"For example, you protest about eternal hell and say that it makes God evil, and that everyone should be saved."

Never did I say that. But the opposite to universalism isnt that great of a solution

"How do you mean?"
In terms of greatness, depth of thought, honesty etc. Nietzsche goes far beyond what Osho does, and Steiner just tried to grasp everything so to thé degree that he grasped almost nothing.
It is almost like comparing Chopin to Salieri. Or Tolstoy to JK Rowling ( in the case of Osho), and perhaps to Tolkien or CS Lewis in the case of Steiner.

What do you mean on Nietzsche's level? These men belong to a different cathegory. It is enough to look at the quality of their prose

"but they are on Nietzsche's level."

?!?!?!

I guess you are right, you know much more about him than I do. I have just heard others talk about him and he sound like a "rich lazy people pleaser" basically. Or something like that. But from your post, at least his literary taste seems to have been good. I had a friend whose mother was all Into Osho and Rudolf Steiner as if they were the two greatest spiritual truth tellers of all time. I felt that both seemed scary. I dont know... Have you read Steiner too?

Are you seriously suggesting I would prefer Osho to Nietzsche? The Little I have read about and on Osho, he seems like a charlatan

"You Mr. Beebs will 100% like Osho given your current positions."

No I highly doubt it.

How old are you if I may ask? Have you studied philosophy at University?

You can find that it is Paul and to some extent John who changed the hebrew understanding of trust proclaimed also by Christ, trust as openness to an encounter Into Faith in an image, in an idea of Christ's role as sacrifice etc.

Are you familiar with Martin Buber? "In his Two Types of Faith", He distinguishes between the messianism of Jesus and the messianism of Paul and John. While he had great respect for Jesus as a man, Buber did not believe that Jesus took himself to be divine. Jesus’ form of faith corresponds to emunah, faith in God’s continual presence in the life of each person. In contrast, the faith of Paul and John, which Buber labels pistis, is that God exists in Jesus only, and that salvation turns into believing in the work of Jesus. They have according to Buber a dualistic notion of faith and action, and exemplify the apocalyptic belief in irredeemable original sin and the impossibility of fulfilling God’s law. Buber accuses Paul and John of transforming myth, which is historically and biographically situated, into gnosis, and replacing faith as trust and openness to encounter with faith in an image. How would you respond to this?

I dont like any arguments that obsesses itself with thinking in causes like that. I would rather call it one of the weakest arguments. And plus, what need do we have for this kind of pseudo-proofs? None. If one has Faith, one shall follow God. God doesnt reveal himself in "proofs" made by logical arguments.

"P3. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;"

Here is where Everything is lost. I would venture to say that the argument is even confused and weak right from the start. Part of learning to know God and realize he is seems to me to be to stop reasoning about him like that.

I just need to put down some time to it since it Will take quite a long post to explain my situation properly

Very interesting post about capitalism being communism; it is a strong argument. So Marx wasn't as wrong as one might think...
Regarding Paul, I agree he didnt theorize in that sense; but he did create a theological understanding of how the atonement Works, how salvation comes about by God "paying " for man's sins and guilt etc. Which is a way of UNDERSTANDING the cross that cant really have been understood in exactly that way and been as clearly defined by the other apostles before Paul came about. And if we take a look at the great theologians of especially the west, we find a theology that is extremely based on Paul, so to tv degree that it has sometimes even seemed to be something that stands in opposition to the teachings and life of Christ.

"I count Schopenhauer as a religious philosopher, whose philosophy does descend into mysticism it by the other apostles before"

Interesting, that is how I see Nietzsche. I can't agree with Schopenhauer that christianity is a denial of the Will to live. Rather it is an affirmation of the Will to live. Sure Christ was crucified... But he was also resurrected.

"What have you done to be more precise?"

I will tell you later!

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

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.

"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

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

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?

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

"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

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

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?

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?

"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

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?

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?

"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

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.

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.

Very true. But I say once again, did Plato escape from being a Don Quixote?

Well in a sense yes... I consider Don Quixote as a perfect example of how we human beings live in delusions, both internal and external delusions, that is, we misinterpret the inner world as well as the external world... But philosophy has been to serious and dry and stern about this, instead of having some fun like Cervantes did... The history of ideas lack a sense of humor IMO... It has a sense of tragedy, but comedy is lacking

That is What I have been trying to say about Plato

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?

"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)

" 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

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.

This is quite much like I understand Nietzsche

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

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

"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

"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