Who wins this debate?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by nitro, Feb 4, 2012.

Who wins this debate?

  1. Nietzsche.

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. Jesus.

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. Both. They are both too narrow minded by themselves.

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. I don't know.

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  5. I don't care.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. nitro

    nitro

    <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BYnrDQR32ak?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BYnrDQR32ak?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
     
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    “When we are young we are often puzzled by the fact that each person we admire seems to have a different version of what life ought to be, what a good man is, how to live, and so on. If we are especially sensitive it seems more than puzzling, it is disheartening. What most people usually do is to follow one person's ideas and then another's depending on who looms largest on one's horizon at the time. The one with the deepest voice, the strongest appearance, the most authority and success, is usually the one who gets our momentary allegiance; and we try to pattern our ideals after him. But as life goes on we get a perspective on this and all these different versions of truth become a little pathetic. Each person thinks that he has the formula for triumphing over life's limitations and knows with authority what it means to be a man, and he usually tries to win a following for his particular patent. Today we know that people try so hard to win converts for their point of view because it is more than merely an outlook on life: it is an immortality formula.”
    &#8213; Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death
     
  3. Nietzsche would have Jesus looking so foolish that he would become a Buddhist.

    That being said.......


    Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
     
  4. Have you ever wondered what would happen if you put three people who all claimed to be God in the same room with one and other? . In fact when psychologist Milton Rokeach did exactly that, back in 1959, very little did happen besides god getting very confused, all three of him that is.

    Of course the three lunatics weren’t all God, One claimed to be God, another claimed to have made God (and that this was clearly documented on his birth certificate). The third claimed to be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, although he was of no relation to the men claiming to be his father and grandfather (in fact he’d never met them before).

    The point of this experiment was to discover what would happen when the men were confronted with the apparent paradox. Would it cause them to question their identities and lead them to a cure? It had happened before. Two Jesuses had met in a lunatic asylum and cured each other, the same had happened with two Virgin Marys (although you’d think they’d realize that one of them could still be the real thing). Unfortunately, none of the three generations of God that Rokeach introduced to one another were cured by the experience. One later decided to change his name to Dr Righteous Idealed Dung, much to the consternation of his wife, who was a figment of his imagination. Rokeach then began sending letters to R.I Dung under his imaginary wife’s name. In these letters the imagined Mrs Dung insisted that it was she who was the one true God. R.I Dung decided that it was best to agree with her.

    The other two men were never cured of their identity problem. They were perfectly happy to live in peace with one and other, despite their obvious philosophical differences.
     
  5. Ricter

    Ricter

    Was Nietzsche quite convinced of that?
     
  6. Ha ha! Good question.

    My guess would be that he would be suspect of any one sentence containing any entire truth, but that he would be more-so of a more nuanced interpretation.

    But what do I know? I have "Beyond Good and Evil" on my shelf but it was read (and poorly understood) so long ago that I barely remember the title. I harbor no conviction that I know everything about Nietzsche.:)