I've toyed with the idea that Nietzsche is a "religious" thinker of sorts who ultimately wants to destroy the entire edifice of modern civilization out of a desire to pave the way for something else; something much more profound, perhaps even something "spiritual" as long as that term is qualified in significant ways.

Something like: this world is holy; this world is divine; this world is worthy of awe and reverence; the (over)man as the highest creative force of this process is also divine. Anything which doesn't tend in this direction--be it Christianity, scientific rationalism, or whatever--must be annihilated.

So he wants to destroy only as a prerequisite for eventual (re)creation. Destroy all values, destroy all idols, and then see what happens? Likely mass chaos and destruction. Only then can a new world arise out of the ashes of the previous one. If this is the ultimate scenario he's aiming at, then he has to exaggerate certain things and push us over the edge into complete barbarism. Not that he advocates barbarism for its own sake, but this is what we need to experience before we can really see and appreciate what value those prior values really had. I recall him saying as much in certain places.

I just feel he's too thoughtful and sensitive a soul to sincerely advocate for some of the things he does. I'm not trying to make him out to be a democrat or "progressive" by today's standards, but I do feel that he clearly recognizes the trajectory of modernity, with its cheapening of human life, and the world more generally, and wants to see it crumble as quickly as possible, all the while recognizing that it could persist in its illusions, its hypocrisies, its subtle barbarity, and its overall absurdity in perpetuity under the dominance of the Last Men.

So, paradoxically, he wants a much more humane world than this current false and shallow one, and the only way to precipitate this eventual shift is to tear this one down at its foundations.

But this is just a hunch of mine. As I mentioned, he seems like such a great-souled man that it's hard for me to think he's genuine in his praise for some of the things he does praise.

I'll admit this is a largely unsupportable perspective going off his body of work. But, especially in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I feel there are intimations of a truly exceptional human being who loves "man" so much that he needs to destroy him in order to save him. Or some such.

I'm tired.

"It seems to me that you're seeking for a "god" who will fulfil your desires, who you can control, because He's so and so, because he's a good guy, etc. And then you complain hypocritically that Schopenhauer rejected life because of his pessimism, that he's just an inverted hedonist. Well what are you when you're trying to make God in something that you can put in your pocket, that you can bound by your understanding, if not just another hedonist looking to control God for your own satisfaction (read salvation)? Why aren't you on your knees worshipping, and instead are here to complain that you don't like God's behaviour like Job? What did God answer to Job? Who are you to question my creation?"

I dont know What I seek, But I definitely dont want to live under the terror I have experienced for over a year Now, and Nietzsche has just helped me a little bit, But far from completely. I never meant God is so and so, that is What I experience that christians have done that I have spoken to and that is not possible to accept for me. But if I can say God is so and so in any way, I can say that he is as revealed in Christ. And he is there crucified and the opposite of a rulling King as We normally understand the world. He rules in Christ by being humiliated and crucified and yet he resurrcts

I dont know What I seek, But I definitely dont want to live under the terror I have experienced for over a year Now, and Nietzsche has just helped me a little bit, But far from completely. I never meant God is so and so, that is What I experience that christians have done that I have spoken to and that is not possible to accept for me. But if I can say God is so and so in any way, I can say that he is as revealed in Christ. And he is there crucified and the opposite of a rulling King as We normally understand the world. He rules in Christ by being humiliated and crucified and yet he resurrcts — Beebert

Yes, but don't forget about the Second Coming of Christ. Christ will not be "humiliated" and crucified that time. It seems to me again that you're refusing to accept the fullness of God, and instead prefer a truncated kitsch of an idol.

"Well what are you when you're trying to make God in something that you can put in your pocket, that you can bound by your understanding, if not just another hedonist looking to control God for your own satisfaction (read salvation)?"

You have misunderstood me. I object to Calvin and Aquinas precisely because of this fact. Calvin's sovereign God is stuck in Calvin's pocket

If God is so completely Other as you describe him to be, so impossible to understand even the slightest, then how are We in his likeness? And wasnt the distinction between good and evil, all these judgements, something that occured Because of the fall? Because how can a difference exist if evil doesnt exist as before the fall? It is impossible to trust God if he doesnt reveal himself. We cant judge anyone right, because a sin is a sin not because one breaks a human moral code, But Because one falls away from God

Considering how you reason though, how can you so confidentely reject a doctrine like double predestination?

This is quite much like I understand Nietzsche

The world Will be judged based on how their hearts meet the image of the weak, humiliated God in Christ. So the weakness of his Will be strength.

You have misunderstood me. I object to Calvin and Aquinas precisely because of this fact. Calvin's sovereign God is stuck in Calvin's pocket — Beebert

You are correct with regards to Calvin, but not so with regards to Aquinas. Aquinas did allow for truths that are beyond our understanding and that we take on faith. Furthermore, at the end of his life after his mystical vision, he abandoned the writing of his Summa, saying it is "like straw" compared to what he had seen. Thus, he would probably agree with you himself.

If God is so completely Other as you describe him to be, so impossible to understand even the slightest, then how are We in his likeness? — Beebert

Being in the image of God doesn't mean that we can comprehend God though.

And wasnt the distinction between good and evil, all these judgements, something that occured Because of the fall? — Beebert

No, I don't think so.

Because how can a difference exist if evil doesnt exist as before the fall? — Beebert

What about the serpent? The serpent was evil before the Fall.

Considering how you reason though, how can you so confidentely reject a doctrine like double predestination? — Beebert

Because it's not based on Scripture or Apostolic Tradition - in addition it also makes little sense.

The world Will be judged based on how their hearts meet the image of the weak, humiliated God in Christ. So the weakness of his Will be strength. — Beebert

I don't understand your obsession with the weak and humiliated Christ. Yes, Christ was weak and humiliated, yes Christ also turned the other cheek, but don't forget when Christ grabbed the whip and chased the money-lenders out of the temple. You keep giving a false portrait of Christ, as if that was His only side.

" No, I don't think so."

But we cant say "this is evil" if we dont know evil at all, right? And this must have been the Case for Adam before the fall... When God said that Adam will die if he eats the tree, he cant have understood what God meant. All he can have understood is that he had a choice, and that God didnt want him to make that choice because something unknown and terrifying would happen

"Because it's not based on Scripture or Apostolic Tradition - in addition it also makes little sense."

Please explain to me how it doesnt make sense, that would be exceptionally important for me to understand since that doctrine seems like the Only logical conclusion to me and is the main reason I object to christianity... I can tell you why I believe in this doctrine as the Only conclusion to draw from Christian doctrines about God etc (för example, that God is completely uncontrolable and does what he wills also means that it is entirely possible that he wants a person to be destroyed, which my own inability to Believe seems to suggest to me... And also Scripture supports it: Romans 9 etc)

I also object to the sadistic christianity advocated by nihilists dressed up as christians such as John Piper, and moral monsters like John MacArthur... This modern Christianity essentially secularizes the world, positing a naturalist view of cause and effect and historical flow. The occasional disruptions that are matters of Divine intervention do not change the nature of this secularized view. In conversations with non-believers, such modern views of Scripture present no challenge or suggestion that the world is other than a modern person imagines, with the sole exception of a God who exists somewhere and has rules. The world is something that shall be destroyed while the saints rapture to heaven, and meanwhile they basically just wait while they preach... This is worse to me than atheism... So I need to get another perspective than this de-sacramentalized christianity that is found everywhere. I know the orthodox church believes in sacraments etc. but I find it hard to adjust my thinking to their view, and I have a hard time trusting in priests etc. Also, if the internal movements of the soul aren't there, I object to the idea that external signs and mysteries will be of any help(like confessions, the eucharist etc)... That also just seems like another way of trying to control God and put him in a box, that you accuse me of doing... Many orthodox seem to reason like that if they only confess to a priest and drink wine and eat bread in the church, they will be saved... That is also to try to control God it seems to me

Also, in another thread, "Jesus or Buddha?", you claimed that there is neither election nor predestination, but these are two very biblical terms found at many places in the new testament... So how would you or your tradition explain these two concepts found in scripture?

When our moral character is shaped according to the dictates of a universal moral power, the question of “what kind of man should I be” or "how shall I behave?" is simply a given where the answer lies not with the will of the individual, but with the will of God, right? Our nature is shaped not by our intellect, but by the dictates of our will; the justification behind all moral and intellectual hierarchies is the power that one interpretation of the world has over all other interpretations; power equals precedence. Revaluation of values means not for Nietzsche a change of values, like in preferring other values to the ones already existing, but rather a change in the element from which the value of a certain value derives to start with... This does not mean reversal of evil turning into good, or the other way around, but that all interpretations of what is good or evil are materializations of that which Nietzsche calls the Will to Power... So this I think is part of Nietzsches understanding of things... And here to the origin of nihilism, according to Nietzsche: One reason is moral passivity, which he means is a negation of existence, and therefore lacking any actual meaning, and the second is the power to take action in creating values that have meaning, but only in the sense that they are "powerful". Regarding moral passivity, Nietzsche would say that when the will of the self is directed towards the will of God, or to what Nietzsche calls a “beyond,” the content of experience(love, hate etc.) is negated, and man’s “will to power,” which is an affirmation of life, the life itself, is replaced by the “will to nothingness,” or the denial of life, and hence nihilism. One must understand this more as a diagnosis of the times and mankind rather than Nietzsche objectively considering one thing to be better than another... Rather, his own valuations very much stems from his thought "How to overcome nihilism"... And Schopenhauer, which he objected to in the end, actually literally stated that life ought not to be, which made Nietzsche realize that nihilism was seriously on its way.

But we cant say "this is evil" if we dont know evil at all, right? — Beebert

What do we mean to "know" evil? Because there's two different senses here. One is to know that something is evil - which we can know even before the Fall - and two is to know the effects of evil, to know evil subjectively, which we don't.

When God said that Adam will die if he eats the tree, he cant have understood what God meant. — Beebert

Why not? He could have known that breaking God's commandment is evil, but he couldn't know subjectively the effects this would have.

Please explain to me how it doesnt make sense, that would be exceptionally important for me to understand since that doctrine seems like the Only logical conclusion to me and is the main reason I object to christianity... I can tell you why I believe in this doctrine as the Only conclusion to draw from Christian doctrines about God etc (för example, that God is completely uncontrolable and does what he wills also means that it is entirely possible that he wants a person to be destroyed, which my own inability to Believe seems to suggest to me... And also Scripture supports it: Romans 9 etc) — Beebert

Well we've already gone over those sections of Scripture though, and I've explained them. With regards to predestination and election, your question is borne out of fear, which is a problem. Why are you afraid? If you are unrighteous, you should want God to punish you. You should go to God and ask for punishment. Why are you afraid of His punishment? Look what Jesus says:

“Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

This is like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Are you willing to accept not your will, but God's, even if it means your destruction?

I know the orthodox church believes in sacraments etc. but I find it hard to adjust my thinking to their view, and I have a hard time trusting in priests etc. Also, if the internal movements of the soul aren't there, I object to the idea that external signs and mysteries will be of any help(like confessions, the eucharist etc)... — Beebert

The Church by all means can be a controlling institution, but I think you can appreciate that holding a group of people together is difficult. Also ensuring that this group of people has the core of the faith correct is also difficult. I agree with you regarding the internal movements of the soul. Why do you think you need to trust in a priest? A priest can be helpful, but it depends on the priest. Not all priests are good at what they do.

Many orthodox seem to reason like that if they only confess to a priest and drink wine and eat bread in the church, they will be saved... That is also to try to control God it seems to me — Beebert

Yes, I agree. But even these "superficial" believers are closer to God than the apathetic atheists who don't even care. Like those in Nietzsche's fable as you pointed out. Those superficial believers are one of the reasons why I haven't yet joined the orthodox forum. Though there are some great people there that I've been following!

When our moral character is shaped according to the dictates of a universal moral power, the question of “what kind of man should I be” or "how shall I behave?" is simply a given where the answer lies not with the will of the individual, but with the will of God, right? — Beebert

Yes.

But how can you stand being in a church where most people are hypocrites? And if you say that one must have the internal movements of the soul, why then does the infallible Orthodox Church claim that baptism actually effectively saves you, when combined with the Eucharist? And why is confession demanded? Now these are the protestant questions for you... In what way are the external signs needed? Why does the Church call itself the ark of salvation or sometimes in history even that there is no salvation outside it? Must I not confess to a priest in orthodoxy? Why is that needed for forgiveness for example?

Please name some member on the orthodox forum that you find great to follow, because on that forum(though understandable in a way because I provoke them constantly, but I do it because their conformity to things that to me seems to be of no help provokes me) almost all are against me and find me a problem I believe.

Yes the apathetic atheists are a great problem, if I didn't think otherwise, I wouldn't be here discussing christianity with you. But I think that if christianity IS the truth, then the superficial believers are the greatest problem, because they give the outside world the completely wrong picture of what true christianity is.

"What do we mean to "know" evil? Because there's two different senses here. One is to know that something is evil - which we can know even before the Fall - and two is to know the effects of evil, to know evil subjectively, which we don't."

But before the fall, man didn't even know what was meant by death, since there was no death before the fall according to christianity.

"Why not? He could have known that breaking God's commandment is evil, but he couldn't know subjectively the effects this would have."

But the whole tree is called the tree of knowledge between good and evil. So as Berdyaev said, in the paradise state, man was beyond good and evil, because the distinction didn't exist within his soul. And when the commandment came, man felt anxiety, because within his soul, suddenly the realization of the possibility of change and thereby destruction came... And this is Kierkegaard's thought.

"Well we've already gone over those sections of Scripture though, and I've explained them. With regards to predestination and election, your question is borne out of fear, which is a problem. Why are you afraid? If you are unrighteous, you should want God to punish you. You should go to God and ask for punishment. Why are you afraid of His punishment? Look what Jesus says:

“Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

This is like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Are you willing to accept not your will, but God's, even if it means your destruction?"

There is a difference between Nietzcshe's thought and eternal punishment. I wouldn't be afraid of baring consequences of my actions and choices, but Nietzsche at least believed in a certain power of the will, while christianity affirms an external will that imposes things on you from outside basically, or at least that is the vision of God that has been given to me... Also, if you have ever experienced an unimaginable since of despair, derived from imagining the worst possible kind of suffering that you can conceive of, you would understand why I fear a possible eternal destruction. I mean a destruction which leads to the destroyed feeling that he is constantly destroyed without ever being build up again. Someone who has lost ALL hope, and is controlled and incapable to be freed from despair(because come on, if God is a free and sovereign person, then he can decide to torture me how much he likes, and this thought can drive me insane), unimaginable physical and mental tortures that never end etc. This is not found in Nietzsche, because Nietzsche didn't believe in a constant eternal destruction, but in a combination of creation and destruction, that goes on eternally. I wouldn't only be destroyed in his view, but created and built up too. And I would also forget as time goes by and after every destruction and into all new creation, I will have forgotten the previous, or rather, the that the same has already happened... Life here is not the same as an eternal torture chamber... So repetition of this life time and time again is of course far preferable to eternal hell

I still wait for a concrete explanation though, despite my fear, not of passages from scripture, but of the orthodox understanding of election and predestination. If I can't effect or do anything to change God's will, then obviously he must be the one who elects and predestines no matter what I do. And he must also in a way make his elect certain and sure that they are elect by revealing himself in some way, no? So he did with Abraham, Samuel, Moses, Saint Paul etc... There is not a single example in scripture where man takes the first step and sort of MAKES God reveal himself to them through their own will

Please name some member on the orthodox forum that you find great to follow — Beebert

To follow? As in be their disciple? None. But some have very interesting things to say, though not on all topics. Anastasios, Iconodule, GiC, Fr. George, Jetavan, Papist to name a few. Not all listed here are Orthodox though.

though understandable in a way because I provoke them constantly, but I do it because their conformity to things that to me seems to be of no help provokes me — Beebert

Yes, they are because you don't leave them alone. Again, not everyone is meant to be an intellectual, or to explore God's mysteries in depth. There's people and people. You have to understand and value everyone.

But how can you stand being in a church where most people are hypocrites? — Beebert

I wouldn't say they're hypocrites, but they're just more superficial believers. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone was made for the life of thought, or for going into depths into God's mysteries. Most of them to tend to keep the commandments of God and try to live moral lives.

why then does the infallible Orthodox Church claim that baptism actually effectively saves you, when combined with the Eucharist? — Beebert

Baptism and the Eucharist are symbolic of spiritual movements.

And why is confession demanded? — Beebert

Because otherwise most people wouldn't go over their sins and ask to be forgiven.

Why does the Church call itself the ark of salvation or sometimes in history even that there is no salvation outside it? — Beebert

The Church doesn't claim it's impossible to be saved while officially outside of it. In other words you can be spiritually inside the Church without being physically in it, or before being physically in it.

But I think that if christianity IS the truth, then the superficial believers are the greatest problem, because they give the outside world the completely wrong picture of what true christianity is. — Beebert

They CAN be, for people like you.

But before the fall, man didn't even know what was meant by death, since there was no death before the fall according to christianity. — Beebert

I'm sure he could understand what is meant by it, you don't need to experience a thing to know what it means afterall. But obviously he didn't know spiritually and subjectively what death meant.

But the whole tree is called the tree of knowledge between good and evil. So as Berdyaev said, in the paradise state, man was beyond good and evil, because the distinction didn't exist within his soul. — Beebert

Or in your friend, William Blake's words, man was innocent, and thereby incapable of doing evil by himself - that's why an outside force, the serpent, was needed to encourage and pressure him to do evil.

There is a difference between Nietzcshe's thought and eternal punishment. — Beebert

Well yes, but it is in the spirit of Nietzsche. For Nietzsche just meant to ask the hardest and most horrifying question and answer it affirmatively, thereby affirming life, whatever it may be.

Your anxiety presupposes your desire to have it your way - your will be done. If you had no concern for yourself, because all your concern was for God, then you would not be afraid. You would willingly go to hell if you had to!

he was, in fact, essentially a [/b][ poet[[/b] not a deep thinker. — John Gould

Are you actually suggesting that poets aren't "deep" thinkers? :-|

Are you actually suggesting that poets aren't "deep" thinkers? :-| — Buxtebuddha

Yes, now put down your poetry book! >:) (joking)

There is a difference between Nietzcshe's thought and eternal punishment. I wouldn't be afraid of baring consequences of my actions and choices, but Nietzsche at least believed in a certain power of the will, while christianity affirms an external will that imposes things on you from outside basically, or at least that is the vision of God that has been given to me... Also, if you have ever experienced an unimaginable since of despair, derived from imagining the worst possible kind of suffering that you can conceive of, you would understand why I fear a possible eternal destruction. I mean a destruction which leads to the destroyed feeling that he is constantly destroyed without ever being build up again. Someone who has lost ALL hope, and is controlled and incapable to be freed from despair(because come on, if God is a free and sovereign person, then he can decide to torture me how much he likes, and this thought can drive me insane), unimaginable physical and mental tortures that never end etc. This is not foun — Beebert

The problem I find is the idea that truth must be beautiful. If I say, "christianity is probably true", meaning that God probably became incarnated in Christ etc., christians seem to(though correct me if I am wrong) take that to mean automatically that it then is impossible or unreasonable to not have faith in Christ, or at least that it is impossible to call this truth ugly or life-hating etc. But that is a question of valuation, especially if God is beyond good and evil. What is beneficial? In God's view, beneficial is for example to eternally separate the sheep and the goats and let all people who do not live up to his high standards(the majority according to the gospels) suffer eternally in mental and physical agony in a lake of fire. This may be symbolic language of an inner reality, but it isn't really a pretty picture but a rather frightening one. So eternal peace and harmony for all is certainly out of question. So what is beneficial? Why is salvation in itself more beneficial than destruction? Is it because we want to avoid pain? But what if I say that I find the christian truth to be so horrible that I would prefer suffering and destruction to serving this truth? I still at least take a stand and make a decision against/for the truth, which is far better than being indifferent. Do you agree that there might be a possibility that a man rebels against God, or at least his conception of God since God is impossible to understand, for moral reasons? If not, let me explain these moral reasons for you: Christ gave men their freedom from the Mosaic Law when all they wanted was bread; that is, Christ’s gift of freedom was bestowed on a recipient ill suited to accept such a gift, because man is weak, vicious and rebellious. Man was before Christ guided in his every action according to the dictates of the Mosaic Law, which commandments are characterized by necessity and orderliness, but Christ’s work replaced the law with man’s freedom to choose between good and evil, having only Christ ideal as a model for his actions. Take for example the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky's novel Brothers Karamazov: According to the Grand Inquisitor, the desire of all men’s hearts is not the exercising of their freedom to choose between good and evil according to their respective conscience, but to be ruled and ordered under a lawgiver, who’s sole purpose is to take such decision making out of their hands. The Grand Inquisitor strikes upon a very simple remedy for the absurd meaninglessness of human suffering, but only after he himself spent nearly a lifetime subduing his flesh and subsisting on roots in the desert in order to make himself “free and perfect” before God:

"All his life he loved humanity, and suddenly his eyes were opened, and he saw that it was no great moral blessedness to attain perfection and freedom, if at the same time one gains the conviction that millions of God’s creatures have been created as a mockery, that thy will never be capable of using their freedom… In his old age he reached the clear conviction that nothing but the advice of the great dread spirit [the devil] could build up any tolerable sort of life for the feeble, unruly “incomplete, empirical creatures created in jest.” And so, convinced of this, he sees that he must follow the council of the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction, and therefore accept lying and deception, and lead men consciously to death and destruction, and yet deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are being led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think themselves happy. And note, the deception is carried out in the name of Him in Whose ideal the old man had so fervently believed all his life long"

Freedom is the most terrible burden God could have placed on humanity, since so few are capable of being consistent with so perfect an exemplar as Christ. The presence of God’s moral standard in the world is an burden that men can neither throw off nor endure, and so men alienate the freedom given them by Christ as a gift, an ill conceived gift, according to the Inquisitor, and he gladly takes the freedom from men and exchanges it for happiness. Under the dictatorship of the conscience, a corollary to the gift of freedom, man is unhappy and ever mindful of his continual failings when compared to the life lived by the theanthropus, Christ. Conversely, under the dictatorship of divine law, or even the rule of a civil authority, man’s life is content because his conscience is clear — the decision to do this-or-that, or not, is never his to make, and thus ultimate responsibility for the consequence of his actions is taken from him as well. In the Grand Inquisitor’s indictment of Christ, it is Christ's fulfilling of the Mosaic Law that has placed God beyond the reach of man’s ken, and beyond the goal of man’s merely mortal activities. The eternal standards of truth, good and evil, and the way to salvation, are all overturned by the advent of Christ, which example is set by God’s free choice. But most men are unable to grasp the full capacity of this change, and are forced to turn to other resources, and rely on other faculties that were not necessary in order to adhere to the Mosaic Law, such as reason, in order to discern between good and evil, and to determine by what means he might be saved; by God, or by human industry. Nihilism, according then according to me, has in many ways christianity as its source, because there is NO way to return to the values that were before Christ either. Nihilism is a result of man’s bewilderment before and omnipotent and willful God and not because God simply does not exist; my temptation to rely on myself and my own powers is due to the fact that I am forced to compensate in light of the fact that what God has determined as good cannot be relied upon to be good for man. Because in the light of the inevitable eternal suffering for the common man, who according to Dostoevsky's Inquisitor has been fooled by the catholic church in to thinking that he is on the right path when in reality he is following the devil. In this case an external authority that is in the end totalitarian instead of his own conscience, because man does not want to follow his own conscience and decide between good and evil, the distress that comes from despair and anxiety makes him more willing to die than to choose. So instead he decides to listen to authorities outside of him that claim to speak in the name of Christ. On this ground, if I have not the internal movements of the soul to accomplish faith in Christ, I refuse to believe that the external signs of the church, like baptism and the eucharist and confession to priests, will help me in any way.

Man has often chosen the path of war, of Caesar, of Satan... But this does not overcome God. Christ rejected with scorn to found a universal state and attain universal happiness now, but wanted it in his kingdom, and most men are unable to follow Christ's path. But yet Christ created them, and yet he rejected to turn stone into bread etc. Only a few men, out of the whole host of mankind, have the potential to come close to living up to Christ’s moral example, I ask; what need does mankind-at-large have for a God that has overestimated man’s capacity to manage the intellectual and bodily exertions that necessarily come with the exercise of freedom? The efforts of a few men (the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's novel and a few others like him) to rescue humanity from self-destruction and to bring about universal happiness provides the foundation for totalitarianism; the incomprehensible God is replaced by the institution of a state religion, which is actually no religion at all, only an absolute civil authority armed at all points in the tinsel and trappings of religion. But... Where is God in all this? Where is he?

From Will To Power:

"At the same time I grasped that my instinct went into the opposite direction from Schopenhauer's: toward a justification of life, even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious; for this I had the formula Dionysian. Against the theory that an "in-itself of things" must necessarily be good, blessed, true, and one, Schopenhauer's interpretation of the "in-itself" as will was an essential step; but he did not understand how to deify this will: he remained entangled in the moral-Christian ideal. Schopenhauer was still so much subject to the dominion of Christian values that, as soon as the thing-in-itself was no longer "God" for him, he had to see it as bad, stupid, and absolutely reprehensible. He failed to grasp that there can be an infinite variety of ways of being different, even of being god."

I'm not well-versed in Nietzsche, but one thing I've retained from my reading of him is that Nietzsche thought the "ascetic" pessimism of Schopenhauer and his acolytes was detrimental to the flourishing of "great" people. Nietzsche did not reject pessimism but he tried to find a different way of approaching it in a way that ultimately affirmed life, because there are things in life that are beautiful, sublime, etc. At the core of his thought seems to be this notion of "health" - that no matter the circumstances the "healthy" person is able to flourish, and that the ascetics were really simply sick and diseased.

So Nietzsche was concerned that the influence of Schopenhauer's pessimism on the continent was negatively impacting the lives of people who would otherwise go on and do great things. This of course includes the production of music which Nietzsche criticized (like Wagner et al). It seems as though Nietzsche thought reading Schopenhauer dissolved potential in people. Nietzsche seemed to have wanted to instill a new sense of purpose and meaning in people so this wouldn't keep happening.

Nietzsche's philosophy was a product of the current cultural shift happening in the continent at the time. He's important, sure, but he is studied too much and given too much credit for ideas that weren't even his per se. It wasn't just Schopenhauer ---> Nietzsche, it was Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Frauenstadt, Duhring, von Hartmann, Mainlander, Bahnsen, etc etc.

It might be the case that Nietzsche is so wildly popular simply because ascetic pessimism is not altogether that satisfactory. Sooner or later people get bored and want more and it's refreshing to hear someone speak about active power and drama and achievement and heroism and all that.

You say in orthodoxy that baptism etc is a symbol of something internal... But that sounds more protestant to me. I have heard that orthodox say that baptism effectively washes away all sins, but I ask; how can it do that on a man who doesn't believe, for example a newborn child? Yet the Orthodox Church baptizes children, then why is that?

"Your anxiety presupposes your desire to have it your way - your will be done. If you had no concern for yourself, because all your concern was for God, then you would not be afraid. You would willingly go to hell if you had to!"

No, if God was a totalitarian tyrant, I would not worship him. Never. You reason a bit like Calvin here

This makes sense for why Nietzsche is so popular and often preferred over Schopenhauer or other pessimists.

No, if God was a totalitarian tyrant, I would not worship him. Never. You reason a bit like Calvin here — Beebert

How can God be a totalitarian tyrant? Totalitarian tyranny implies unlawful and immoral use of power. But God is justified to use His power however He will. We as human beings are not, however.

That is what I say. You say, "God is God, therefore he can do whatever he wills". Does that mean that he can, just for some random impulse that we can not understand, something he does perhaps only because he enjoys it, kill and torture innocent people for example?

I would appreciate if you could answer my other two posts too; the one about orthodox infant baptism and this one:

The problem I find is the idea that truth must be beautiful. If I say, "christianity is probably true", meaning that God probably became incarnated in Christ etc., christians seem to(though correct me if I am wrong) take that to mean automatically that it then is impossible or unreasonable to not have faith in Christ, or at least that it is impossible to call this truth ugly or life-hating etc. But that is a question of valuation, especially if God is beyond good and evil. What is beneficial? In God's view, beneficial is for example to eternally separate the sheep and the goats and let all people who do not live up to his high standards(the majority according to the gospels) suffer eternally in mental and physical agony in a lake of fire. This may be symbolic language of an inner reality, but it isn't really a pretty picture but a rather frightening one. So eternal peace and harmony for all is certainly out of question. So what is beneficial? Why is salvation in itself more beneficial than destruction? Is it because we want to avoid pain? But what if I say that I find the christian truth to be so horrible that I would prefer suffering and destruction to serving this truth? I still at least take a stand and make a decision against/for the truth, which is far better than being indifferent. Do you agree that there might be a possibility that a man rebels against God, or at least his conception of God since God is impossible to understand, for moral reasons? If not, let me explain these moral reasons for you: Christ gave men their freedom from the Mosaic Law when all they wanted was bread; that is, Christ’s gift of freedom was bestowed on a recipient ill suited to accept such a gift, because man is weak, vicious and rebellious. Man was before Christ guided in his every action according to the dictates of the Mosaic Law, which commandments are characterized by necessity and orderliness, but Christ’s work replaced the law with man’s freedom to choose between good and evil, having only Christ ideal as a model for his actions. Take for example the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky's novel Brothers Karamazov: According to the Grand Inquisitor, the desire of all men’s hearts is not the exercising of their freedom to choose between good and evil according to their respective conscience, but to be ruled and ordered under a lawgiver, who’s sole purpose is to take such decision making out of their hands. The Grand Inquisitor strikes upon a very simple remedy for the absurd meaninglessness of human suffering, but only after he himself spent nearly a lifetime subduing his flesh and subsisting on roots in the desert in order to make himself “free and perfect” before God:

"All his life he loved humanity, and suddenly his eyes were opened, and he saw that it was no great moral blessedness to attain perfection and freedom, if at the same time one gains the conviction that millions of God’s creatures have been created as a mockery, that thy will never be capable of using their freedom… In his old age he reached the clear conviction that nothing but the advice of the great dread spirit [the devil] could build up any tolerable sort of life for the feeble, unruly “incomplete, empirical creatures created in jest.” And so, convinced of this, he sees that he must follow the council of the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction, and therefore accept lying and deception, and lead men consciously to death and destruction, and yet deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are being led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think themselves happy. And note, the deception is carried out in the name of Him in Whose ideal the old man had so fervently believed all his life long"

Freedom is the most terrible burden God could have placed on humanity, since so few are capable of being consistent with so perfect an exemplar as Christ. The presence of God’s moral standard in the world is an burden that men can neither throw off nor endure, and so men alienate the freedom given them by Christ as a gift, an ill conceived gift, according to the Inquisitor, and he gladly takes the freedom from men and exchanges it for happiness. Under the dictatorship of the conscience, a corollary to the gift of freedom, man is unhappy and ever mindful of his continual failings when compared to the life lived by the theanthropus, Christ. Conversely, under the dictatorship of divine law, or even the rule of a civil authority, man’s life is content because his conscience is clear — the decision to do this-or-that, or not, is never his to make, and thus ultimate responsibility for the consequence of his actions is taken from him as well. In the Grand Inquisitor’s indictment of Christ, it is Christ's fulfilling of the Mosaic Law that has placed God beyond the reach of man’s ken, and beyond the goal of man’s merely mortal activities. The eternal standards of truth, good and evil, and the way to salvation, are all overturned by the advent of Christ, which example is set by God’s free choice. But most men are unable to grasp the full capacity of this change, and are forced to turn to other resources, and rely on other faculties that were not necessary in order to adhere to the Mosaic Law, such as reason, in order to discern between good and evil, and to determine by what means he might be saved; by God, or by human industry. Nihilism, according then according to me, has in many ways christianity as its source, because there is NO way to return to the values that were before Christ either. Nihilism is a result of man’s bewilderment before and omnipotent and willful God and not because God simply does not exist; my temptation to rely on myself and my own powers is due to the fact that I am forced to compensate in light of the fact that what God has determined as good cannot be relied upon to be good for man. Because in the light of the inevitable eternal suffering for the common man, who according to Dostoevsky's Inquisitor has been fooled by the catholic church in to thinking that he is on the right path when in reality he is following the devil. In this case an external authority that is in the end totalitarian instead of his own conscience, because man does not want to follow his own conscience and decide between good and evil, the distress that comes from despair and anxiety makes him more willing to die than to choose. So instead he decides to listen to authorities outside of him that claim to speak in the name of Christ. On this ground, if I have not the internal movements of the soul to accomplish faith in Christ, I refuse to believe that the external signs of the church, like baptism and the eucharist and confession to priests, will help me in any way.

Man has often chosen the path of war, of Caesar, of Satan... But this does not overcome God. Christ rejected with scorn to found a universal state and attain universal happiness now, but wanted it in his kingdom, and most men are unable to follow Christ's path. But yet Christ created them, and yet he rejected to turn stone into bread etc. Only a few men, out of the whole host of mankind, have the potential to come close to living up to Christ’s moral example, I ask; what need does mankind-at-large have for a God that has overestimated man’s capacity to manage the intellectual and bodily exertions that necessarily come with the exercise of freedom? The efforts of a few men (the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's novel and a few others like him) to rescue humanity from self-destruction and to bring about universal happiness provides the foundation for totalitarianism; the incomprehensible God is replaced by the institution of a state religion, which is actually no religion at all, only an absolute civil authority armed at all points in the tinsel and trappings of religion. But... Where is God in all this? Where is he?

Do you agree that there might be a possibility that a man rebels against God, or at least his conception of God since God is impossible to understand, for moral reasons? — Beebert

Yes, and his rebellion would be no different than the rebellion of the very first rebel, Lucifer. The rebellion of someone who becomes so proud and thinks that he can judge God, and condemn Him as a totalitarian tyrant, just because he cannot hold God in his pocket - in other words just because he isn't God.

The presence of God’s moral standard in the world is an burden that men can neither throw off nor endure — Beebert

Yes, that's why salvation is not achieved by works but rather by faith and grace. And the fact that the Cross is a scandal to the world isn't anything new. Christians knew this from the very beginning.

I have heard that orthodox say that baptism effectively washes away all sins, but I ask; how can it do that on a man who doesn't believe, for example a newborn child? Yet the Orthodox Church baptizes children, then why is that? — Beebert

Why do you presume that a newborn child doesn't believe first of all? I think that quite the contrary, children are born with a desire for God - they are like a clean mirror. But because of Adam's sin, dust sticks to the surface of the mirror very easily. But they are still very receptive to God compared to most adults, since they haven't accumulated so much dust. So yes, children can be baptised, just like adults can.

Does that mean that he can, just for some random impulse that we can not understand, something he does perhaps only because he enjoys it, kill and torture innocent people for example? — Beebert

I wouldn't think God would do that, why would you? You don't realise that God is the absolute centre of morality - God is the final moral standard, God is Himself the Law. There is no moral standard above and beyond God that you can use to judge God. It is impossible to judge God. That's why Kierkegaard speaks in Fear and Trembling of a religious sphere which is above the ethical - that's what the teleological suspension of the ethical is. It was RIGHT for Abraham to lift up the knife to sacrifice his own son when God requested it and by faith believe that God would return him Isaac.

I would appreciate if you could answer my other two posts too; the one about orthodox infant baptism and this one: — Beebert

The rest of your Dostoyevsky essay can be addressed by this

"God is Himself the Law."
The law of the Old Testament?

"God is Himself the Law."
The law of the Old Testament? — Beebert

My expression means to show you that God is the source of morality. That is why Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky were right: if there is no God, then everything is permitted. Furthermore, because we have killed God, we have no right to hold onto our moral values either.