May I ask you, when you claim you read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and the Genealogy of Morals for example, and you find him saying basically that these works are not for the common average man, etc. Do you find it true or o offensive? Do you understand yourself as one of those who these Books are for, ons of those who do NOT belong to the herd-mind, or do you find yourself belonging to one of those who these Books are NOT for, that is, to the herd-mind?

"If anybody could recommend any work by women I would appreciate it."

I recommend Simone Weil.
Gravity and Grace, Waiting for God, The Abolition of Political Parties, The Need For Roots...

Fyodor Dostoevsky
Friedrich Nietzsche
William Blake
Sören Kierkegaard
Simone Weil
Plato
Arthur Schopenhauer
Giacomo Leopardi
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Gregory of Nyssa
Meister Eckehart

Nietzsche's own physical weakness and inability to escape the atmosphere of the study made him take a rather unrealistic view of the man of action sometimes, that is his main weakness, not his critique against the aspects of christianity he criticized, and certainly not his "confusion". His praise of the man of action and insights in it being the correct way for man is spot on though, as is his understanding of the human psyche. Nietzsche is, as Freud said, quite likely the man with the greatest and most penetrating knowledge of himself, more so than any other man who ever lived and likely will ever live. That is one way of understanding what being deep means, which in this case then would even suggest that he was quite likely the deepest person to have ever lived. That might be to be going a bit too far though, but he is certainly up there in the top among the few greats.

I see. Thanks for sharing your current view on Christianity!

Sorry, my mistake, it is true he did attend a Swedenborg Church, but was it regular attendance over a long period of time?

But from what I have read about Blake, he almost never went to a church service in his whole life. I don't believe he was a Swedenborgian in the same way you probably were once a catholic (by that I mean someone who goes often to Church and follows the Church's rule of life). Are you still a christian today?

You should read Blake's Works instead. He rejected Swedenborg in the end. By the time he wrote his most influential works it is true that he was INFLUENCED by Swedenborg, but he rejected his thought claiming that Swedenborg just repeated the same old lies as those that had always been told. Sure he might have started out as a follower of Swedenborg but later on he rejected him and went his own way.

"You're really both wrong here. Nietzsche neither surpassed Christian thinkers nor was a confused man. His project was decidedly different from the Aristotelian Aquinas, but not that different from the more mystical theologians like Anselm, Augustine and Eckhart."

Then you and I agree. I try constantly to tell Agustino that Nietzsche resembles many Christians and have many times mentioned thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Blake, Dostoevsky, Pascal, Eckehart etc as a few examples. And if you read my whole post you would see that I never claimed Nietzsche was superior in depth to all Christian thinkers, and I mentioned like 5-7 examples of Christian thinkers that reached basically the same heights as Nietzsche.

Not true that Blake was a Swedenborgian. Blake was an original and an artist. He is not to be classified or cathagorized I believe. Blake had rejected Swedenborg by the time he composed 'Marriage between Heaven and Hell'.

Aquinas more deep than Nietzsche? Lol. That finished our discussion probably. Since you dont understand Nietzsche, and I doubt I am capable of making you understand. Dostoevsky wouldnt have written what he wrote if he was 100 percent sure that christianity was true. He hoped it was, that is true. But he wasnt as silly and shallow as Aquinas, who knew not much about true psychology. Sure Aquinas had a great intellect. But what for? He drains the will to live from you with his letters of boring blocks of stones. Now Dostoevsky wouldn't have said the thing about sticking to Christ rather than truth if Christ was outside of truth if he was certain that Christ was the Truth with a big T, nor would he, if he was certain about that being the case, have written that all his life had been a struggle about the question he constantly asked himself; whether or not God existed. I have enough knowledge about Dostoevsky, believe me, to know for sure that his will and wish that christianity was true might have been close to 100 percent, but his convictions about it being true was far from as certain, if you by "Christianity is true" mean that God DID create everything, that Christ literally rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and Will come back to judge the world. And if you believe Dostoevsky was closer to Aquinas than to Nietzsche in his ideas about man, what drives man, and in his observations about mankind in general, about life and human psychology, then I am sorry to say that I will find it hard to have a serious discussion with you.

Btw. Have you read William Blake's 'The Lamb'? One of the greatest poems written : It seems more 'christian' to me than anything written by the stiff, boring, humorless, life-drayning dry-head Thomas Aquinas.

It is by the way curious that it seems like you think that your idea about man's weakness being an argument for the existence of God would be something that Nietzsche hadn't already thought of, and rejectes as shallow. Especially since the depth of the missunderstood Nietzsche and his thought so far surpasses that of most of the greatest Christian thinkers that it is almost laughable. Though there are of course those with depth in Christian thought: Dostoevsky (who was 50 percent atheist), William Blake (who many unfortunately call a satanist and not a christian. But it is true he denied doctrines such as the atonement that says Christ payed for our sins example, and much, much else), Augustine (Though Nietzsche is obviously more insightful, there is so much evil too in Augustine and his thought), Kierkegaard (though he despised the Church and called for a radical version of christianity. And he claimed he had no faith - at least finally an honest 'christian' -, and often seems to have thought he was damned), Simone Weil (Though she was one of the biggest and most serious critics against the Old Testament in the history of thought, as well as to the church she sometimes defined as a 'Collective Beast'. She also refused to be baptized). Blaise Pascal also had depth, but that was despite of his christianity, not because of it.

"The real weakness is that of the Emperor and those who go along with it. The child exposes this weakness. There is strength in acknowledging imperfection and the harshness of reality, yet affirming life in spite of this, which is what Agustino fails to appreciate in Nietzsche. Our concern should be with this world, and we should not allow ourselves to be duped into otherworldly concerns. In fact, one could argue that it is our duty to burst this deceptive bubble, much like the child does."

Unfortunately it seems to me that most Christians dont understand Nietzsche at all. Which is a great shame for them. Berdyaev is an exception. I respect him. He also knows that most theologians and theologies in history are sadistic and based on the lowest and most despicable kind of human spiritual quality.

Yes, you are correct that determinism is the Only logical conclusion to draw from Classical traditional theology. That also implies those Christian theologians who make up the idea and excuse of Free will and say basically: "God's predeterming decision and foreknowledge contra our Free will is a paradox that can Only be explained by the fact that God is omnipotent and capable of making man free and unfree at the same time".

Was his "will to health" helpful in achieving health? In other words how is "willing" something helpful at all?
— Agustino

Nietzsche said Will to health, not health. Living for rewards is not the point here. Who Said anything about something being helpful? Nietzsche spoke about psycholoical truths if You Will. As You know, he wanted life to be sacred and beautiful as it IS, not as people wish it to be. That is the point. Life is what it is, beyond good and evil.

How shall we handle this then?
— Agustino

By embracing your life, affirming it instead of wishing for something else, live despite of, not living in the past with regrets for example. Affirmation and Amor fati is how to handle it. But there is so much more to say here. This is just basics on the surface.

"quite the contrary, suffering for God is good in Christianity, why do you think Christianity has all the martyrs that it does?"

Yes, christianity made a whole system of redemption out of suffering. But why? Because they couldnt accept suffering. And christianity still finds suffering bad, otherwise there would be no plan to end it in the next world. Suffering for a reward, basically... About the martyrs; well. Psychologically their behavior wouldnt be hard to understand according to Nietzsche.

"Yes, N was incapable to do this. He had no means."

Ridiculous. Read Nietzsche and You see e had. One example of a man worthy of respect according to Nietzsche is Beethoven: He affirmed life and lived out his call despite everything. He Because deaf; yet he continued to compose and as a result created perhaps the greatest music ever written.

"A childish and stupid idea in the end, for no one can re-live his life anyway."

Just Your opinion. I could say the same about christianity. "A childish and stupid Idea anyway. No one will be raised from the dead or have an immortal soul and an eternal life anyway". Eternal recurrence is an old Idea. But Nietzsche mainly used it as a thought experiment.

"Nietzsche wanted to know the Truth apart from Christ, but there is no such Truth. That is why he concluded that truth is ugly. Yes, the truth of the human condition is ugly, that's exactly why we need the Truth"

Also your values and opinions. To me, Beethoven's life isnt ugly But beautiful. Though I have to admit that Jesus life too was beautiful and admirable, and I DONT believe that christianity is a silly idea. I dont agree with Nietzsche entirely about christianity, because I think he went too far. I like Dostoevsky. And Blake.

In this case that there ia no God. Dostoevsky would prefer to be a Don Quijote then to facing the truth if that would be the truth

That is not what Dostoevsky meant. He meant that if it was proved to him that Christ wasn't God, that christianity wasn't true, he would still follow Christ rather than Truth. You and I agree about in thing though: We both prefer Dostoevsky to Nietzsche.

I will answer you more thouroughly later today, but right now I am busy. Though I Think I must say it is really pointless to answer your questions and argue with you in favor for Nietzsche, because you seem to quite clearly have made up your mind about him. Regarding Dostoevsky's comment on Christ he quite obviously exposes the truth about most christians: They cling to Christ even if it is false. Om other words, they want Christ first and foremost, not truth. Now Simone Weil agreed that Christ is Truth, but her comment on Dostoevsky's statement was that he committed blasphemy when he said he wanted Christ more than truth.

Genealogy of Morals is the most brilliant I have read I think. And parts of it is just exceptionally funny. But that goes for his other works too of course. I love Nietzsche. He is underrated (Yes underrated!!) IMO.

For Dostoevsky I like Brothers Karamazov best. Then the Idiot. Then comes the other two.

Yes and probably, we can never be happy, that is one thing that Nietzsche despised about christianity. That it became heavenly utilitarian. And also that it Said "Suffering is bad and its opposite good". Nietzsche found it wrong to say that suffering is bad. One shall affirm life despite suffering. For example, just because Nietzsche went mad, You say he failed. Why is that? It is just as much part of life as Everything else and it was his fate. The test of whether he succeded or not is if he would have embraced the idea of re-living this life and fate of his time and time again in all eternity. Remember, Nietzsche knew suffering. He had for example constant migrane. Life was, in a sense, just because of his physical health, horrible for him If he would value it in terms of "This is the amount of power I have if I equal power with complete Control over my material physical health and pleasure", but he yet wanted to embrace life. And he refused to view life as complete shit despite this, and he would certainly have had a reason to have become a typically other-worldly person: He was deep, he recognized hypocrisy and herd-mentality, he was alone, he suffered a lot (not Only mentally but physically, which is very important). He refused other-worldliness because it was for him a Sign of giving up embracing his life despite all his suffering. Him Walking around in his physical pain and waiting for something better Beyond was for him equal to nihilism.

I will read Works of Love. I like Kierkegaard a lot. I just prefer Nietzsche at the moment because he IMO tried to dig even deeper in some areas. Plus he writes better prose and is more funny(not to say that Kierkegaard isnt funny at times too). By Kierkegaard I have read Sickness unto Death, The concept of Anxiety and Fear and Trembling.

You should read Simone Weil. She is brilliant.

To start with, Nietzsche didnt base his philosophy on his belief in his own strength or health, but in his will to health. One of his most important concepts is Amor Fati. He knew in a sense man's powerlessness, he wasn't stupid. I find that quite obvious. He spoke about how to handle this situation, one's attitude to life. And regarding the will to power, the most important thing there is his Conviction that it was basically what life was. You find especially in his Genealogy of Morals, very in-depth interpretation of the often underlying processes in man that leads to life-denial and self-denial. Will to power. Religions have often separated the sacred and the profane, which Nietzsche found disgusting, and he gives a thorough explanation about this in many places, where he explains the reason for this thinking. A true "enlightened" man would say as William Blake: "Everything is holy". Or more precise perhaps that at least everything is sacred. This enlightened thought is found in The Baghavad Gita, in some Christian mystics, in the Sacraments of the church (transforming profane things in to sacred things), in Dostoevsky, Blake, Walt Whitman etc. And IMO quite obviously Nietzsche touched on this too. It is just that he, for psychological and cultural reasons, expressed this in a very different way.

1. Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky
2. Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche
3. Baghavad Gita
4. The Gay Science by Nietzsche
5. Poems by Leopardi
6. The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer
7. Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche
8. The Bible (Or more specifically the Book of Job if I must choose one thing from the Bible)
9. Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard
10. Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil

"Nietzsche was fundamentally right, that if there is no God, then all is resolved into a will-to-power. And Spinoza was right too, who defined joy as man's passage from a lesser to a greater perfection! But how can man pass from a lesser to a greater perfection if he is fundamentally weak? He cannot rely on himself! Therefore there is either despair or submission to God - otherwise one is deprived of joy. One's own self is a nothing, a meagre worm who cannot do anything. Poor Nietzsche - he saw it for himself. His "Ubermensch" was powerless against his own condition. His "Ubermensch" couldn't treat his dementia - behold how the madman actually proclaimed God to be dead, but in truth, it was Nietzsche who was dead. He still rots in the earth, eaten by vermin to this day, his stinking corpse forgotten by all..."

Have you actually read Nietzsche? Have you read for example The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Morals? I dont mean to be rude, but you have, it seems to me, either misunderstood the real depth behind his thought or you just dont like what you read and judge it by that.

1. is more insulting, but also more true. Truth is often insulting.

Perhaps the best way to start then is to avoid joining a philosophy forum? ;)

They say so yes. But this life is all we know about, the rest is about faith. There is only now. I like Wittgenstein talking about eternal life in Tractatus. He ends by asking what is explained by the fact that I continue to live after death? It doesnt answer any questions. The mystery that life is remains.

Perhaps he is just talking about this life?

That I understand

Good quotes. I like those views

So only those who know about Christ and reject him anyway goes to hell?

And eternal suffering is what we all deserve for being Born in to God's failed mess of creation without our saying in the matter.

If I live a life alone in the Woods from the age of 0 to 40 and never injure Another man, and then I die at that age without believing in God and Christ, I am going to hell right? So I deserve to rot just because I dont accept God's creation for example?

"Nope. Christianity has been very successful, so clearly that "remote" part of the Middle East wasn't so remote at all. It's the world's largest religion, and has spread today in all corners of the world - and it's spreading at a super-fast rate in the developing world."

Oh it was remote. So remote that all those hideous things had to happen in western Europe that I mentioned. BTW, since when did amount of members mean success? Was the inquisition a success?

"You have a very strange morality then. Clearly getting rid of evil is a good thing, not a bad thing. Would you rather that the criminal torment his innocent victims?"

Yes, but I wouldnt cry over a crimimal going to hell, I would cry over the true reason why People put him in jail: In order for him to rot. And the same is the problem with Christian morality and eschatology. Their enemies arent just put in jail in order to realize their wrong doings and regret them and then be rehabilitated. No, they are supposed to rot.

"That's not what John says."

Oh it seems so to me

Yes but you said before that catholicism isnt christianity. Yet 1.2 billion of all Christians are catholics.

I understand concerning tradition. It just seems to me that God could communicate a little more clearly than by sending his son to die in a remote part of the middle east among a bunch of superstitious and illiterate people 2000 years ago. And then Communicating these great news to the rest of us by letting Paul have an epileptic seizure in which he receives the whole gospel in a vision. And then time goes on and Rome takes over it all and proclaims the Good news by threatening people with a Dante's vision of hell and burning heretics and wirtches on the stake, which eventually after approximately 400 years of tyranny results in a reformation where a mean Little peasant is angry and wants to Change it all. So he Changes the whole idea of Faith and salvation basically which eventually results in us having 30 000-40 000 different denominations of christianity. And during all this time God and his truth has been hiding itself in the east! Doesnt this sound a bit ironic?

If a criminal is in jail to rot, I would most often cry(Which Silouan would too obviously) but sometimes in exceptional cases rejoice. So it is all about being free from harm? Is christianity nothing but some sort of a transcendental and metaphysical utilitarianism? Btw, John doesnt just want them destroyed, he wants them to be tormented forever and ever. And ever. Without end. Only then he can enjoy his paradise.

When I call the New Testament ungifted, what I mean is basically that they seem incapable of delivering a clear message. But perhaps being clear didnt matter to them.

So in a sense, since God is in eternity and outside of time, there was no beginning of creation really?

"Why not? You keep telling me about the NT writers, that doesn't matter. The OT and NT were never meant to be stand-alone - they need to be read and understood through the lens of Apostolic Tradition."

I told you Why in the same post. Because the writers of the New Testament are extremely ungifted writers if what you claim about its meaning is true. Though you might absolutely be right. It is quite obvious that the writers of the New Testament werent exactly literary geniuses or geniuses of prose and poetry. Just read the Book of revelation. It really is a disgusting little piece of literature as far as beauty of writing is concerned. Its moral message isnt any better.