Faith is annihilation of the self.
- Ads -
Tags: Faith
News from Hammelburg
Magnus Wolf Goeller
-
New Release
-
Display
-
Fresh in the publishing program
-
-
The current print edition
-
Translator
-
Available in the zeitgeist-Store
-
Directories
Yes?
I see something different.
Faith - in relation to God - is not the annihilation of the self, but the declaration.
Faith - in terms of interpersonal relationships - is the basis for trust. If I can not believe someone, then I can not do anything with him. It would not be a companion for me.
Faith - in relation to children - is the humus for growing up. Nothing is worse for children if parents do not believe them. We had really been deep crises and thick stick problems. If we would not have believed and trusted in the moment, nothing would have worked.
Faith is already a good thing - and the absolute opposite of destruction.
Sincerely
the bookmark
@ Bookmark
You deliver - as almost always - equal to a perfect answer.
If there were more thinkers of your size in this world ...
I went there but - contrary to yours as above herausfordend aware - to faith in a religious sense.
In this COVERS I make my statement, at least as yet no compromise.
Of course, in any case, is pure faith the destruction of the self or the ego.
But only if
a) under a holding for true faith holds and that is surely always been the Church and Christian people
b) has as a nun / monk committed by faith / vow the destruction of quasi self by the so-called. evangelical counsels of obedience, poverty, chastity, etc., so here prevents an authoritarian code of conduct. Here obedience to the superiors is equated with obedience to God. In truth, the people are totally infantilized here, because everything is taken care, no responsibility is to carry. The demand for obedience is basically nothing more than a continuation of obedience to the parents. The Ichaufgabe, which is achieved here, is forced by instinct suppression and regression neurotic disaster.
In contrast to Ichaufgabe by oppression, there is the diabolical way of permission, where to, just allow yourself well everything, it is also called the Left Hand Path, or the female pathway, which is still badly demonized at the Right Hand Pathlern because he sees any kind of faith concepts as Flatwix and rigorously destroys any kind of faith as Lead International Holding. Where this happens, you can as they say, his ego fall simply because ego and faith concepts belong together.
And where the ego is transcended then one experiences enlightenment, transcendence, etc., etc.
The Ichaufgabe the first type into a prärationales infantile, abängiges of external authorities consciousness. = Destructive
The second kind in a trans-rational adult autonomous anarchist consciousness, this is also one child, but a child liberated, freed from all authoritarian structures. = Constructively
This child is called "Divine Child". And where there is no ego, there is - jargoniert Christian - the "kingdom of God".
In matters of faith, we must not confuse it with confidence, as I see it at the top bookmarks.
Was fun to do even after a long time a small pile with you, Magnus Emil, now I am network junkie and get more out than Krch ... .krch ... .krch ..
A Happy Helau
Monika
As the belief in the materialistic atheism would be better ...
Faith should NEVER by external ideologies or institutions - this is the creationist church or materialistic science - be determined.
I think at least * lol *:-D
Yes, Dude agree, I would go further and say that any faith as a pure holding for true of no matter what, school knowledge, Ideologismen any kind, the people limited, concentrated, and blocks access to their own originary knowledge, sometimes they say wisdom to krch..ch ,, .. The true autonomy, the true anarchism is beyond all keeping Surely, all isms and concepts.
The Buchstabeng arbor is most common, no matter obs the media, books are, there always seem to be at work authorities, we believe ... Krch ... ch ...
@ Monika Schulte2
Well, that was more than just a heap.
You have also opposed bookmarks above what I had to say about himself, regarding the difference between faith and trust.
I want it but the effect take in protection (which, although they certainly do not need, will possibly deprecate to but I have to note here my) that they normally regarded faith very personally and I've paths, and the already had clear reason to me about of whether exaggerated directness, asking her for forgiveness to take back.
Which of course does not mean that I can no longer think and write what I want.
Not even faith is a form of faith.
Even the non-believers do not know better, he just simply does not believe so, but different. So if one speaks in this respect of destruction of the self, then takes the necessarily apply to both believers and non-believers.
Think otherwise is the precursor to trust. If I can not believe someone, then I will never trust him. These two things are inseparable.
Sincerely
the bookmark
@ Bookmark
Oh mannomann! If it were not for you!
So:
"If I can not believe someone, then I will never trust him. These two things are inseparable. "
There you have me again. That is hard to disagree.
But (after all, what goes):
"Even non-belief is a form of faith."
The set is in my opinion not only unprovable, but fundamentally wrong.
A myth that grew out of understandable reasons.
Namely, on the basis that many of the faithful, especially the more intelligent among them already feel a certain uneasiness therefore, is a thing plenty of unsecured very much to leave to. From this they can then, as a protection claim from even the unbeliever is actually a believer, just know this is not, and sometimes draw then a feeling of superiority from this cause constructed conjecture. (You do not do the latter. Credit where credit is due.)
It is, sir, nonsense to claim that the unbelievers believe in non-belief, is hereby himself a believer, so basically a belügender Depp himself.
I do not believe in not believing. I just do not know to which God to believe. However, I think because of me, my children, good wine, Käsfondue made by Emil, sunrises on the Baltic Sea and a few more edifying things.
I must and will - to the basic back - even go so far as to say that this is by believing infidels one of the most insidious lies that has ever conceived the Theologasterei. (Again: This is a basic consideration and is not directed against you.)
As from behind with an iron catch, so try the Seelenzerknechter those still to make, otherwise they can not get; but more importantly still, they tell their flock that those other but merely belögen itself.
Well, they might do that. I can not deny it to them.
On Christianity, I see now, however, at least in significant approaches that this is no longer entangled old scheme everywhere. Many Christians are in fact now on, even though they often are not able to classify the above-aware thing.
In this I use.
Apart from the infidels.
Hach, I love these discussions :).
Magnus, you write
"It is, sir, nonsense to claim that the unbelievers believe in non-belief, is hereby himself a believer, so basically a belügender Depp himself.
I do not believe in not believing. I just do not know to which God to believe. However, I think because of me, my children, good wine, Käsfondue made by Emil, sunrises on the Baltic Sea and a few more edifying things. "
You have to actually read three times, but I think I know what you mean.
No one believes in a non-faith. Neither one believes in a faith. You can not. Either I do something or I do not believe it. If I do not believe something, then this implies that I do not know it, because if I do not know something or can not prove it, then I say it that way.
This means that the believers say within the meaning of religion: Yes, I believe in this or that god. Others say - as I do - yes, I believe what Jesus has said, I believe God, I trust him. The people made I try as much as possible to leave them out, as you know. I've got just a different approach.
Non-believers say then: No, I do not think so. I see that from one reason or another different. I'm just a product of chance in the evolution from the Big Bang to nowhere. Also I can not prove it, but conclude from this and that reason. This is my thinking result. I believe that to be interpreted either way. Recent evidence I have to stay guilty, because there is none.
The non-believers is just not a knower in the sense that it can provide a coherent proof of the being in its complexity. He believes just not what the faithful believe.
You then say something else:
You write: I do not believe in not believing. I just do not know to which God to believe.
So you say nothing other than that you can not solve the issue at the moment for you finally. You believe that there is something that you can not grab, you can not conclusively explain where you are missing thinking results, etc.
It's okay. No one has eaten the wisdom with a slotted spoon. In addition, our ways of life are very personal and sometimes find it hard to believe God and we are either back at the start, or need more thinking steps once adjourn, for example, the topic "Why does God allow suffering and injustice, evil, too?
The cheese fondue alla Emil I do not know unfortunately. Nevertheless, I love cheese fondue - especially if it is homemade. To my children I have always believed. Sunrises over the sea are wonderful things, and I must admit that I was able to experience the most beautiful evening sky with the most incredible colors playing in Scotland. Something I've never seen before. Incidentally also something divine. A good wine, I do not despise and are not otherwise beautiful things of this earthly existence.
Sincerely
the bookmark
@ Dude
I think that you chose to tap a far piece in the case described by me against bookmarks by You write:
"As the belief in the materialistic atheism would be better ..."
Thus, in this context, at least to the inexperienced reader our potential - albeit probably not intentionally - laying near, I was - even if the above aphorism apparent - a materialist atheist.
"Atheist" wants interpreted generously, for my sake just tackle yet: that I was but a materialist, yet no one even halfway knew me, I ever seriously to meditate has verwagt.
Except, of course, he would have offered me the choice between the good and the bad wine. In this I am an avowed Material Is.
No, the accusation goes with me - when - on a regular basis meaning that I had no or too little materialist. From my now 48 years life span I know the in any case for at least the 43rd
Even my best teacher - Professor Wilhelm Pötters - nursed me to mock the effect friendly when I walked into his office for a chat, "ah, aquí viene el Caballero Andante" so mercilessly as an expert on my donquijoteskes beings, as befits among linguists , aiming directly.
Snacho Panza he did not call me anyway.
And if I'm already doing: Sancho wants while his Käs and its wine (not unlike me in it) but his master is connected in a loyalty that has nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with materialism. Dear never Käs, for betraying his beloved master any.
Sancho is the faithful soul who even entering their loyalty to wisdom. This is probably the first time anhiero now. He who has ears, let him hear.
And, Duder, it hits you now to some extent accidental, or, You're worth it just that this fall: Why are probably "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and the Quijote for me so far unsurpassed works of world literature?
They embody both the life beyond money and greed.
The man as he rises above the material.
@ Bookmark
I thought maybe like in a God, if I do all I just did not have to be ashamed.
But for beauty and Scotland: I ibid, particularly I remember a night in Oban, seen on our belated honeymoon three years, also colors, a light that I only want to describe with the word "divine".
The whole world dives into the Heavenly, you know out of sheer amazement and happiness itself and almost impossible to believe his existence.
But also Saviour bag - hence! - I think so too.
It is these things, experiences that could not even take a thousand devils more. Everything faded dark against it.
And, it is, of course, the love in us that makes us something only accessible.
Seen in this directed "the evil one" himself. He will have no eyes to see, is a self-blinding.
Yes, and I still believe in something. Or do we prefer to say ganauer times, I desire it not only, but consider it even possible. In it, I'm probably even more crazy than the Knight Bus.
Namely the fact that the man can still raise incredible inner treasures. That he, if you will, in my opinion, there are examples already (Bach), can be divine.
Well, away from the revelry and towards linguistics: As far as I know, the word "God" from "giotan" new German "pour" comes.
So God is the one who gives life. Herewith anyone who creates something good.
That is why in that book, that you may know them by their fruits.
The sentence is irrevocable self-explanatory.
Magnus
You've misunderstood, because I have you not responded with this statement in person (or have you discovered a "Magnus";-)), but it was a general statement that any time Extreme ultimately unpleasant consequences.
Mir has long been clear that you're not a materialistic atheist, and thought you had it equally clear.
Since I'm obviously wrong. * Grin *
Actually I wanted to write much more, because I still had a lot to say, but it is now just after four clock in the morning, so I let the better. :-)
Do not Miss
"I just do not know to which god I should think."
If I may give you a hint here?
You are currently browsing in a good way.
After all, it is their own inherent divinity you - your eternal soul (that which you really are, what makes you alive at all, beyond the material and ephemeral Erscheinunungsformen.) - To which you should believe.
And the more you believe in yourself EVEN, the clearer will be everything; simply trust the inner guidance that is always there when you are they willing to accept.
It is found in Zarathustra that matter. However, hidden between the lines. It is the superman, of whom he speaks!
Greetings from Dude
. Ps "God" has a different etymological origin, as far as I know, but I'm level too lazy to look up, and my head is in the sieve of such details is no longer to have these days - and certainly not at this time: - D
@ Dude
The misunderstanding was not so before on my side to happiness. I thought as master of ceremonies this page to only those that neither you nor as accurately know me, maybe just happen to come around here and the thing could therefore interpret falschrum.
Still about the etymology of "God".
I was sure to have heard the origin of "pour", have now but again my Bible (Grimm's dictionary) and my minor Bible (Oxford English Dictionary) consulted, and it is in these sacred books to the effect agree that no unambiguous I found solution to the puzzle. But one suspects that the Indo-European root "Ghau" (call) a Partizipialbildung, "ghuto", "ghutom destination ', ie the importance of those (in the magical-mystical meaning quite)" callee "is.
The natural fit pretty well into the picture; but are real linguists (especially those nobles of the language and history of comparative linguistics) is usually anxious to deposit the theologian by scientific discipline, not simply to believe and say what is good fits in the stuff.
I have yet to his own theory, which I will submit another time when it is hopefully more mature.
If we however hernehmen the Greco-Latin-Roman Indo-European word for our "God", namely "Theos", "Deus", "Dieu," Zeus, "Ziv", "Tiu" etc., we inevitably end up, who would it intended, with the T-Rune Tiwaz, that which is represented graphically by the upright arrow.
Now you can write the word with some Fug toward the "Pointing", the "stuff ends", "Deut ends" interpreted in the sense of the direction, the path has. (Ogott, even listening to me too? Probably pretty much all asleep, because the Goeller rumspinnt long-winded again.)
Fun is also - for the still guards - that "Tirawa", "Tirawas" was among the Iroquois and the highest being - you guessed it - by a (albeit rounded, but this is irrelevant symbologisch) arrow, practically the T-Rune, was shown.
Since it can only be coincidental that the Iroquois are large, unmongolide, hook-nosed journeymen. But in North America to hide anyway every bog body that looks like it may not be the real fast.
Now I am of course again something abgeschwiffen. But I just wanted to give you a small example on this occasion, which is why I this - have Runenfimmel - most just think since I spönne, or worse.
And yet: If I want to go virtually certain that almost no one takes seriously me (apart from Gert and a few others), I simply mention this topic. Folds almost foolproof.
Yes, and when I again am stupid'm Out Labern to the highest, ostensibly abrahamitisch erbgepachteten things ever, I will not fail to mention that in the meantime the Japanese, as I learned from the most competent Germanic source, "almost touching" and very respectable in the Runes research involved.
Does not surprise me now. Yes are not stupid, the Japs.
The even know who is Johann Sebastian Bach.
So, I will now slowly but aufmerksamkeitsundefizitären of a überrunischen, in any case, for that matter, Einmeterfünfziger down to Mittagsmahlbereiten annoyed, so I have to close temporarily.
@ Dude
Now he is cut off suddenly, the rock Thor, so like the go, and I can not stand the other way on Divine.
You write:
"And the more you believe in yourself EVEN, the clearer will be all; simply trust the inner guidance that is always there when you are they willing to accept.
It is found in Zarathustra that matter. However, hidden between the lines. It is the superman, of whom he speaks! "
That's well said. It is probably the most concise interpretation of the Superman in Zarathustra, I have ever heard.
Nevertheless, this is the most difficult form of "faith". And not easier for one who has been touched more than once in the life of a bus.
To an external God believe (vow comes from), is to serve such, is undoubtedly the simpler solution. While dishonest, but, at least for the mass, workable, practical.
What is externalized, it does not carry around with you. It's that simple addition to delegate responsibility -. Because I will now at least many internally contradictory, although this is not to deny - even to some not ultimately responsible for pulling, not tangible numinous power. The priests eat fat in this business.
Luther, one of my heroes, was itself a first, but then realized what a hundsföttisches doing it, shamelessly cashing between man and his God. That he dared to say this then, we also had our high-level language (not everyone is called Knöpfle), this is in my pantheon. Only Nietzsche should - for us - to catch up with him, even surpass him.
He said - in Zarathustra - but also: "Be tough!"
I now know why he said that. It means, taken in three syllables, what you ausführtest above.
Magnus
A time Note: The rune does not mean T-Rune but Tyr-Rune or Tiwaz.
If it is a faith that overcomes the human flaws and represents a truly higher ideal, I quite believe it, because what is already this self - an overvaluation of the ego.
@ Magnus
Incidentally, I can tell you at the selected quote "Be tough" halfway agree and find its application in the context confidence.
However, I is the opinion ofDude one should kindly but themselves perceive as the center and even divine, more than arrogant and naive. With this rigmarole you have to deal with every day. Such unrealistic Überindiviualisten then brings the fist back into the chaotic and ultimately deadly reality.
@ Nils
The rune is of course the Tyr rune, or even, Tiwaz. However, it is entirely logical and familiar, they also mention the T-rune. Quite simply because the characters, this letter represents the phonematically T.
In this respect also Othala the O rune Dagaz the D-Rune is then etc.
Besides still: Our current 26er alphabet is measured at the 24er-Futhark, pretty gaga.
The "C", the "Q", "X", the "Y" and "Z" are not just Germans each particularly effective.
That our alphabet also contains other deficiencies, namely, among others, at least it could so far not to show any clear-calendar-cosmological analogy mapping, is a further notice.
Most people have nevertheless afraid of the runes - and the thing with the Third Reich explains this only in part.
If you do not that is is as stupid as I am, and publicly to confess to seriously deal with it, you can do it, after all, behind closed doors. But hardly anyone dares the least. And so, although the runes with some certainty with our most valuable spiritual heritage are. We need only read once Klingenberg and Hess.
Each Halbesohutseppel studied nowadays the Kabbalah, mysticism changed around the Hebrew alphabet, which has a minimum with respect to one's own language, philosophizes about the ox and the camel - what I'm nothing, because all cultures are worthy - instead, or let's say better, at least also the one to take close look at what is directly the own body language.
Why was Crowley who knew quite a bit of language and related magic, a helpless at the end esoteric goal. Had to suggest an English wannabe rabbi, the Egyptian charge to make an ass of Aiwass (clearly runic name, he knew that too), just because he was doing so easier to succeed.
That he never reached Shakespeare, is forgivable. I also appreciate some of his writings. Ultimately, however, he is with his 666, the beast and all this rigmarole, but just jumped on a moving train, was seen as a vain opportunist.
And if I ever chatting in this regard out of school: I have, except my wife and me, only an Englishman and a German to know who was his book of the law reasonable to digest the situation. Otherwise, practically always followed insanity.
Nietzsche's Zarathustra also only few understand at least halfway, but still only be a few crazy thereat.
That might be because the book is encrypted in any way, sent down from any dubious shape on humanity, as though to show to the Behufe that did not yet exist sufficient astray here.
In this respect Crowley was a tragic figure. For his spiritual gifts were no doubt extraordinary. With his magic, his universal law, but he has heavily relieved.
I like him anyway. He was in fact funny. Of Jesus, for example, me not a single good joke is known. Therefore, it is me - myself, personally for me, so not as predominant religious phenomenon - not so important.
As Confucius is even funnier. Of Luther, Cervantes, Kleist, even not to mention Nietzsche.
To Jesus I need my jokes in any case always do it yourself. I do basically like, but I hear also like one that someone else has made. Boredom is worse than death. Who gives me a good of himself, to which I give a from.
@ Nils
Our comments have overlapped - ie I wrote and gave me freely before your above - which is why I can now include only what you anführst respect Dudes.
I think he is basically correct, but see also the authorization of your objection against it. Especially since he is formulated hard and crystalline.
However: Since we're all a little further out go here from us, than maybe common practice I did with real names (which is then to mention already again), I want the Duder, who is very dear to me, but, unberufenermaßen, in take shelter.
For if he expresses himself, I will not, as is regular way, equally bad, or let's say, so delicate I'm not as well, I must disgust roll their eyes when one tells something of spirituality. (Have to see search function above right, here quite a bit of etc. left from the stack because spiri.)
After all, in any case: The Dude does not hate thinking. It belongs to those who the - I mean - even like to do. And he has and appreciates not only the joke: but one can even argue with him.
If he were a woman, I probably GREETINGS him with my now become very small and very sparingly used shovels a little bit of.
But, today I am so exhausted that I'm somewhat garrulous: try it yet so little for themselves and fetze you with him. But please you on a reasonable level. Then I like to watch to steer and sometimes even my two cents in. (Although the fit is not quite good for Käsfondue, but you can also eat it well without sausage, it is even suitable for vegetarian.)
Magnus
"One suspects, however, that the Indo-European root" Ghau "(call) a Partizipialbildung," ghuto "," ghutom "underlies the importance therefore that of the (quite the magical-mystical sense)" callee "is."
I still have a bit of digging, and I made some thoughts and it is not unreasonable to assume that "God" of "pour / pour" comes.
In other words: Life itself, which pours itself into the material inside.
We - our eternal core that makes us alive - are the Cast Out, and thus, although qualitatively similar, but not quantitatively. Therefore, the Out Cast in turn calls on the teeming, to ultimately end up back in the boiler. ;-)
However, it is equally possible that it originated from the Sanskrit word "Deva", from which in turn a few detours "Deus" is derived, since the word "Deva" rule. is translated as "divine, heavenly beings". However, this is - if you look at it closely - not quite correct, because the meaning of "Deva" in the Vedic civilization was "demigod", or as we would say in our latitudes: gods (or angel / Elohim [Creation Collective]).
It is very likely that people would have called these deities in contact with transdimensional beings ~ 10,000 years ago.
Therefore, it would have also fit well.
And it also combines well with the Tiwaz Rune and the Iroquois. Thanks by the way for example that has me actually able to illustrate something about the runes - they are in fact quite new to me. :-)
But to discuss the whole really completely probably need more than just a string here. ;-)
I'm looking forward to "your theory". :-)
"That's well said. It is probably the most concise interpretation of the Superman in Zarathustra that I've ever heard. "
Thank you! But this would suit me well not quite as flush successfully, I would not get the appropriate template. :-D
Letztlich handelt es sich beim Übermenschen doch um den Glauben an das unendliche Quantenpotential = ALLES IST MÖGLICH! Die göttliche Seele beherrscht mittels des Geistes die Materie, so sie sich ihrer Selbst auch bewusst ist.
Und hier:
“Was man externalisiert, trägt man nicht mit sich herum. So einfach ist das. Zudem delegiert man Verantwortung”
…triffst Du voll ins Schwarze. Unser ganzes System baut ja auf Abschiebung der Verantwortung… noch… Mehr sag ich mal nicht, war eh schon genug, wollt ja eigentlich kürzer treten. ^^
Ps. Grüsse die Junioren von mir.
Addendum:
“Was wir suchen, ist das, was sucht!” (Franz von Assisi)
Ps. Daraus entstand die Sehnsucht ;o)