national policy."
"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he
has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory
of evolution."
See Sir Arthur Keith, *Evolution and Ethics* (New York: Putnam, 1947), pp. 28,
230
> Now ofcourse, mr.Hitler may well have been influenced by Darwin or Nietszsche
> - that
> is in fact, quite, quite likely
You just stated that to assert such a thing is "a laugh". Stop disagreeing
with yourself--you should try to get along with yourself.
>
> Don't even go there. Give me some evidence that Nietzsche ever wrote about a
> 'Master
> Race' in the way the national socialists used the term.
"This splendid ruling stock (Teutonic Aryans) was corrupted, first by the
Catholic laudation of feminine virtues, secondly by the Puritan and plebeian
ideals of the Reformation, and thirdly by inter-marriage with *inferior
stock*"
Friedrich Nietzsche as quoted in Will Durant, *The Story of Philosophy* (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 322
> Oh my, oh my. So now 'nazism' is an offspring of somekind of 'intellectual
elite'.
Offering a commentary on the intellectual milieu undergirding a political or
social movement (regardless of what it is) does not equate to it being or not
being based upon "somekind of 'intellectual elite', for *every* movement is
based upon some intellectual framework or outlook. It is simply unavoidable.
> Did you ever study mr Hitlers works?
Yes.
> Or even consider the backgrounds of most
> national socialists? Fuck sake, Himmler was a chicken farmer - Hitler himself
> was
> nothing but someone who couldn't make it into the wiener art acedemy. It's a
> bit
> typical you would regard this as an 'inteelectual mileu', and it doesn't
> surprise me
> in the least that it is you who has such ideas about the human intellect.
Again, every political or social movement is predicated upon some type of
intellectual milieu. This is not a value judgement, pro or con. You are
being incoherent and emotional. And (yet again) utilizing abusive ad
hominem.
<snipped obligatory abusive ad hominem statements>
> What the fuck are you talking about. This is not the Jerry Springer show,
> mister.
> If you want to bleep out words, join the nazi's, asshole.
>
Incredible... Please have the common courtesy and simple human decency to not
use such vulgar, guttural language.
>
> Do you have any brains of your own at all? Fuck sake,
Amazing...
> you claim it to be
> impossible
> to declare logic to have limits using logic as an instrument, and the next
> thing you
> know *you yourself* are using this very logic to argue that logic cannot be
> applied
> to aesthistic expressions. So, you have defeated your own point of view,
> mister.
Actually, you are simply confused at this point. I stated (and every text on
Logic would buttress this, as well) that *your analogy* was faulty, for you
attempted to compare an aesthetic example to demonstrate the limitations of
logic in inducing or deducing the truthfulness of a propositional claim.
I tried to explain to you that aesthetics are not under the aegis of logic, so
your analogy was indeed faulty.
I never *argued* (i.e., offered a syllogistic statement) that logic couldn't
be applied to aesthetics; I *asserted* that your attempt to demonstrate the
supposed limitations of logic *within applicable logical inductions or
deductions* was based upon your lack of knowledge of the field (i.e.,
invoking the area of aesthetics to the laws of logic).
No logician would ever use an aesthetic as a pro or con reference to a logical
inference. This is "not my point of view," but just a technical statement
regarding the laws of logic. It is not that logic is "limited" in regard to
aesthetics, but that to use logic in relation to aesthetics is a confused
undertaking. Logic is fully applicable to *logical* categories, not aesthetic
ones.
That is why I offered a bibliography of some standard textbooks on logic so
you could, if you were so inclined, begin a study of logic so you wouldn't
make such errors in the future. Your statements were simply expressions of
your confusion regarding the subject.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Maanantai
> In article <371AE318...@chello.nl>,
> Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > Of course.... But at least they know how to spell and use proper grammar.
> >
> > You will have to refrain from using two capitals in the same sentence, Frank.
> > It's a small "b", in this instance.
>
> You are incorrect. The above statments are not "the same sentence".
Yes they are. Ever heard of the necessity of pressing the "Enter" button on your
keyboard after using ellipsis points?
> Do you always offer summaries of books you have never read? It must be
> wonderful. It must save you a great deal of time to not have to engage their
> content and actually think.
Depends. Sometimes I close my eyes, and after the archons come rushing over they
whisper secrets in my ear
too horrific to transmit to vulgars. Sometimes it's simply sufficient to read what
people put on a newsgroup as an extract of the work. If somebody refers to a book by
Professor doctor Nitwit no one ever heard of, who makes such a popular conclusion
under the pretense of doing instructive field-work, then I say I have no time to
waste with such popular gossip that wants to disguise as scientific work.
>
>
> Your response possesses no serious content, simply emotional outbursts.
That is simply not true.
>
>
> And regarding the work offering a multi-disciplinary critique (or in your
> words, "one giant heap"), you are correct. You need to realize it is not a
> high school text nor a popular-level treatment, but a work generally intended
> for serious research at the graduate level. As such, it does approach the
> subject from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
Yeah, right.
>
>
> > Well.
> > Let me tell you this: you keep throwing around terms like 'acedemic' and
> > 'scholarly', and you seem to make it want to look like the whole acedemic
> world
> > agrees with your points of view on Nietschze.
>
> It is not controversial to state that Nietzsche's writings and philosophy
> contributed in a significant way to Hitler's view regarding the superiority of
> the Aryan race (the notion of a "Superman" and the "Will to Power," et. al.).
> No *ad populum* argument was being suggested.
Yeah, right. Did you actually *read* my post? Because you have managed to snip
exactly those parts relevant to the discussion.
Is this a habitual reflection of the so-called 'acedemic circle' you think yourself
to belong to? Or do you call your laywer every time you have to put up a debate
about something essential?
>
> Since you have never read Dr. Zirkle's work (and intimated that you had never
> even heard of it), how do you presume to offer a review of its thesis and
> content? Strictly speaking, you are being irrational.
As a Gnostic, I am able to speak like Solomon - you obviously have no clue towards
the symptoms of direct knowledge.
I can give you a hint, though: It's really not necissary to go out on the street and
taste from a hundred different kind of dog turds - the fact that something 'smells
bad' is really sufficient information.
>
>
> > You are such a typical american, I may add, for the only people
> > I have
> > encountered on the net that would criticise on basis of spelling or terms like
> > 'scholarly' or 'acedemic' are americans.
>
> And now you are being a bigot. How do you feel about Jews? Since there is
> such a thing as a "typical american," how would you describe the "typical"
> Jew? What about the "typical" Mexican? Your comment was in poor taste.
I never said anything about 'typical americans', except for the fact that I do
regard you as one to whom that label would perfectly apply. I'm at total liberty to
think about americans whatever I want, and to think about you whatever I want.
Is there anything more pathetic than a guy who treatens to call his layer, because
he too much of a wuss to fight things out on his own? Grow up, stop wasting our tax
money, and stop being such a pathetic fucking yank.
(For the record: most american people I know are absolutely lovely. You're definitly
not one of them.)
>
> I never *argued* (i.e., offered a syllogistic statement) that logic couldn't
> be applied to aesthetics; I *asserted* that your attempt to demonstrate the
> supposed limitations of logic *within applicable logical inductions or
> deductions* was based upon your lack of knowledge of the field (i.e.,
> invoking the area of aesthetics to the laws of logic).
>
> No logician would ever use an aesthetic as a pro or con reference to a logical
> inference. This is "not my point of view," but just a technical statement
> regarding the laws of logic. It is not that logic is "limited" in regard to
> aesthetics, but that to use logic in relation to aesthetics is a confused
> undertaking. Logic is fully applicable to *logical* categories, not aesthetic
> ones.
What an incredible lot of bollocks. Replace 'logic' with 'bible', and you will know
exactly with what kind of philosophy we are dealing with here. Its conservative
crap, masquerading as a 'one true way' but actually, since Wittgenstein, hopelessly
outdated which just shows from you trying to shove Aristoteles down my throat.
Puh-leaze!
Martijn.
Frank D.
Maanantai <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
> Of course.... But at least they know how to spell and use proper grammar.
> You will have to refrain from using two capitals in the same sentence,
> Frank.
> It's a small "b", in this instance.
> >
> > You are incorrect. The above statments are not "the same sentence".
> Yes they are. Ever heard of the necessity of pressing the "Enter" button on
> your keyboard after using ellipsis points?
You really are incorrect. No recognized reference on English grammar will
support you. Perhaps you are not getting "direct knowledge" from the archons
regarding English grammar. It would be necessary to press the "Enter" button
(to use your words) if the two statements were to be distinct paragraphs,
which they are not. They are contextually related and as such are part of
the same paragraph.
Grammar school in session:
"Of course...." possessed its own thought, ending with ellipsis points to
indicate omission at the end of *the sentence* (*not* the end of a
paragraph--important distinction). "But at least they know how to spell and
use proper grammar" possesses its own thought in answer to the previous
statement within the same paragraph, thus *beginning* (and therefore properly
in uppercase) with the coordinating conjunction, "But".
To help you out and provide knowledge that the "archons" may be omitting to
you in regard to English grammar in this important area, see the following:
*Harbrace College Handbook* Tenth ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers, 1986), p. 165
*Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style* (Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster Publishers, 1995)
Shertzer, Margaret D. *The Elements of Grammar* (Macmillian, 1996)
Strunk, William and E.B. White, *Elements of Style* Third ed. (Allyn & Bacon
Publishers, 1995)
*The Merriam-Webster Dictionary* (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Publishers,
1995), p. 689
>
> > Do you always offer summaries of books you have never read? It must be
> > wonderful. It must save you a great deal of time to not have to engage
their
> > content and actually think.
>
> Depends. Sometimes I close my eyes, and after the archons come rushing over
> they whisper secrets in my ear too horrific to transmit to vulgars.
Perhaps your medication needs to be renewed?
> Sometimes it's simply sufficient to read
> what people put on a newsgroup as an extract of the work.
One quoted paragraph is sufficient to review a 360+ page work, containing
hundreds of footnotes and a bibliography of over 70 works? Interesting.
> If somebody refers to a book by
> Professor doctor Nitwit
Childish, ignorant and very revealing.
> no one ever heard of,
Even if you were correct (which you are not), nothing more than argumentum ad
populum.
Point of fact, the work which you are deriding with nothing more to go on
than whispers in your ear by archons (and a quoted paragraph) is published by
the University of Pennsylvania, and is a substantial work detailing the
various influencing contributions to totalitarian regimes as found in the
20th century.
So you have no substantive response to a work used at the graduate level, but
only abusive ad hominem combined with your religious superstitions. That
speaks volumes to the reasonable person about your qualifications.
> > Your response possesses no serious content, simply emotional outbursts.
>
> That is simply not true.
>
See above.
> Yeah, right. Did you actually *read* my post? Because you have managed to snip
> exactly those parts relevant to the discussion.
> Is this a habitual reflection of the so-called 'acedemic circle' you think
> yourself
> to belong to? Or do you call your laywer every time you have to put up a
> debate
> about something essential?
>
I read your post in its entirety and responded responsibly, utilizing
scholarly sources (e.g., Paul Johnson) and addressed the salient issues.
Point of fact, when I do "snip" sections it is within an editorial aspect for
brevity. The reasonable person, if they are interested, may certainly avail
themselves of the posting thread to read it in its entirety.
In contrast, you made quite a great deal about Nietzsche not being an
influence on Hitler's beliefs, and when I provided (I believe it was three)
scholarly citations in contra to your uninformed assertion, you completely
snipped it and proceeded as if a point was made. In fact, I'll provide it
again since you conveniently ignored it:
Martijn stated:
> Furthermore, to assert that Hitler based his theories
> on Darwin is a laugh also.
And I responed with the following sources:
"Darwin's notion of the survival of the fittest was a key element both in the
Marxist concept of class warfare and of the racial philosophies which shaped
Hitlerism."
See Paul Johnson, *Modern Times* rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), p.
5
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that
forced every people to try and dominate all others; without struggle they
would rot and perish..."
See L.H. Gann, "Adolf Hitler: The Complete Totalitarian," *Intercollegiate
Review* (Fall 1985): 24.
"Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) was the man who brought *Darwinismus* into German
intellectual life. Not only did he succeed in establishing his interpretation
of the strictly scientific aspects of Darwin as the correct view for a
generation of scholars, but he went far beyond science to establish a unique
form of social Darwinism. This social Darwinism combined almost mystical,
religious belief in the forces of nature (i.e., natural selection as the
fundamental law of life) with a literal and not analogical transfer of the
laws of biology to the social and political arena. It included the standard
Darwinian ideas of struggle (*Kampf*) and competition as the foundation for
natural law, and therefore social law..."
See George J. Stein, "Biological Sciences and the Roots of Nazism," *American
Scientist* 76 (Jan./Feb. 1988): 53-54
> Since you have never read Dr. Zirkle's work (and intimated that you had
> never
> even heard of it), how do you presume to offer a review of its thesis and
> content? Strictly speaking, you are being irrational.
>
> As a Gnostic, I am able to speak like Solomon - you obviously have no clue
> towards the symptoms of direct knowledge.
> I can give you a hint, though: It's really not necissary to go out on the
> street and taste from a hundred different kind of dog turds - the fact that
> something 'smells bad' is really sufficient information.
That is how you review scholarly works? By not knowing their content and
merely going on blind assumption, hiding behind religious superstition and
gnostic "direct knowledge"?
This is very telling.
Martijn stated:
> You are such a typical american, I may add, for the only people
> I have
> encountered on the net that would criticise on basis of spelling or terms
> like 'scholarly' or 'acedemic' are americans.
Then Martijn stated:
> I never said anything about 'typical americans', except for the fact that I do
> regard you as one to whom that label would perfectly apply. I'm at total
> liberty to think about americans whatever I want, and to think about you >
whatever I want.
From the above two statements of "Martijn," it would appear she is confused.
In short, an excercise in mental masturbation at best, and a case of extreme
irrationality.
> Is there anything more pathetic than a guy who treatens to call his layer,
> because he too much of a wuss to fight things out on his own?
What are you ranting about? What does this have to do with Nietzsche and his
influence on Nazism, et. al.? I never threatend to call my "layer" (I presume
you meant to say, "lawyer") in regard to any *academic debate*. You are
employing a red herring because you have nothing of any scholarly content to
contribute to *this* discussion.
> Grow up,
I would suggest that you heed your own advice. It is the height of immaturity
to use obscenity after obscenity (with no consideration in regard to the
readership), slander the written works of scholars which you have never read,
and excuse this ignorance by claiming "direct knowledge from the archons".
> stop wasting
> our tax
> money,
Stop wasting "our" tax money? As an American (which you brought up with your
bigot comment), how are *my* taxes "our taxes"? And what do taxes have to do
any of this? Are you writing from a mental ward?
> and stop being such a pathetic fucking yank.
Excellent case in point. Obscenity, bigotry and immaturity, all in one.
> (For the record: most american people I know are absolutely lovely. You're
> definitly
> not one of them.)
This goes against your statements above about the "typical american" and the
reasonable understanding of the word, "typical" (i.e., typical: "exhibiting
the essential characteristics of a group").
>
> What an incredible lot of bollocks. Replace 'logic' with 'bible', and you will
> know
> exactly with what kind of philosophy we are dealing with here. Its
> conservative
> crap, masquerading as a 'one true way' but actually, since Wittgenstein,
> hopelessly
> outdated which just shows from you trying to shove Aristoteles down my throat.
The Bible has nothing to do with any of this discussion, actually. But your
bigotry is well noted.
It really isn't "conservative" nor "liberal," actually. Just standard logic.
I detailed the distinctions between what constitutes logical induction and
deduction (within the scope of a brief article) in contrast to aesthetic
expressions, which are simply a distinct field of study.
The following will assist you in avoiding your numerous logical errors, as
well as equip you to discuss this subject on an informed level:
Copi, Irving I. *Introduction to Logic* Sixth ed. (New York: Macmillan,
1982)
Engel, S. Morris. *With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies*
Third ed. (New York: St. Martins Press, 1986)
Hurley, Patrick J. *Logic* Third ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988)
Ruby, Lionel. *Logic: An Introduction* (Chicago: J.B. Lippincott, 1960)
And yes, Aristotle's *Prior Analytics* is an important and foundational work
in the field.
Thanks for your comments. It's been interesting, to say the least.
Cheers
Frank
Puss in Boots
Frank:
>Since you have never read Dr. Zirkle's work (and intimated that you had never
>even heard of it), how do you presume to offer a review of its thesis and
>content? Strictly speaking, you are being irrational.
Nah. Presumably Martijn is extrapolating from the passage
you quoted. That's risky, of course, since he doesn't have
much to go on, but it's not irrational. "Dismissive" is le mot
juste.
[...]
[Martijn says Zirkle is an ass.]
>Then go through the labor of earning a Ph.D. and publish on the subject. It
>carries much more sincerity and weight than simply calling him an "ass".
A doctorate doesn't add to anyone's sincerity. Besides, I
think Martijn was entirely sincere in calling your Zirkle an
ass. M's academic credentials are neither here nor there. You
could have asked for an argument, tho.
[From next post]
Frank:
>Point of fact, the work which you are deriding with nothing more to go on
>than whispers in your ear by archons (and a quoted paragraph) is published by
>the University of Pennsylvania, and is a substantial work detailing the
>various influencing contributions to totalitarian regimes as found in the
>20th century.
Your facts are off: that should be _was_ published by the
University of Pennsylvania. Sometime since 1959 Penn must
have decided to drop it, since it's out of print along with the
rest of Zirkle's oeuvre. You still claim that it's
"frequently used at the doctorate level"? I'm getting more and
more doubtful about that.
[...]
Martijn:
>> Furthermore, to assert that Hitler based his theories on Darwin is
>> a laugh also.
[...]
>> Now of course, mr.Hitler may well have been influenced by Darwin or
>> Nietszsche - that is in fact, quite, quite likely - but this is an
>> altogether different thing; just think about the amount of
>> mass-murderers who were bible-inspired.
Frank:
>You just stated that to assert such a thing is "a laugh".
Martijn was drawing a distinction you've apparently missed.
[...]
Martijn:
>> Give me some evidence that Nietzsche ever wrote
>> about a'Master Race' in the way the national socialists used the term.
Frank:
>"This splendid ruling stock (Teutonic Aryans) was corrupted, first by the
>Catholic laudation of feminine virtues, secondly by the Puritan and plebeian
>ideals of the Reformation, and thirdly by inter-marriage with *inferior
>stock*"
>Friedrich Nietzsche as quoted in Will Durant, *The Story of Philosophy* (New
>York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 322
Surely a doctoral-level scholar like yourself can supply a
more precise citation. Where are you quoting from in
Nietzsche? As it stands, he's calling the Aryans corrupt -- an
idea that fits N's perspective better than Hitler's.
-- Moggin
Maanantai
Nah. Presumably Martijn is extrapolating from the passage
> you quoted. That's risky, of course, since he doesn't have
> much to go on, but it's not irrational. "Dismissive" is le mot
> juste.
>
> [...]
>
> [Martijn says Zirkle is an ass.]
Small correction, but that one was aimed at the american guy I know who claimed
Nietzsche made 'wife beating quotations'.
>
>
> >Then go through the labor of earning a Ph.D. and publish on the subject. It
> >carries much more sincerity and weight than simply calling him an "ass".
>
> A doctorate doesn't add to anyone's sincerity. Besides, I
> think Martijn was entirely sincere in calling your Zirkle an
> ass. M's academic credentials are neither here nor there. You
> could have asked for an argument, tho.
>
> [From next post]
>
> Frank:
>
> >Point of fact, the work which you are deriding with nothing more to go on
> >than whispers in your ear by archons (and a quoted paragraph) is published by
> >the University of Pennsylvania, and is a substantial work detailing the
> >various influencing contributions to totalitarian regimes as found in the
> >20th century.
>
> Your facts are off: that should be _was_ published by the
> University of Pennsylvania. Sometime since 1959 Penn must
> have decided to drop it, since it's out of print along with the
> rest of Zirkle's oeuvre. You still claim that it's
> "frequently used at the doctorate level"? I'm getting more and
> more doubtful about that.
>
> [...]
>
> Martijn:
>
> >> Furthermore, to assert that Hitler based his theories on Darwin is
> >> a laugh also.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Now of course, mr.Hitler may well have been influenced by Darwin or
> >> Nietszsche - that is in fact, quite, quite likely - but this is an
> >> altogether different thing; just think about the amount of
> >> mass-murderers who were bible-inspired.
>
> Frank:
>
> >You just stated that to assert such a thing is "a laugh".
>
> Martijn was drawing a distinction you've apparently missed.
>
> [...]
>
> Martijn:
>
> >> Give me some evidence that Nietzsche ever wrote
> >> about a'Master Race' in the way the national socialists used the term.
>
> Frank:
>
> >"This splendid ruling stock (Teutonic Aryans) was corrupted, first by the
> >Catholic laudation of feminine virtues, secondly by the Puritan and plebeian
> >ideals of the Reformation, and thirdly by inter-marriage with *inferior
> >stock*"
> >Friedrich Nietzsche as quoted in Will Durant, *The Story of Philosophy* (New
> >York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 322
>
> Surely a doctoral-level scholar like yourself can supply a
> more precise citation. Where are you quoting from in
> Nietzsche? As it stands, he's calling the Aryans corrupt -- an
> idea that fits N's perspective better than Hitler's.
I was wondering this myself. It's really irritating if someone quote's something
without saying where it's to be found. I'm not going to stroll through N.'s entire
oeuvre to find it - but let me add this observation: this passage, if correct, is
taken out of context and I think its quite likely the context in this case was
that Nietzsche wanted to explain how it was possible that Europe got conquered by
the Christian religion. Calling something 'a splendid teutonic ruling stock' is
very far from declaring a thing to be something like a 'Master Race' - this quote
*does not* make racial distinction - it doesn't state this particular 'stock'
would be better then any other, and in fact I suspect some sarcasm in Nietzsche's
choice of words here. What the fuck are 'Teutonic Aryans', anyway, and calling
them a 'splendid stock' does not really sound as the most wonderful compliment I
have ever encountered.
Regards,
Martijn.
Maanantai
>
> > Of course.... But at least they know how to spell and use proper grammar.
>
> > You will have to refrain from using two capitals in the same sentence,
> > Frank.
> > It's a small "b", in this instance.
> > >
> > > You are incorrect. The above statments are not "the same sentence".
It's "statements", Frank. Really, I am not joking.
Regards,
Martijn.
us
one we keep what about those who have been cremated, or people who have lost
limbs etc. Are there going to be headless people etc there. ALways wondered
about that if it is actually THIS body we keep.
Keep up the good work!!!!!!
Nanci
leland palmer
sown as a natural 'seed' but will rise as a supernatural 'plant'. This
is why those who argue that Jesus' resurrected body was a 'flesh and
bones' body simply don't get it. When Jesus appeared as a flesh and
bones' body, he was a supernatural spirit manifesting from the other
realm, manipulating matter in order to inspire resurrection faith in
those crude types who needed to see in order to believe.
Puss in Boots
>> ... . Presumably Martijn is extrapolating from the passage
>> you quoted. That's risky, of course, since he doesn't have
>> much to go on, but it's not irrational. "Dismissive" is le mot
>> juste.
[Martijn says Zirkle is an ass.]
Martijn:
> Small correction, but that one was aimed at the american guy I know who
> claimed Nietzsche made 'wife beating quotations'.
You also called Zirkle a jackass. It's hard to judge from
one quotation, but I agree the passage Frank typed in was
unencouraging. And Nietzsche attracts jackasses almost the way
Rev Max attracts nuts.
Martijn:
>>>> Give me some evidence that Nietzsche ever wrote
>>>> about a'Master Race' in the way the national socialists used the term.
Frank:
>>>"This splendid ruling stock (Teutonic Aryans) was corrupted, first by the
>>>Catholic laudation of feminine virtues, secondly by the Puritan and plebeian
>>>ideals of the Reformation, and thirdly by inter-marriage with *inferior
>>>stock*"
>>>Friedrich Nietzsche as quoted in Will Durant, *The Story of Philosophy*
>>>(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 322
Moggin:
>> Surely a doctoral-level scholar like yourself can supply a
>> more precise citation. Where are you quoting from in
>> Nietzsche? As it stands, he's calling the Aryans corrupt -- an
>> idea that fits N's perspective better than Hitler's.
Martijn:
>I was wondering this myself. It's really irritating if someone quote's
>something without saying where it's to be found. I'm not going to stroll
>through N.'s entire oeuvre to find it - but let me add this observation:
>this passage, if correct, is taken out of context and I think its quite
>likely the context in this case was that Nietzsche wanted to explain how
>it was possible that Europe got conquered by the Christian religion.
>Calling something 'a splendid teutonic ruling stock' is very far from
>declaring a thing to be something like a 'Master Race' - this quote
>*does not* make racial distinction - it doesn't state this particular
>'stock' would be better then any other, and in fact I suspect some sarcasm
>in Nietzsche's choice of words here. What the fuck are 'Teutonic Aryans',
>anyway, and calling them a 'splendid stock' does not really sound as the
>most wonderful compliment I have ever encountered.
We really need the context. I'm guessing "Teutonic Aryans"
is Durant's contribution -- although if that's the case, it
should be in brackets. In the quote as it's sitting, N's point
is that the Aryans are corrupt. That's consistent with his
thinking about the effects of Christianity; it also meshes with
his low opinion of Germans and German culture. It sure
doesn't make a good foundation for the Nazis.
-- Moggin
Doug
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
--
Doug
Calvary Chapel Frequently Unanswered Questions
http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Doug
>
> Hey Leland if Doug and the others are soo right about this BODY being the
> one we keep what about those who have been cremated, or people who have lost
> limbs etc. Are there going to be headless people etc there.
The Christian will be raised. His body will be changed from mortal to
immortal. As for the state of the resurrected unbelievers such as
Leland, your description may have more truth than you know.
> ALways wondered about that if it is actually THIS body we keep.
Are you a Christian? If you are, then your body will be raised from the
dead and made incorruptible. The resurrection body is a body of flesh
and bones, just like our Lord's body was:
Luke 24:39 Behold me hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
> Keep up the good work!!!!!!
Be careful when you and a devil agree. Be very careful.
> Nanci