A difference between a "nietzschean" and a "christian"

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

First of, I used the terms in ""s to indicate that I mean the underlying views that conform those superficial identities.

The difference I want to talk about is foreboding.

A “christian” believes that the supreme love-god created us and loves us, so they seek anywhere and everywhere, confident that they will find godly cleanliness everywhere.

A “nietzschean” has rejected the idea of such a god and has thus opened the door a a most intense uncertainty, such that he ventures more cautiously, with a feeling of foreboding because, who knows, anything is possible. We lack the faith in godly cleanliness.

That is on the conscious side. On the subconscious side, the “christian” has much more foreboding, as anything unclean must be proven to be in reality clean without the consciousness, where the faith resides, being any the wiser. The subconscious of the “nietzschean” has already braced itself for uncleanliness and prefers to let the consciousness know about any uncleanliness so that it can get to cleaning or getting the hell out of there. Or, who knows? maybe bathe in the dirt for awhile, like a pig or a hippopotamus.

2

I can’t speak for the ‘nietzschean’ because I don’t know the philosophy (or non-philosophy) well enough. I’ve read that Nietzsche’s father was a Lutheran pastor and that Nietzsche studied theology. But I think much of the “God is dead” quote stems from seeing how the people around him treated the ‘traditional God’s morality’–with hypocrisy and scorn. Beyond that, he felt man could live without God and, therefore, build his own morality, exempt from religion. If God was no longer needed, then God was dead.

A ‘Christian’, in general, needs only to believe in Christ as the Redeemer, the Savior who died for the sins of humanity. He takes over from the Creator-God, his ‘father,’ to ‘correct,’ in a sense, his father’s mistake in creating sinfulness by creating the choice between ‘goodness’ and ‘non-goodness.’ Does this make sense? In doing so, the Christian gains hope–not so much in an all-loving creative god, but in an all-forgiving god.

Niezsche seems to say that Man doesn’t need either. Man can, by himself, ‘transcend’ man’s belief in god and create his own morality–become the ‘ubermensch.’ What’s somewhat ironic and confusing to me is that Nietzsche seems to have denied the metaphysical ideas of god in order to create another metaphysical idea in the ‘ubermensch.’

3

Seems to me like the god is the one who should be looking for forgiveness. Maybe getting his son/self killed was a sacrifice to us? To ask for our forgiveness? Obviously not, of course, because it was “us” who killed him.Then he suffered by the cruelty of his own creation when he became a part of it, and his guilt was so great that he didn’t even strike the killers down, like he would have in the old days of judaism. It seems fair to me, and he really hasn’t done much to account for his mistake.

4

?

We’re not some part of a inherent Nietzsche vs Christian bifurication. Nietzscheans have to be inherently opposed to Christians on some point, but not vice versa. Just like Jews don’t have to be a part of the bifurication of Christianity. Whatever is going on over there on the other side of the tracks, keep it there, and don’t involve us in your delusions. I don’t worship a creator god, I worship the baby jesus of Taladega Nights. And I don’t expect the world to make sense. It’s a assumption God has a plan, but I don’t by into the arguments as to the nature of God- be he finite or infinite, omnipresent or omnipotent. Not real big concerns for me, as I note God didn’t really leave much evidence behind himself, and it’s just people saying so and so. I therefor don’t know much about creation, and therefor can’t say one way or another whether every object has a affirmative plan to everything else. It might not, he might be more chaotic or inventive, or just board of capable of a high degree of multitasking and finesse and we might just be small part of a large picture, and some phenomena I discern might not really have any relevency to the relationship between me and the big guy. I don’t know how causality would be stratified, or the order of creation… we love making assumptions. I don’t know.

However, what we do know is how we die. The bewilderment of death, rooted in fear is instinctive. It’s the root of all our fears, in a deep neurotic impulse felt though our nervous systems and emotions as the cascade to death descends.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pfi1UQ_PKQI

For every stage of growth we enter into, we carry a complex learned from surviving, from experiencing, this attainment with our consciousness that aligns with the withdrawl of life into death. Our fetishes, the pain and pleasure in them, be it sexual, appitite, or endeavor, is rooted in this. Our death forms a crucial basis in shaping our personality. It’s why opposites attract in love, and the diversification on the children staggered, the first usually being a introvert staggered between the personalities of the parents, the next the opposite of the first child, etc. We are breed to provide the variations in life, and we each suffer the pitfalls differently. One stops where the next picks up. It carries on in the community, and the best esprite de corps carry this rhythm of conscious diversication to it’s outmost in specialization and compatibility in attainment of a shared Elan.

When we withdrawl… we know how it will end. We know instinctive what we fear, and why we fear it. We can’t always carry lit logically forward in language or symbolic reasoning, but the archetypes are there. We know years in advanced, just as a spouse of a couple young knows how the other will live and shoulder life if death suddenly came to them. We can see it in others, and we see it in ourselves. Nietzsche stared at his death for decades, knowing how it was going to come. Are you more Nietzschean than him? Why should I have more uncertainly than Nietzsche, being a Christian? And why to you bother with backwards pop philosophy with no future in it. Get a real philosopher if your going to follow someone. Why Nietzsche, he doesn’t offer very much. Just makes a bunch of otherwise somewhat intelligent people feel alienated and self important, which ironically makes them even more herdlike.

5

I will give no quarter to christianity, if that is what you were asking for in the beginning of your post.

All that you say about death is, again, good philosophy (as respects to Nietzsche, you are still throwing rocks at a nuclear submarine).

The uncertainty that a god believer has more than a non-believer is the uncertainty of what it is the concept of that god covers. You have admitted that your god is not rational and, although that is not really a point against it, it does say something of your uncertainty, which is subconscious (consciously, you certainly have much less uncertainty than a non-believer).

You suggest to already know the purpose of humans on earth (“We are breed to provide the variations in life, and we each suffer the pitfalls differently. One stops where the next picks up. It carries on in the community, and the best esprite de corps carry this rhythm of conscious diversication to it’s outmost in specialization and compatibility in attainment of a shared Elan.”) and prove me correct in my point about forboding. A “nietzschean” has much more forboding in that territory, and we will only venture as far as to agree with Nietzsche that there is a Last Man coming (or here), and that we are leading up to an extra-man, more-than-man, super-man, however you want to translate it. All of this we do :tools-wrench:beyond good and evil, so no mention of purpose yet. Consciously, we know we don’t know. Subcounsciously, we are prepared not to know.

6

I do not know if he’s rational or irrational. Rationality is a human trait, and it’s not even our most intelligent or productive means towards problem solving. I honestly sit in a position of not knowing, and not presuming to preach my guesses.

Nietzsche’s overman and the aftermens end up dead in the end. Not too different from the millennialism of the christian apocalypse of men overcoming their antithesis, then living for a time more in a new era, then leaving completely after that. Nietzsche preached a millennialism, and your partaking in it as we type. Your just nit picking in terms of a syllogism in trying to differentiate yourself, but your syllogism will collapse all to easily if I just rock the boat back and forth a little doing a little comparison. Remember, not all horses are unicorns. Be very careful how you precede from here out or I’ll make you look quite the fool, more so than you already do in this endeavor.

How about making fun of Christians believing god has toes and genitals living above the clouds… that seems to work well for your lot, seems safe. Start there. When Jesus was circumcised, was god circumcised as well as the holy spirit, was the divine nature circumcised, or only mundane physical matter and the spiritual nature remained intake, with a divine forskin overlapping the place where the original forskin originally remained?

Come on, this is easy stuff… why crap out making up bullshit you can’t possibly win? I can go all night slamming the issue, and I believe in God! You can’t even pull off a competent attack without tipping your hat to bad logic and developmental paradoxes your struggling with from your youth blocking your mature growth.

7

Agreed on rationality. It’s like a hammer, extremely useful, but not the most sophisticated tool in the brain’s arsenal. Still, you can’t make shit without a hammer.

Btw, I think that it is you who is looking like a fool now, calling the US America and such. Don’t you know its a continent?

Finally, only a christian would talk about reaching for immortality… Well, a christian and an engineer :smiley:.

8

I dont know if immortality exists. Its a non issue for me really. If it exists, so be it, if not, then what of it. I stand indifferent, planning for the long term, covering my basis.

Agreed on rationality. It’s like a hammer, extremely useful, but not the most sophisticated tool in the brain’s arsenal. Still, you can’t make shit without a hammer.

Ummm… Yeah, how do they make porceline in your country?

9

We build a porcelain shop (using lots of hammers), then some porcelain processing equipment (again, lotsa hammers), and finally use some finer, more artistic tools (made with hammers) and put the whole thing together.

10

Sorry, I dont believe in construction, as my father was a construction worker, and I am in infantile rebellion against the way he lived and provided for me so that I may individualize myself and claim my own identity. I make up alot of excuses to do this, and try to subvert the original logic that brought me to this conclusion by reading and proclaiming sound the broken and irrational writings of dead men who can lend the appearance of learned intellectual support to all my synthetized assumptions. Its easier to damn construction than it is to accept my iwn faults and limitations, and come to terms with who I was and who my people were, and how we all strive forward. Hell, that crap is all subjective in the first place, and not as authorative as my excuses or my immature and rash rejection of construction.

Yet sometimes at night, I think about it, when its windy or raining or when I am bate’in in semi private, and I find myself in my weekness still believing in construction. It all grammar, there really is no such thing as construction. The very idea of penetrative nails sinking into wood is full of violent sexual connotations. So Chauvenistic… construction therefore cannot be true!

11

At least I don’t throw around wikipidia collages of neurological information and try to adapt it to an imaginary sistem of daddy figures.

12

Which reminds me CN, tell us about god.

13

Keep it civil and on-topic, please.