| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Henry Thomas
Apprentice
22 Posts |
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 24 2013 : 8:16:05 PM
|
Any stigma can make a good dogma.
I think you do yourself no favors by using Nietzsche's book as a primer for Christianity and then trying to relate that to the real world. People can call themselves whatever they like, and if what they do is consistent with what they believe, then you could consider them devout. But this is not the case with your priest. He has not followed Christ's command to love his neighbor; he has stolen from his neighbor!
As for Jesus Christ, who you assume was merely a man, what on earth compelled his ego to be silent when he was judged to be guilty?! Why would he and many of his followers suffer for a claim they knew to be false?
But if you assume for just a moment that Jesus Christ was really God -- that God came down to earth and was born a man -- and if you could conceive in your mind that he did heal the blind and raise the dead, what is God doing on a cross?
This seems to me the very opposite of an out-of-control ego: a humble one. He is not distant -- even he was tempted.
quote:
Matthew 4:1-11
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
"'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
 |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2013 : 2:29:19 PM
|
More than humility, the passage from Matthew shows Christ's obedience. However, the question rests on a quote dealing with the founder of Christianity. I do not think we should make the assumption that whoever "founded" Christianity, (whatever it takes to be founder), considered himself or herself -- or themselves if there were more than one -- to be without sin.
We ought not to focus on this statement as having to do with Christ's being in error so much as with the nature of Christianity. I do not think we need to worry about defending Jesus.
What you say, Henry, about those who feel they are without sin is, while interesting and worthy of discussion in its own right, not quite relevant to Nietzsche's point. (By the way, this is paragraph 138, page 189, not page 138.) The whole paragraph is simply stating that Jesus committed his whole life to alleviating the suffering of people, by trying to help them eliminate their sins. It seems Nietzsche is saying these sins really are not so full of suffering. Yet Christians spread the doctrine that the sins they speak of are the greatest cause of suffering.
I would say that Nietzsche calls this error because even if it is true that many people suffer from greed, lust, pride, unfaithfulness, and such, it is not true for all. There are many who would at least claim that quite on the contrary, such things bring them great pleasure. This is the ethical consideration in question: Is suffering, as Christians define it, truly the cause of man's sins, as Christians define them? If one answers that this is truly the case, then perhaps we should all be following the Christian doctrine!
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
Posted - Feb 26 2013 : 9:22:47 PM
|
We are broken things in a broken world. We are not surprised there is suffering. We are surprised God offers us a way out. We are surprised He would intercede for us.
When the smoke clears the war-zone, the body feels no more, the food runs out, the earth heaves, the friend betrays, the desire is never satisfied, life seems meaningless, and millions of people are slaughtered -- should we stoop so low to say that sins are not so full of suffering? Or will our pride reach greater heights?
The shameful truth of the matter is that we are just men. |
|
|
|
Henry Thomas
Apprentice
22 Posts |
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - Mar 04 2013 : 10:52:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Edelmon
The nature of suffering is not Good. That is its definition.
What is sin? It is a violation of Good, it is not Good.
Where there is sin (of all shapes and sizes), there is suffering (of all shapes and sizes). And there is sin everywhere in the world -- even in churches.
John, surely you don't mean to argue that since no A is a B and no C is a B, whenever there's a C there's an A (i.e., that since no instance of suffering is a good thing and no sin is a good thing, wherever there's a sin, there's an instance of suffering), do you? If you do, that's a non sequitur. From the facts that (1) no alligator is a banana and (2) no cat is a banana, it certainly doesn't follow that wherever there's a cat there's an alligator. |
|
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 10:53:31 AM
|
You call sin everything that is not good, but then we must determine what is good! For I personally think hurricanes are good because they kill lots of people, and I generally think that having a large number of people die for no good reason is beneficial to the environment. Of course I still typically avoid them, but my point is that hurricanes are not essentially "not good."
But let's take your more compelling example of disease. You consider disease to be an imperfection, something that shows that this world is broken, sullied. Compared to what, a world without disease? I think it could very well be the case that had there been no disease up to this point, our gene pool might well have become a cesspool! Humanity might never have evolved. Is this better or worse as an imaginable fate?
The point is that what we call good, what we call evil -- these are merely distinctions we make. But can we all agree on them? If we cannot agree on what is good, then your point that absence of good is sin is not at all compelling.
There are certain sins, for instance, being prideful or blaspheming, that I, in many degrees, encourage! And these sins do not cause suffering -- not in any necessary way at least.
Can you show that the connection between sin and suffering is necessary, in a way that non-Christians would understand? Perhaps show how my blasphemy leads to suffering, or is essentially connected with suffering somehow? If you can convince me, you'll not only have refuted Nietzsche, you'll have earned a convert! But don't be intimidated! It is tough to defend an argument the conclusion of which implicates the whole of everyone.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2013 : 11:10:26 AM
|
Is the belief that there is no moral law a belief that there is justification for "evils"? Or is it a belief that no act may be justified as good or evil? I say it is the latter. Indeed, I think all things are permissible and meaningless. What do I say to the thief who has bound me? I tell him, "You jerk! It is horribly disrespectful of you to bind me, and I worked really hard for the stuff you are taking!" To me, this complaint is not equivalent to the judgment: "Thief, you are evil!" Nobody likes to get robbed; it's as plain as that! And if someone wishes to rob others, he or she obviously doesn't care whether it's good or evil.
If you are telling me that if it weren't for your religious belief, you would be a murderer, I am quite frankly a little scared of you. It is one thing to say that moral guidelines help people to understand what ought to be permissible, but do you really think that if there were no divine mandate, you would go on a rampage? Does the thought of bathing in blood so lure you that you would not consider thoughtfully the consequences?
To see the world free of dichotomies involves no striving. It seems to me much more peaceful to refrain from spending one's time fault-finding.
But we are now getting into an ethical debate. The Buddha mandates that we must be beyond good and evil, we must not find fault in others, if we wish to be awakened. Here is an example of a doctrine that seems to admit of a taste almost the opposite of Christian values in many ways. Would you call the bhikkus and bhiksunnis vain strivers?
I only press the matter to see if you would admit at least the possibility that even if one cannot have a concept of sin if one subscribes to no moral system at all, at least some moral system (assuming we might apply such a term to the Buddhist literature) could possibly have a more appropriate definition of sin?
Or will you insist that the Christian definition of sin is the only viable one?
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
John Edelmon
Fledgling
16 Posts |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
|
|
Henry Thomas
Apprentice
22 Posts |
|
|
David Berger
Apprentice
35 Posts |
|
|
Ryan Crawford
Fledgling
5 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Christ's Error
