Like when he made a Woman fall down from the stairs and then rejoiced when she died years later? Or when he committed fornication? — Beebert

No, those are despicable moments from his life, which is exactly why I said that in those regards I don't admire him. However - considering who he was, he lived in a very restrained manner (excluding those incidents). He was one of the richest men of his time - you are aware that he could've had sex with a different woman every single night for example, and yet he didn't.

I dont preach encompassing love. I dont stand for anything particular but try to experiment. My problem is with People like you who preach justice and morality But are cold-hearted legalists. You are the one who claim to follow Christ, not I.

I dont preach encompassing love — Beebert

I see. So then what's your problem with eternal hell?

"yet you hate people like me (by for example calling me stupid)"

I do Believe you are stupid, but I neither hate nor love you. I despise some of your "opinions" though

That it is a sick belief that has destroyed the life of many. As I said, now for the third time: This preaching has been used to mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. As I said;

Your problem is perhaps not that you lack fantasy, but that you lack understanding and subtlety. Also, in opposition to what especially the Chruch have thought at least in the past but apparently still; it has always been the conscientious and NOT the conscienceless who have had to suffer so incredibly much from the oppression of Hellfire preachers and the fears of Hell, especially when they were at the same time people of imagination. As a consequence, life has been made most miserable precisely for those who had need of joy and cheerfulness etc. Not only cheerfulness for their own recovery from themselves, but so that mankind might take pleasure in them and take joy in their gifts of imagination etc. In other words, the Church has caused more lost souls than saved ones, to use christian language. They have more often been an arc of damnation and destruction than the opposite, destroying sensitive people's lives. And those people who desired by means of these evil condemnations to gain the highest enjoyment of their oppresion because they hate what they call "the immoral" are among those that have caused the most harm to people in history.

Also, you seem to preach love, yet you have stated that you have the right to HATE Nietzsche. Despicable...

"As I said, it's easy to love mankind from a distance. It's unbelievable that you can't even look at yourself."

Do you literally pretend that I AM Ivan Karamazov?

That it is a sick belief that has destroyed the life of many. As I said, now for the third time: This preaching has been used to mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. — Beebert

The fact that it has destroyed the lives of many is stupid beyond measure. How does it destroy your life?! Do you, like a beast of the fields, think that if you are destined 100% to go to hell, than you might as well go around committing all the immoralities possible, and living a base life? Do you, if you are 100% destined to hell, refuse to enjoy the remaining time until that lake of fire?! That opinion is ABSURD.

People who have a problem with the belief in eternal hell don't actually have a problem with the belief itself, they have a problem with anxiety, which is different. They - not the belief in hell - are causing their own suffering.

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning. — Benedictus de Spinoza

First of all: I understand that you feel intellectually inferior here, but please try to come up with something of your own instead of constantly quoting Spinoza as if that would make me feel inferior.
Second: What do you then Think is the cause that makes People be sexually immoral?(something I by the way have never said I think is a good thing) Always just lust? Okay, that it is One component. But not the whole picture. Take a prostitute; perhaps her belief in love has betrayed her, Perhaps she was sexually abused by her father as a Child. Then comes a hell fire-preacher and condemns her. Is that your Christianity? Because that IS the impression you give me. Wasnt it Christ who ate with prostitutes because he loved them and wanted to cure them? And here is our difference : You seem to want Christ to Cure them for the SAKE of morality, because their behavior is "unjust", while I would want them cured so that they will not destroy themselves, so that they can finally trust that there are good things in life too, like love etc. You seem to consider morality almost to be an end in itself. You are a legalist. But I say : Fornication is bad NOT because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too. But if they did, I would not condemn THEM. I would rather condemn those who condemn them. Like you seem to do.

Take a prostitute; perhaps her belief in love has betrayed her, Perhaps she was sexually abused by her father as a Child. Then comes a hell fire-preacher and condemns her. Is that your Christianity? — Beebert

Wait. So is she a prostitute, or is she someone who has been sexually abused by her father? The latter wouldn't be her sin. The fact she is a prostitute is sinful if it's something she chooses (if she could do something else, but refuses). However, she shouldn't be condemned if she repents and feels sorry for what she has done in her heart.

You seem to want Christ to Cure them for the SAKE of morality, while I would want them cured so that they will not destroy themselves, so that they can finally trust that there are good things in life too, like love etc. — Beebert

I agree with both those versions - they are in fact one and the same.

But I say : Fornication is bad mig because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too. — Beebert

Absolutely, I agree with that. I agree that virtue is its own reward, and vice is its own punishment.

But if they did, I would not condemn THEM. — Beebert

I would condemn them if they don't repent. If, and when they do repent, then I will join you in condemning those who condemn them.

"Wait. So is she a prostitute, or is she someone who has been sexually abused by her father? The latter wouldn't be her sin. The fact she is a prostitute is sinful if it's something she chooses (if she could do something else, but refuses). However, she shouldn't be condemned if she repents and feels sorry for what she has done in her heart."

The fact that someone has been sexually abused as a child often leads to prostitution later in life? Understand?

You did understand that I said that fornication is bad NOT because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too, right?

May I ask you; what is the purpose of "morality" according to you?

The fact that someone has been sexually abused as a child often leads to prostitution later in life? Understand? — Beebert

Sometimes, but not always. There are prostitutes, especially those who activate as escorts in the more expensive price ranges, who do it for pleasure and money (they can earn a lot in an easy way in that manner). I'm not talking about the side of the road type of prostitutes, most of whom are forced to do the work that they do, quite often under the threat of death or worse. They are indeed to be pitied and helped, not condemned.

You did understand that I said that fornication is bad NOT because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too, right? — Beebert

Yes, yes I did.

May I ask you; what is the purpose of "morality" according to you? — Beebert

Eudaimonia.

Indeed, I would say that those women who freely and out of their own choice engage in frequent casual sex are much worse, morally speaking, than the prostitutes on the side of the road who are forced into such a horrible existence.

"I agree with both those versions - they are in fact one and the same."

Perhaps I didnt formulate myself good enough, but I meant that it seems to me that you just hate immorality and immoral People because you hate it, rather than feeling sorrow about Everything that make people seperate themselves from each other and everything that prevents people from loving each other and meeting each other for real

Much worse in what way? As in worthy of hatred? Or what?

I meant that it seems to me that you just hate immorality and immoral People because you hate it — Beebert

Hate is too strong. I dislike people who are immoral and don't even feel sorry for being immoral. I tend not to associate myself with such people. I have no problem with people who have been immoral and repent.

Much worse in what way? As in worthy of hatred? Or what? — Beebert

Much worse in a moral sense.

So happiness is the purpose? What kind of happiness? Dont you run the risk now though of turning in to some sort of heavenly utilitarian or hedonist or something?

And there are actually a LOT of people who are immoral and don't feel sorry for being immoral. In fact, they justify being immoral as right! That's the worst in my opinion.

So happiness is the purpose? What kind of happiness? Dont you run the risk now though of turning in to some sort of heavenly utilitarian or hedonist or something? — Beebert

Eudaimonia doesn't translate as happiness. It translates best as flourishing. I'm not a utilitarian because I don't believe you do good for the reward, but rather you do good for itself - doing good is its own reward. Nor do I believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers (another false utilitarian principle). As for being a hedonist, no - since a hedonist takes pleasure to be the highest good, and I don't. Flourishing may involve some element of pain too.

I see. I just find the word moral/immoral to be Hard to use here, because Everything is about the human heart, and we cant judge others heart. The best way to change a person's behavior isnt to condemn and dislike them I believe.

I see. I just find the word moral/immoral to be Hard to use here, because Everything is about the human heart, and we cant judge others heart. The best way to change a person's behavior isnt to condemn and dislike them I believe. — Beebert

So suppose your friend robs an old lady in the street, and he comes and tells you. What do you do? Do you congratulate him for what he's done? What if he tells you: "well she deserved it, what does she need money for?! She's old, a step away from the grave, while I'm young, it's right that I get the dough". What will you say? Will you be like - "oh how nice of you, come here, I love you very much!"

Or what if this friend of yours comes to you and says "Oh I just fucked this girl from the bar, it felt so great! That's what we should always be doing, that's what makes life great! I love fucking many girls, there's nothing wrong with it as many people think!" What will you say? Congratulate him?

Whom, not who.

I see, my bad then. In Swedish eudamonia has always been translated as what in English would mean happiness... Anyway; if you want People to florish, does that mean you then dislike them because they choose not to flourish, or why? I am now not saying that being moral is WRONG; but it depends on what you mean. The pharisees were considered moral; they followed the law but neglected the true spirit of the law (love, mercy etc). And this is what I mean when I say I am against "morality" in itself. I am also against seeking reward etc. Which I have encountered PLENTY of Christians doing. Heaven is a "reward" and they feel great that they will get this reward, that God elected them and saved them without them even acting. They just needed to believe. And now they enjoy life, arent particulary transformed from within but condemn immoral people to hell. Though, they themselves are not as I said transformed by feelings of love and mercy. Love and mercy they rather seem to consider "attributes". For example; they can show mercy when someone obeys and turns to think like them (but they still have no love), and "love" when somone do as they do and agrees with them. In such cases, being moral and following rules such as not having premartial sex seems empty. These people are true oppressors often.

No I would not congratulate this friend, nor would I agree. And having robbed the lady I would Tell him to give her the Money back. But Hate him? No. If I did, that would be my "sin".

"Flourishing may involve some element of pain too."

It does indeed. And that is good.

The pharisees were considered moral; they followed the law but neglected the true spirit of the law (love, mercy etc). — Beebert

No, I think the problem was precisely that they did NOT actually follow the law, but quite the contrary. They pretended to follow the law only. When they brought the woman to be stoned, why did they not also bring the man? Jewish law demands that both are stoned, and they can only be stoned if caught in the act. So were they not hypocrites who did not respect the law?! That's exactly why Jesus told them that he who is without sin to cast the first stone.

And having robbed the lady I would Tell him to give her the Money back. — Beebert

What if he refuses, and says that it's right for him to keep the money?

In such cases, being moral and following rules such as not having premartial sex seems empty. — Beebert

Only in cases like a few of those people from the Orthodox forum who cry about not being able to "enjoy" having sex with supermodels in this life, while their friends do exactly that, and they feel terribly envious about it, and think they deserve some great reward in heaven after they cast off moral restraint - probably some nice girls - while their friends sit in hell watching them from a distance >:)

Whom, not who. — Thorongil

Nazi? >:)