# Modern revolutionist



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2010)

‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything"
G.K. Chesterton


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> ‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything"
> G.K. Chesterton



The person described here believes in black and white.  In my experience, the world is neither.

I can play that game too.  The Christian talks about a God of infinite love, yet God allows his creation to suffer eternally.  God is said to know everything, except whether or not someone is going to choose him.  God says do not kill, yet he wipes out the whole Earth save a few.  There are contradictions in many philosophies.  Yin and Yang.   Life is complicated.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> The person described here believes in black and white.  In my experience, the world is neither.
> 
> I can play that game too.  The Christian talks about a God of infinite love, yet God allows his creation to suffer eternally.  God is said to know everything, except whether or not someone is going to choose him.  God says do not kill, yet he wipes out the whole Earth save a few.  There are contradictions in many philosophies.  Yin and Yang.   Life is complicated.





The Christian talks about a God of infinite love, yet God allows his creation to suffer eternally.
Choose to be separated from Him in this life.  He loves you enough to allow that separation to last for eternity.

God is said to know everything, except whether or not someone is going to choose him.
Not sure what you mean here.

God says do not kill, yet he wipes out the whole Earth save a few. 
He created it, it is His to do with as He pleases.
If He can resurrect a life, has He really killed?  

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in he11.

Matt. 10:28


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 29, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> The person described here believes in black and white.  In my experience, the world is neither.


cant say that I agree.... hey, but whats new!



> The Christian talks about a God of infinite love, yet God allows his creation to suffer eternally.


This issue has been talked about many times, the Christian belief is that God gave His creation a choice.





> God is said to know everything, except whether or not someone is going to choose him.


This is complicated, God gives us free will, and at the same time knows the future, its hard to understand for me.




> God says do not kill, yet he wipes out the whole Earth save a few.


first off, how can this question come from an athiest who doesnt think that God is real. Why are you wondering why God wiped out the world? You dont think He is real. So your question is invalid from your own position on theism. Secondly, by what moral code are you going by that tells you that the life of another human being is worth something to this earth? 

BTW, The Hebrew word that is translated as “to kill” in the passage is HARAG. It means “to kill or slay ” but not to murder.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 30, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> This issue has been talked about many times, the Christian belief is that God gave His creation a choice.



And it's a choice of the same nature a man is given when a gun is held to his head and ordered to obey. It makes a mockery of freedom and soils the very definition of love.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 30, 2010)

atlashunter said:


> And it's a choice of the same nature a man is given when a gun is held to his head and ordered to obey. It makes a mockery of freedom and soils the very definition of love.



The problem with the gun scenario is a little different with the choice God gives. The choice God gives is to accept His Son, and when life is over on this earth, spend eternity with Him. He11 is best described by not being in the presence of God, you assume yourself that is not a desirerable reality. God is giving a person who CHOOSES not to except His Son exactly what that person wants. So your mockery of freedom and soiling the definition of love assurtion proves to be false when the choice that God actually gives is looked at in this way.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> The person described here believes in black and white.  In my experience, the world is neither.I can play that game too.  The Christian talks about a God of infinite love, yet God allows his creation to suffer eternally.  God is said to know everything, except whether or not someone is going to choose him.  God says do not kill, yet he wipes out the whole Earth save a few.  There are contradictions in many philosophies.  Yin and Yang.   Life is complicated.



The world is most certainly Black and White.  We try to make it complicated, but it is simple. You just don't like the simple answer. Grey is convienant.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The problem with the gun scenario is a little different with the choice God gives. The choice God gives is to accept His Son, and when life is over on this earth, spend eternity with Him. He11 is best described by not being in the presence of God, you assume yourself that is not a desirerable reality. God is giving a person who CHOOSES not to except His Son exactly what that person wants. So your mockery of freedom and soiling the definition of love assurtion proves to be false when the choice that God actually gives is looked at in this way.



First off, the idea that an eternal reward or punishment would hinge not on a persons actions but on their beliefs is an incredibly immoral idea. If it were true it would be evidence not of a good god but an evil one. The choice according to christians is render yourself a slave for infinite time or burn for an infinite time. Neither is an appealing proposition and they are cheap attempts at enticing people to believe something through threat and bribery, not merit of argument. It has every mark of being man made.

Even if it were true that repentant christian Nazi's go to heaven for eternity while their jewish victims burn for eternity, an eternity anywhere, even heaven, would be a curse. People who wish for it haven't given it much serious thought.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> First off, the idea that an eternal reward or punishment would hinge not on a persons actions but on their beliefs is an incredibly immoral idea. If it were true it would be evidence not of a good god but an evil one. The choice according to christians is render yourself a slave for infinite time or burn for an infinite time. Neither is an appealing proposition and they are cheap attempts at enticing people to believe something through threat and bribery, not merit of argument. It has every mark of being man made.
> 
> Even if it were true that repentant christian Nazi's go to heaven for eternity while their jewish victims burn for eternity, an eternity anywhere, even heaven, would be a curse. People who wish for it haven't given it much serious thought.



Have you seen the "What is Heaven like? " thread?   Seems to me that there are some people that have not had such a good time here on Earth. Same with the Apocalypse folks, they can't wait to die.  Shame.....  There's some pretty fun stuff going on here.  The promise of Heaven: It truly is an opiate.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> First off, the idea that an eternal reward or punishment would hinge not on a persons actions but on their beliefs is an incredibly immoral idea.


The acceptance of Jesus will change a persons actions. So, oh holy atlashunter, what then shall we do to live eternally?





> The choice according to christians is render yourself a slave for infinite time or burn for an infinite time.


Your use of "slave" in this instance is very incorrect. One will be in the presence of God for eternity or not.





> Neither is an appealing proposition


Going to Heaven is not appealing to you because you refuse to understand what is meant to spend eternity in the presence of your creator.




> and they are cheap attempts at enticing people to believe something through threat and bribery, not merit of argument.


already been explained to you.





> Even if it were true that repentant christian Nazi's go to heaven


Thanks for the shot, I am, however, not a nazi. I also find it funny that an atheist does not capitalize the word Christian, but will choose to capitalize nazi. To funny.




> an eternity anywhere, even heaven, would be a curse.


on what basis is this account taken from? You would need vacations for eternity to suite you? Heaven is ultimate reality in the presence of God, I think the people that end up there will be plenty content with that.





> People who wish for it haven't given it much serious thought.


I cant think of anything to say to this but..... really.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 4, 2011)

> There's some pretty fun stuff going on here.


Finally, your meaning for life. Why didnt you answer this in the Origin?Meaning?Morality?Destiny? thread that I started? The meaning of life is to have fun.




> The promise of Heaven: It truly is an opiate.



Can you explain this?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The acceptance of Jesus will change a persons actions. So, oh holy atlashunter, what then shall we do to live eternally?



Well even if that were true, it wouldn't change their actions pre-acceptance would it? Like I said, nazis and jews.




stringmusic said:


> Your use of "slave" in this instance is very incorrect. One will be in the presence of God for eternity or not.



Well if you don't want to burn forever do you have any other choice than worshiping god forever? Are you free to think anything you like without having your thought monitored forever? Sounds like slavery to me.




stringmusic said:


> Going to Heaven is not appealing to you because you refuse to understand what is meant to spend eternity in the presence of your creator.



You can't even begin to wrap your mind around what eternity means much less experience it. That isn't meant as an insult. I think it is true of every human. I don't think you've really given eternity much thought. At some point you will have had enough.




stringmusic said:


> Thanks for the shot, I am, however, not a nazi.



No you aren't. But according to your beliefs you'll be enjoying eternal heaven with the ones who repented and accepted Jesus before death while their unbelieving jewish victims burn for eternity.

Rudolph Hoss, the commandant of Aushwitz who oversaw the murder of more than a million people had this to say four days before his execution.

"My conscience compels me to make the following declaration. In the solitude of my prison cell I have come to the bitter recognition that I have sinned gravely against humanity. As Commandant of Auschwitz I was responsible for carrying out part of the cruel plans of the 'Third Reich' for human destruction. In so doing I have inflicted terrible wounds on humanity. I caused unspeakable suffering for the Polish people in particular. I am to pay for this with my life. May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done."

Now you and I don't know the mans heart but if he truly repented and accepted Jesus as his savior before he died he goes to heaven. Those countless jewish men who didn't believe in Jesus who he gassed with their wives and children? They'll burn forever. That is the horrid morality of salvation by faith in Jesus.




stringmusic said:


> on what basis is this account taken from? You would need vacations for eternity to suite you? Heaven is ultimate reality in the presence of God, I think the people that end up there will be plenty content with that.



Think about it.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MToOECmwMB0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MToOECmwMB0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well even if that were true, it wouldn't change their actions pre-acceptance would it? Like I said, nazis and jews.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or Jeffrey Dahmer.  He may have truly repented in his heart while he was being violated to death with a broom stick, while one of his victims might have been dead before they got a chance to know Jesus.  It's a very bad and poorly though out system.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 6, 2011)

> Well if you don't want to burn forever do you have any other choice than worshiping god forever?


Going to he11 is not being in the presence of God for eternity, if you choose your own will above Gods', he grants you that will. Also, how do you know worshiping God forever is such a bad thing? Its not going to be like sitting in church for eternity.




> Are you free to think anything you like without having your thought monitored forever?


Yes, I dont think God monitors ones thoughts in he11.




> I don't think you've really given eternity much thought. At some point you will have had enough.


Thats a mighty bold statement. Looking at eternity in any shape or form that we can come up with will do nothing compared to living reality the way we were disigned to live it. Can you give an example of what one might "have enough" of in Heaven?






> No you aren't. But according to your beliefs you'll be enjoying eternal heaven with the ones who repented and accepted Jesus before death while their unbelieving jewish victims burn for eternity.


My bad on that, I took it the wrong way. As far as the other part goes, I dont make the rules I just play by them.



> Rudolph Hoss, the commandant of Aushwitz who oversaw the murder of more than a million people had this to say four days before his execution.
> 
> "My conscience compels me to make the following declaration. In the solitude of my prison cell I have come to the bitter recognition that I have sinned gravely against humanity. As Commandant of Auschwitz I was responsible for carrying out part of the cruel plans of the 'Third Reich' for human destruction. In so doing I have inflicted terrible wounds on humanity. I caused unspeakable suffering for the Polish people in particular. I am to pay for this with my life. May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done."
> 
> Now you and I don't know the mans heart but if he truly repented and accepted Jesus as his savior before he died he goes to heaven. Those countless jewish men who didn't believe in Jesus who he gassed with their wives and children? They'll burn forever. That is the horrid morality of salvation by faith in Jesus.


And where exactly are you getting this reference point for morality? The modern revolutionist quote rings louder and clearer everytime I get on this forum.





<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MToOECmwMB0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MToOECmwMB0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/QUOTE]

Whats in that ciggy that dude is smokin'?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 6, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Or Jeffrey Dahmer.  He may have truly repented in his heart while he was being violated to death with a broom stick, while one of his victims might have been dead before they got a chance to know Jesus.  It's a very bad and poorly though out system.



whats your system? 

 Jesus didnt come here to make bad people good, He came here to make dead people live. (not in the literal sense. even though that did occur! Probably needed to put that little disclaimer in here, sometimes words seem to get a little twisted)


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> whats your system?
> 
> Jesus didnt come here to make bad people good, He came here to make dead people live. (not in the literal sense. even though that did occur! Probably needed to put that little disclaimer in here, sometimes words seem to get a little twisted)




The closes thing to an "operating system" that I've come up with is: "'Stuff' happens".  It's a humanist version of "It rains on the just and unjust alike."


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 6, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> The closes thing to an "operating system" that I've come up with is: "'Stuff' happens".  It's a humanist version of "It rains on the just and unjust alike."



so would you apply that system in the Dahmer scenario? Seems like the same outcome doesn't it?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 9, 2011)

hello?


----------

