If there is a god then he surely isnt all merciful and all loving like islam and Christianity claim
I am unsure about whether there is a god or not but i cant deny one things and that is that if we see the real world then that itself contradicts the definition and characteristics of god claimed by christians and muslims. They claim god is all merciful and loving yet there is so much cruelty and hate
Comments (114)
The Abrahamic religions grew out of a necessity to justify the lives of slaves against those who treated them as property and trash to be disposed of. Think of it as a style of metaphysical capoeira that armed the masses against their masters.
Jesus' aim is that of God's grace, to usher the sheep to heaven as a good shepherd should for his flock. Jesus in the Gospels is vastly different than the Jesus in say Pauline doctrine. Jesus haa his own equation. And that's in truth what Christianity is all about.
Jesus, a Jew, was rejected from his society for transfiguring the Jewish values to be less resentful, there was no sin (the divorce between man and God) in the gospels, nothing came between Jesus and another, not even those who would kill him. He lived his life to the glad tidings... and the reality of heaven is more like following Jesus' equation, not the doctrine of the Disciples, which is mostly just an injection of Judaism back into Christianity. Not a new faith, but more so a new way of life.
If people were to act like Jesus, then they would feel themselves as if they were in a kingdom of Heaven... otherwise they're remaon under the resentful wrathful and angry laws of God...God cannot be omnipotent and be denied half of the nature of omnipotence.
So the moral of the story is live to the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ to feel heavenly.
How can one believe in a (more so than not) benevolent Higher Power, god, deity, or whatever you will, in a world mired with suffering, cruelty, hatred, and so on?
It's a question men of faith and even honest curiosity have struggled with for Millennia; ages even.
So, first and foremost is to understand the dynamic of which we're trying to discuss. We're talking about the supernatural, that which transcends anything we currently know and perhaps will ever be able to know, understand or experience in this existence. That's the key point to understand here many people fail to grasp. It's illogical, it is, by all observable and known science, irrational. This is where people fail to understand the true nature of an alleged god or divine higher power. When you begin to open up your mind to it, most folks often fall into the "oh so none of this matters, this is basically a simulation" trap and reverse mindset dynamic. This is common. You however seem to be stuck at the gates.
So, let me ask you. Do you believe you, as a person, have something either inside you or I don't know perhaps available to you, that separates you from say, the pigeon that eats out of your hand on a park bench? Beyond your body's physical, anatomical contents. The answer to this question will determine what line of discussion will best suit your needs.
1. His own values.
2. To love his fate.
3. To build bridges where others would give up.
I suggest you learn to read more discerningly for these forums, friend.
What I did was sanitized it of religion and made it secular.
If you need a label you can label me an atheist.
A pretty digestible book that could benefit your understanding here is a book by Hannah Arendt "The Human Condition." Im that book she spella out how constellations of thought have changed over centuries. You can just search for a pdf of it to read at your leisure. Not all religions were for the weak, but Judaeo-Christian morality emphasizes this.
The first two Essays in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals is a much quicker read, but I'll tell you that many people aren't neaely as discerning as they ought to be while reading Nietzsche. If you read Genealogy of Morals, read the preface too. And make doubly certain of doing your due diligence. One must follow Nietzsche carefully to understand his meanings in depth.
Apologies for disappearing, I fell asleep. Welcome aboard.
PS: religion is about faith, not knowing.
PSS: most here wont engage with such a limited OP. They find them too lacking and probably too common. That's okay though, we all start somewhere, and you seem eager enough to learn and discuss things. Though you'll find a few here who aren't so adjusted to baring, banning and ignoring.
An okay place to gather some knowledge, but the community as a whole is severely lacking. There are posting gurus who live here in these hinterlands of thought. They're fragile nihilists in disguise as philosophers. Except this whole community has little to no impact on the world, let alone on philosophical thought.
Better off reading philosophers of impact rather than the ramblings of the relatively powerless madmen here.
Well this is only true if you think of god as a magic sky wizard with a plan. The literalist account in Islam and Christianity, for instance. But if you consider god to be not a person at all but the source of all that is and that we can understand God not as a being among beings, but as Being itselfthe foundation of existence rather than a contingent entity.
In the view of philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart, God is the infinite wellspring of goodness, beauty, and truth, not a cosmic manager intervening in history. From this perspective, suffering and evil do not contradict Gods nature but arise from the misuse of freedom within creation, which remains ultimately grounded in divine love. At least that's a more intelligent account of theism which has a long tradition. Literalism seems to be a product of the modern period. Personally I am an atheist.
God is an idea with many interpretations. The cartoonish, literalist account of God is the easiest to undermine. People focus on it most because Biblical literalists have the loudest voices (and dominate American culture), while atheists find the cartoon version of theism the easiest to refute.
Quoting QuirkyZen
You dont have to believe in Brahman to be well-versed in Advaita Vedanta. But fair enough.
Brother if you hve knowledge regarding this interpretation of God then i would love to question because i literally wanted to question but stopped because I thought you might not have enough knowledge on it or maybe you used this interpretation to only answer my question. I would really love to question about it
1. Our understanding is not clear and he has some purpose behind it.
2. Our understanding is clear thus good is immoral but god cant be immoral so therefore god doesn't exist
Maybe. It might be that suffering is a necessary consequence of creation that God cannot avoid, if God chooses to create. Or it may be that the suffering is not God's so he's not bothered about it. There's a few possibilities.
The problem of evil is definitely a challenge to those God-mongerers who want to hold to a particular set of assumptions about God. But if one is willing to shed some assumptions, then the God concept can perhaps survive in a modified form. But I guess there's a limit to how much one can modify one's God-concept before it becomes an eccentric use of the word 'God'.
Quoting QuirkyZen
The truth of this depends on your general standpoint in moral philosophy. I think I'm probably a metaethical moral relativist, meaning that moral truths depend on a point of view, so what is right for one person may not be right for another. So what is good for God isn't necessarily what is good for me, so I can judge what God wants (or allows) as immoral, from my point of view, without contradiction.
Good and evil are fundamental features of reality and they are both necessary. Humans mostly are inclined to prefer good over evil though but that does not mean that we could live with good only. For example, you feel pain when you are hurt. You look for a cure as the result of pain so it is right to feel pain.
Yeah both are necessary in this world but isnt god said to be All powerful. If yes then he can change the fundamental features of reality according to his own will thus good and evil are his own choice and he put it himself thus not being merciful
Nietzsche was not a religious scholar and never seriously studied the traditions he was commenting on. A lot of his "history" is just made up speculation to suit his points. I would advise against swallowing it uncritically. From the standpoint of history, it is more on the level of creative fiction.
For instance:
Who exactly were slaves here?
The compilers of the core of the OT were most likely caste priests, elites in their society, working under the auspices of the royal authority of an independent kingdom. Most of the Biblical literature predates the Exile (and at any rate, the Jews were not slaves in Babylon, but kept their class structure intact).
The later books were written by the victorious party in a war against the Seleucids, an elite celebrating their own victory in war against one of the great powers of the period.
None of the Apostles were slaves. Indeed, one Pauline epistle in the NT is to a slaveholder about a slave that Saint Paul has converted while in prison. Mohammed was not a slave, but rather a scion of a dominant tribe and a leader who oversaw a rapid conquest. If one accepts the longer compilation period thesis for the Koran then it was composed over a period in which the composers were engaged in a massive expansion by conquest. They were the ones taking slaves, not the slaves.
Whereas the spread of Christianity seems to have occurred across classes, but was already a major influence in the intellectual/elite sphere in Alexandria by the time we get a more consistent history in terms of primary sources.
If one goes with mainstream secular history [I]the Hebrews were never even slaves in Egypt[/I].
In general, I would be skeptical of claims to have successfully psychoanalyzed the intentions of anonymous authors from millennia ago at any rate. Nietzsche's critique is apt for some forms of Christianity, Platonism, and asceticism, and indeed these forms are also inveighed against by many of the Church's saints. For instance, St. John Cassian and St. John Climacus actually point to similar issues with poorly motivated asceticism (a sort of misunderstanding and wrong motivation), and obviously there was a great deal written about body/life denying readings of the Phaedo vis-á-vis the Gnostic heresies by the Patristics as well, that often touch on similar notions. I think it's fair to say though that Nietzsche doesn't really transcend his own upbringing here, and is often backwards projecting problems he finds in 19th century lay German Protestantism onto three plus millennia of quite diffuse history and thought.
Whether there is a God who is all-powerful is the subject of debate. The reality is that we are left with our own so if we have to achieve Utopia if it is possible at all. Living the life as it is is interesting. We learn things. We become wiser after we realize our mistakes. It is through challenges that we become stronger. Etc. It seems that God if we accept that It exists couldn't possibly create Utopia since living in a Utopia requires all-wise Creatures, namely Gods. It seems that humans' destiny is to become Godly on our own if that is possible at all, even if we accept that God can create Gods.
It's pretty simple to examine history though. And plenty of historical scholars like Hannah Arendt even detail the history quite well. Further still, we can see the intellecual Jews highly appreciated Nietzsche's Genealogy. It helped them in overcoming the neurosis which was plaguing their kind... (Nietzsche and Zion pg 10-12 Jacob Golomb).
Your little spat there means nothing compared to these scholars who have actually impacted the world while you loaf around here trying to say small things in defending a life denying dogma.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Jews in this case.
I get that you dont really study this stuff much, but I do, so carry on with the obtuse bs you're attempting in order to obfuscate, but you're just ignorant on the matter really:
And in The Antichrist 24 Nietzsche spells it out quite clearly the origins of Christianity and antisemitism are unoriginal copies of Judaism:
Further still, we know Philo Judeas, a Helenic Jew was responsible for creating the Christian Logos in CE 22-24 with his work "Die Vita Contemplativa" by Hellenizing the Old Testament with Plato's teachings... which would be 8-6 years before Christ began teaching at 30 CE.
So, I'll go with the academics on this one while being wary of you, a Christian, who is really just defending his beliefs against their ugly truths...
And Nietzsche was the first real philosopher to even consider the historical account, of philosophy, through history, philology and etymology... that he didn't write history books doesn't mean he wasn't a discerning scholar of history... pretty weak reasoning there if I may say.
Gotcha, against the consensus of historians and the claims of the texts themselves, the authors of the Scriptures were slaves because Nietzsche said they were. Nevermind that the temple cult was developed under an expanding and prosperous, independent Hebrew kingdom under the auspices of that society's elite.
Apparently, if you read Nietzsche and actually understand him you must become convinced of his infallibility.
And I'm the dogmatist!
But Nietzsche levels lots of scorn at Plato, Aristotle, and Kant. If having a great name makes your interpretation of history or philosophy correct, then surely he falls victim to the same deficiency. After all, he calls Socrates out for being weak and ugly in Twilight, yet Socrates not only fought the Spartans man to man in battle, but exceptional heroism and ferocity was attributed to him by his contemporaries.
Anyhow, you are indeed correct. Nietzsche is, I would imagine from bookstore shelves and online philosophy spaces, by far and away the most popular philosopher of our era. I find cruel irony in that though. First, that he who disparaged the crowd became the "philosopher of the masses," and second that he became the philosopher of the masses in [I] this[/I] era, one which he would surely see as the Age of the Last Man. But to me it makes a certain sort of sense; the Overman is the fever dream of the Last Man. The latter gives birth to the former.
I imagine there is also a connection to be drawn here between C.S. Lewis's contention that modern society raises "men without chests," and young men's perennial attraction to Nietzsche, but I digress.
I see your edits and they seem to me like just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks. How exactly does the fact that 20th century Jews appreciate Nietzsche support the assertion that "academics" think that the ancient Hebrews were slaves? What does Philo have to do with the assertion that all the Abrahamic faiths were originally embraced primarily by slaves?
That Nietzsche's diagnoses might be taken to fit for 20th century Jews makes way more sense. The Jews became an oppressed diaspora people. The ancient Hebrews, Christians, and Muslims, however, were not.
First you whine about historical scholarship and his psychoanalysis... well there are an abundance of those in such professions who appreciate Nietzsche's works. You trying to say his notions are shit when there are many Jewish scholars, which is only a subset of all those who detail his Genealogy as accurate shows your agenda...
You're not here to learn a damn thing so shoo. Tis the last I speak with you (here).
You should probably read Thus Spoke Zarathustra more closely then... that was exactly his intention. Not to preach to but to draw from the masses.
You mean Plato, Socrates and Kant. Aristotle used a double orbit to show two opposites are connected. Just as Heraclitus... N doesn't bash Aristotle, except rarely, more rare than he mocks Spinoza...who he claimed a sort of kinship with...
Which is one of Nietzsche's fundamentals (the plant that grows out of two opposites which are fundamentally of the same cause).
Applies now that my cascade of thoughts is more or less done...
Sounds more like the Gospel to me.
In any case, I would love to ask Nietzsche when the Jews began espousing such a message. Given that I don't see this message anywhere in the Hebrew Bible when did it begin? If the Jews hate that which is noble why did they have wealthy and noble kings?
When did this hating of the beautiful begin again?
When was the exact day you were conceived by your father and mother fucking? If you dont know then obviously it didn't happen is basically what you're saying... not a very well thought out question or critique.
I'm sure you can say it happened roughly 9 months beforehand... but that's not the exact time stamp... and who really gives a fuck about when your timestamp of conception actually was?
I'm not asking for a specific date. Can you put it within a century or two? Or just give me a name of a biblical figure.
Ok so during their time in slavery the Jews began hating all that is beautiful and noble.
I'll stop here because I know better than to question your Bible.
(My Bible is a little more open to questioning btw but I digress...)
...or rather than face the inherent inconsistency in the myth, folk might burry it, like a cat in the litter tray, in dissertation and interpretation. Hermeneutics is especially useful here. Interpretation becomes a way of never facing the problem head-on. Instead of acknowledging genuine tensions or incoherencies, the myth is protected by an infinite regress of meaning-making.
The fuck do you think undying grace means?
Man, I'm just trying to step into your world, that's all. Learn a bit about the Jews.
So I guess it goes something like this: The slaves in Egypt start their values revolution and begin hating all things noble and beautiful and strong. ~1400 years later at the time of Jesus this is what the Pharisees are. The Pharisees also detest beauty and strength as they are the ancestors of these slaves.
But Jesus doesn't. Jesus tells them to not build a value system based on resentment and the Pharisees hate that so they persecute him.
Is that the gist of it?
Okay, so they want to appeal to authority. Let's see what the authority says... Oh, whats this? They approve and appropriate from his works? Now, does that mean all Jews agree? No. But he certainly was a massive influence on early Zionist/Zionism and Jewish psychoanalysts.
Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. Then all that was thrown to the wayside after the Nakba in 1948. Nationalism and self determinism for Jews became it's beck and call.
Could I be wrong for believing all these pre 1940s Zionist? Sure. But then they too would be wrong about their own history and culture and probably shouldn't be considered as intellectual elites.
I don't know where you get this notion, but it has no relationship with reality. Of course history is very complicated - and there were numerous variants of Zionism, but here is the basic outlines of the first Zionist Congress in 1897:
"[i]The program set out the goals of the Zionist movement as follows:[5]
Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law.[6]
To achieve this goal, the Congress envisages the following means:
1. The expedient promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine.
2. The organization and bringing together of all Jews through local and general events, according to the laws of the various countries.
3. The strengthening of Jewish feeling and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps for obtaining the governmental approval which is necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose.[/i]"
Heck people on that committee like Brinbaum even became anti-Zionists...
Bodenheimer joined the revisionist party of Zionism founded by Jabotinsky
Jabotinsky's writings state, "we do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine [Eretz Israel ha-Ivri, or the 'Jewish Land of Israel'] as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled."
Indeed, and the idea that the wretched, slaves, etc. were in their place precisely because they were wicked was obviously a popular opinion amongst the ancient Jews, since so many texts feel the need to weigh in on it. But that view is almost the opposite of the view being ascribed to the Jews here.
It certainly seems more appropriate to the Gospels (far less to Islam), yet it doesn't seem particularly in line with ancient Christianity either. It seems most in line with more class conscious 19th century German Protestantism, and it seems to me that these sentiments are being backwards projected onto "the Jews."
I will give Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt here though and assume he is not primarily thinking of the fairly warrior-centric Hebrew culture of Joshua and Judges though, and more of later periods. The problem though is that Maccabees isn't [I]that[/I] different.
The irony here is that atheist, secular historians highly doubt the Jews were ever slaves.
It is this internalization that causes within the weak, feelings of ressentiment, and bad conscience and being responsible for said shame and guilt. This is the pathology of Judaismits own backbiting virtue.
But make no mistake, it is this very notion that makes Jews leaders in many fields, as they hold themselves accountable. Because the number one aspect of a strong leader is accountability.
The weak, however, outnumber the strong more than 1000 to 1.
This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948.
Your post as it stands can be read as follows:
The weak are those who have a conscious and who via its quiet affirmations experience shame and guilt for wrongdoings.
The strong, in turn, must then be those devoid of a conscious and who thereby experience no shame or guilt for any wrongdoing whatsoever (maybe not even recognizing that the concept of wrongdoing can apply to them).
This would literally translate into: psychopaths * are the strong while non-psychopaths are the weak with the story often enough going around that the weak as mandated either by God or by Nature ought to be subjugated by the strong.
* As to technical definitions:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
--------
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
It's been a while since my reading of him, granted, but this is not the Nietzsche I know of, limited as my knowledge of him is, who Im guessing would have for example likely kicked Hitler in the groin where he to have been around as painfully as possible, if not worse and who can be quoted as admiring the Jewish community at large. As one example of this, with this one quote given with special emphasis on weakness vs strength as pertains to Jews:
Quoting Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
As far as I can see, youre sort of giving Nietzsche a bad name here, this by purporting him to have upheld the opposite of what Nietzsche wrote. While he does have mixed views regarding just about every so-called race of people out there - German, English, etc.,, with Jews as no exception - as far as I know he is well enough recognized to have been an anti-antisemite. And Nietzsche desired for Jewish assimilation into Europe rather then for their segregation (be it in the lands of Zion or somewhere else). To evidence this, here is an extension of the previously given Nietzsche quote from a different source with commentary (you have to search through the reference to find it, but you can use "find in page" as a shortcut):
Quoting https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred
(don't have the time or current interest to search for more quotes of what I remember reading in Nietzsche's works as regards his sentiments toward the Jewish people)
--------
Nietzsche's writings aside, as to the currently interpreted conclusion that the weak are those who hold some measure of shame and guilt, for better or worse, I dont think that there exists a single forest of people out there completely comprised of psychopaths (the "strong"). Nor, for that matter, any forest that is, has ever been, or that will ever be in the foreseeable future which is completely comprised of non-psychopaths. With any honest person, Jewish or otherwise, being able to attest to this.
Nope it actually reads that the weak internalize negatively and gain a bad conscience, which the strong internalize positively and don't have a bad conscience. Quoting javra
Duh... A letter Nietzsche wrote to his sister:
Nietzsche, Letter to His Sister, Christmas, 1887
Quoting https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred
...
Quoting Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Hence... (whoops editing cause I forgot to post the hence)
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Would you like more to show you how much of a friend he was to the marilginalized Jew? A point which I've been arguing Nietzsche is a fan of Jews this whole time?
Noone needs this Holub to detail Nietzsche's appreciation of Jews if they're a discerning reader of Nietzsche. It's common knowledge that Jews appreciate and appropriate Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology precisely for this reason: because he found the Jew to be an incredibly potent people capable of the greatest of feats of power.
Alright. Cool.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
As pertains to this one quote, then, you might (?) want to re-term what you here call "bad conscience": A feeling of guiltiness, as if one has done something wrong. Because it's only the psychopath that does not experience this, right? I can argue that not even Abrahamic angels are guiltless. And as you probably well know, Nietzsche's gripe was not with guilt per se but with that type guilt that immobilizes and thereby leads to decay of both spirit and body. The doctor who makes a mistake has and ought to have a sense of guilt for it - without which the same mistakes would be endlessly repeated - but yet is not incapacitated by this guilt, instead learning and improving from it, so as to allow the doctor to continue healing his/her patients as best they can. Sort of thing. Brings to mind, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" ... cliche maybe, but it yet has its place.
No, moralizing, the bad conscience, ressentiment, and responsibility are trade marks of the Judeo-Christian morality:
Because Buddhist, Hindus and all others, the Inuit included, don't experience any of these ... not being themselves of a Judeo-Christian morality.
Yea. No. I disagree.
As to support via quotes, I don't worship any human, even those I look up to as philosophical mentors, in part due to acknowledging that all humans are fallible. So I'll disagree irrespective of the variety of quotes you might offer. Even if they're form Nietzsche himself ... and beyond rhetorical ambiguities ... which in Nietzsche would be a rarity.
That's fine if you don't agree, doesn't make you right. It's common knowledge that Greek antiquity were premoral. As were many other. It's why Zarathustra created the concept of Light and Darkness. Because he noticed people internalize war differently.
Don't make me wrong either. Especially in light of the fact that your theory contradicts blatant evidence, such as that previously offered.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
What can that even mean? Let me guess, it means that in Greek antiquity, if they'd so want, they'd stomp on their own babies heads for the fun of it without any moral compulsion. Thereby being "premoral".
But I get the impression that you might be a joker of sorts. In which case I might just let you joke away. Funny stuff.
Bruh doesn't know the Greek antiquity were famous for leaving babies on the hillside...
Nothing you've said contradicts me.
Do you personally know of any more moral warfare than that portrayed in the Iliad?
You are uncontradictable. Got it. Enjoy.
Just throwing names of old societies doesn't do shit in terms of discussing morality which dictates good and evil.
That's what we call a swing and a miss. If you said something that is actually contrary to what I said, then you'd have a point. But you've failed in that.
You should probably try to brush up rather than just sound like a whiner...
There were over 200 delegates at the First Zionist Conference and the program waw adopted unanamously.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Quite true - especially considering that Chomsky was born in 1928 - 30 years after these events. But even apart from this obvious goof on your part, these people were all wa-a-a-y outside the mainstream Zionist movement. I don't have the time or energy to bring you up to speed - but I'll leave it that the end goal of mainstream Zionism from the very start was colonization - the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Not an obvious goof, Chomsky became active in Zionism under the same Supranational intentions pre-Nakba. And only afterwards turned away from Zionism. The obvious goof is you trying to challenge me with only a quick Wikipedia scan...
Quoting Chomsky
Quoting EricH
Nope...
The Basel Program was drafted by a committee elected on Sunday 29 August 1897[1] comprising Max Nordau (heading the committee),[2] Nathan Birnbaum, Alexander Mintz, Siegmund Rosenberg, Saul Rafael Landau,[3][2][4] together with Hermann Schapira and Max Bodenheimer who were added to the committee on the basis of them having both drafted previous similar programs (including the "Kölner Thesen").[1]
The seven-man committee prepared the Program over three drafting meetings.
You should probably read your sources.
Spectators are spectating.
So we see in 1942 is when they announced a departure from the traditional Zionist policy. To create a commonwealth for the Jews. Rather than an inclusive supranational state.
The big problem here is I'm considering the philosophers who delve into Zionism vs you considering non-philosophers. For example, Trump is a Zionist. Who doesn't really know a damn thong about Zionism other than "Jewish Homeland in Israel." Which is what most Zionists are... doesn't mean they know shit about Zionism. I know more about the history of Zionism than most Jew.
Basic talking points vs the philosophy behind it.
It's like saying you know all of Kant because you know the talking points: "Thing inside itself", "Categoical Imperatives," "Deontology" and "Apriori Faculty!" ... Here, I'll throw your claim of reality right back at you... Quoting EricH "Get real bruh."
You say obviously, but I've read a fair bit of ancient Jewish lit and this isn't really a theme that appears much if at all. The stronger theme is caring for the poor and not all poor are presumed to be wicked. Elijah was poor, but pious. Some of the Talmudists were poor, but this is treated sympathetically. It is a great mitzvah to help them, but yes, wealth is treated as a blessing. Jewish tradition is naturally self-reflective, so if misfortune strikes it is natural to look for reasons.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Josephus frequently describes the Hasmoneans as "noble" and often mentions their beauty. Herod's wife was a Hasmonean and she wasn't shy about it. The Herodians hated her. A noble and proud people, indeed. But there was no true counter-force in terms of values.
I suspect Nietzsche is taking certain biblical ideas, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then overstating these ideas and then attributing them to a shadowy priestly class. Then he situates this shadowy priestly class against a noble and proud aristocracy to form his history/genealogy.
Everything Nietzsche details in his genealogy essay 1 can be found in the Old Testament. In Genesis alone at that.
That God confuses the languages of Good and Evil, and that the powerful who enslave shall be the damned etc etc, the cunning of these slaves, like Abram fucking over Pharoah because he was a coward to admit his marriage etc etc...
A lot can be found in the OT and even more can be interpreted. And the job is considerably easier if you ignore content that contradicts your thesis.
Genesis Chapter 15 line 13-15
Virtue ethics = cruelty is virtuous. Need one say more?
Cruelty when practiced in moderation tempers its most destructive elements...
This has been part of psychology for the last 200 years at least... how you're blind to it just shows you're not very educated on the human condition.
That's always the problem with dogmatists... too obstinate to see beyond what was issued to them.
Yahweh is the Supreme Cruelty... hence why those who dont follow the equation of Jesus will remain under God's angry judgements, John 3:17... Most of Nietzsche's main points in philosophy and psychology is more or less a copy to the equation of Jesus' Glad Tidings.
What do you think Nietzsche would make of the great nobility, wealth and grandeur of King David and Solomon? Or how it is written "How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob; how lovely are your homes, O Israel!" (Num. 24:5).
Yet beautiful Saul is replaced by ruddy David. So beauty is recognized as not a good method for choosing a king. David is also the smallest of his brothers and the least impressive. There you go. The hatred of beauty.
The Mitanni kingdom, with its Indo-Aryan aristocracy, adopted Hurrian language and culture, and they were known for their chariot warfare, which was also used (the culture of Arya) by the Babylonian Empire...
Who held the Jews captive, and were damned by GodGenesis 15:13-15
Thus...
Who cares it's a completely moot tanget and red herring from the fact of Genesis 15:13-15 That God damns anyone with power over the Jew, this shows their logic in hating those more powerful than them... this places the emphasis on the weaker type.
You take Nietzsche's meaning to be "all Jews are weak slaves," or something like that due to some reason, of which there are many you're doing so for.
Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. But are there are too many strong, rich, and proud Jews who are loved and respected for this to be the case. Wealth is often seen as divine blessing.
Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy.
I was thinking of Job's interlocutors, the Disciples' questions at the opening of John 9 as to whether a man was born blind because he sinned or his parents, etc. The idea that good fortune is a reward and bad fortune a punishment shows up in the wisdom literature and the Psalms quite a bit too.
I would agree with you that it isn't a major theme promoted by Scripture. Indeed, Scripture often seems to argue directly against this view. I am just saying that, because Scripture feels the need to address this view, it must have been at least somewhat common.
And that only makes sense, it's hardly like American Protestants invented something totally new with the prosperity gospel. The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history.
"Good" is always subject to the culture's table of values though. So you didn't really say much about an objective good.
People who haven't read the Bible obviously.
Nietzsche clearly isn't talking about Hedonism. And your God can sucketh. It's all just a fable anyways. A fable that details the most bogus bullshit, like men living 900 years, and how everyone was incestuous in their culture. Which is funny considering humans were around long before the Israelites and thus they weren't just fucking their own sisters to birth all of humanity... that's a much much older tale that has nothing to do with the Jews.
lol, that reminds me, after I listened to the audiobook of Saint Gregory of Nyssa 's "The Life of Moses," (excellent quality BTW) the YouTube algorithm, in its infinite wisdom, decided that I was a prime target for ads by Messianic Jews that were obviously aimed at trying to convert other Jews to Messianic Judaism with the line: "nothing is more Jewish than Jesus!"
I'm going to go out on a limb though and say that 95+% of the audience listening to St. Gregory are Christians, and probably moreso traditional Christians, not Jews, but I could be wrong. Maybe it just sandwiched the key words: "Moses" and "Christ."
Duh, Jesus was a Jew, but he flat out rejects Judaism.
When was the last time either of you read the Gospels?
Jesus was rejected by his own and he abolished the entire doctrine of sin, reward, and punishment of Judaism. Because Jesus assumes the right to new values, just as the Greek men of antiquity. Hence why Nietzsche vibes with Jesus.
That would have been news to his followers! :lol: Many of his later interpreters, including Paul, could be read as doing that, but not Jesus himself. He evidently believed he was the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies, and was always addressed as Rabbi or Teacher.
Jesus has his own equation.
Sin is the divorce of man from God (just as absurdity is the divorce of man from himself)
Nothing comes between Jesus and another, he loves all, and can bridge any divide, towards even to those who were his greatest enemies.
Paul's Doctrine has zero to do with the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ.
You should probably read Foucault. Madness and Civilization if you want to understand a bit more on that.
Nietzsche's Equation is Amor Fati, which Mirrors the Glad Tidings, and the Superman is made reality when you suffer the fool...
"Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet"
Certainly. And have often preached them, though a philosophy forum isn't the place for that, IMO.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Not quite sure what "inclusive of the apostles" would be. You can judge for yourself -- I found the book completely respectful of the Christian path, if that's what you mean.
I'm talking of the myth of the avatar of God, as the Bible frames him...
Christianity was prepared hundreds of years in advance of someone who took the name Jesus. The myth of Jesus was pre sime human taking the name Jesus Christ.
Please tell me you don't think some guy popped into existence and then Christianity was developed around HIM... when the concept of the Jewish Messiah was in the OT, some 1500+ years prior, that had radical sects devoted to the Messiah...
Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide.
Sorry, could you translate that? :wink:
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
There were primative monasteries to Christianity which radical followers of Judaism would meet in on the Sabbath and worship: namely the Therapeutae.
The way to make something really stand out in history and to catalyze reality behind the words is to propagate ideas, (propaganda) then cause an event to Crystalize Public Opinion.
And Philo Judeaus' work Die Vita Contemplativa shows these groups and points to these monasteries to Christ that were in existence before the legendary figure of Christ reared head as a human.
And he lived during that period of time. Not some 2000 years afterwards looking back.
History always progresses linearly, it doesn't make leaps.
The man Jesus Christ was merely a man, not a God, and not the myth. He played a role in a real life dramatic TRAGEDY (as in the Greek art). The most brilliant Theater the world has seen: Jesus the Tragic Hero.
Though, I may pick up the book you recommend just to get a solid detailing of the Man, rather than the myth of the man, the myth of the Messiah, that existed 1500+ years before the man...
And Philo Judeaus Hellenized much of the OT with Plato's teachings. So we can see the wish to overcome Greek and Roman values by this appropriation of values such that the stories share aspects of the Greek and Roman myths to make transition from one easier. The hero of Tragedy is always the Dionsysian Hero and this hero is always represented in the form of the Apollonian. Hence why Jesus shares so many traits with Dionsysus. Also why Christmas is actually Bacchanalia. Bacchus = Dionsysus. The very essence of the transvaluation of values.
Did they worship Jesus in these "monasteries?" Or were they just doing worship which others came to associate with Christian worship?
Source? Philo, right? Show me the passage.
Right, from our perspective. If what we call loving and merciful is eternally true, God's either not that, or not there.
But, who's to say from the perspective of God or what we think of as the eternal (both of which, by the way, are just as susceptible to human error as love and mercy; if any of these even exist eternally--outside of our constructions)
I don't believe so. No disrespect to anyone who does.
You might ask, "then how do you even talk about 'God' [in this way]?"
I don't think Scriptures or any other form of Narrative manifesting outward of History is the source of [our knowledge of God]. I think so called revelation is History's response to the real source, our nature/Nature. Revelation is just as constructed, and therefore susceptible to human error as the concepts, love, mercy, God and eternity.
For me, God is (for lack of better) felt order sensed by/as the Body. And from that History constructs our [fallable] narratives.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. Yes there were some who espoused that, but these were fringe elements and had no real impact on events. We know from both internal correspondence and public statements that statehood was always the goal - and using "homeland" was a cover.
In any case, the indigenous Arab population (i.e. the Palestinians) were under no such illusions. The local population always opposed Jewish immigration even before Zionism was a thing. By WWI the anti-Zionism movement was highly organized (and sometimes violent) . The post WWI riots of 1920, 29, & 33 - the 36-39 revolt, etc, etc? Clearly these were not directed against an organization that was trying to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together.
As far as Chomsky goes I am in large agreement with his positions on world events, but he got this one wrong.
Perhaps you are familiar with this already, but here is some excellent material about pre-WWI events.
All that said, I have no doubt that this will not change your mind. I give you the last word.
Canaan is not part of Arabia. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be an "indigenous Arab population" in Canaan.
There have always been non-Israelites/non-Jews in Canaan. So are the Jebusites or the Perizzites of the Bible the "Palestinians?" Do you think that they knew that? Who exactly are these "Palestinians?" and why can't Jews be Palestinians? Kinda funny how that turns out.
And if they're Arabs, then why not just call them Arabs?
Exodus generally has a folkloric quality about it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical scholar who defends the idea of a 1.5-2 million person exodus from Egypt in the 13th century BC. Some scholars, such as Richard Friedman, make the case for a smaller exodus
IIRC, an Alexandrian Egyptian priest named Manetho in the 3rd century argued that Moses and a group of his followers were actually expelled from Egypt due to leprosy, among other reasons. I doubt we'll ever know the truth.
https://teachmideast.org/arab-middle-eastern-and-muslim-whats-the-difference/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_identity
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Arab
Arabs were undoubtedly in the land in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would just question the "indigenous" labeling.
Ah - now I get it. I wasn't sure how to phrase this. The history of this region is immensely complicated with many different threads (as with most history) - but there was a large number of people who had deep family and cultural roots in the geographic area that was called Palestine - these roots went back many hundreds of years. These people eventually called themselves Palestinians. So what phrase do you use to call these folks? I'm up for suggestions.
My man, I know Zionism was always to steal land from those who occupied it. I know a lot of the nasty little secrets about Zionism, but I also don't blame Nietzsche for all the dumbasses who ruin his philosophy and psychology. Just as I don't blame Zionism for the idiots who ruined what Zionism was supposed to be, that image of what it could be under its greatest advocates and constituents.
It really is; I totally get it. I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians but rather something foreign. I think if we wish to make things clearer, we would just refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
No, you simply don't think hard enough beyond your own prejudice. To the point you think it's okay for foreign Jews to take land that they had no rights to. Thus you support unjustified eviction by threat and force of murder. You're just too X to say it so plainly.
I bet you'd attempt to protect your home from a foreign invader too.
Please do tell me more about rights. Is there a right to build terror tunnels packed with munitions all across Gaza? A right to murder one's neighbor for the crime of being Jewish or Israeli? What would Nietzsche say about that?
Let's make a deal... drop your address, we can make an agreement, if I can push you out of your home through force of violence then I keep all your shit... No? Then stfu.
Yes. I remember in Samuel when David's infant son dies, and this is attributed to his sin with Bathsheba. I watched a lecture some time ago that claimed that these 6th-century BC works - like much of the Deuteronomistic history, which was redacted during this period - are written from the perspective that everything that happens is God's will.
Josephus in Antiquities notes the same pattern when Herod Antipas loses a battle against the Arabians. According to the Jews at the time, this is attributed to Herod Antipas's execution of John the Baptist.
I've read quite a bit of ancient Jewish lit, but I don't recall this logic ever being used to justify poverty.
I'm not too familiar with Christian theology, but it seems that while the prosperity gospel has biblical support, it is not particularly "Christian" in the sense of according to the message of the gospels.
If violence is a necessity of life, then so it is for the Zionists as well.
If the Palestinians have a right to defend their land, then so does Israel when rockets are launched, and Israelis are murdered or attacked. Yet such a thing happens when Palestinians are taught from the cradle to hate their neighbor and that all that is theirs belongs to them.
What Hamas did on 10/7 was evil in its purest form. Yet, there is a movement that sympathizes with and supports that evil. So call me stupid; at least I don't stoop to the level of sympathizing with genocidal Islamist murderers. Better stupid than wicked.
Accuse me of islamophobia all you want; I am not an apologist for murder. I don't care if that murder was in 1948 or 2023. You will never find me supporting the deliberate murder of innocents.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
What is your idea of Zionism, then? Any ethnic group in the Middle East must be able to defend itself, and this entails statehood. Relying on Arab nations to look after their minorities has not been a winning strategy.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
The Zionist businessmen didn't give a hoot about that though they just wanted a cash cow. I take my definition from the philosophers, not the business men.