«

[Quintopotere]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Mar 22 2006, 10:18 AM
And about: Thou shell not KILL - the first bible was written in Greek. If you wish to go back to Thou shalt not murder, you're not quotin the bible, but the Tora, so you're not christian, but jewish! Bug difference! Or are you suggesting the bible should be re-written?

The Bible is the union of many books and that books wasn't written in greek for sure!
It's so easy that in translating and hand-copying during cenuries someone made little errors... If we find those errors we have to correct them!

Sometimes a catholic commission make a new edition of The Gospel to correct those errors and follow the changes in the modern languages. I think that even the others christian religions make something similar...

[Rogue]

I think that I've read that last part of the Bible was writen in Greek and/or on an Island in Greek. But I might be wrong.

[Sebatianos]

Thus far the oldest known BIBLE (as the fundamental work of christianity) was writen around 80AD in Greek language. The comandment given is Thou shalt not KILL (don't know how to say that in Greek).

Now how can you claim that it was wrongly translated from Hebrew? What if they WANTED to make the CHANGE? After all, it never states the christianity must fully except the jewish religion. Jesus himself (I will not even open the discusion of his existance, which still hasn't been 100% prooven) was trying to change the Jewish ways. So what gives you (or anyone else) the right to say. WHAT WAS or what wasn't a mistake?

After all, great changes were made from the judeism to christianity. The god of the old testament is also known to help out in war. He would say - do not murder.
But the god of the new religion teaches TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. So don't you think it's possible, that it was really ment to be DON'T KILL (not even in self defence)?

[The Good Soldier Švejk]

Use Toiletpaper on both sides, and the Sucsess is on your hand!!!! LOL LOL LOL

[rlbell]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Mar 22 2006, 10:18 AM
All you proved thus far is, that Nietzche is describing the human society the way he found it (meaning the society was that was before his philosophy - not because of it) and he's still not telling people to go and commit mass murder.

He's saying people are doing such things are trying to explain reasons why. He's describing the society, explaining it and trying to figure out the theoretical basis why the society is the way it is (or better yet - was the way it was).


And about: Thou shell not KILL - the first bible was written in Greek. If you wish to go back to Thou shalt not murder, you're not quotin the bible, but the Tora, so you're not christian, but jewish! Bug difference! Or are you suggesting the bible should be re-written?

I cannot agree. Nietzche does not just describe his observations of human nature. He does not say that this is what happens, he says that this is what is supposed to happen and anyone who willingly puts limits on what they would do to further his own interests should be a slave.

Unless the translation of "Beyond Good and Evil" that I base my opinions on is seriously flawed, you do not need to find an explicit statement "Genocide is a noble thing, if the noble man decides it to be so" to determine that Nietzche put no limits on what the noble man can allow himself to do. He already endorses acts of theft, conquest, acts of tyranny, suppression, enslavement and exploitation by the "noble man", so you would have to provide a quotation from his writings that explicitly put a limit on what the noble man was allowed to do, or that Nietzche disapproved of the noble man.

It does not actually matter if Nietzche approved of genocide. His morally bankrupt philosphy prevents anyone sharing the world view presented in his writings from arguing against it.

As for the bible. . .

The pentateunch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were first written in the language of the jews. The first complete canon of the Torah was the septuagint, which was written in greek. When St. Jerome compiled the first latin bible, he sought the earliest extant versions of each book, so the Ten Commandments would have been translated from hebrew, or aramaic, not greek. The standard protestant edition of the bible was also compiled from original sources, so as to differentiate it from the catholic bible

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by rlbell@Mar 23 2006, 02:09 AM
It does not actually matter if Nietzche approved of genocide. His morally bankrupt philosphy prevents anyone sharing the world view presented in his writings from arguing against it.

That is why I agree that some moral standards need to be set and that'0s where I see the role of religion (As an institution) in the society. It should be a moral mirror telling the people that their doin is either right or wrong. But that is only one of the mirrors of morality.

But it's a fact that certain people tend not to consider morality, not to consider anything for that matter. Thos people are the ones who do misuse power. And they don't consider Nietzche either. Nietzche himself was - and let me say this again - a man of theory. There were always people who commited genocide before and after Nietzche and such people do not really care for any philosophy at all. They simply want power. They have been turning to different things to try and gain support and yes, Nietzche's works were also used to justify some of the happenings in the world. Still the responsibility for those events is on the shoulders of the people who commited it - NOT on Nietzches, neither is Nietzche the cause for their behaviour. Those people would have acted the same reading or not reading Nietzche (some dictators have and some haven't read his works).

[rlbell]

Originally posted by Sebatianos+Mar 23 2006, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sebatianos @ Mar 23 2006, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-rlbell@Mar 23 2006, 02:09 AM
It does not actually matter if Nietzche approved of genocide.* His morally bankrupt philosphy prevents anyone sharing the world view presented in his writings from arguing against it.

That is why I agree that some moral standards need to be set and that'0s where I see the role of religion (As an institution) in the society. It should be a moral mirror telling the people that their doin is either right or wrong. But that is only one of the mirrors of morality.

[/b][/quote]
I selected Nietzche as a poster boy for my rant against what one poster described as the meaning of life. He suggested thatthe meaning of life was whatever the individual chose it to be, nor matter what those choices were. I claimed that that principle of amorality is what allows ruthless strongmen to unfetter themselves from their conscious, and backed it up with a list of ruthless leaders who let nothing hinder their aims, even at the cost of millions of their citizen's lives.

I am glad that we agree on the importance of morality.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by rlbell@Mar 24 2006, 04:52 AM
I selected Nietzche as a poster boy for my rant against what one poster described as the meaning of life. He suggested thatthe meaning of life was whatever the individual chose it to be, nor matter what those choices were. I claimed that that principle of amorality is what allows ruthless strongmen to unfetter themselves from their conscious, and backed it up with a list of ruthless leaders who let nothing hinder their aims, even at the cost of millions of their citizen's lives.

Well, morality is something a society needs. It's the thing that lets you do the right thing, the descent thing (regarthless the laws, agreements, contracts,...). Because people need to function on the case to case basis. We are all individuals, thus there are exceptions to every rule.

The meaning of life is (in my opinion) undetermened. Every person should look for the thing that gives that person the individual meaning. But there should be also aded, that you have certain responibility to fellow men as well. So if you find your purpose in delivering hardship to others - then your moral compas is off and something is wrong with you - in such a case you should not be permited to further follow your life goals.

Simply because you're capable of doing something, doesn't mean you should do it as well. So if you made your life goal something, that is harmful to others - you have a wrong goal and you should be perhibited to try and reach it. This is where morality comes in. It should give you a direction - so that your goal is not harmful to anyone. This is a problem in the modern society as well (look at the people who gain money by expliting others - that's a wrong goal).

If Nietzche was simply to state an example - OK, as people could really use his work to find excuses for their misbehaviour and even tirany. But that is one of the reasons, why some ideas were never ment to be given to the general public. There are certain things that only responsible people are able of handling (otherwise there'd be a world wide chaos, anarchy - the destructive kind, panic, violence...). The only problem with this is - who is to decide on that? Unfortunately it's usually one or the other form of buerocracy that decides which information can be accesed and which not - but this is going away from the original point.

[Sauvastika]

Originally posted by TheChosen@Mar 12 2006, 10:59 AM
Since everyone in here are very smart and full of ideas, lets look into the questions of the universe:



1. What is the meaning of the life?
2. Can we choose the life were living?
3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
5. How big is the universe?
6. Is there a live after dead?
7. Something else.

1. To achieve more for oneself - to please oneself.

2. In terms of the choice of what body we were to inhabit, no one knows. In terms of what the choices were can make in this life, choice exists.

3. To escape responsibility for our actions, we place our trust in fate or destiny.

4. Yes. As long as the concept of "free lunch" exists in our minds, there is a such thing.

5. As big as the limits of one's mind.

6. Life after death, real or imaginary, is insignificant. Though I'm inclined to say that one never truly dies. Our memories and experiences cannot die, in that way, one can never die.

Originally posted by Sebatianos
There are certain things that only responsible people are able of handling (otherwise there'd be a world wide chaos, anarchy - the destructive kind, panic, violence...).

Actually, I'd like to respond with something I personally believe in. Humanity - or better yet - nature is naturally chaotic. Different lives, objects, and forces are constantly interfering with the goals of another, but we also see nature's strive for order (creation of societies and heirarchies in many forms of life, the tendency for gases or liquids to move from a place of high pressure to low pressure, and possibly, if the theory holds water, maximum entropy). Humanity - which I believe to be a part of nature - will also be predisposed towards chaos, though it will also strive for order.