Re: Will Adolf Hitler Be Saved (End Up in Heaven)?
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:41 pm
I do not think that he will be saved, this is purely my opinion. I just think that he doesn't deserve it.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
You would likely be the first on the Ten Most Unwanted List on this site. Don't short-change yourself when it comes to being unwanted. You are the crowned member in that elite group!Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:28 amSuch an insult cannot remain unchallenged. I'll have you know that the Surfire Hemlock Company with the full backing of the Great Beast is already planning to replace the ten Most Wanted List with the Ten Most Unwanted List. I have been informed that I am in the running for #7. I believe I should be in the top 5 but 7 is a good start. So never underestimate my ability to annoy the Great Beast.
My, my you do love to sermonize and pretend to be holier-than-thou with your insights. It's not the deep state that will force you to drink hemlock but the recognition, if it EVER comes, on how fixed, claustrophobic and pathetic your ceaselessly repeated mantras and quotes are concerning what you have no comprehension of starting with secularism.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:31 pm Dubious you are blissfully unaware of the deep state as it exists in America. It controls everything and is intolerant of all who support the attraction to eros, common sense, and Simone Weil. Its agenda simply cannot be questioned and these interests invite unwanted questioning. Unfortunately the agenda will not allow me to stand alone as number 7 and insist I be part of group. I have fought hard for my individuality but soldiers of the deep state insist I can be nothing but part of an unwanted collective. The agenda doesn't recognize individuality.
It is those like you who will be absorbed. Resistance for all blind deniers is futile. It is just a matter of time. I will drink the hemlock and you will be absorbed and become nothing but a conditioned thing reacting to the whims of the Great Beast being controlled by the depths and globalist leaders of the deep state. Who is better off? For you it is a matter of opinion.
You have no desire for or respect those who strive for inner freedom. You don't even know what it is intellectually. That is why you are an advocate for secularism. By definition it asserts that it is the source of wisdom for Man. The Great Beast in all its glory must be presumed the ultimate source of wisdom. There is nothing else.Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:20 pmMy, my you do love to sermonize and pretend to be holier-than-thou with your insights. It's not the deep state that will force you to drink hemlock but the recognition, if it EVER comes, on how fixed, claustrophobic and pathetic your ceaselessly repeated mantras and quotes are concerning what you have no comprehension of starting with secularism.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:31 pm Dubious you are blissfully unaware of the deep state as it exists in America. It controls everything and is intolerant of all who support the attraction to eros, common sense, and Simone Weil. Its agenda simply cannot be questioned and these interests invite unwanted questioning. Unfortunately the agenda will not allow me to stand alone as number 7 and insist I be part of group. I have fought hard for my individuality but soldiers of the deep state insist I can be nothing but part of an unwanted collective. The agenda doesn't recognize individuality.
It is those like you who will be absorbed. Resistance for all blind deniers is futile. It is just a matter of time. I will drink the hemlock and you will be absorbed and become nothing but a conditioned thing reacting to the whims of the Great Beast being controlled by the depths and globalist leaders of the deep state. Who is better off? For you it is a matter of opinion.
It's secularism being non-elitist which offers the greatest opposition to the sinister objectives of the Deep State just as it historically did against the deep state of theism. Both are and were ruled by internal power paradigms as served by the most concentrated cabal in each group. Secularism, in principle, is the opposition to any such attempted centralization which is one reason why these monopolizations of power must always be kept Sub Rosa as much as possible.
One thing I find really disgusting about people like you is that power and control, like the deep state itself is also one of your objectives, the difference being, you approach it from the opposite end in terms of philosophic superiority and enlightenment; and yet with a mind like yours, you would be just as adamant to defend a deep state philosophy. When thinking retreats, indoctrination prevails. I write this in spite of knowing, as everyone else already knows, that discussing anything with you is useless. A petrified brain has no moving parts.
Nick, I honestly don’t think that you presenting yourself as being some kind of cosmic equivalent of a KKK member is going to win you a lot of sympathy for your cause.
Because you are basically an atheist who doesn’t seem to hold the remotest inkling of a belief in the living, self-aware “personhood” of the Godhead represented in the Bible...the Bible wrote: And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).
I would never associate the word “hick” with the Dubious brand.
Show me where the concept of the ONE as described by Plotinus is rejected in the BibleBecause you are basically an atheist who doesn’t seem to hold the remotest inkling of a belief in the living, self-aware “personhood” of the Godhead represented in the Bible...
...it makes it absolutely amazing to me that you would assume that I would not notice the stunningly obvious hypocrisy of you using the Bible to support your arguments (especially in using quotes that are so rife with “personal” pronouns).
HE, a description of active rather than the passive or neutralizing elemental forces, refers to dunamis providing the 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents”: the domain of LORD GodThe 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.
How strange. I agree with Nick again. I completely agree that not all seeds are made equal. Sure. The part Nick gets wrong is that he seems to think that the differences are important. That's his big mistake - to conflate natural selection with spiritual value. In truth, we're all made out of the same stuff but in different configurations that are shaped by the environment over space and time.
The Parable of the Sower
13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
I know secularism is politically incorrect almost everywhere in the world but still even blind deniers of science would ideally at least theoretically be open to the evidence of evolution in the past and what that may tell us may happen in the future. However, they are not because "blind deniers" deny blindly
Secularized religion is still secularism. How can secularism be politically incorrect? It dominates and vivifies the spiritual darkness of the world. What could be more politically correct? If we didn't have all this political correctness we wouldn't cyclically end up with those like Hitler. Then where would we be?Greta wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:37 amI know secularism is politically incorrect almost everywhere in the world but still even blind deniers of science would ideally at least theoretically be open to the evidence of evolution in the past and what that may tell us may happen in the future. However, they are not because "blind deniers" deny blindly
Humanity is not supposed to stop progressing, not "designed" to revert to Amish or Iron Age standards as seems your apparent ideal. That would only benefit those seeking to manipulate the naive, ie. moguls, politicians and theists. In fact, theism today is so parasitic and toxic that it's probably best left alone altogether by those who value reason and integrity.
For you progress is Man serving machines which live their life for them. Machines serving the soul of Man would further Man's conscious evolution. This idea is poison for secularism and would have to be shouted down in secular institutions of spiritual child abuse called schools and universities for their own protection.“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” ~ Simone Weil
Greta, haven’t you learned by now that no matter how many times you extend an olive branch to Nick, he (the “terminator” of secularists like you) is always going to respond to you as described in this 23 sec. clip on YouTube - https://youtu.be/Cy2tjbihyCQ...
Now I am well aware of the fact that you do not agree with my take on reality.
In reality, it's secularists who are demonised and attacked all around the world by theists, aside from in the far east and a few havens in the west. Thus, secularists are denied employment in many organisations in the US and cannot even hope to occupy the nation's leadership role. Talk about political correctness!! NOBODY is more PC than theists and the evidence is in the polity and legal system.Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:06 amSecularized religion is still secularism. How can secularism be politically incorrect? It dominates and vivifies the spiritual darkness of the world. What could be more politically correct? If we didn't have all this political correctness we wouldn't cyclically end up with those like Hitler. Then where would we be?Greta wrote:I know secularism is politically incorrect almost everywhere in the world but still even blind deniers of science would ideally at least theoretically be open to the evidence of evolution in the past and what that may tell us may happen in the future. However, they are not because "blind deniers" deny blindly
Humanity is not supposed to stop progressing, not "designed" to revert to Amish or Iron Age standards as seems your apparent ideal. That would only benefit those seeking to manipulate the naive, ie. moguls, politicians and theists. In fact, theism today is so parasitic and toxic that it's probably best left alone altogether by those who value reason and integrity.
You claim that "machines serving the souls of men" (not women) are "poison to secularism".Nick_A wrote:For you progress is Man serving machines which live their life for them. Machines serving the soul of Man would further Man's conscious evolution. This idea is poison for secularism and would have to be shouted down in secular institutions of spiritual child abuse called schools and universities for their own protection.