Oh yeah, what seems to be the issue >:OWith the exception of the negro passage, what seems to be the issue? As it stands the OP is just a kind of extended 'I don't like this. Don't you not like this too?'. — StreetlightX
So you too share Nietzsche's admiration for "aristocratic" morality where joy is found in inflicting pain on others? You don't find anything wrong with that do you? Instead, the negro is the issue - typical leftist thinking.when people would not have missed for anything the pleasure of inflicting suffering, in which they saw a powerful agent, the principal inducement to living.
Yes, I am aware of this, which is especially why I said he hoped all will be saved."What the old bishop once said to me is not true–namely, that I spoke as if the others were going to hell. No, if I can be said to speak at all of going to hell then I say something like this: If the others are going to hell, then I am going along with them. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that we will all be saved and this awakens my deepest wonder." — Beebert
Why does he wonder then? Wonder only makes sense if he doesn't understand how it will happen.No he clearly says he even believes it, and his conviction of this belief is what awakens his deep wonder — Beebert
Sure, but there's a reason why he ultimately sided with Aristotle in his After Virtue :PAll, but it expresses itself differently. Have you read the catholic Thomist-Aristotelian philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre? He rated Nietzsche as one of the absolutely greatest of all philosophers because of his deep and true realization that our morals are expressions of something else than we have traditionally admitted... Otherwise why not ask the same about original/ancestral sin? Has it really affected ALL and not just SOME? — Beebert
Because we should pray and hope that all will be saved, we shouldn't wish anyone to be damned.Wonder means amazement. He obviously believes all Will be saved, why does he otherwise say so? — Beebert
What does "better" mean?when you say one is cruel and one is virtous; are you saying that one is in a way better than another? — Beebert
Sure, but a vice is a failure to love. The person who is cruel, fails to love.I side not with Aristotle but with Dostoevsky. The only real sin is failure to love. — Beebert
Yes, his belief that none will be eternally damned is his hope that all will be saved. He doesn't claim to know that all will be saved, which would be to adopt universalism. It's not a matter of doctrine for him in other words.True, but Kierkegaard did not Believe anyone would be eternally damned, it is quite obvious. That doesnt mean he knew that to be the Case, but he believed it — Beebert
Nobody would disagree with this, it's just that the other virtues that are predicated by Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy do stem from love anyway. They are the expressions of love.But if the Only true sin is failure to love, then the Only true virtue is love and its fruits, correct? — Beebert
I wouldn't quite put it like that, but if by that you mean that acts of love are beyond "herd morality" then I would agree.And as Nietzsche said: "All true acts of love are beyond Good and evil" — Beebert
There is a difference between something that is a doctrine and something that is a hope. Universalism is the doctrine that all will be saved. That doctrine is heretical.Universalism isnt about what you know Will happen, it is about belief. Nothing in christianity is about what you know. It is about that you trust in the claims made by the person Jesus. — Beebert
I find it curious that Nietzsche out of all people did not cure you of your weakness which perpetually demands salvation as if you or anyone deserved it in the first place... Why are you so worried about your salvation? Did you not hear that:My problem with christianity is that I dont find it Good news, because considering what you just said, the fact that God even created a world that would unfold in this way and, according to Christ's own words, a world where many will inevitably be damnned (narrow is the gate etc.), is bad news. — Beebert
If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings. — Jeremiah 26:3
You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me — Exodus 20:5
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7
To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. — Deuteronomy 32:35
Yes, but He is also the God who comes in judgement, who will visit your iniquities unto future generations, who came to bring a sword and not peace, who allows even the righteous to be crushed (Job), who demands that those who follow him sacrifice even what they hold most dear (Abraham and Isaac), who is vengeful and jealous, who will cast all the unrighteous into a lake of fire, etc.And he was the image of God. To me that suggests Only one thing: God is all These things. — Beebert
This is precisely the scandal of the Cross. And it's not from Paul onwards. It's ever since the beginning, ever since Noah, ever since Moses. God in His infinity and His greatness is multi-faceted and impossible to comprehend for us. That's why the highest truth we know about God - the Trinity - is a logical contradiction.But from Paul onwards, God is this all-powerful and ruling Other, that only takes the ROLE of being an outcast, a sufferer, a weak man who gets crucified, while in reality being a ruling King, a judge with absolute power. This I find untenable. — Beebert
Because that's an anthropomorphic god (an idol) that you have created just because you're scared, He's not the Hidden God that has revealed Himself in the Old and New Testaments.It is too influenced by ancient Greek and its worship of passionlessness and a God that can neither feel passion mot suffer. But I believe God the father to be filled with passion and to suffer. He IS in need of man. Is this out of Place and wrong? In what way lf so? — Beebert
I agree. Only God knows and decides who deserves what."You deserve damnation because you are a wicked sinner" or "If you dont believe you will suffer in an everlasting fire" is wrong and wicked too — Beebert
Not because of this. You don't seem to get it. God is SUPREME - He doesn't need to ask you for permission! How can you even conceive of the absurdity that God would need to ask you for permission to create you?!because God created man without man's consent. — Beebert
Oh, so you have read Nietzsche, but you can't affirm life with all its suffering?In a godless world, the hope of suicide and death at least exists if suffering becomes inendurable, but christianity eliminates this and demands a Faith I can not achieve. — Beebert
Yes, it would be wrong to say that. Because it would fail to see that God is beyond good and evil, the Creator of both, who rules over both. It would amount to blasphemy as it would degrade God's greatness & transcendence.So then if a man uses his own limited reason etc, the faculties thay makes us intstunctively value what is good and evil (the very thing you criticize Nietzsche for questioning), then it would not be so wrong to say that God is evil in a sense? — Beebert
No, that wouldn't follow. I didn't say humans are beyond good and evil, I said God is beyond good and evil. We have been given commandments to follow by God, so we're not beyond good and evil. That is one of the differences between creature and Creator, which is emphasised in Orthodoxy.Then every moral valuation is blasphemy in a certain sense if it is made by someone who stands in a true relationship with God and it would be unchristian of you to not agree with Nietzsche that all true acts of Love are beyond good and evil, wouldnt it? — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.