No, Judaism does. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus require any of that. Nor can you produce a pasaage that shows it. Everything else in the bible other than the Gospels, are the DISCIPLES take on Christianity. Where as the Gospels discusses Jesus's life and actions. And as we can see by Pope John Paul II teachings: that equation of Jesus Christ.

God punishing sinners, God's Angry Judgements, are brought to man under the law of which Moses portrays. And ANYONE BREAKING THOSE COMMANDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

John 1

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 5: 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  

Breaking any of the 10 Commandments of sinning and guess what you're still IN the Kingdom of Heaven.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ.

I think you're not very good at connecting dots then. There is no tradition of repentance and atonement with Jesus Christ, it, like sin is abolished by Jesus Christ's equation of being the ultimate example of God's grace. One merely has to follow any of the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ to make it into the Kingdom of Heaven, which more or less, every human falls under these Beatitudes.

I don't think "intelligent" design is even a correct saying to even get at a notion of God creating something (at least in so far as the etymology of intelligent). Intelligent design really just means something that understands it's own (idiocy) to the point it follows its own instructions.

Which doesn't exactly get at the notion of God.

The philosophers who detailed early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. — DifferentiatingEgg

The Zionist businessmen didn't give a hoot about that though they just wanted a cash cow. I take my definition from the philosophers, not the business men.

Well, you support and advocate for Israel, thus by proxy, you do. You're hopelessly one sided. Where as I have actually looked into Zionist philosophers and read several works and even support a version there of. But not one that is full of the resentment of weak minded nationalist who believe that nationalism equates to self determinism.

I mean, who cares about the anything outside of the Bible in this regard? Jesus states as reported in the Gospels of Matthew: that even those who don't uphold God's laws will be least IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.  17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.  19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew Chapter 5

[20] "The scribes and Pharisees": The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. — Notes on 20

We can see in John precisely this connection to the law Moses brought...

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. — John, Chapter 1

So breaking any of the laws of the Old Testament, commiting Sin, doesn't matter, you'll still be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven just for believing in the equation of Jesus Christ.

11 Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.  12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?  13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.  14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up:  15 That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

 16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.  17For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.  18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. — John, Chapter 3

Thus every Law of Moses, every Sin, can be forgone, cause Jesus doesn't give a damn whether you sin or not.

Just do as Jesus does: transvaluate values, live to your own equation, and bridge distances.

The beatitudes of Jesus Christ show its pretty easy to be blessed:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. 5 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. 10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. — Matthew, Chapter 5

And as Clément Rosset points out in Joyful Cruelty pg 26:

If and only if a concept is answerable to an absolute beatitude can it be recognized as specifically Nietzschean.

Which as I've already claimed numerous times before reading Rosset's book, Nietzsche vibes with Jesus in this exact manner: absolute beatitude.

Each of these attitudes offers counter-cultural and counter-intuitive ways of coming to see and endure the world. John Paul II teaches that “the beatitudes are a self-portrait of Jesus Christ” (Veritatis Splendor). If the Beatitudes are Jesus helping us see his character and disposition, his way of being truly happy and blessed in this life and in the next, then it is worth our time to attend to these eight steps of courage. — POPE John Paul II

I'm literally over here telling it like the fuckin Pope, without even knowing it, because that's how fucking legit my interpretation is... Pope John Paul II, has my back. :strong:

And I'm an atheist...

You support the Nakba, by your own standards you're "wicked." You don't "stoop to the level of Islamists" period... because you're prejudice af and see them as dirt. I know I know, your best friend is Islamic, I'm sure.

You're pretty stupid, but that's okay, every society needs your kind. Israel is Palestine.

Violence is a necessity of life. And yeah, they got a right to defend their land as they see fit, especially with dumbasses like you asserting foreign Jews can take their land as they see fit.

Let's make a deal... drop your address, we can make an agreement, if I can push you out of your home through force of violence then I keep all your shit... No? Then stfu.

Nah, moral systems are good for the people who are terrible at governing themselves. But they're not really needed for someone who can. I enjoy them being in place because most people abide by them, and you're free not to.

I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians — BitconnectCarlos

No, you simply don't think hard enough beyond your own prejudice. To the point you think it's okay for foreign Jews to take land that they had no rights to. Thus you support unjustified eviction by threat and force of murder. You're just too X to say it so plainly.

I bet you'd attempt to protect your home from a foreign invader too.

To address a few things:

I think you're doing an injustice to stoicism to suggest it is based on cowardice. Self-control isn't fear. — Hanover

First, flight in this case, I only use in the sense of turning away from the self, not necessarily fear though that could also be the case.

We see things differently, is all. I don't see natural spontaneous acts of stoicism the same as a stoic who makes a systematic dogma out of stoicism even if it is solely for themselves.

Systematic stoicism is done out of a compulsion towards stoicism towards an illusion of control, which is a sort of self tyranny of turning away from the self. A turning away from our own humanity. That doesn't mean we don't owe much to these phenomenological systems, for many systems provide methodology to live by and to live for. But for me, stoicism is the spirit of the hermit at the door, at the peep hole, pressing their body up against the gateway of communication, tyrannizing over the locks, bolts, and hinges. Being an anchorite and hermit can bring oneself, much self-awareness, much honey, as Zarathustra might say. But ultimately, I see it as the iron mask, from Man in the Iron Mask, of masks.

It certainly takes more courage to leave the gateway of communication open at all times. And there is control with speech through ones own ability to articulate and express themselves. There is both silence and control in communication. Through one's own light and superabundance of personal power a blinding halo forms, spring-storms that build fields of sentences that a person can vanish within.

To me, systematic stoicism is a compulsory overwriting of impulsion that instills a deeper, more persistent, harder to resist urge that one constantly gravitates back to because it's comfortable there over a shallower brief momentary impulsion that's easier to resist, as it exhausts itself.

In any event, the lack of manliness (which seems to be the way you're using "animal" here) — Hanover

"Manliness" —I detailed nothing of the sort— humans are animals and as such we're scientifically classified under the kingdom of animalia. To be human is to embody both our animal instincts and our higher, rational faculties. It's not about denying our animal nature but integrating it into a more profound and conscious existence. In this sense, stoicism, while offering valuable tools for navigating the complexities of life, risks overlooking the primal, emotional, and spontaneous aspects of being human—those parts of us that cannot simply be controlled or suppressed.

I find that systematic stoicism, by demanding strict control over one's impulses, can sometimes turn our inherent humanity into something abstract, reducing the richness of emotional experience to a set of rules. There’s wisdom in moderation, but there’s also beauty in embracing the full spectrum of what it means to be human—our vulnerability, our passions, and our unpredictable, sometimes messy, impulses. By seeking to overwrite these, one might risk losing touch with the depth of human existence. It’s not cowardice or weakness to feel deeply—it’s part of the very essence of being human.

In conclusion, while stoicism offers much to the self-disciplined and rational person, it should not, in my view, be made into a dogma that dismisses the full range of human experience, including the more instinctual, emotional, and relational aspects. Life is complex and multifaceted, and it’s this complexity that I believe we must not shy away from. The spirit of the hermit at the door can teach us much, but the open door—facing the world and all its unpredictability—can teach us even more.

Nothing to do with the Ubermensch.

Philosopher X says two things...

1. He who says it best knows it best.

2. We ought to restore man before we restore extinct animals. (He's suggeating men have grown weak)

Since Philosopher X says those 2 things and Nietzsche is lauded by the intellectual elite as "he who says it best" (and thus by Philosopher X first statement, knows it best)...

Then Nietzsche stating that Philosophy domesticates man signifies that Philosopher X's "we ought to restore man" would mean that Philosopher X ought to stop domesticating himself through philosophy if he wants to actually restore man.

Because to Nietzsche (he who says it best) to restore man would be to leave philosophy behind.

In other words, you can't truly restore man (the man in ones self) and be a philosopher (because philosophy domesticates man away from his natural state).

It was in response to the Time Magazine "The dire wolf is back." ... they were trying to say something philosophically deep.

will respond, a bit occupied atm.

I wonder how many mentions you get for the houra spent moderating the forums or whatever other work one may be doing... oh practically 0. But without the higher mention ratio... they obviously haven't contributed.

I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. — EricH

My man, I know Zionism was always to steal land from those who occupied it. I know a lot of the nasty little secrets about Zionism, but I also don't blame Nietzsche for all the dumbasses who ruin his philosophy and psychology. Just as I don't blame Zionism for the idiots who ruined what Zionism was supposed to be, that image of what it could be under its greatest advocates and constituents.

Is this like karma farming? Lol, whatever it is it's dumb as it doesn't take in account threads created with total comments under them. Any many other statistics. Mostly just an exercise in massaging an ego.

Now we know Banno, whilst at the hinge of submitting something is pondering how many replies he can get with every post. :lol: Fragility.

"I have an Idea, everyone in the world should follow my idea." The ego on this guy is unbelievable.

For sure. Kids are going to be kids, and overall those that simply don't sit down and stfu get labeled as trouble makers. Asking too many questions, and being a child in any sense of their creative imagination is more or less frowned upon.

I did my 9th Grade AP Biology science fair project on this... you'll find that the cure was created before there was a diagnosis of ADHD. Ritalin was actually discovered by accident by a Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Ciba Giegy or something like during the 1940's and I think it wasn't until the early 1970s that it was noted as effective for people who had "ADHD" some new diagnosis.

I personally feel like certain technologies with screens that provide boatloads of stimulation cause the brain to develop in a certain way such that sitting down and quieting the mind to a stage of silence becomes neigh impossible for a child who develops a need for the dopamine dump from being over stimulated.

So when the child is in an understimulated state, their nonquieted mind begins wandering, whats thi...wait what's tha... ooo John farted... wait, but that question I wanted to ask. You know how some philosophers say those who can't stand quiet is due to their inability to confront themselves. The child isn't so much aware of this of course. And the medications for ADHD aren't recommended for anyone under the age of 25 due to the negative side effects manifesting more, and altering the neuroplasticity of the child more drastically than an adult which affects them even after they choose to quit.

I was on those medications for a decade as a child. The only way for me to over come them and the other medications was to explosively force myself out of them.

For sure, I purposefully equivocated magic to a different version of the word than what you were using. But it also highlights what I feel about the concept of magic: the shock and awe of perceiving what is incomprehensible to us.

One of the best things about children is that you get to reexperience the magic of the world through their eyes.

I believe for example the case that the Barbarian man, as it is detailed by the Greek, to be the man who lives completely without the privacy of a household life.

The Dionsysian Barbarian for example, was often depicted as the Satyr.

"Source? It was revealed to me on my walk." :cool:

Yup.

The Therapeutae branched out of the Essenes.

And Philo Judeaus Hellenized much of the OT with Plato's teachings. So we can see the wish to overcome Greek and Roman values by this appropriation of values such that the stories share aspects of the Greek and Roman myths to make transition from one easier. The hero of Tragedy is always the Dionsysian Hero and this hero is always represented in the form of the Apollonian. Hence why Jesus shares so many traits with Dionsysus. Also why Christmas is actually Bacchanalia. Bacchus = Dionsysus. The very essence of the transvaluation of values.

Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide. — DifferentiatingEgg

There were primative monasteries to Christianity which radical followers of Judaism would meet in on the Sabbath and worship: namely the Therapeutae.

The way to make something really stand out in history and to catalyze reality behind the words is to propagate ideas, (propaganda) then cause an event to Crystalize Public Opinion.

And Philo Judeaus' work Die Vita Contemplativa shows these groups and points to these monasteries to Christ that were in existence before the legendary figure of Christ reared head as a human.

And he lived during that period of time. Not some 2000 years afterwards looking back.

History always progresses linearly, it doesn't make leaps.

The man Jesus Christ was merely a man, not a God, and not the myth. He played a role in a real life dramatic TRAGEDY (as in the Greek art). The most brilliant Theater the world has seen: Jesus the Tragic Hero.

Though, I may pick up the book you recommend just to get a solid detailing of the Man, rather than the myth of the man, the myth of the Messiah, that existed 1500+ years before the man...

Bro lmao thats a fail at history. Judaism's myth prepared the legend of the Messiah well in advance.

Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide.

Ah, you're trying to give me a historical account of a man...

I'm talking of the myth of the avatar of God, as the Bible frames him...

Christianity was prepared hundreds of years in advance of someone who took the name Jesus. The myth of Jesus was pre sime human taking the name Jesus Christ.

Please tell me you don't think some guy popped into existence and then Christianity was developed around HIM... when the concept of the Jewish Messiah was in the OT, some 1500+ years prior, that had radical sects devoted to the Messiah...

Have you read the Gospels? That's all I'm concerned with when it comes to Christ. How much is his work inclusive of the apostles? If it doesnt align with the equation of Christ's life, who cares?

Oh, well, Paul doesn't give an account of the Life of Jesus Christ he gives his own doctrine... "Pauline Doctrine"

Jesus has his own equation.

Sin is the divorce of man from God (just as absurdity is the divorce of man from himself)

Nothing comes between Jesus and another, he loves all, and can bridge any divide, towards even to those who were his greatest enemies.

Paul's Doctrine has zero to do with the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ.

You should probably read Foucault. Madness and Civilization if you want to understand a bit more on that.

After Port-Royal, men would have to wait two centuries—until Dostoievsky and Nietzsche—for Christ to regain the glory of his madness, for scandal to recover its power as revelation, for unreason to cease being merely the public shame of reason.

But at the very moment Christian reason rid itself of the madness that had so long been a part of itself, the madman, in his abolished reason, in the fury of his animality, received a singular power as a demonstration: it was as if scandal, driven out of that superhuman region where it related to God and where the Incarnation was manifested, reappeared, in the plenitude of its force and pregnant with a new lesson, in that region where man has a relation to nature and to his animality. The lesson’s point of application has shifted to the lower regions of madness. The Cross is no longer to be considered in its scandal; but it must not be forgotten that throughout his human life Christ honored madness, sanctified it as he sanctified infirmity cured, sin forgiven, poverty assured of eternal riches....
...Coming into this world, Christ agreed to take upon himself all the signs of the human condition and the very stigmata of fallen nature; from poverty to death, he followed the long road of the Passion, which was also the road of the passions, of wisdom forgotten, and of madness. — Foucault, Madness and Civilization

Nietzsche's Equation is Amor Fati, which Mirrors the Glad Tidings, and the Superman is made reality when you suffer the fool...

"Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet"

"nothing is more Jewish than Jesus!" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Duh, Jesus was a Jew, but he flat out rejects Judaism.

When was the last time either of you read the Gospels?

He came unto his own, and his own received him not... But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. — John, Chapter 1

Jesus was rejected by his own and he abolished the entire doctrine of sin, reward, and punishment of Judaism. Because Jesus assumes the right to new values, just as the Greek men of antiquity. Hence why Nietzsche vibes with Jesus.

Thanks for bringing up the discussion, I hadn't got the connection quite yet in my mind, it was there, as a "hintegedanke" but this solidified the bridge for me. Appreciate it.

Hannah Arendt mentions that on page 31 or so...? The government became the right bearer of necessity rather than the individual. The social was to make a more calculable man, easier to control, a norm of society that all think similarly through the collective housekeeping of society.

It opens his theory to criticism and lends his polis an anti-social quality rather than a social one. Further, the master/slave relationship is a matter of convention rather than of nature. — NOS4A2

The proportion varied and is certainly exaggerated in Xenophon's report from Sparta, where among four thousand people in the market place, a foreigner
counted no more than sixty citizens (Helknica iii. 35). — Reference 23 in Human Condition

I feel Aristotle perhaps reified the notion that master and slave was a natural thing because of how few citizens there were which were actually considered as equals. The private realm of Citizens was part of the ruling class because each house had its own "army of slaves," which was a wide array of craftsmen, to law makers and of course the common slave.

Every citizen was of the ruling class. Not just the tyrant alone...

Every citizen his own king, where as the social is more like one big family controlled by the Nation State. The Nation State monopolizes power and violence.

Where as Power and Violence was seen as a necessity to the Greek.

What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polls life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance, by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world. This freedom is the essential condition of what the Greeks called felicity, eudaimmla, which was an objective status depending first of all upon wealth and health. — Hannah Arendt

The social man of today is just a tamed domesticated house cat compared to the political man of the Greek. The political man of the Greek assumed the rights to his own values...

Hence the greatest utility of polytheism Joyful Wisdom 143 Nietzsche:

The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.—For the individual to set up his own ideal and derive from it his laws, his pleasures and his rights—that has perhaps been hitherto regarded as the most monstrous of all human aberrations, and as idolatry in itself; in fact, the few who have ventured to do this have always needed to apologise to themselves,[Pg 179] usually in this wise: "Not I! not I! but a God, through my instrumentality!" It was in the marvellous art and capacity for creating Gods—in polytheism—that this impulse was permitted to discharge itself, it was here that it became purified, perfected, and ennobled; for it was originally a commonplace and unimportant impulse, akin to stubbornness, disobedience and envy. To be hostile to this impulse towards the individual ideal,—that was formerly the law of every morality. There was then only one norm, "the man"—and every people believed that it had this one and ultimate norm. But above himself, and outside of himself, in a distant over-world, a person could see a multitude of norms: the one God was not the denial or blasphemy of the other Gods! It was here that individuals were first permitted, it was here that the right of individuals was first respected. The inventing of Gods, heroes, and supermen of all kinds, as well as co-ordinate men and undermen—dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils—was the inestimable preliminary to the justification of the selfishness and sovereignty of the individual...

Hence Sisyphus was actually rewarded with with his own demigod status of the ideal representing Eu Prattein, because in life he was the definition of Aristeuein from assuming the rights to his own values and triumphantly affirming those demands of his own life, besting multiple gods.

The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon. — Nietzsche, from Genealogy of Morals 10

Well, Arendt states that the Social class was vastly different in Rome than in Greek... lemme pull it up.

Fair. Fair. I thought maybe you were asking because of some section you may have read vs the whole.

Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition," will answer this for you. There are various free PDFs you can find online. You'll have to enter into a different constellation of thought to understand where Aristotle is coming from.

Relationships end in the Polis because that is the Public Sphere of Equality. The private house hold is where the inequality of relationships was housed.

Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos

Nietzsche clearly isn't talking about Hedonism. And your God can sucketh. It's all just a fable anyways. A fable that details the most bogus bullshit, like men living 900 years, and how everyone was incestuous in their culture. Which is funny considering humans were around long before the Israelites and thus they weren't just fucking their own sisters to birth all of humanity... that's a much much older tale that has nothing to do with the Jews.

Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. — BitconnectCarlos

People who haven't read the Bible obviously.