The most powerful, knowledgable, influential and free individuals should be targetted first by morality. They are most accountable, and most blame-worthy. Retards and ignorant persons, despite their mass destruction, are innocent because they cannot control themselves or do not know what they are doing, but the actually sentient ones, those are the ones to punish!
Anyone who has, in general, the most “free will”, that is who we should smuther firstly, with metaphysics. Turn them into a utilitarian, so that his or her blood is sacrificed to the massively wasteful and quickly forgetful hedonism of the flock.
I am curious as to what prompted this topic. Is there a certain group or sect being targeted? Faust’s statement about Christianity fitting that criteria is perplexing too. Painting with a broad brush like that is like saying all German people were Nazi’s. Granted atrocities were done in the name of religion, but it’s not indigenous to the Christian community. I am also not foolish to believe there is not subversive things done either in the name God even today. Maybe thoughtful responses are needed more rather than kneejerk soliloquys.
Reading the ‘whole’ Bible, OT and NT KJV does not a Christian make. I suppose that is what you are getting at. Reading a book about astro physics does not make an astronomer either. It is through practice and using the empirical data along with viewing space over a period of years that places one in that category. I am not a versed theologian with years of study, but I know I am forgiven through salvation.
What I have seen of Nietzsche’s writings hasn’t held my interest to read his entire collection. I agree with his assessment that the church’s are filled with a bunch of pew warmers, but God warns against those type of folks. Nietzsche’s views tend to lean to the negative aspects of religious affectations from what I have read. If you are suggesting it takes a full knowledge of his writings to understand or comment about the beginning topic, I disagree. In my opinion, if we shy away from acrimonious representations, our lives would be better fulfilled.
Litenin- Firstly, I was talking about Christian morality, and not Christians.
Secondly, I was responding to your comment that Dan`'s, or my, post was “knee-jerk”. Nietzsche gives a thorough treament of the gist of what Dan~ and I were saying. You seemed to want to know more - I was only trying to help.
Faust, I will respond to your first statement. Your opinion about Christian morality is important to me. I do not off-handedly dismiss your thoughts on this. Even though it may not appear to seem so, I understand that your knowledge base comes from different sources than mine. I respect that. It is my intent participating here to try to learn how others think.
In regard to your second citation about my kneejerk comment, you obviously (to me now) respond to Dan~'s posts a lot and your response was meant to him alone without the need for criticism from me. I apologize. If you would sir, please expand furhter regarding your first response to his post. I tend to be more tactilely verbose and for some reason expect others to act in kind. Your thoughts interest me more than what Nietzsche could convey. Thanks.
Tortoise, violence is not exclusive to some Christians. If something of that nature has occured, I would consider them not to be one. They were also persecuted and killed in Rome’s earlier times in the Coliseum. Some Muslim sects kill Christians now in African provinces and elsewhere. I am aware that it is noted that God sent Jewish tribes in the OT to kill people in some villages. I am not aware of Christians in the NT of the KJV doing so. If this were the case God would have promoted it. If you know of some passages in the NT that shows what you are talking about, I would be glad to view them. People aren’t perfect, but they can be forgiven.
Because the NT is only relevant to Christians for the reason that Christianity begins there. God’s Covenant with Jesus being Christian’s Intercessor for salvation. The OT in my opnion reflects more of a historical and allegorical nature for Christians. The OT has more relevance for the Jewish people.
Why? That’s a good question… why…
Why should punishment even happen at all? I mean, most anything ever punished, is merely a symptom of a preceeding failure/flaw.
Actually you know what? I take that back; I think it’d be more logical or at least more right if your first born son died for my sins instead. And if ya don’t have a first born son, then we need someone else’s, or maybe we need to break a goats neck or something. I mean, we gotta cause some kind of damage to undo the other damage. One loss to pay for another loss. Isn’t that how it’s supposedto go?
I definetly believe in the OT. Most of it is historical recordings the rest is allegorical concordances in where passages are used for symbolic references.
Mind if I ask how you know? I’d be pretty relieved if I had this bit of knowledge.
Also, more on topic, the Christian God himself has commanded genocide. Take the Cannonites and the people of Jericho, for example. In Deuterotomy, he also commands that everything that breathes be killed. Samson, having been granted strength by god, killed 3000 or more. There are also some good examples in Numbers. I’ll give you verses, if you want.
In the NT, Jesus subjected himself to violence in god’s name. Granted, this is different.
I might disagree that the old testement bears more relevance to Jewish people. Not only is it the same god, but the Church generally recognizes it. I also understand that god supposedly made a new convenant with the people though Jesus. I just feel the need to point out some examples of your god not on his best behavior.
I think the notion of sacrifice is an excellent deterrent from sin that God wants people to avoid. Think about it. In the OT, God required the most perfect and unblemished member of the flock to be killed. These little sheep were hard to come by, so obviously the owner of that little sheep wouldnt want to kill it. This sort of payment for sins would convince people that sinning has its consequences and the wages are costly.
Now that we see what potential benefits animal sacrifice had on society, it is easier to understand why God would give his Son as a sacrifice. Jesus would serve as the ultimate deterrence from sin. Christians dont want to sin because it was their sin that prompted the God of the Universe to endure the most painful execution as a man.
What I dont understand, however, is why God would find it preferable to suffer as a man instead of killing animals. Now that I think about that, it seems that God is very loving indeed, as he not only sought to deter people from sin, but also to keep animals from being sacrificed.
One thing I dont agree with though, is God’s timing. Why wait so long to send Jesus? Why not send a Jesus after sin #1?
Litenin - despite your politesse, sincere or otherwise, every response everyone makes here is subject to the criticism of others. Feel free.
I respond a lot to Dan~ because I read everything that he posts. As I have stated, he is, in my opinion, the best philosopher here. I also tend to agree with him a lot. I also realise that many here have some trouble understanding what he is writing. As we are often in the same general philosophical camp, and as I am used to reading metapahor, I do not have the same trouble reading him that many others do. So, no, my response wasn’t just for Dan~.
I am wondering what the prhase “tactilely verbose” might mean, by the way.
I don’t really have time right now to expand my point. It takes a bit of exposition to show how Christain morality has been a brake on powerful people. Perhaps you know of, oh crap, what’s his name - the German Holy Roman Emperor (the late Holy Roman Empire) who tried to face down the Pope, and lost.
Or how, in the Middle Ages in general, temporal leaders had to pay for indulgences when they did something wicked. How the Church was generally a brake and counterbalance to temporal powers.
I’ll try to come up with a pithy example. It took Nietzsche an entire book to make his point.
For those unto whom much is given, much is expected. That’s a NT idea; but, regardless of ones acceptance of, or disdain for, writings considered “gospel”, the statement can be seen as sociologically viable.