I think there are numerous people who are adherents of various traditions here, what would you say is typical of that tradition?
Compassion and forgiveness could be said to be typical of Christianity for example.
Meditation and joviality could be said to be typical of Buddhism …
On the other hand, you might distinguish between what you would like to be regarded typical of a particular Religion and what you find people actually think is typical of them.
Perhaps we will find that most people think the same - or perhaps they don’t.
The everyday Christian. – If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one’s own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.
from Nietzsche’s Human, all too Human, s.116, R.J. Hollingdale transl.
Where in the bible does it say that becoming a priest, apostle or hermit is of any value? I agree that if Christian dogma is true then something is demanded of the average Christian. But it’s certainly not to become a priest, apostle or hermit.
I agree with this statement.
This comment simply displays an awareness that progress in the Christian life is difficult and that many Christians fall short. It’s easy to judge from the outside, but thankfully Niezsche will not be judging humanity at the end of time, someone with a little more wisdom and grace will be filling that job.
I think what Nietzsche means is to say that because the importance of “proper living”, according to what is commanded in the Bible, is such a fragile issue, that even the slightest mistake, the slightest sin, should be avoided at all costs by the dedicated Christian. But it isn’t. I think Nietzsche here is thinking something parallel to Kierkegaard, in that public Christianity is impossible. Let me give you an example. A congregation is gathering at a church on Sunday. During the sermon…the Christian Dave glances quickly at the Christian Jennifer’s legs, and then looks away before he can be seen. In that moment he has sinned…but in the very next moment he has forgotten and has his attention on something else. The point here is that in the public sphere it is next to impossible to mediate and reflect on one’s own dedication to being a Christian- even the slightest distraction can yield a sin- but it also vanishes the sin just as fast. Therefore, what the typical Christian believes is being-a-dedicated-Christian is actually a very shallow parody of it. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard both would then claim that to be a real Christian is to make extremely radical changes in one’s life and eliminate the public sphere where all the little sins come and go without notice.
In the passage I quoted, I see Nietzsche’s reasoning as being more Christian then any Christian I have ever seen. How is that for irony?
Also I would like to throw out there the notion that Christianity is fundamentally communistic. So I believe Christianity in the capitalist/consumerist discourse is impossible. This means that anyone who is not a dedicated communist, as far as ethics and morals are concerned, is a bad joke rather than a Christian.
I have said elsewhere that Christians play a kind of game with God. They will sin, but know and think in advance that they can repent. This is dishonest. Also, the Christian will sin several times over, repent, and then admit to himself and God that he is “not perfect and subject to temptation, etc., etc.” Here, the Christian doubles his lie twice over- he realizes and provides his own antidote, in this admittance…and then turns around and sins again.
I think that the strength of people like Nietzsche and Marx was their analysis of the situation, not the solutions. That is why what they have to say on such matters is interesting.
This is understandable – if the Christian God is a revengeful God. If however, he is a God of love – then the everyday Christian can build on that. On the other hand, the tendency to rate one’s temporal comfort above salvation is common, but I see the consequences differently and perhaps the idea of salvation too. Effectively, everything comes down to the questions, “should I do something?â€, “can I do something?â€, “do I want to do something?†The ability, the will and the responsibility always work together. If an obligation is given, say to be benevolent, then the question is whether I can and whether I am willing. If I am willing but not able, then I have no obligation. If I am able but not willing, then I am guilty of not fulfilling an obligation.
There is no obligation in Christianity to become a priest, apostle or hermit. However, there is an ideal that sees a Christian living a “priest-like†life insomuch that he is in a collective responsibility towards the whole of the church. Petitionary prayer is one expression of this responsibility, as is caring for the soul of other people, giving alms in connection with fasting, caring for people who have fallen by the wayside – in short, living a loving, aware life. This is what suffers mostly for the sake of temporal comfort.
I think we also have to see in what era Nietzsche was writing and the way he was seen and how he combated his own problems. He too could be said, in the struggle against the transgressors and doubters, to have been lying in wait for them, [becoming] increasingly harsh and evilly disposed towards them. There are several theories on what Paul’s ailment was, but Nietzsche had his own, and it is questionable whether he could have fulfilled his own ideals.
I think we have to hear these words in the light of corporal punishment and the extremely strict society in which Nietzsche was writing. The moral hypocrisy of the day has been brought into the light by several writers of that era – which doesn’t mean that we have less of a problem with it. Strict morality is always in danger of projecting its own weaknesses onto others, in fact, I think it is more of a rule than exception. In this way, the analysis of Nietzsche was probably quite correct.
I think that public Christianity under the moral burden of that day (or the same burden today) is impossible without hypocrisy – in fact, I think that it breeds hypocrisy. This seems to me to be what Paul discovered as being salvation in the Cross of Christ. It was a release from the pharisaic attitude of preventing “even the slightest mistake, the slightest sin†and put the emphasis elsewhere – namely on love.
First, that interpretation isn’t anywhere close to what he actually said with regard to apostles, priests etc… He assumed that ALL Christians should be aiming for some kind of status. If that was his view then he didn’t understand the bible very well.
Second, the argument about avoiding the slightest sin seems like a decent one but in order to draw a conclusion like “but it isn’t”, it would seem that Nietzsche would require knowledge about the inner motivation of Christians around him. And I doubt he has such knowledge.
Where in the bible does it say that looking at Christian Jennifer’s legs is a sin? And why do you assume that forgetting about a particular sin would compound that same sin? I think you’re making a lot of assumptions here about motivations and morality. Where are they coming from? I don’t see either of these issues discussed in the bible.
I have the feeling that the doctrine of sinless perfection must be assumed before these difficulties would become important. Do you think that the highest goal of a Christian is to attain a sinless life? And if so, why?
Then, I’d disagree with both of them. The radical changes that a Christian has to make usually have very little to do with their external environment. But I would agree that some radical changes are expected.
I guess I don’t see Nietzsche’s reasoning as being Christian in any way, so I don’t see any irony. His point is something like…
Christianity seems very hard.
Most Christians around me aren’t working hard.
Therefore, most Christians around me aren’t real Christians.
And maybe it’s impossible to be a real Christian.
Personally, I think that’s just a load of crap.
[/quote]
That’s actually quite funny. The new testament makes no reference to any political ideology at all. In fact, Christians take serious flak because the bible instructs slaves to respect their masters, and tells wives to submit to their husbands. Hardly communist ideals.
Just some typical prejudices - I don’t think these are actually true true. :-"
Christians: generous but too insistent
Buddhists: peaceful but too aloof
Muslims: traditional but too fearful
Jews: intelligent but too haughty
Hindus: accommodating but too effete
No man. Nietzsche and Marx were both atheists. To them, what you think is a problem is a non-problem. If God does not exist, there are no problems about what, how or why to be religious. The struggles of the religious person is hot-air. Nietzsche does not have to believe in God to say “hey Christian, even if God does exist, you still can’t get it right.” That was his point.
Yes, it is always prejudice when we say “typical” isn’t it. I just thought that it would be interesting to see what prejudices are around. Having said that, what you have written is quite harmless, even if Buddhists might differ about being aloof, or Jews about being too haughty.
How did you mean about the insistence of Christians? I don’t think it is attached to generosity, or am I wrong …?
With regard to “fearful” Muslims, I spoke to some people about Fundamentalism some time ago and wanted to point out that it is the result of insecurity, but many people couldn’t understand that aggression is a sign of insecurity. I was quite surprised really, because it seemed so straightforward to me.
Yes, I thought this thread and my post was mostly harmless fun. I think generosity and insistence are often related. My sister in law is one of the most generous people I know but if you don’t really have much need for her generosity she doesn’t seem to know what to do with herself. She can even get mildly aggressive about it. Likewise with spreading the gospel - there’s so much at stake from a Christian point of view. If I thought I was going to heaven and my loved one was going to hell I’d probably be a bit insistent with my generous message about Christ.
It seems very straightforward to me also that fear and fundamentalism are closely related.
I think I made it clear that I know that Nietzsche and Marx were atheists, I have also read them in German, but for a “non-problem†they spent considerable time brooding over it.
I also wrote to several other questions from my perspective as a non-conformist Christian.
There are people who want to make men’s lives more difficult for no other reason than the chance it provides them afterwards to offer their prescription for alleviating life; their Christianity, for instance.