[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / asmr / ausneets / pawsru / sonyeon / vg / wx ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: cec9d9118190c43⋯.jpg (119.03 KB, 768x932, 192:233, Nietzcshe-56a715055f9b58b7….jpg)

dec88a  No.695234

Has anyone here read Nietzsche's major works and has a good grasp of his philosophy? I first read Nietzsche when I was 14-15 (atheist at the time) and I thought he was completely fascinating, although I couldn't understand the vast majority of what he was talking about. After getting more into philosophy throughout high school and understanding core philosophical concepts, I revisited Nietzsche and read almost his entire catalog. I really couldn't and still cannot logically disprove the vast majority of what he claims about human beings, values, desires, and reality. I have become Christian since then but my faith has been waning a lot the last year or so mostly due to Nietzsche's philosophy (but other factors as well.) How can you refute Nietzsche's claims? I've tried finding Christian refutations of his ideas but most of them seem to only have a very shallow understanding of his philosophy and philosophy in general. When I ponder his ideas about religious feelings and Christian morality it really makes me think that I'm only a Christian because I'm sensitive / kind-hearted and want to escape the burden of actual reality.

bcf8f7  No.695239

File: 4a5b8158a82d8c8⋯.png (158.34 KB, 1240x590, 124:59, 4a5b8158a82d8c8943567c552b….png)


dec88a  No.695244

>>695239

Some good points. But Nietzsche knew he was not great. He knew he was alone and without love, wealth, power etc, the things he claimed we all wanted and that great people got. He didn't even claim to be the superior man that he proposed. He just thought that people in his position- loners, unwealthy, unknown- all jumped to Christianity because it promised them what they don't have in this life in the next life. Something like "You might be a loser in this life, but you'll be reigning in the world to come. And those who have wealth, power etc in this life will be burning forever in the future." That's what he called the revolt of the slave morality. People who are not well-off, popular, charismatic, beautiful etc turn values on their head with Christianity because they are resentful and envious of others greater than them.


089f31  No.695252

>>695234

I'd say that although Nietzsche's work really activates the almonds (I'm a genuine fan of the view of the intellectual/priestly class as he lays it out in The Genoalogy of Morals among other things, really not trying to mess with you here), al his work on ethics is based on presuppositions that Nietzsche didn't (and couldn't) prove.

Secondly the Christian has alternative explanations for a number of qualms Nietzsche had with the religious. Nietzsche looked down on those who felt the need for more than this world, assumed them psychically weak; the Christian would say God made man this way so that man may look for him. Also it's kind of unfair to mention it because he didn't mean to do it anyway (Übermensch creates his own morals), but Nietzsche did not create a workable alternative to the "inverted" ethics of the church. It's not at all obvious that Christian ethics do not make a healthy and functional society (although again Nietzsche did not concern himself with common man as he saw man as but a stop on the journey in our development to something greater).

A book like Der Antichrist was a phenomenal blow to the Christianity Nietzsche knew, but one has to be aware what the Christianity was that he criticized - decadent German protestantism of the 19th century. I know, he had legitimate issues with theological concepts as well, but this stems from his own presupposition that strength is all that matters in this (material) world. I think the history of Christianity is usually mentioned as a retort to this: in times of heavy suppression, Christianity's influence has only grown. Christianity is indeed not of this world. Is should be pretty maladaptive even. The Christian concludes that the reason it is still around when it shouldn't be, is because God wills it.

In the end it just comes down to metaphysics, what view you want to take on the role of man in the universe. I always have a hard time believing that uncreated man would have a sense of justice, thought, hopes, dreams - that's just me.

Also, maybe give this a read. It's decent. Scheler examines Nietzsche's "ressentiment" and argues that it's a motivation only found in a perverted Christianity: http://www.mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contempor%C3%A1nea/Scheller/Ressentiment.pdf


b64515  No.695257

>>695244

But you seem to be missing its essential point. I would call almost everything described by Nietzsche under the header Christianity as simple calumny, a gross distortion of the facts marshaled for idealogical reasons. The reasons why someone may become a Christian and what Christianity is in fact are two completely unrelated issues. Moreover, Christianity simply does not put much weight in material riches, that's not its point, and the rich, wealthy, powerful are not actually in fact under any punishment simply for being so, because those things themselves are gifts from God. It's what people do with such gifts in turn that results in either merit or demerit. The hero in Christianity is the Saint, and there are as many different Saints as there are stars in the sky, meaning Christian heroism is very circumstantial.

What might be heroic for a broken pauper, for example, giving his wealth away, might be a vicious sin for the healthy King, who after all, has a Kingdom and many dependents to care after.


dec88a  No.695265

>>695252

Nietzsche did not think that "strength" in the traditional sense is all that matters. When he talked of power he did not primarily refer to physical prowess or political dominion. He referred to man's potential ability to manifest himself and his virtue and desires onto the blank canvas of existence. Affirming even the ugly and painful aspects of life and not wishing for them to be done with (that's what leads men to hope for Heaven & God, Nietzsche thought.) That's the kind of power he meant. Power to live individually without pity, moral concerns, or hope / fear of an invisible and unverifiable reality (God / Heaven.)

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.


7044a1  No.695298

>>695265

>Power to live individually without pity, moral concerns, or hope / fear of an invisible and unverifiable reality (God / Heaven.)

That's still a materialist desire, albeit a more abstract one, and it ends in the same place.


965f30  No.695313

G.k Chesterton is your guy, in everlasting man , orthodoxy and heretics he challenges the pyscho analysists like nietzche very well, he started his writing career shortly after Nietzsche died and was addressing a climate that was under his effect


b64515  No.695326

>>695257

There are some other things worth fleshing out. For Nietzsche the great man strives for his own glory through the exercise of his own will, while for the Christian the great man strives for the glory of God through the exercise of his will in conformity with God's own.

The Christian artist should and must concern himself with greatness and beauty for the sake of his own art. The Christian father should and must seek to be powerful for the sake of his own family's protection. The Christian CEO should and must seek to be successful for the sake of his own company, employees, and dependents.

But for a Christian farmer, beauty and greatness of expression is pure vanity. To a Christian nun, the pursuit of power would likewise be pure vanity. And also for any Christian accountant, what would a longing for more wealth bring to such a person that wouldn't result in some sense as a disfigurement of a life already in peace?


1cdb4b  No.695343

Yes I did. Nietzsche was more a consequence than a cause for me. I had already departed from God.


6125f9  No.695354

Beyond Good and Evil explains how good and evil are class terms; and historically the good, were "the estlos" those who know true reality. Essentially looking at the origins of language, the original meaning of words and how they've been misused


3c2e3b  No.695373

>>695234

Well, for Nietzsche i'd not known who he was until i started getting into philosophy, apologetic, and eventually the resurrection case only jeese i think about 6 months ago. There's one i know of that refutes his claims, on youtube a guy called Jay dyer. but from this thread, it seems G.K Chesterson also did some refutations on Nietzsche's points so i know im gona check those out. But, i actually like Nietzsche, and Hume in that being philosophers they logically followed what they believed to their ends. One of the points i think it's in his book called Genealogy of Morals. In that he lays out a pretty good case against the Evangelist Atheist, saying look guys we're supposed to be the flag bearers of moral relativism. Then it should logically follow that we should stop acting like evangelist out there evangelizing for the Truth , Capital T, Truth. Because those things just don't logically follow under our worldview he'd say. So, i think he's more consistent then modern Fedora tipper you'll meet on the internet.


ba2f8d  No.696028

To answer Nietzsche's distorted "Christianity is anti-greatness" argument, read about the life of Eric Liddell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Liddell

God and Eric utilized Eric's fame and greatness (which God himself gave to him) to spread the Gospel. Particularly to the athletic types who just liked to get drunk and brawl and wouldn't listen to anyone else. God is not anti-greatness, as >>695239 's pic so eloquently put it, he is anti-greatness void of goodness and humility. Greatness for it's own sake, rather than greatness in glory to God.


6be0fa  No.696197

>>695313

This is my favorite quote about Nietzsche from him.

>"Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule."

>"This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce."


669450  No.699050

File: 509dece2f2118e2⋯.png (198.15 KB, 724x399, 724:399, Frozi.png)

How the winnie the pooh do people find comfort in Nietzsche's works? I mean I can understand the pain and see him in a tragic light, but how do people look at him and say "the works of Nietzsche brings me peace and comfort"? It really confuses me honestly, and that's not to mention people don't even get his philosophy correct.


ee5ab0  No.699051

File: c90dcafea790625⋯.png (38.04 KB, 250x250, 1:1, 1429281264239.png)

>>695257

>Moreover, Christianity simply does not put much weight in material riches, that's not its point, and the rich, wealthy, powerful are not actually in fact under any punishment simply for being so, because those things themselves are gifts from God. It's what people do with such gifts in turn that results in either merit or demerit

Why is this not spoken of more often?

I know that in the real world, there are many people who are continually worried about wealth, and that many people would misunderstand the message if it was spoken, but is keeping this truth under wraps really the best idea to combat it?


dec88a  No.699062

>>699050

The problem is you're assuming everyone wants peace and comfort above all else. You assume no one would hold to a philosophy or worldview unless it made them comfortable and peaceful, but you're wrong. Nietzsche wrote extensively on suffering, comfort, peace, human desires, and their relation to modern religious belief.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / asmr / ausneets / pawsru / sonyeon / vg / wx ]