"There is a tension between life-affirming optimism and life-denying pessimism that Christianity has never fully resolved. It's witnessed in the books of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and all across the rest of Christian history."

I often wonder what kind of christianity Nietzsche encountered...
Anyway, regarding calvinism, I have often said that it is One of the worst and most pathetic world views a human being can hold, and I stand by that.

"But I would still say that, if it is agreed that hell, as the experience of God's love from a certain perspective, is real, then it can't be metaphorical. What's metaphorical is any language seeming to suggest that God is torturing people in a literal place and the like."

Perhaps yes. But who knows? There is unquestionably a Point in Einstein words (if you hold a rationalistic view on christianity and God): "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
But Einstein was likewise right about "fanatical atheists": "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

I dont agree with Good and evil being opposites like that. That is Only how they appear to us

I see! I personally was attracted to the view of Isaac of Nineveh, and of Buddha. But I would admit that Isaac's view doesnt seem very biblical.

"Spinoza was a virtue ethicist, Nietzsche an immoralist"

I know. But if you ask Berdyaev about what Nietzsche was, he would say (in fact he did say this) that Nietzsche was one of the greatest MORALISTS of all time...

Anyway, would you agree with Isaac of Nineveh's view? Or why not Buddha's view?

Okay I see, Perhaps you are right here about Spinoza. I only know that Nietzsche found Spinoza to have basically understood what "evil" is... And I have not read his Ethics so I shouldnt comment too much on this

And to be honest with you, dont you think that this definition of evil(Spinoza's) is a bit similar to Nietzsche's, just that Nietzsche took it even further? That is my understanding from especially Works like Daybreak and Beyond Good and Evil.

The question is, does God perceive all in the same way? That is, does he embrace the damned and the saved with the same love, as Isaac of Nineveh thought? The difference between the damned and the sinner being that love torments the guilty but not the blessed.

What it seems to me like Spinoza says, is that neither good nor evil are real, intrinsic properties. Instead, goodness or evil are concepts we employ when we compare things.

Well then you and I possibly agree here I think. If I have understood you correctly that is...

Yes exactly, so according to Spinoza Good and evil are not intrinsically real.

Well, werent you the one who claimed that hell is just a different perception of God, where one suffers instead of feeling bliss? Despite the fact that the damned and the saved encounters the same thing? That ls, they encounter the same thing buy experiences it differently because of their inner condition?

"thereby denying the independent reality of evil."

Denying an independent reality of evil is quite a Christian thing; Augustine denied it, and many others. But I understand what you are trying to say though . But hasn't many Christians tried to define it thus: Good=being, evil=non-being?

You do know that Spinoza denied the reality of evil?

"Why do you think Christian history being bloody would preclude Christianity being true? And I'm not even claiming Christianity is true here, for the sakes of this discussion, any other religion in a exclusivist sense could be the true religion. In other words I don't see the relationship between a religion having a bloody history and the religion being false, or not the only (or rather highest expression of) truth."

How do you consider the following as an answer to what you said there? I guess you know the one behind the words ;) :

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

And to this comes more of her quotes; free to read if you want. I love them:

"Electra weeping for the dead Orestes. If we love God while thinking that he does not exist, he will manifest his existence."

"One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about his rights."

"To die for God is not a proof of faith in God. To die for an unknown and repulsive convict who is a victim of injustice, that is a proof of faith in God"

"To claim that theft or adultery or lying are "evil" simply reflects our degraded idea of good-—that it has something to do with respect for property, respectability, and sincerity."

"The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it."

"Either God is not all-powerful, or God is not absolutely good, or God does not command wherever He has the power to do so. So the existence of evil here below, far from being a proof against the reality of God, is what reveals Him to us in truth."

"Creation is, on God’s part, not an act of self-expansion, but a retreat, a renunciation. God and all his creatures are less than God alone. God accepted this diminishment. God emptied Himself of part of His being. God emptied Himself in the act of His divinity. This is why St. John says, ‘The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.’ God permitted things to exist other than Himself and worth infinitely less than Himself. By the act of creation, God denied himself, just as Christ told us to deny ourselves"

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith ; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."

"What evil violates is not goodness, for goodness is inviolate; only a degraded good can be violated."

"To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love"

"The true God is the God we conceive as all-powerful, but Who nevertheless does not command it where He has the power, for God is found only in the heavens or here below in secret."

"We should seek neither to escape suffering nor to suffer less, but to remain untainted by suffering"

And regarding Simone Weil on Truth:

"It seemed to me certain, and I still think so today, that one can never wrestle enough with God if one does so out of pure regard for the truth. Christ likes us to prefer truth to him because, before being Christ, he is truth. If one turns aside from him to go toward the truth, one will not go far before falling into his arms."

Sorry for a Little bit off topic, but how would you view Simone Weil's view on justice quoted below?

"Justice. To be ever ready to admit that another person is something quite different from what we read when he is there (or when we think about him). Or rather, to read in him that he is certainly something different, perhaps something completely different from what we read in him.
Every being cries out silently to be read differently."

"As Agustino is fond of saying, those in heaven experience the fire of God's love as bliss and those in hell as torment"

This view is IMO the only possibly acceptable one, but we hardly know if it is true and in tradition it doesnt have that much support. The idea is originally attributed to the great Saint Isaac of Nineveh who lived in the 7th century. He was quite probably also a believer in universal salvation though. This idea also doesnt hold much support in Scripture... In Scripture God displays his wrath and actively punishes etc... If one is to read "literally" that is. But if we understand it as Isaac of Nineveh did (Who basically Said that God's wrath is his love experienced differently), then why not as well take the next step in to understanding the whole idea of hell as a metaphor?

"I do actually think it's morally permissible, but I'm less comfortable viewing procreation as a positive good in itself. In other words, just because something is permissible does not mean it is recommended. Something not being wrong does not make it right. My views on this issue are very much in flux at this point, as you can see in schop1's thread."

I might add that Christianity adds a new dimension to the issue. If hell is real and eternal, then it's a serious question whether it is morally permissible to create human beings, who may end up in it. Why provide more souls to be potentially ensnared by the Devil?"

I also find this very problematic and agree with you 100 percent. I find it astonishing how the Catholic and Orthodox Church's priests insists that Couples should have Children (many priests go so far as to claim that being married without having Children is a sin). Not to mention most protestant denominations! It is extremely ignorant to claim that life is Only a blessing for so many reasons : First we have wars etc. But Most of all christianity's own doctrine about hell and even more the fact that Most Christian branches and theologians in history claim that Most People end up in hell (Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Pascal and Calvin to just name a few). This is very strange IMO. ESPECIALLY if you go down Augustine's path and claim that God has predestined Everything and doesnt even WANT to save all (Read City of God), a line of thought that Calvin followed. It gets more problematic: In Augustine's eyes an infant who dies without having been baptized is damned and condemmed to eternal fire. If christians were consequent, it seems to me they would try to do everything in their power to prevent people from having children. Listen to this absurdity; Evangelicals that follow MacArthur and Piper and their line of thought believe in double predestination, that God predetermines before the world began which people are saved and damned only to display his wrath and mercy for the sake of his own "glory". BUT, they also claim these two pathetically contradictory things: 1. Abortion is basically the worst sin you can commit. 2. All aborted children go to heaven...
You see, if you believe in double predestination and yet think that all aborted children go to heaven, then abortion should be considered a virtue and a great act it seems to me. Because if you dont abort the child, it will very likely go to hell.

Yes I apologize...

"The permissibility of meat eating and, despite my changing views on the topic, procreation."

Interesting. You dont think procreation should be permitted?

Sounds very good and in My view admirable. I admire the ability to follow that way that you seem to so, and to be capable to do What Aristotele said. My problem is that I am often too passionate; if something seems to wake My feelings I react A LOT and hence have a tendency to make too fast conclusions or be too ambivalent. Anyway, your problems with christianity are very similar to My problems. May I ask you What it is that makes you feel most attracted to catholicism rather than for example orthodoxy?

"Hmmm - the mystical writings is what I would recommend. Like these:

Cloud of Unknowing - By Unknown
Mystical Theology - Dionysus
Theologia Germanica - By Unknown"

Thank you!

Yes you are correct. But the question remains if it is true. You almost sound like Christian or like you Believe in it. So if I May ask; why arent you a Christian?

"This would be where my comparison fails, yes. It's difficult to place "profundity" on a scale, and so we're now left with comparing subjective impressions. I will merely submit, speaking for myself, that the best of Christian theologico-philosophical writing is as profound, if not more so in some cases, than Hindu."
Perhaps but this is not surprising. Christianity comes from a mixture of hellenic and jewish thought. These are thinking traditions, and Christianity has therefore, without surprise, had a tendency to philosophize rationally and been trying to define things. The Catholic Church also, had an immense power during the middle ages. They encountered many different cultures and Christianity has encountered and been influenced by many different cultures. But I still agree with Schopenhauer that nothing compares to The Upanishads but perhaps that is a matter lf taste. No matter how great Eckehart, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine or John of the Cross is, I stil treasure The Upanishads more.

Therefore I really wonder, when you say that the best of Christian theologico-philosophical writing is as profound, if not more so in some cases, than Hindu, do you then include Badhavad Gita and The Upanishads Into the Hindu writings here as something not as profound as the greatest Christian writings?

One must also take into consideration, that if the religious texts of India (now I mean Baghavad Gita and The Upanishads) are possibly more stimulating and suiting for the "intelligent", then why have Christianity often in history (and today also many protestants, catholics and orthodox) preached eternal damnation for all those who follow another religion than theirs instead of accepting them? This shows that those "less intelligent" that christianity suits for have proclaimed something they dont know which potentially causes lots of harm.

I would love it if you could give me some tips on Works by Christians that reaches the level of the upanishads according to you.

I must also say that I agree with both you and Thorongil that hinduism as a religion isnt more attractive than christianity. I am mainly talking about its spiritual texts : Baghavad Gita and The Upanishads.

Also true, which is then probably why God had to be incarnate. But so much of the stupidity done in the name of christianity(even though this may not be a valid excuse) has repelled many more "intelligent" People too. You may not agree, but I am certain that Nietzsche wanted to know the living God; he wanted to know Truth. But when he observed the religion that made the greatest and most extraordinary claim for Truth, he found stupidity and falseness everywhere. That might also be used as an argument against Nietzsche and his "Pride", but I dont think it is that easy to be sensitive in the way he was, and at the same time of such a great intellect.

Yes I agree. Or at least more geniuses known. But I can't find much in the Christian tradition that reaches the level of the upanishads in profoundity and depth. Some come close though.

"A cleverly ambiguous reply!"
I know. That was my intention ;)

"I wouldn't claim that Christian evangelization has had a spotless record. But it has achieved something that Hinduism has failed to achieve and is apparently more attractive to human beings generally, and not just Indians."

If you ask Nietzsche, or Perhaps even Schopenhauer, the reason why christianity "is apparently more attractive to human beings generally" is because people are apparently more unintelligent than intelligent generally. That many believe in and appreciate/prefer christianity would not speak to its advantage if you ask them, or probably even if you ask Plato.

It doesnt matter. We talk about different things and you are always biased. Here is simply what I mean, to quote CS Lewis:

“Even more disturbing as you [Dom] say, is the ghastly record of Christian persecution. It had begun in Our Lordʼs time - ‘Ye know not what spirit ye are of’ (John of all people!) I think we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse…Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil.”

"The authors of the New Testament, while literate and fairly well read, were not in anything near the same status as the Brahmins or, in their context, Greek philosophers, and their audience was explicitly for all people, not just the intelligentsia."

Yes I know. And it shows.

"??"

?

"paying virtually no attention to proselytization, whereas Christianity has embraced innumerable different peoples and cultures across the globe."

Paying no attention to proselytization is often a good thing. We know what many of those who have tried to proselytize have often done. Christianity embracing People from different Cultures hasn't only been about love and openess but about power, just as Russia probably would like to be the whole world.

are you a Christian?

It is wrong of you to call it false. Wrong and ignorant. I never said there werent Christians who thought like you apparently think. I know the Catholic Church holds your view. But it didnt until the 1960s. So your view is historically held by a minority. I know more about this than you think. I also know more about your Church than you think, for example that baptism literally washes away sins. So, what is the regard here to Faith?

Regarding Kierkegaard; Socrates wasn't sinless, do we agree? And, Kierkegaard makes the conclusion that Socrates was probably despairing.

I also want to mention another thing though, which IMO is to the advantage of the upanishads over the bible (the wisdom of India over judaism and christianity): The real difference is in the way that Judaism and Christianity approach religion as contrasted to the religion of the upanishads is found in my edition I have of the upanisjads. It says in the foreword that "The value of the Upanishads, however, does not rest upon their antiquity, but upon the vital message they contain for all times and all peoples. There is nothing peculiarly racial or local in them." The wisdom of the Upanishads is grounded in the Universal in a way the Bible and its religions have often failed to be. For example, even if Christ is proclaimed as the universal Truth, christians have more often than not completely FAILED to see that the same Truth is in many ways expressed in writings like the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita. Even to the point of completely blaspheming their own God by calling these scriptures demonic. And that is another reason why I find it hard to convert to christianity. That it often wants to kill curiosity in the positive sense of the word etc.

"I'm not sure about that, why do you say so?"
But you havent read her. But the reason is that I simply can't come up with one. She was brilliantly honest and true to her philosophy etc. More than any other philosopher I know of. She lived what she wrote.

Well, Kierkegaard had studied a LOT of Socrates at university and he was quite familiar with greek language and so on. Nietzsche even more; he was a very gifted philologist and was proficient in the greek language and it wouldnt surprise if he had read all of Plato 's dialogue.
I agree about Socrates seeming perfect; but I recommend once again (despite possible criticism from Agustino) to look up Kierkegaard's view on some possible "defects" or "weakness" that Socrates had if one observes him in the text. A weakness that Socrates quite probably was aware of; that he was sinfull like all of us and couldnt reach the complete truth without divine help etc. Kierkegaard suggests that this is one of the reasons for Socrates irony; perhaps, even probably, he was despairing according to Kierkegaard

The famous Aristophanes is another briliant man who was famous for also being critical towards Socrates