>
> On Jun 6, 12:50 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pat , what makes you so sure that Charles Manson and Hitler were
>> following their true nature , if there is such a thing.
>>
> Also, with respect to Manson, he was happy in prison and didn't mind
> returning at all. He'd already spent over half his life behind bars
> of some variety and was only too happy to let California feed, clothe
> and shelter him at full cost to the taxpayer. Manson, a true
> freeloader with a penchant for controlling others did exactly what one
> might expect from him, if one knew him. He controlled a few people
> and acted in such a way as to land himself back in prison
> forever...purely his true nature. Hitler, as he's no longer alive, is
> harder to assess, but, I think you'll find that he really didn't like
> Jews to the point of extermination, if possible. Same for Romany
> gypsies, blacks and homosexuals. He had an idea of a perfect race
> (one that conflicted with his own traits, mind) and acted in such a
> way as to bring that about. Of course, he was incorrect in thinking
> that race matters at all (one might have thought a look in the mirror
> would have convinced him, but apparently not) and was defeated.
Very interesting reasoning Pat, I've heard an argument like this before
but think it's used as a farce, never heard it outright! The scariest
shit.. I just might agree, logically it doesn't seem to make sense
otherwise. Either take the whole package, or sacrifice omnipresence:
unless there is a rock God can-not lift (there's an oxymoron). If you
carry on like this I will have to buy your book, just to imagine all the
pious ones out there stamping their foot and flaring nostrils at the
nerve of someone pointing it out. But really, what kind of revolutionary
doesn't walk into a conversation and agree with everyone then exceed all
expectations by pissing them all off (something I try to bottle up in a
chuckle). Good game! :D
> But he still serves as a great 'bad example'.
I wonder, what would we say if he succeeded? Aside from the scientific
in-/validity of the Übermensch hypothesis, that is.
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Pat<PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 31, 5:24 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Whatever a man does he is bound to do as the Will of God is supreme,
>>>> but a person is not a robot. The " I " is an active agent and it is
>>>> the individual who taking control over his nature does good in this
>>>> world and on letting himself go does the bad. Strength of resolve is
>>>> inherent in every person , some use it a lot, others let their
>>>> impulses rule most of the time. It is in man's hand to keep his nature
>>>> under control , and again in his hand to let it run amok.
>>> I agree with one exception. Actually, it's more of an inclusion. An
>>> individual must discover their nature before taking control of it.
>>> Then the rest follows...good or bad. For example, I fully believe
>>> that Charles Manson DID discover his true nature and STILL inflicted
>>> great injuries against humanity. The same for Hitler. Sometimes,
>>> knowing one's nature does not prevent one from doing evil but leads
>>> them to do it. In other words, if it is God's will that X be done and
>>> X is perceived by most people to be evil, X will still be done, as it
>>> is the will of God.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment