That is part of Nietzsch's critique against christianity. Its judgements are in the end not Deep enough. Perhaps God and Christ goes Deep enough (probably and hopefully), but the Christian traditional thought doesnt. Actually, You find these thoughts a lot in Dostoevsky as well.

I will quote Nietzsche on Dostoevsky later, but among other things he praised him as the only psychologist who has taught him something. Who understood something he didnt. And once again I agree. Dostoevsky is even greater than Nietzsche. He praised Dostoevsky also as being the first one to really understand Jesus etc.
I can aummarize Nietzsche's moral views like this: He observed that thousands of years ago, People judged actions based on ord consequences. Then, with christianity a great thing happened: Actions should be judged not by its consequences foremost, but by the intentions of the one who commits the act. But Nietzsche observed that even this wasn't enough, but shallow. Actions should be judged by the irrational forces and unconcious motives that lies in the depth of the one committing the act. The "intentions" are never clear. They are just the surface.

I dont think so no

Nietzsche 's solution wasn't to let the strong burn the weak but rather to not let the weak burn the strong anymore. Nietzsche isnt someone who says who things are supposed to be. Nor does he say what others wish to hear. Rather, he says what really is the Case. He tries to say how things really are.

That is true. Zossima is wonderful. So was Furst Myshkin. Ask Nietzsche if he agreed (he did). A Force of Nature, or a Force of God, cant help being what he is. I urge you to listen to Beethoven's late Quartets or piano sonatas. If Beethoven doesnt teach you about life then maybe that says more about you than about Beethoven.

Nietzsche didnt speak about a strong man burning a weak. Rather he said that the weak, the herd, always wanted to burn the strong and thé wicked. Christianity has been good enough at condemning and burning People. I dont think that is needed.

Just listen to Beethoven. One bar of Music there contains more moral and values than the whole of Aquinas oeuvre. Do you seriously suggest Beethoven was out there for money and fame etc? No. He was a natural force.

Well dont you let the big man God burn almost everyone? As I Said. You misunderstand what I am talking about

Yes. There are some who should be aloud to focus on his creative vocation above all else. Nietzsche was absolutely right. Nietzsche didnt really value the strong more than the weak. He just exposed those he called weak as being driven by the same impulses as the strong. They also just want power in the end. It expresses itself in millions of ways. I dont think you understand Nietzsche enough. He was much deeper than that.

I cant believe you are serious if you place Aquinas higher than Beethoven. That seems...

If Buddha thought that the better way to seek Nd find God is to be quiet about him and let People find out for themselves, then quite obviously, Buddha was 100 percent correct and the Abrahamic religions wrong. On that, history speaks for itself.

It is amusing and curious btw that Tao, and Baghavad Gita, etc. seems to have been far better at talking about the Christian mysteries than christianity itself has.

Yes Nietzsche called himself immoralist in the sense of being against morality of the society. Against the kind of moral that tries to surpress the greatness and creativity of some (of those Nietzsche considered the strong, the artist). He believed in the judgements of the great man. Not in some sort of social code of conformity.
Nietzsche broke with Wagner to start with because of Wagner's anti-Semitic statements. Then after that, other things started to strengthen him in his revolt against Wagner, such as Wagner's increasing carreerism. I doubt Wagner was really Christian. That else rather one of his strategies. Being a friend of the catholic church for example helped one in one's career in that time.
Because music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music speaks for itself. It is pure. It doesn't complicate things. It saves lives. You don't have to do more good to humanity, but what purpose did Aquinas then fullfill? How can morality be more important than art if you also say that it is not important to so good for humanity? Political leaders have done more harm than good. I believe you know that too. I am not preaching some sort or utilitarianism here. I am talking about the inner life. Wasn't it Dostoyevsky who said that beauty will save the world? I do though believe that Aquinas was a utilitarist in the long run. At least his theology turned many in to that. Heavenly utilitarianism. Yes in Aquinas case IMO not doing anything would at least have been just as good. But without music, I agree with Nietzsche: life would be a mistake.

You don't understand Nietzsche if you call him immoralist. He just had much deeper understanding of morality than most. You know why he broke his friendship with Wagner?

Yes. A great artist is IMO better. Beethoven versus Aquinas? No contest as to who has done more good for humanity.

Yes but how can one trust something that is completely incomprehensible not only in nature but in actions as well? In the old testament we find a God who is completely inconsequent and unpredictable. Who first feels and wants one thing and then suddenly something else. Jahve is certainly human all too human. What Kierkegaard really means (correctly) is that a man who wants and is about to realize his own existence can not be bounded by morals and ethics. We see that in many geniuses. Beethoven wouldn't have been the great artist we know him to be today if he had obsessed too much and spent his energy being occupied with ethics and morals in the sense of "How shall I behave?".

I Will follow Your advice. Soon haha. I will try meditation and ignore Calvin etc. But first I really want the answer to the question how it is even possible to avoid calvinism as the only pure Christian doctrine if God is What is traditionally ascribed to him: Omniscient and Omnipotent.

Now I am going to fly to another country and my seat is 13. I became a bit superstitious about it and then I read this post. Have I got a reason to be superstitious? I Hope not. There is a difference between superstition and belief in something behind what we can observe I think. Faith for example is good. Fanaticism bad. Superstition is bad in the sense that it can make you delusional. But yes, rejecting it as in rejecting everything that is supernatural is also superstitious or at least delusional.

Thank you for a very instructive and thoughtful reply. I have heard of Bentley Hart and very much appreciated what I have heard from him. I will look up Paul Knitter. I read your quote from Augustine. I like him, but I am ambivalent. He seems also to have some dangerous thoughts that can be damaging. The whole Lutheran-Calvinistic idea of total depravity has its source in the writings of Augustine. But så you say, I do realize the stupidity of American fundamentalism, but it is still hard to free yourself from it. I would certainly say that I consider atheism and materialism to be better than religious fundamentalism, and I believe it is in a way often a reaction against it (Think Christopher Hitchens, who must have been smart enough one thinks to understand that there was more to religion than what he criticized. Unfortunately, he often only debated with idiots).

I am not a materialist, I do realize it is a shallow and stupid worldview. But I wouldnt yet call myself spiritual either I think. At this moment, I trust art. I trust Classical Music by Beethoven, Schubert, Bach and the likes. I trust literature written by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Cervantes etc. And if one understands art, it is impossible to be a materialist. The Only "godless" world I would be able to say has some intellectual value is that of Schopenhauer, Leopardi and Nietzsche. But I am quite sure that they were wrong too. I just have a problem with religious dogmaticism. And I am too selfish and weak to give up everything to follow Christ. I am for example not ready to give up music. Well, well. At least scientific materialism is out of the question. That is for sure. But superstition must also be out of the question.

Hmm. Do you really believe that when Christ used all those horrifying and vivid images to describe hell, that all he meant was "'hell' is 'the deprivation of truth' It is 'eternal' insofar as that it is up to us to find and follow the liberating truth of whichever spiritual tradition we're associated with. So the 'punishment' is wasting that opportunity"? I liked your description, but when I read revelation of John for example, I cant get this view from reading it. The thing with christianity, which is both to its advantage and disadvantage, is that it is a revealed religion, based on history, rather than a philosophical religion like buddhism and to some extent hinduism. It makes christianity a religion one would be stupid to completely ignore. One must take side. Either for or against, not in between. Or so it seems to me. I know christianity has had some of the most profound expressions of the human spirit, if not the most profound; it is enough to listen to Bach, gregorian chant or to just to observe all its other great works of art. The problem with christianity is all the - sorry for harsh words - incredibly stupid people that also claim to follow it. I just cant stand all those american fundamentalists who constantly attack science and believe that fossils were placed om earth by satan, that dinosaurs existed only 3000 years ago and that the Earth is 6000 years old. I cant stand it. Nor can I stand Calvin, the crusades, the inquisition, the forced conversions etc. If you take your quote in one of the posts above by Buddha, it seems to me like that attitude expressed by Buddha has been quite absent in Christian history. Instead, had Buddha lived in Europe during the middle ages, he probably would have been called a heretic and then killed on the stake.

Now, I would love it if you could answer my earlier question; Does God foreknow my destiny? Did he foreknow it before he created the world? Or was he forced to create the world and first then afterwards received knowledge?

And a typical christian delivers to non-christians the following message: Jesus knocks on the door to my heart and says "Let me in", and I ask him: "Why?". To which he answers; "Because of what I will do to you if you don't let me in". I am not saying this is true, but that is the message one often hears. Because, Jesus claims he loves us all, and he commands us to love each other. Yet, if I don't love Jesus back, if I am not satisfied with being alive, if I prefer to not live and wish I was never born, then Jesus will let me me tormented forever, despite the fact that he created me without my consent, just because of the fact that I was born. It is absurd. So if I don't want to live forever, which I think I have the right to say to God, since I didn't even ask for being born, then I will instead be tormented forever and ever. Hmm... Have you christians understood the term "FOREVER"?

Love and forgiveness is a much greater source of joy. You see how easy it is to be sadistic in christianity. "Hell is a source of joy for the blessed, because it is just", is just something man has thought out and imagined himself that it is. But what is the really underlying source for saying such a thing?

No.

Justice is a cause of joy. But true justice isn't sadism. True justice is never without love. However much Aquinas wants to say otherwise, but his justice is cold. He is affected by the spirit of the roman empire with all its political judgements etc.

I would argue that Aquinas didn't use the spirit enough either. If you say Silouan knew God better, then let's listen to Silouan.

He didn't understand all of christianity, I agree. But no, he understood some things well. More than most christians dare to admit. I am not calling him just. But exposing falseness is just sometimes, and Nietzsche did that. Dostoevsky wouldn't agree with Aquinas either.

Your type of reasoning, if you follow the line of Aquinas and the like, is what Nietzsche correctly and rightly criticized.

It depends on how you view justice. "Mercy triumphs justice". So my answer is not a simple yes or no. Not at all. Justice can also be cold-hearted and mean. The pharisees were just in their sentences, because they followed the law, but they were heartless and cruel.

I respecfully disagree regarding Calvin misinterpreting Augustine. There is a very literal statement in City of God where Augustine says that God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation: double predestination. Calvin got him right for sure on that part. That Calvin was a monster otherwise is something else. He sure was. Interesting that you would, as an orthodox, agree with Aquinas over Kant. I would say Kant is more in line with orthodoxy from what I know of it. Kant is the greater thinker between the two at least. But it doesn't matter. That quote you gave me from Aquinas doesn't make thinks better. He is a heavenly utilitarian. He is not even close to Silouan in neither understanding nor holiness. He doesn't love his enemies, it is obvious from that quote. He speaks like a pathetic lawyer. Speaking about the joy the blessed will get from watching the damned because it makes them realize the great bless in their own deliverence... Is that christ-like? Allow me to laugh. If so, then christianity is behind buddhism by far. Luckily, christianity has real saints, like John of the Cross, Simone Weil, Silouan, Francis of Assisi, Seraphim of Sarov... I am sorry if I sound rude, really, but Aquinas... No. That doesn't impress me. I mean "by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy"... Where did he get that from? He is just a speculating clown. " And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly."... Hmm... No. Nietzsche was correct here. And you say not all will be saved: How do you know for sure? It seems to me that if you said that to Silouan he would say that we shall pray and pray until all are saved, or rather: There is no paradise until God says "Abel, where is thy brother Cain?".

BTW, can you tell me this: Does God foreknow my destiny or not? Did he foreknow it eternally before I was born or not?

Aquinas did help scholasticism to become a big part of the west yes. He also upheld the almost augustinian view of predestination and grace and election(Plus, he said one of the most disgusting things about the afterlife that I have heard), and he therefore not only was a front figure for scholasticism, but also for the thought of Calvin. BTW, I really think he was an overrated philosopher and thinker. Immanuel Kant proved him wrong also. Yes, Aquinas is one of the philosophers who has a hand in the fact that the west is so atheistic and rationalistic today. I am certain of it. And holding him as "The philosopher of the Church" as the catholics do, don't do them any favours. A quote from Aquinas, this apparently great philosopher, theologian and saint, will do: "In the kingdom of heaven, the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.” Summa theologicae, 3, Q94, article 1

Or here is another translation of the same quote: "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned."

Would an orthodox christian dare to say something like that? How about I quote Starets Silouan, who IMO was a real saint. The following is told by Archimandrite Sophrony on page 48 of his book, St. Silouan the Athonite:

I remember a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction,
‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
Obviously upset, Silouan said,
‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire – would you feel happy?’
‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
Silouan answered him in a sorrowful countenance:
‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’

Here is another quote by Starets Silouan:

“If the Lord saved you along with the entire multitude of your brethren, and one of the enemies of Christ and the Church remained in the outer darkness, would you not, along with all the others, set yourself to imploring the Lord to save this one unrepentant brother? If you would not beseech Him day and night, then your heart is of iron—but there is no need for iron in paradise.”

It seems to me like Aquinas and Silouan didn't really worship the same God. I prefer the God of Silouan.

Yes. Hamann is interesting from the little things I have read about him. Spinoza I have read Tractatus theologico-politicus. It was excellent. But his ethics was very hard for me to read without becoming bored by the style. So sure, Spinoza's ideas are profound, as well as his person. Aristotle I forgot. He is important. Aquinas might have his place, but I dont like him. He destroyed mysteries. He was one of those who destroyed the theology of the West IMO. Because western theology is more often than not despicable IMO. Pascal; sure. For the same reasons as Nietzsche (except their world views are very different. I believe Nietzsche went deeper. Therefore I prefer him).

I agree that philosophy doesnt teach us much in the end , except our own limits of understanding. Which is why the Only philosophies of real value are those who can teach you something about how to live and how to think. To me, the interest in Aquinas and the high esteem many hold for him is hard to understand. He is boring, he thought in reality nothing new, he was more into justice and vengeance than love and mercy etc. I simply cant see what he can teach a Christian. He is one of those who made christianity Into something it isnt it seems to me: A system, and a thought religion. The philosophers worth reading as I see it are Plato(because he far surpasses Aquinas in morals and virtues, and Most of all, he teaches you how to think, plus the prose in itself is of the highest quality), Augustine (But I dont like his theology. Confessions is enough), Schopenhauer (even though too pessimistic, he can teach you something), Kierkegaard (for obvious reasons it seems to me), Nietzsche (because he was the greatest poet and writer of all philosophers, as well as the funniest. He also was good at exposing religious nihilism and hypocrisy. And he pointed towards the truth about the meaninglessness and falseness of most philosophies. His weakness is that he didnt seem to understand or be interested in the greatness of true religion, as expressed by people like Francis of Assisi etc.), and Wittgenstein (Because he proved the meaninglessness of most philosophy). Other than these, I like the mystics. Eckehart, John of the Cross, Simone Weil etc.

Yes I forgot, sorry. But why couldnt he turn back afterwards? I mean, 20 years old! If you wonder where I got that example from, it was an expantion of what Schopenhauer said was the consequences of Augustine's dogma : Namely, that for example a 20-year old who sins as I mentioned after having met God, has no chance at redemption but is damned and just has to wait his whole life on eternal hell. If that is true, then Christ really didnt come to save the world as he said it seems to me, but rather to destroy it, as he said he didnt. Have you read Bunyan's Man in the Iron cage? And are you Christian? And last of all, what is your opinion, is this example of the 20-year old a damned man?

"Have you considered the possibility that once there is genuine repentance retrogression is no longer an option?"

Yes I have, why? Have I said any thing that made you think I hadn't thought about that? Or was it an answer to any of my questions?

The thing I often see in all religions, especially christianity, as it is the one I encounter the most, is that behind this faith, behind this wonderful belief that their life will continue forever, that God loves them and that life has a meaning and is created just for them, is an intense fear of death. An intense unwillingness to accept suffering as a part of life, to accept pain, to accept meaningless, to accept death. I don't see really what is so horrible about death. I wasn't born in 1800, and I wasn't and am not horrified or afraid about that fact. Why be afraid then of eternal sleep? It is something to look forward to really sometimes. Sleep is often better than being awake. No, sometimes christianity just seems to be wishful thinking, because it satisfies and comforts people in all their fears and sorrows... But for those who do not believe, christianity becomes a terror; because it threatens you not with eternal sleep, but with eternal suffering.

In general, of course. I was talking about this specific part of Dostoevsky's thought in his writings.

Interesting. Didn't know that. Perhaps that is why Dostoevsky had such a problem with the west. Though it is obvious that Dostoevsky experienced the problems and struggles with God that Ivan experienced... But you mean that was because of western rationalist influences? I would love to hear more about the orthodox way like that. It far surpasses everything from the western christianity already by the few words you just uttered. Why BTW do you like someone like Aquinas?

I loved the Jesus explained by Dostoevsky. It was the the book that got me interested in christianity. Reading theology and theologians destroyed it all though. I am not completely unfamiliar with Eastern orthodoxy. It is the Only form of christianity that has a value IMO (Some sides in catholicism are great too, like gregorian music). But I cant find myself trusting orthodox theology when I read scripture. I have tried but I cant. At least not yet.

I dont think I am as sure så you are about science. It rather describes how we see or can see the universe. Not necessairly how it is.

Why wouldnt you dare to try Wittgenstein? How about Nietzsche(who is not a nihilist)?

Yes. In often a seemingly unreasonable and tyranical way. He tormented David's Child for 6 days for example and then killed it. In what way was David's sin his child's fault?

Thank you for the tips!

But there are plenty of Places where God beats up, torments and kills People in the old testament. How would the orthodox tradition understand these things?

But regarding God beating and tormenting people : Many Christian traditions claim that this is in fact one of the things God does (calvinism for example once again)