What is the Point with this thread?

After reading through this thread I am more convinced than ever before; Feminists (not all but most) are those who most of all hold to ressentiment values these days. But what do they believe in? Religion/spirit? Most of times no. Biology? They may claim it, but in truth no.

I must say that, even if it might be said to some degree that a truly immoral philosopher (in this case) is someone who one more easily feels instinctively repelled by, I doubt to what the degree the argument actually endures. Shall we then extend it to institutions too? How many mistakes are too many? Once again take the Catholic Church. Shouldnt one then avoid it? Based on the immoral actions they have committed, and for which it took them sometimes up to 400 or so years to "repent" from. And your Orthodox Church too as an institution has done some wicked things. Have they repented? And if not, shall one then avoid it?

"Eastern Orthodoxy is way too bound up with the ethnic identities of Eastern European countries, and is almost entirely found in those countries."

On this, we are very much in agreement. It creates a big problem for the East. My problems with Catholicism though is that it has had a very turbulent history with many committed atrocities that I find hard to accept, and I dont like that it has adjusted itself so much to modernity that it is nowdays hard to go somewhere and find the old mass in latin rite with gregorian chant... That they have almost abandoned that is a catastrophy IMO

Read the vedas and you will find it there too. Read some muslim texts and you Will find it there. Your answer is in all different ways a strawman. You must say something more than that. To say "jews and christians say that God is hidden and history shows he is so they must be true" I find to be a strawman and a ridiculous argument. And it has nothing to do with what Nietzsche REALLY said in the quote.

But I must add that it still posses some problems that Nietzsche still addresses in the same quote which you didnt reply to... And I would really appreciate if you could share your view on it. That is; sure God is hidden, but how does that effect US? What does it tell US about this God and in relation to what WE can understand and observe in history as sorry and suffering and tragical little human beings? And to some extent I think that is what Nietzsche is addressing... But mind you; Nietzsche was very much a social critic in these aphorisms...

No to be honest I havent read Pascal... Only looked in the Book and read maybe 20 pages or so... But it wasnt my opinion on Pascal I hope you know; it was Nietzsche's. Anyway, thank you for clarifying that part... May I ask, how do you respond to the rest of the quote?

Yes haha agreed

I have read Nietzschean criticism... It was hilarious haha xD

Anyway; regarding the Old Testament it is my opinion that one can read in A LOT of mystical things into it (as Gregory of Nyssa does in his magnificient work The Life of Moses, one of the greatest theological works ever written and he is my favorite of the church fathers), mainly because it is GREAT literature, and you can do this with all great literature (Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante, Dostoevsky, Proust, Kafka...) but when it comes to God in the Old Testament, Harold Bloom(Perhaps the greatest literary critic in the world and also a jewish) is correct I believe: Yahweh is Human all too human... And it is exceptionally hard to NOT see him as BAD news. It is hard to believe he is the God Jesus talks about, no matter how much you do as Origen et al suggested and read the Old Testament through the lense of Jesus and the New Testament... Yahweh is human all too human, a typical literary character...

I would also like to ask you one thing : What is it that makes you most attracted to Catholicism, rather that Orthodoxy for example?

One can argue that perhaps one must reach the point where the whole distinction between subjective and objective is erased...

Another "doubt"/problem that often keeps coming back to me is perhaps a silly one But still: What if all those religous experiences by great religous mystics are the simple result of epilepsy? We know Dostoevsky had epilepsy... What if Paul 's revelation of Jesus was an epileptic seizure, and the whole foundation of organized christianity is based on nothing but... An epileptic seizure? I might trust Jesus when he tells me to have faith; but why am I demanded to trust in the infallibility of Paul's experience?

So then Nietzsche proclaiming God is dead (the patriarch/cosmic ruler type) was a good thing I guess?
"The magnificent organising power of the Roman empire congealed around a revolutionary popular religious movement and endowed with a titular authority. Pity the gnostics didn't have more of a look in, in the first place; things might have turned out differently."

So, how does this fit into the bible, Where God often seems to be perceived as this Authoritarian ruler?

"(The word 'Jupiter' is derived from the Sanskrit 'Dyaus-Pitar', which means, literally, 'sky father'. That, I'm sure, is what a lot of people believe in (or disbelieve in)."

Even people like those who wrote some of the books of The Old Testament and Saint Paul etc?

Yes I see... The problem is for me though : We all cant become monks. And the bible (especially the old testament and definitely Paul in his letters) certainly seems to suggest that God IS a kind of universal ruler or potentate, the CEO of the Universe... I can't read in anything else to that. So then the question becomes: Why Christisnity(which also has these handicapping threats that make me feel that it is impossible to develop spiritually in any Healthy way whatsoever ) and not buddhism or the hinduism explained in The Upanishads and Baghavad Gita?

That doesnt matter. You now gave precisely the answer I did NOT ask for as I said. I would like Another reply to what Nietzsche said there than "He doesnt know the divine darkeness". How is it that most for example only comprehends comprejends divine potentate (something else than that the bible doesnt seem to talk THAT much about). And with the reply you gave; Everything becomes exceptionally subjective it seems to me.

For example he says about the Divine darkeness/the hidden God: "On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could."

I would also like to hear your Christian reply to the following, WITHOUT talking about God has having his own standards this time, even if that is true. Because that helps not, it only makes things worse since God becomes terrifying and strange. We have to talk from a human perspective about this;

"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intention could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of the truth? Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? But perhaps he is a god of goodness notwithstanding and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack the intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? So much the worse! For then he was perhaps also in error as to that which he calls his 'truth', and is himself not so very far from being the 'poor deluded devil'! Must he not then endure almost the torments of Hell to have to see his creatures suffer so, and go on suffering even more through all eternity, for the sake of knowledge of him, and not be able to help and counsel them, except in the manner of a deafand-dumb man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to fall on his child or his dog? A believer who reaches this oppressive conclusion ought truly to be forgiven if he feels more pity for this suffering god than he does for his 'neighbours' for they are no longer his neighbours if that most solitary and most primeval being is also the most suffering being of all and the one most in need of comfort. All religions exhibit traces of the fact that they owe their origin to an early, immature intellectuality in man they all take astonishingly lightly the duty to tell the truth: they as yet know nothing of a duty of God to be truthful towards mankind and clear in the manner of his communications. On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could.

48. deus absconditus: the "hidden/concealed god."

- Nietzsche, Daybreak aphorism 91

No you cant. And yet yes.

"The marks of human experience are value judgments
and planned action. The marks of the Dao are freedom from judgment and
spontaneity"

Here Agustino, from Tao Te Ching to you: "Value relativity. If we were able to escape the beliefs we live by and see
human life from the perspective of the Dao, we would understand that we
normally view the world through a lens of value judgments -- we see things as
good or bad, desirable or detestable. The cosmos itself possesses none of
these characteristics of value. All values are only human conventions that we
project onto the world. Good and evil are non-natural distinctions that we need
to discard if we are to see the world as it really is."

I would appreciate to hear your reply later and see what you mean by agreeing with the fathers (which I guess an orthodox is ALMOST forced to do?). You agree that the Earth is 6000 years old for example? That no dinosaurs existed and died before human beings came to earth? The Christian religion has hesitated on accepting evolution as a scientifically established fact. Though it is as close to a fact as one can come and should be accepted without a christian losing faith. Christ was first of all Truth. A christian shouldnt lie. However, the philosophical interpretations that has been given of evolution has failed to see the importance of duration and hence missed the very uniqueness of life. So you have all right to question materialists.

What is meant by a natural or moral law from God? Look at the nature... We know the Church Fathers(most of them) were pathetically wrong in claiming that there was no death before the fall, that the earth is 5000-6000 years old, that before the fall the lion was friend with the sheep etc. Nature is cruel, period. At least if one has a "christian moral conscience". Nature is indifferent, wasteful, just as much destructive as creative, murderous, etc. Christians says this is because of the fall, which we know is a big fat lie. That is, Christian theologians have(knowingly or unknowingly) wanted to blame the whole cosmic tragedy on mankind. A wolf killing a sheep? Man's fault. A shark eating a fish? Man's fault. A snake eating a mouse? Man's fault... So does God wants us to go against this "morally beautiful" nature he created? We nature as a work of art and sure, it might be said to be beautiful. But moral? ... Nature itself is then beyond good and evil. So we shall be anti-nature... But it is obvious: The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple... Aha! No cell-death either then? What about the apple then? We know for sure that this view is wrong. Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolves, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin?

So I still just ask simply, like a child to God if I met him: "Why do you exist?"... What would he answer?(I am not counting on an answer from you"

No I am not assuming that, I am just asking God something which I can't understand... You see, it is hard to grasp the idea of something uncaused and all-powerful, eternal, beyond all being and non-being etc. So I just wondered what God would say...

But what is the cause for something uncaused? Does God know why he is? No reason you say? Is that perhaps why he needed to create? ;)

Yet though, does he know why he is? If he has a conscious mind, if He Is He Who Is...

I haven't looked up Jean Luc Marion... I will though! Thanks!

Well, so if I asked God; "Why do you exist?", would he then answer "Well... In a sense I don't actually"? :P Is that really an answer? xD

That is not true of John MacArthur.

I know you are joking, but seriously haha... What would he answer? He can't stop existing and there isn't a point where he didn't exist... So... Does he know why he exists? xD

Would God be able to answer someone if someone asked him; "God, why do you exist?"

good post

. "That's also why we're judged by the Law."

By the Law here, do you mean how we have treated our neighbour, mainly if we have clothed the naked and visited the sick and helped the homeless etc? Or do you mean if we have followed the 613 commands of the Torah?

"No, the actions wouldn't be considered good. Remember that with Abraham, he didn't believe God was commanding him to do evil, for he believed in his heart that Isaac would live, since God promised him earlier that Isaac would live. It was however a teleological suspension of the ethical, in that Abraham's direct relationship with God was more important than his commitment to the law. The good was his faith, not his actions. So Abraham didn't actually break the law, it was just his readiness to break the Law for the sake of God that was in question - namely his faith."

I agree with you, it is probably a correct interpretation and I would hold the same view, but still: The terrorists would probably also like this interpretation and use it to their advantage... They would probably say that they hear God's voice, perhaps even that he communicates with them as directly as he did with Abraham, that this relationship is more important than their commitment to the law and therefore... They might say "I break the Law and destroy the World Trade Center for the sake of God - namely my faith!"

"Because God doesn't demand them that (therefore this premise would be false)? Human beings are bound by the moral law, and they will be judged by the Law. So if you break the law (remember that Abraham didn't actually break the law), then you'll be judged for breaking the law."

True, the law wasn't broken by Abraham, and God prevented it. But why? Isn't the answer to that also because GOD never breaks this law? He stands above it, but he doesn't break it.

Yes I see what you mean, but it certainly is true that these leaders either knowingly or unknowingly try to invoke this kind of feelings of shame.

Ugh... I really have problems with that guy's understanding of things

"No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine."

So, once again, what if God wants you and me to destroy creation, using us as tools? Is that then immoral? I mean, you say that God is beyond good and evil but yet that man is to be condemned if he acts "beyond good and evil", if I have understood correctly? But what if God wants us to act beyond good and evil?

"What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God."

How about the muslim terrorists then like those who flew into world trade center or ISIS today? They would love hearing what you said here and say that this is exactly what they do; God demands them to kill for the sake of faith, and because God is above the Law... I mean, if one is demanded by God to go beyond the moral law, then why blame these terrorists? Perhaps they actually do what God tells them? You see, I am not saying that you are wrong, because I am familiar with this reasoning from Kierkegaard and find it interesting(and I see the same spirit in Nietzsche even if you reject and hate him - perhaps because he doesn't use christian terminology but instead tries to create a new definition of things?) but it is certainly a risk to say that God is above his law and can demand people to do evil things and consider it "good"(though I know that God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac)...

Based on my own experience with American Protestantism and their leaders like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc. I must say that I agree with you here too

"This is a valuable insight; I think you have the key here already, within all of your trepidations and frustrations. How could personhood be the highest value if sin sends someone to eternal conscious torment? Christianity has missed the importance of the person, of personality. The idea of eternal conscious torment is dehumanizing; it begins with man in a state of total depravity. The problem with this is there's no reference, within basic human experience, for why this is, or what it's measured against. Sin originally has the connotation of "missing the mark". But the way Christianity unfolded in history assigned a normative toxic shame to sin, and, therefore, to all of life; all aspects. The typical Christian ethos is one embroiled in shame and subsequent virtue-signaling. Shame creates an entire culture of pathological play-acting. But none of this has to do with the crux of the actual Gospel. There are other interpretations. Christus Victor places Christ as the victorious hero conquering sin and death; it's a cosmic battle that's already been won. If Christianity had adopted this view of the Gospel as it's basis, then the culture of shame that embroils it wouldn't exist.

Ultimately, toxic shame eats away at the sacredness of that personhood that you expressed. I personally think that personhood (I would say personality or individuality) is the highest value of Christianity precisely because Christ was God incarnated in an individual person. The sheer depth of symbolical significance of that fact, within the context of history, is staggering. It creates a connection between God and man; man has a need for God, but God also has a need for man. The notion that man's need for God is not reciprocated for need on God's end is nonsensical. Man has zero value if God does not assign value to him, and God cannot assign value to man without having a need. Any value assigned without need would be purely theoretical; value means need.

What all of this has to do with organized religion is anathema to me, at this point. I've had similar experiences to what you describe. I also resonate with the feeling of having "lost faith", and yet still finding belief in Christ to exist within myself. I've had a long, painful journey of coming to terms with these contradictory experiences, but to come to the realization that a belief exists, deeply within me, a belief in Christ, despite everything, has been a huge comfort. I sense that you're wrestling in possibly a similar way. There's a name for our ilk; "Doubting Thomas". Just think about the depth of Thomas's faith after having seen the wounds of Jesus with his own eyes. This is the beauty of our doubt; it leads us into deeper Truth. Keep it up."

Thank you a lot for this post. It resonates very well with me. I thank you.