What is Christianity-related - a front

We know that the political doctrine of Christianity is democracy/mediocracy. God appears as artisan in the New testament.
We know that the moral doctrine of Christianity is socialism. As long as there are non-mediocre elements in the society there will be the socialist hate. (only this hate is ressentiment)
We know that nationalism is an egalitarian movement based on trade, and traders are politically correct subjects in the New testament.
We know that National-socialism is based on hate against the rich people who are not politically correct.
We know that politically correct symbols of nationalism and national-socialism were swastikas (incidently containing a cross) and race theories based on language and other irrelevant things.
We know that the green parties are just a leftist, politically and morally correct movement and that it’s source are English theories which are also deeply Christian.

And finally and most important: those who don’t take a clear distance from those above show a complete misunderstanding of Nietzsche which is biologically correct.

Nice. You put most of the dominant ideologies of our time down into a paragraph form! :smiley:

I’m not a Christian but the New Testament tends to lump people into believers who can find God and those who don’t it’s hardly democracy. Democracy allows everyone to have a voice, Christianity tends to doom people who are not believers.

No because as said before Christians are not a political movement that allows the workers to be above the others, it concentrates on those who believe in God, workers, literati or Bourgeoisie.

Wealth in the new testament is frowned upon, it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than rich person to… etc.

It means a rich person has to do more to enter heaven than just be rich.

Yeah that’s a similarity with Christianity. But not in the same way it’s not a sin to be rich but to love the acquisition of wealth.

Politically correct? In what way?

Hitler never really believed in religion, he would of gotten rid of the churches if it served his purpose. But it didn’t at the time.

I suspect you mean pre the enlightenment, since then they never have been deeply Christian.

Probably right those who don’t agree with the above are not Christians, but they aren’t anything either. Nietzsche was not biologically correct, Nietzsche had a philosophically interesting idea but his science was not apposite in terms of evolution, even in man’s evolution; philosophically it was a good idea but it did not reflect the human condition, if it did we would all be atheists.

Unfortunately there is not a single man-isle where the free will can rescue itself. Not to speak of Happy Isles.

Interesting how Descartes defines a weak soul in his Passions of the soul:

Paragraph 48.

The will depends mainly on the imagination of the individual, and the passions depend mostly on the impressions from the senses.
A weak soul is such that it’s will can not win over it’s passions.
And religion is that which comes through the senses, which means the religious man is typically weak.

Nietzsche says the strongest will is in Russia, then in (without an order) Spain, Northern Germany … USA(?). He did not mention Italy, and it’s obvious that Italians are too passionate.

I don’t think we know any such thing. What about feudalism, and “Divine Right of Kings”? What about the American political right’s argument that libertarian capitalism is the Christian way of government?

How so? National Socialism is based on corporatism - the rich are welcome, as long as they contribute to the greatness of the nation. That’s politically correct by Nazi politics, but not in the sense of modern “political correctness” that you associate with green and left-wing politics. Quite the opposite; you’re pulling a sleight-of-hand here.

Your remarks are not philosophical, rather childish. You look like a child who wants to eat all that it sees. Where is the sense for details and qualities?

Christianity has inhaled several other religions before it has come to Europe and therefore one can not speak about Christianity in the literal sense.

Is the Old testament Christianity, or truthfulness? No. But they have ruled Europe until Enlightenment.

Jesus was not concerned with political or economic doctrines, aside from let Cesar have what is Cesars ( money) the official Christian stance was give all material possessions and money away and minister to people out of love. Everything else people do is a perversion of Christianity because this stance is too hard line for most to swallow.

thats not really true at all. thats what he said to one guy who asked him a question. But yea supporting Modern Capitalism and claiming to be a Christian is idiotic.

This thread pushes the question forward: Is a pervesion of a idea, if sufficiently twisted and manipulated in self justification to attack another idea, at any given point considered a NEW IDEA?

Sometimes Cezar comes across a semi-original synthesis- original in no one said that in particular, but it’s easy to trace it back to it’s stupid bias and origins.

Can original ideas be manufactured this way? Just keep poking and torturing a idea, see it wiggle and brush up randomly to other ideas, and see if it sticks?

He reminds me of the heretical cult of Daleks a little bit. Okay, not a little, I think they are directly modeled off of him.

I suspect if he keeps going on like this, maybe someday after enough bad understandings and misconceptions, he might arrive at a original idea. Only then will he be considered a philosopher, until then he is a merely one of many Nietzschean sheep.

Your idea is not to allow the new and true win over the old and fake. But we know that already for 100+ years.

Truth is fighting it’s way through all bushes that have grown in the last 2000 years, slowly but surely.

There will be more and more brave fighters and more and more tired liars.

Cezar, your placing truth outside of the human experience in a metaphysical sense and give it the ability to move, explore, and navigate via it’s own accord.

I think deep down inside your still quite the deist. Your not able to escape the fundamental paradigm of your conscious- something else exists out there worth following, and that you have faith in it.

Nietzsche is now truly dead, and Cezar has killed him!

Yes, it is true. Therefore I conquered your rebuttal.

Ok bro, good luck with that then…

Luck isn’t needed after the fact.

not sure if there was a fact, but alright

The fact being that I conquered your rebuttal.

sounds like 1st Class philosophy no doubt. Can I nominate this for the Nobel Prize and the Pulitzer?

Well since this discussion is already completely over your head, I’ll provide you with a more philosophical response since you seem to be interested in reading it, at least. In any case, here is a recap and analysis of our short conversation in this thread.

I have equally met your claim that my initial response isn’t true in this thread with an equally philosophical response that it was true. Aside from you stating my post wasn’t true, you did nothing to back up that statement aside from actually reinforce some points on how it actually could be true, in Christianity. My direct response to you was in hopes of actually getting you to back up your claim, unfortunately it seems you think already by dubbing my response as not true that it is already philosophically and intellectually sufficient and that you made a point that should resonate throughout not only my mind but everyone else who might be reading it, by your just and superior judgment not backed with any visible reasoning or logic. Of course, this is likely not a result of you thinking you have superior judgment capabilities and all should understand when you make a claim to critique someone’s post that you’re not making a claim because you’re wrong, its because you’re right… (Any reason or lack of reason behind it is unnecessary), but is likely the result of being rather immature in your debate methods. While of course there are other reasons that you may be suffering from debunking what I said, even after an antagonistic response from myself that would typically mean to most intelligent philosophers that you have an opportunity to back up your claim that what I said was not true, however you continually delved into teenage/early 20 something dialect in order to dismiss your opposition in a rather boring an ineffective manner, placing your intellect in with the rest of the herd as far as your ability to counter my own sarcastic and antagonistic response to yours. In short, your level of philosophy was what I stooped to, unfortunately, you called out my own inept “1st class philosophy” in a sarcastic manner, all while failing to realize I was just mirroring your own. I hope you can fix that one day, right now you have a lot of learning to do it seems.

Actually, you stated:

Which I took to imply that you claimed to have conquered my rebuttal just because “you said so”. So I said good luck with that because I took it as indicative that you were not interested in anything I had to say to the contrary. In case you haven’t noticed, this place is filled with such instances.