"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 agree and have no problem with understanding that. But I cant help my instincts repulses to so much of the God you present. Some clouded, mystic force and person that no one can grasp who is unimaginable in his frightening stature. And all that follows on it... So perhaps then I actually am used by God to suffer and be destroyed? Who knows, since I can't accomplish Faith? Is your suggestion then that I should just accept damnation and give up? Isnt that a way to nihilism? Then Why not keep being immoral? Why not kill myself? Because God doesnt want to? He just wants me to exist in this tormenting way of imagining a scary deity who threatens with hell and who I can not understand at all? Dont you see what this in combination with the idea that God wants Abraham to kill Isaac at first can do to a man?
6m ShareEdit

I agree again, but I ask you, what is God's moral law? Is it that which is found in the Old Testament?

Without that which I call the internal movements of the soul, how can I cope with existence? I who am ready to accept christianity as true but am incapable of taking a leap of faith, how can I endure? I am in my world damned, so Why do anything else than just looking for a way to cope, like following Nietzsche's advice of affirming life despite of? It also seems to be what you suggest that I should embrace my damnation if God wants it, but what do I do now in the meantime? I am damned and might have 60 more years to live, what do I do in the meantime?

what is God's moral law? — Beebert

God's commandments.

He just wants me to exist in this tormenting way of imagining a scary deity who threatens with hell and who I can not understand at all? — Beebert

Why are you afraid though? You must go into this fear. Why are you really afraid of hell? Why are you really afraid of suffering? You are already suffering now. And you - not God - is making yourself suffer. So why - why are you doing it? You say you don't want to be in hell. But behold, you keep yourself in hell every second. Why?

Then Why not keep being immoral? — Beebert

That's like asking me why not keep your hand in the fire? :s

Why not kill myself? — Beebert

What's the use of that? What do you think you'll achieve with it?

Dont you see what this in combination with the idea that God wants Abraham to kill Isaac at first can do to a man? — Beebert

I do, but do you want to better understand God or do you want a comfortable superficial belief? You said you don't like the superficial believers. And yet it seems that you would rather be one of them.

In what way is that so, that I rather be like them? What would you do if God said you were damned and in 59 years from now Will be thrown in to a Fire worse and more painful than material fire in terms of physical pain,
according to John Chrysostom? That is what I am trying to cope with here

I am damned and night have 60 more years to live, what do I do in the meantime? — Beebert

We don't know how much time we have left to live. You say you have 60 more years - how do you know? A car could run you over, you could get an incurable disease, and a million and one things could happen. The world and life is very fragile. Only God knows when we will die. The world may look peaceful at times, and nothing much is happening. Boring in other words. But things generally tend to change very fast when they do.

As for what to do in the meantime. Apart from following the commandments, living a moral life and having faith in God and Christ - God is awaiting, as Berdyaev says, a creative response from YOU. What will YOU do? It seems that you're really despairing at the fact that you have to choose - at the reality of your freedom. At the fact that you are given no role to play in the world, and yet, somehow you feel like you're expected to do something.

Maybe you won't do anything for 10-20 years. And then you'll do something significant for God and for the world. Who knows.

What would you do if God said you were damned and in 59 years from now Will be thrown in to a Fire worse and more painful than material fire in terms of physical pain, — Beebert

I would pray that God forgive me and spare me of that fate, but if that's what He wants, then I will accept it, for Him. Afterall, He too died for me, why shouldn't I be willing to suffer for Him if I must? It is not up to a servant to question his Master in the end.

"We don't know how much time we have left to live. You say you have 60 more years - how do you know"

I said I MIGHT have 60 more years not that I will have it

I said I MIGHT have 60 more years not that I will have it — Beebert

Ahh okay, sorry I misread you because of the spelling error, my bad!

Tell me this. If you are in the army, and your general asks you to charge into the open fire of the enemy lines, what will you do? Will you cower in your trench, refusing to listen to your general, preferring to live and die like a coward?! Or will you man up, and overcome your fear? For what can be more crippling and life-denying than fear?

How much more should you be ready to go even to Hell when God orders you, his soldier, to do so?

Tell me this. If you are in the army, and your general asks you to charge into the open fire of the enemy lines, what will you do? Will you cower in your trench, refusing to listen to your general, preferring to live and die like a coward?! Or will you man up, and overcome your fear? For what can be more crippling and life-denying than fear?

How much more should you be ready to go even to Hell when God orders you, his soldier, to do so? — Agustino

If a commanding officer hasn't earned the respect of his soldiers, then those soldiers won't go into open fire because to do so isn't in their own best interest, nor is their best interest the priority of their commanding officer. If, however, the soldiers do respect their commanding officer, they will obey his orders to the letter, even if the order turns out to be miscalculated and a mistake. The issue is that a commanding officer earns respect through a verifiable track record of taking care of his soldiers and making the right call - think of Erwin Rommel as perhaps exemplifying this principle the most, at least in recent history. The dilemma with God being a general in your analogy is that his orders can never be wrong, they're never mistakes. If all you're after is trust between a soldier and commanding officer, you can get that with a Patton, Rommel, etc. You don't get that same sort of trust between a soldier and God, though, because God has no track record. He's never on the battlefield giving orders, nobody can sit down and tally a list of decisions made by him. A reality where an army has no commanding officer but God is one that won't ever make decisions because no orders are actually being given. That order to rush the trenches into open fire, or however you want to picture it, would never have come down to your or I in the thick of it. We'd be stuck there, left to make our own decisions, which would be a disaster.

I think Nietzsche means what he says, maybe it’s in a bit of embellished tone which drags the imaginations of some readers away from his point, but it seems an earnest point about morality.

People just don’t pay attention to what he is describing. They think he is arguing something absurd like sadism, torture and others being forced to do whatever you say, regardless of the moral status of actions, is somehow moral. Nietzsche is not interested in any such incoherence.

It’s the character of morality itself Nietzsche is trying to capture. What does it mean if some state or some person is immoral? How does it impact on their significance and our actions towards them? Nietzsche is describing the cruelty constitutive of morality, the pain and suffering inflicted on the inhabitants of the world to achieve moral virtue— the bodies in the ground, minds and bodies wasting away in a cell, the pain of belonging with someone who you despise, the pain of losing a partner because their distress at being stuck with someone they couldn’t stand was unbearable, distress of being forced to live in a world which violates their values, etc.-- it's the greatest thing that might ever be, for a moral world is achieved.

To be moral means to be cruel to someone. The very being of morality holds the immoral ought be destroyed, be restricted or forced to live in a world which defies their sensibilities— their acute emotional and/or physical distress is sought to create a world of moral virtue.

In his seemingly excessive comments about cruelty, Nietzsche is only making the honest pronouncement as a moral advocate. He is holding up a mirror to morality to show us what it means for us and the world— “Oh the Lord be praised, the unrepentant sinners burn is Hell as they deserve, never has there been so much moral virtue.”

The point is not that morality is untrue or even unjust, but that it is cruel, about asserting power over someone, holding them under your toe to form a world of moral virtue.

Even morality with the virtue of compassion partakes in such cruelty; the bully is shamed and denied power, a selfish hedonist is attacked for not showing compassion, many an individual and their interest is sacrificed for compassionate goals, all to achieve a moral world.

To be moral is to partake and reveal in a cruelty. In the passages on cruelty, the moral advocate is looking upon themselves, at what they celebrate and enact, to produce a world of moral virtue. Just it may be, but it is undeniably cruel to the immoral and that is morality’s intention.

Those who think morality is just defined by caring for others, by thinking about their concerns and helping them, are peddling a fraud. Ignorant of themselves, they have failed to consider how their morality impacts upon the world, of what it demands on certain people to achieve moral virtue.

It depends. Mainly on God's intentions, of which I know not anything.

Let us take Kierkegaard once: For Kierkegaard, one must go first from the aesthetic to the ethical then to the religious right? But if you have come to the ethical state where it is possible to take a leap of faith, but you for some reason decide to suspend your ethics and go back to the aesthetic life, then you have devolved. This is what I have done in nu lite. Kierkegaard doesn't really comment on this problem from what I remember. However, he seems to indicate that this situation would lead to despair because, having already been in the ethical, you are now conscious about your choices and about right and wrong, which is the opposite of the aesthetic, but yet you are aesthetic and have lost the "possibility". You are spiritually paralyzed. Right? So what can you do? Kierkegaard offers no solution to this but seems to say that you have lost your soul.

Let us take Kierkegaard once: For Kierkegaard, one must go first from the aesthetic to the ethical then to the religious right? — Beebert

No, these are not a progression, but rather three different ways of being in the world. They are "moods" rather than paths. Kierkegaard's ultimate point is that the aesthetic mood is a forgetfulness of the ethical mood, and the ethical mood is a forgetfulness of the religious mood. In-so-far as this relationship holds true, this means that the religious mood does not deny the ethical and the aesthetical, but rather subsumes and incorporates them in itself. Aufheben.

But if you have come to the ethical state where it is possible to take a leap of faith, but you for some reason decide to suspend your ethics and go back to the aesthetic life, then you have devolved. This is what I have done in nu lite — Beebert

What have you done to be more precise?

However, he seems to indicate that this situation would lead to despair because, having already been in the ethical, you are now conscious about your choices and about right and wrong, which is the opposite of the aesthetic, but yet you are aesthetic and have lost the "possibility". You are spiritually paralyzed. Right? — Beebert

Try to be open to the ethical and religious spheres of life - look at your own face, maybe for the first time, without being afraid. Remembrance - anamnesis as Plato says.

It depends. Mainly on God's intentions, of which I know not anything. — Beebert

Neither do you know the general's intentions in the army. For all you know, he could have sold all of you to the enemy, so he is ordering you to simply rush to your death. But you have to make a choice. That's where faith and trust come into play - relying not on your own understanding.

You don't get that same sort of trust between a soldier and God, though, because God has no track record. — Buxtebuddha

Yes He does. God has the greatest track record anyone could ever ask for. One is willing to suffer for God, because God suffered for us in Jesus Christ!

He's never on the battlefield giving orders, nobody can sit down and tally a list of decisions made by him. A reality where an army has no commanding officer but God is one that won't ever make decisions because no orders are actually being given. — Buxtebuddha

I think it is modern society's forgetfulness of God - or Flight from God as Max Picard would say - that stops us from hearing the voice of our Shepherd.

Yes He does. God has the greatest track record anyone could ever ask for. One is willing to suffer for God, because God suffered for us in Jesus Christ! — Agustino

You don't know that.

I think it is modern society's forgetfulness of God - or Flight from God as Max Picard would say - that stops us from hearing the voice of our Shepherd. — Agustino

wut

wut — Buxtebuddha

Exactly my point.

The thing stopping us from hearing the voice is there not being a voice to hear.

The thing stopping us from hearing the voice is there not being a voice to hear. — Buxtebuddha

That is not a fact (it would be if you stopped at not hearing the voice) it's an interpretation. But could it be that you do not hear because you have forgotten God?

And hearing something and calling it God isn't also a mere interpretation?

And hearing something and calling it God isn't also a mere interpretation? — Buxtebuddha

Sure, but there is always the underlying experience of hearing.


I agree that morality is cruel in the sense that you speak about it here. However, Nietzsche obviously can't be speaking about the cruelty of morality when he speaks about going out there to pillage, rape, murder, etc. can he?

But really, you're saying nothing new. What you're saying is that God is dead - you cannot hear His voice anymore. Old news. We already know that we live in a culture and world which has forgotten God, and where those who hear God are the madmen.

Sure, but there is always the underlying experience of hearing. — Agustino

I'm saying that a voice could be anything.

But really, you're saying nothing new. What you're saying is that God is dead - you cannot hear His voice anymore. Old news. We already know that we live in a culture and world which has forgotten God, and where those who hear God are the madmen. — Agustino

This suggests that God was real and no longer is, which isn't my position. I don't believe in God, which means at the barest minimum he never was and never is.

I'm saying that a voice could be anything. — Buxtebuddha

Yes, that is because you do not understand God - God for you could be anything.

This suggests that God was real and no longer is, which isn't my position. I don't believe in God, which means at the barest minimum he never was and never is. — Buxtebuddha

Yes of course, because you are born after the loss of faith. You are born in a faithless world. So why would you expect to hear God? From your perspective, it looks like there never was a God. That is precisely why it is a forgetfulness. It is almost impossible to even think God today.

Yes, that is because you do not understand God - God for you could be anything. — Agustino

I don't venture to define God as being this and not that. Attempting to define God is a theist's first mistake.

Yes of course, because you are born after the loss of faith. You are born in a faithless world. — Agustino

What? I was a believing Christian for the majority of my life, so I don't know what you're trying to suggest here.

So why would you expect to hear God? — Agustino

Well, yes, this is the point. I don't expect a heavenly vision any more than I expect to hear from the dead 'neath the earth.

From your perspective, it looks like there never was a God. That is precisely why it is a forgetfulness. — Agustino

Forgetfulness of what?

I don't believe in any God, which means that God doesn't exist as I go about my business. It wouldn't make any sense for me to somehow be forgetful of that which never existed in the first place, like if I lamented the fact that I forgot a memory I never had.

Also, I understand Nietzsche's "God is dead" to mean his assertion that God doesn't rule society anymore, which I think is true. I don't think "God is dead" is an "argument" for God not being real.

I don't venture to define God as being this and not that. Attempting to define God is a theist's first mistake. — Buxtebuddha

Oh, have you been reading Pseudo-Dionysus? That's good to hear!

What? I was a believing Christian for the majority of my life, so I don't know what you're trying to suggest here. — Buxtebuddha

Sure, but even if you personally were a Christian, you lived in a non-Christian world.

Well, yes, this is the point. I don't expect a heavenly vision any more than I expect to hear from the dead 'neath the earth. — Buxtebuddha

Your expectations are governed by the modern zeitgeist in which you find yourself. An age governed by spiritual darkness isn't going to be an age where God appears very clearly at all, even to most "believers". Especially while they make their abode on college campuses :P

Forgetfulness of what? — Buxtebuddha

God.

Also, I understand Nietzsche's "God is dead" to mean his assertion that God doesn't rule society anymore, which I think is true. — Buxtebuddha

It's deeper than that, it's that God doesn't rule people's lives anymore, God is no longer a discernible presence as He once was. Nietzsche's madman came amidst people who still "believed" - and he proclaimed that God is dead, and they understood him not. Their problem was that they weren't even aware that God is dead - that God is not communicating with them. That's how alienated they were from the experience of God, even though they still claimed to believe and went to Church as they were used to. The truth was that they didn't know God, that's why they didn't even know He was dead. For them, God was an empty symbol, an idol. It was just going to be a little bit more time until they finally dropped the empty symbol as well, and stopped pretending, showing their true face.

Today if we shall go in the multitudes and mention God, we shall not be heard. They will ignore us. They will look at us as if we're crazy, as if we don't even know what we're talking about. They will not understand the meaning of the word "God". It will be as meaningless as sadakdhald.

When I say you have forgotten God, I don't mean just you - I mean our entire age. You yourself are a member of this age, and therefore inherit its problems. You cannot accept the rules of today's world - be a member of it - and believe in God at the same time. For one cannot serve both God and Mammon, one cannot have the mark of the beast on their forehead and yet serve the Lord. The way society is built, it's almost predicated on a rejection of God. To live in modern society, even amongst most believers, means to reject the mystery of God (most of the time). That is why people like Max Picard chose to retreat like hermits on a mountain. Where else could they live in communion with God?!

I feel that the time is not right yet. All we can do is wait. But one day the clock will strike 12 and the world will awaken anew. We alone cannot save the world. A human being cannot be the light of an age, regardless of how great they personally are. The time needs to be right.

Though our modern societies, which claim to be secular, are, on the contrary, governed by secularised theological concepts, which act all the more powerfully because we are not conscious of their existence. And I believe this is a main reason for the death of God in society. You said one cant serve both God and mammon, and you are correct. And I will tell you what is interesting about that notion; capitalism has replaced God. We will never grasp what is going on today unless we understand that capitalism is, in reality, a religion. A religion that does not allow for atonement. Take the word 'faith', usually reserved to the religious sphere. In Greek the word corresponding to this in the Gospels is pistis. 'Trapeza tes pisteos' is a greek sentence. Guess what it means? Trapeza tes pisteos means: 'credit bank'. Isnt this saying something important?

In this light we can also understand Nietzsche IMO, who actually tried to find the living God beyond language and concepts. That is Why he blamed Paul, for starting to theologize and make theories and define things. That is part of the revaluation of all values, to do away with concepts that doesnt build up anymore

"What have you done to be more precise?"

I will tell you later!

I will tell you later! — Beebert

This sums up God pretty well, lol.

Oh, have you been reading Pseudo-Dionysus? That's good to hear! — Agustino

Not lately, 8-)

Sure, but even if you personally were a Christian, you lived in a non-Christian world. — Agustino

In a macro sense, sure. Not in a micro sense.

Your expectations are governed by the modern zeitgeist in which you find yourself. An age governed by spiritual darkness isn't going to be an age where God appears very clearly at all, even to most "believers". Especially while they make their abode on college campuses — Agustino

I've not seen God in either good times or bad, so I'm not convinced of this viewpoint.

It's deeper than that, it's that God doesn't rule people's lives anymore, God is no longer a discernible presence as He once was. — Agustino

You have to distinguish between whatever God is in himself and the idea of God. I would agree that the idea of God seems to have withered away in the West, but you'd be a crackpot to say that God himself isn't still "ruling" people's lives.

Their problem was that they weren't even aware that God is dead - that God is not communicating with them. — Agustino

uhhhhhhhhhhermhhhhhhhh.......

Today if we shall go in the multitudes and mention God, we shall not be heard. They will ignore us. They will look at us as if we're crazy, as if we don't even know what we're talking about. They will not understand the meaning of the word "God". It will be as meaningless as sadakdhald. — Agustino

Even those who claim to understand God don't really understand God, hence all the mystery.

When I say you have forgotten God, I don't mean just you - I mean our entire age. You yourself are a member of this age, and therefore inherit its problems. — Agustino

You'd have to argue that previous "ages" were more in line with God, which would be nigh-impossible to do without donning rose-colored glasses.

You cannot accept the rules of today's world - be a member of it - and believe in God at the same time. — Agustino

Explain this, lol.

For one cannot serve both God and Mammon, one cannot have the mark of the beast on their forehead and yet serve the Lord. The way society is built, it's almost predicated on a rejection of God. To live in modern society, even amongst most believers, means to reject the mystery of God (most of the time). That is why people like Max Picard chose to retreat like hermits on a mountain. Where else could they live in communion with God?! — Agustino

We all have the mark of being a sinner on our foreheads. And there is quite a bit in modern society that we all go along with even though it's probably best not to in a perfect world.

I feel that the time is not right yet. All we can do is wait. But one day the clock will strike 12 and the world will awaken anew. We alone cannot save the world. A human being cannot be the light of an age, regardless of how great they personally are. The time needs to be right. — Agustino

You really are sounding like a crackpot now...