Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man leaves behind 1905-page suicide note(the Harvard guy who killed himself on 09/18)
Economic Times ^ | 09/28/10

Posted on 10/01/2010 4:51:50 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: windcliff

¨Nightboy¨?


61 posted on 10/01/2010 11:04:48 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Imagine being stuck next to this guy on a cross country bus ride.


62 posted on 10/01/2010 11:08:40 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Live jubtabulously!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
"So I’ll CHOOSE to live. For no better reason than I choose to"

No, you'll just choose to live for the time being - that's the only control you have and you only have that for a little while. I know that I am serving the purpose of my creator and savior who has a plan and is working it out as conceived from the beginning of eternity. I know everything that happens is part of that directed plan and my life has meaning knowing this and direction participating in it. It is unshakable and eternal. It certainly isn't my purpose, but the purpose of my creator. I don't choose this, it is the truth whether I accept and believe it or not. But for some reason I was chosen and elected by my creator to understand this and know I will spend eternity with him - that's part of the plan also. The realization of this is now and immediate and I shall always be eternally grateful

63 posted on 10/01/2010 11:13:28 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Quite an opus. It should have been condensed to be more accessible to the masses. “Life sucks, then you die.”


64 posted on 10/01/2010 12:27:01 PM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

LOL


65 posted on 10/01/2010 12:51:06 PM PDT by windcliff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

What you “know” is only a meaning you have invented for yourself. You attribute certain characteristics to it to make it more palatable and “certain” but in the end, it only means something because you choose to ascribe that meaning. And that is perfect. It is exactly what I have been arguing all along.


66 posted on 10/01/2010 12:51:39 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

That passage is a load of garbage. Life is horrible. I guess the author also likes all the cruelty, insanity, and murder.


67 posted on 10/01/2010 2:50:44 PM PDT by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

“Why don’t we ever see an Opus like that here on FreeRepublic?”

Real nihilists don’t see the point.


68 posted on 10/01/2010 2:52:26 PM PDT by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Some people can never believe in God because they are not spiritual. Even if Heisman stayed alive until his last natural breath, he would still spend an eternity in hell or the void or the abyss or wherever.

Most people should not be conceived in the first place. Assuming that a personal God exists (which is very unlikely), he makes a considerable number of mistakes. God makes more eternal sufferers than anyone else.

Every time you give life to a child you are participating in this cosmic horror. The chance of the child not becoming a follower of Christ is VERY likely.

The only rational thing for some of us to do is to make sure we are not responsible for bringing life and then to commit suicide after a solid suicide plan is established.

I’m looking forward to it :)


69 posted on 10/01/2010 3:04:22 PM PDT by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
It follows from the premise.

It is self-contradictory and fundamentally incoherent to invoke the universal, invariant, objective laws of logic to oppose objective knowledge. An autonomous subjectivist or relativist cannot justify the standards of rationality to which he appeals. His attempt to destroy rationality and knowledge is self-refuting.

70 posted on 10/01/2010 5:57:37 PM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar; Interesting Times; SeraphimApprentice
Yes, without Jesus and God, life is meaningless

True. And suicide is the logical conclusion of Nihilism.

71 posted on 10/01/2010 6:13:01 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Some people can never believe in God because they are not spiritual.

Men are spiritual by nature, not by choice.

Most people should not be conceived in the first place.

I presume you made an exception for yourself ... that you at least view yourself as worthy of conception.

Assuming that a personal God exists (which is very unlikely), he makes a considerable number of mistakes.

You, a created being, set yourself as a judge over Him who created you?

The only rational thing for some of us to do is to make sure we are not responsible for bringing life and then to commit suicide after a solid suicide plan is established.

19 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.
20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25 But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27 He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house,
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29 Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31 He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Luke 16:19-31

72 posted on 10/01/2010 7:50:48 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"31 He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Could you please elaborate on the above?

73 posted on 10/01/2010 8:15:07 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Assuming that a personal God exists (which is very unlikely), he makes a considerable number of mistakes

Mistakes, compared to what?

Mistake, fault or error presupposes a standard of right, accuracy, correctness, or truth. How do you account for such a standard from nothing but mindless, purposeless, evolutionary, ever-changing matter in motion, which is all your brain, its by-products and everything else in the universe was, is or ever will be. And if that's is all there is, there is nothing to compare it to. A 'mistake' is a contradiction in terms from a naturalistic, darwinian premise, which by definition declaims any goal or purpose to the universe. Physical forces of chance/necessity do not make "mistakes". So where did you get this notion of a deviation from a standard by which to judge something a mistake? You just take it for granted that there is a standard, but can you justify or account for it from an atheistic premise?

74 posted on 10/02/2010 12:02:16 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

That’s not necessary. It’s really simple:

God wants everyone to believe and spend eternity in heaven but some people will never be able to believe. Therefore, he screwed up.


75 posted on 10/02/2010 3:39:54 AM PDT by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
That’s not necessary. It’s really simple:

Necessity is a logical concept. You assume the existence of binding, universal, invariant, objective laws of logic without a coherent foundation for the existence of such laws in a materialistic universe of chance/necessity. If it's really simple you shouldn't have any trouble accounting for your assumptions.

God wants everyone to believe and spend eternity in heaven but some people will never be able to believe. Therefore, he screwed up.

Again, you assume some sort of standard that God purportedly violates. I should like to know the nature of this standard to which you refer and what its foundation is.

76 posted on 10/02/2010 6:45:32 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
An autonomous subjectivist or relativist cannot justify the standards of rationality to which he appeals.

He appeals to those constructs to argue his case to those who ARE bound by them, who DO believe in them. Yes, he would readily admit that if he cannot know anything, then he cannot know that he cannot know anything. But he's not trying to convince himself. He's trying to convince someone who actually believes he CAN know something, and that logic IS binding.

77 posted on 10/02/2010 9:42:59 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
He's trying to convince someone who actually believes he CAN know something, and that logic IS binding.

Putting aside the obvious question of why a subjectivist would be trying to convince some one of some thing, how is it possible to rely on the laws of logic to prove that the laws of logic do not exist? It is absurd. Still, the one who claims that he cannot know anything, (even though he cannot know that he cannot know anything) cannot defend his claim to epestimological incompetence without invoking some objective standard that of necessity requires that he can say something rational about knowledge of the unknowable, which is inherently self-vitiating.

78 posted on 10/02/2010 11:02:50 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I will try ...

God has revealed Himself to all mankind through general revelation; which is described in Romans 1:18-20.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

These three seemingly simple verses describe several things about general revelation. First, God is the giver of general revelation. Second, He gives it to all men, no one is excluded from this knowledge. Third, Gods main attributes, namely, his power and divine nature are what He reveals to everyone. Forth, these attributes of God are understood by looking at creation. Finally, this knowledge of God is presented in such a way that men are without excuse for not believing it.

There will not be anyone who can claim that they didnt understand that God exists by looking at creation. He presents this information about Himself in a way that reders mankind excuseless. The other poster that claimed some people cannot believe in God because they are not spiritual will not stand up in Gods court.

Special revelation is what is refered to in Luke 16 passage concerning Moses and the Prophets. God has chosen to reveal much more information in the Old Testament (as well as the New) about Himself. The Rich man and Lazarus passage could be a parable ... but the dialog between the rich man and Abraham suggests that it is more likely the actual accounts of the lives mentioned.

Notice a few things about the story. Jesus calls the rich man ... "a rich man" ... but he calls Lazarus by name. Second, after the rich man died, he went to a place of torment ... he felt the anguish, he felt thirst ... and most importantly, his immediate concern was for his brothers whom he knew did not believe. The rich man then makes a few requests which cannot be fulfilled. The second is to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers.

Abrahams response is that Moses and the Prophets contain all they need to know to avoid going where the rich man went. The man insists that his brothers wont believe unless Lazarus returns from the dead to warn them.

Abraham then delivers the punch line. If they will not listen (hear, heed) to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they listen (hear, heed) if someone rises from the dead.

Jesus point ... I believe is clear. Men choose not to believe in the revelation that they have been given, nor do they seek after the additional revelation that is available to them. There are other places in the Bible that mention that people do not believe because their minds are blinded, they love their sin, and are basically self-serving in the extreme.

Hope this helps.

79 posted on 10/02/2010 6:47:54 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
how is it possible to rely on the laws of logic to prove that the laws of logic do not exist?

Not that they don't exist, but that they lead to a paradox.

It is absurd.

Absurdity of course being a "logical" construct whose validity is entirely measured against its own yardstick, a tautology if ever there was one. "This is illogical because it is absurd, and is absurd because it defies logic."

Still, the one who claims that he cannot know anything, (even though he cannot know that he cannot know anything) cannot defend his claim to epestimological incompetence without invoking some objective standard

Yes, the "objective standard" that my counterpart embraces, not necessarily one to which I subscribe. It is you who are bound by those rules, not I. One cannot impose "logical" rules on a universe that creates the kinds of paradoxes of which you speak.

80 posted on 10/03/2010 6:31:01 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson