ADVERTISEMENT

Another mass shooting

Your understanding of Christianity is flawed. Christianity says EVERYONE is sinful, as does Judaisim and Islam (I believe). I don't need an ascetic priest to guide me through life or to obtain a good life. Sin is only an illness if you don't do anything to address it. It's analogous to having cancer and either refusing to acknowledge you have it or refusing to have it treated if you do know you have it. Eventually, it will kill you if not addressed.

Your argument sounds similar to Lenin when he said "Religion is the opiate of the masses". His secular, communist viewpoint tried to eradicate belief in anything except for the "state". He tried to make himself into a god of sorts. Millions of people died who didn't conform. That kind of belief is a form of religion whether you care to admit it or not, but I contend it is more perverse than anything you claim is immoral in the Abrahamic traditions.

Some people consider it weakminded to state that believers (for instance in Christianity) "give away their power". Outside of not considering myself God, my beliefs to don't force me to give away power to anyone, except for institutions established under the laws of the land. Yet in this country we have a Bill of Rights that protects my right to believe what I want and your right to believe what you want.

Even Obama understood that Christians in this country "cling to their guns and their religion". Most gun owners I know are believers and I'm sure there are millions who aren't. Millions of people in this country who consider themselves "patriots" are also Christian and they'll be the first to fight to defend their 2nd Amendment rights and to limit the tyranny of government overreach.
It's not flawed. I know what christians believe. There is no original sin. That's the illness, being tricked into believing there is. I'm paraphrasing Nietzche's 100 page essay on the subject. Read that and get back to me if you'd like to discuss it. I'm not reprinting the whole thing in a forum post. It's not a morality issue or a state issue.
 
And, your point is? We winked and nodded at everything Saudi Arabia did from FDR to Eisenhower to Clinton to Bush to Obama. So what? How many domestic mad shootings did we have by Persons of Muslim Faith prior to Fort Hood.
My point is we allied ourselves with almost any leader who wasn't a commie from about 1945 until the end of the Cold War,and sometimes it came back to bite us.
 
yes. The Antichrist - Nietzsche has explained it far better than most. He spent his life on the subject.
Almost all religions aside from a very few, require their followers to admit they are ill or incomplete (original sin in christianity) in some way and that the only cure is fall under the guidance of the ascetic priest who can guide them to the good life. It is an illness of a bored mind that "modern" society left bereft of the minute to minute decision making for survival. So we have all these diseased people convinced they need a cure, convinced that somewhere there is a greater power looking out after the weak, when nature shows us quite the opposite example. The final portion of this is the promise of eternal bliss for their loyal membership and the ascetic priest helps them to stay on the straight and narrow, striking a careful balance of admonishing and praising his flock to keep them in the fold.

It is strictly delusion. An attack on the weakminded to get them to give away their power now for the promise of eternal life later.

Also I don't know if Nietzsche dealt here but when explaining the psychology of religion and why man invented it, here are a few other aspects:

Death and remembrance: e.g. my wife of 50 years just died. surely "she" is still around, her "soul", surely she's in a "better place". And I know that I will die someday, surely things won't just go dark and "I" will no longer exist. Therefore an afterlife was invented.

Justice: e.g. Hitler got off way too easy in this world, so people want to feel comfort that "he'll get his justice, and although he didn't get it on earth, he'll get it from God". Conversely, someone dies in a noble act like saving someone else's life--he or she will surely be rewarded for that (in heaven).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopSecretBoiler
Also I don't know if Nietzsche dealt here but when explaining the psychology of religion and why man invented it, here are a few other aspects:

Death and remembrance: e.g. my wife of 50 years just died. surely "she" is still around, her "soul", surely she's in a "better place". And I know that I will die someday, surely things won't just go dark and "I" will no longer exist. Therefore an afterlife was invented.

Justice: e.g. Hitler got off way too easy in this world, so people want to feel comfort that "he'll get his justice, and although he didn't get it on earth, he'll get it from God". Conversely, someone dies in a noble act like saving someone else's life--he or she will surely be rewarded for that (in heaven).
Yes, he does go into some detail about it. The philosophical evolution of man, man in society, the importance of elders which turned into myths, the "gods" (greek/roman) and then the evolution of judaism and christianity. It's a great read. The Genealogy of Morality (Nietzsche) could be considered its sister book, though it deals less with christianity and more with history of right/wrong good/bad and nobility. Antichrist is pretty much aimed at the christian church. I would consider both required reading for anyone interested in philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Yes, he does go into some detail about it. The philosophical evolution of man, man in society, the importance of elders which turned into myths, the "gods" (greek/roman) and then the evolution of judaism and christianity. It's a great read. The Genealogy of Morality (Nietzsche) could be considered its sister book, though it deals less with christianity and more with history of right/wrong good/bad and nobility. Antichrist is pretty much aimed at the christian church. I would consider both required reading for anyone interested in philosophy.

Thx, been meaning to read some Nietzsche after an interesting documentary I watched a while back. Found the PDFs for both you referenced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopSecretBoiler
Well why not? Why wouldn't some good Christian somewhere be inspired to publish an updated version of the Bible that simply removes the dozens and dozens of indefensibly immoral parts of it? And if someone were to publish a more moral edition, why then wouldn't every church and synagogue in the world start using this version and repudiate the original version? That would inarguably be the morally correct choice, I trust you agree.

Bottom line, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was explicitly sanctioned by the "holiest" book of the Islamic, Christian, and Jewish religions. If those holy books can't be updated to remove these types of passages, then there's not much left to do other than reject these books in the same way that one should reject any text that sanctions hate crimes, child sacrifice, genocide, mass murder, and human slavery.
What other books would you like bowdlerized to reflect our "enlightened" times? Huckleberry Finn? (racist)The Merchant of Venice? (anti-Semitic) The Hunchback of Notre Dame? (ableist). Pray tell.
 
who said it wasn't terrorism? You know what else fits the definition? Gay-hating weirdos. New evidence out suggests he might have been gay himself as he apparently spent three years at this bar and was also on a gay dating app...so could be some twisted gay internal conflict going on. Everything I've seen suggests this is a lone wolf guy who had a ton of issues. His dad is apparently a nutjob too. ISIS glommed onto to this because why wouldn't they? There is no evidence he was coordinating with them. His first link to them was a 9/11 call. His ex wife said he wasn't even religious. Sounds to me like a guy a crazy guy who would have gone off regardless...which is usually what most of these mass killers are.

All of what you post has merit. That said, his current wife said he had been radicalized in last year, he 'attended' an online school for Islam that was known to have extreme ideas, and of course, another person who has travelled to the ME that authorities are trying to figure out what he did in SA.
 
It's also standard run of the mill Catholicism and various other versions of Christianity, but most Christians don't persecute/punish/murder LGBT either, though there are historical examples of it (though not as extreme as this). This is not Islam, IMO.

Adnan Virk on ESPN radio was a fascinating listen today, talking about exactly this point regarding Islam and what his mosque has to do every time something like this happens. He very much echoed my sentiment (as you might expect) that this guy was a Muslim looking for an excuse to act on his rage about homosexuality. He said the vast majority of Muslims are put off by homosexuality, but on the same level that many conservatives in America are.

Something else he talked about which was interesting was the contrast between today and last Monday. Last week, we were celebrating a devout Muslim who called Jews to wish them Merry Christmas and would say, laughing, "Hey man, we're all trying to get to the same place!"

That's what we need more of.

As far as this not being Islam, not sure I agree/disagree with that. Being a homosexual is punishable by death in I think 10 Muslim countries. It is illegal in another 6-8. Afghanistan, where his parents roots are, it is punishable by death. That seems to indicate that this has deep roots in Islamic countries/beliefs. Some countries allow it in private and I read recently where Turkey and a few others may allow same sex marriage.

Personally, I think this is something Islamic countries are really struggling with right now. Mainly because it is either illegal or punishable by death in many places, but at the same time there is a high rate of homosexuality in the culture. It is common among soldiers, and read up on Bacha baz if one wants to know how it impacts children/teenagers. The saying they have in Afghanistan is boys/men are for fun and women for procreating. A lot of the issue imo revolves around the fact that women are unapproachable in many of these countries. So in the end, other outlets are used for sexual relations..
 
As far as this not being Islam, not sure I agree/disagree with that. Being a homosexual is punishable by death in I think 10 Muslim countries. It is illegal in another 6-8. Afghanistan, where his parents roots are, it is punishable by death. That seems to indicate that this has deep roots in Islamic countries/beliefs. Some countries allow it in private and I read recently where Turkey and a few others may allow same sex marriage.

Personally, I think this is something Islamic countries are really struggling with right now. Mainly because it is either illegal or punishable by death in many places, but at the same time there is a high rate of homosexuality in the culture. It is common among soldiers, and read up on Bacha baz if one wants to know how it impacts children/teenagers. The saying they have in Afghanistan is boys/men are for fun and women for procreating. A lot of the issue imo revolves around the fact that women are unapproachable in many of these countries. So in the end, other outlets are used for sexual relations..

There's no question that it is a religion and culture that is very much stuck in its past and is not dealing well (understatement of the century) with progress of time and humanity as a whole. A large part of that, in my opinion, is a lack of education. The majority of women are uneducated, and a large minority of men are not well educated. Thus, many are incapable of creating lives for themselves in this life, and seem to cling to the life they're promised by Islam in the next. Thus, Sharia appeals to them because as disaffected as they may be right now, the Koran promises that if they live for Allah, they'll be good to go in the future.

But Islam is not the first religion/culture to go through this, either. I agree with others that educated, moderate leaders in Islam do not do enough to gain recognition against their extremist "peers". Part of the reason for that, at least in the ME, is that there are groups out there who will view those moderates as apostates and punish them by death for their moderate views. In the views of the Taliban and ISIS and others, apostasy is a greater crime than being an infidel. Apostates are killed. Infidels are taxed. So a moderate in Iraq facing down ISIS is putting his life on the line denouncing these actions. It's nuts. And it's easy for us in the US to question why they don't do it... because we're in nowhere near the same situation and can't relate. That said, I still think more of them should be more vocal and lead the people/culture out of the dark ages, and I hope someday someone will.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

I think the problem is the belief in some moderate majority of Muslims. There's no such thing. Muslim support for sharia law is pretty high in Muslim-led countries. The fact that most Muslims don't engage in terrorism doesn't mean they don't have the same underlying belief system. It just means a smaller percentage of Muslims are willing to wage jihad against the West.

But, I don't want anyone to think I'm suggesting that the real problem isn't Christianity. Clearly, it is. (tic)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

I think the problem is the belief in some moderate majority of Muslims. There's no such thing. Muslim support for sharia law is pretty high in Muslim-led countries. The fact that most Muslims don't engage in terrorism doesn't mean they don't have the same underlying belief system. It just means a smaller percentage of Muslims are willing to wage jihad against the West.

But, I don't want anyone to think I'm suggesting that the real problem isn't Christianity. Clearly, it is. (tic)

This is dead on. The biggest shill here is the "defense" of minorities (religious, lifestyle, etc...) that the Dems try and hang their hats on. They try to write themselves as "the crusaders for the LGBT community" when with the other hand they stoke the fire of Islam, the most intolerant community towards homosexuals you can find out there.

When will people realize that this liberal crusade for the minority is just a shill to get votes? Dems don't care about you....they care about your vote. They don't care that one of their beliefs directly contradicts the other one. They just want you to believe the lie that Republicans are all angry, fat, wealthy and bigoted white men and that the Dems are the party of the people. Truth is, the dems are the party more self absorbed with keeping themselves in power.
 
What other books would you like bowdlerized to reflect our "enlightened" times? Huckleberry Finn? (racist)The Merchant of Venice? (anti-Semitic) The Hunchback of Notre Dame? (ableist). Pray tell.

If Huck Finn was the basis of an entire religion then it would be a helpful comparison...

I actually don't much care if someone removes all of the immoral sections out of the Bible or not. But if I was a Christian I would--it wouldn't sit right with me that my "holy" book has so many "unholy" parts.

Let me ask you this--if someone DID create a new version of the Bible that was the exact same other than eliminating all of the "obviously" immoral passages--and for the sake of argument YOU get to decide which passages are immoral--would you discard your old Bible and embrace the new version?
 
It's not flawed. I know what christians believe. There is no original sin. That's the illness, being tricked into believing there is. I'm paraphrasing Nietzche's 100 page essay on the subject. Read that and get back to me if you'd like to discuss it. I'm not reprinting the whole thing in a forum post. It's not a morality issue or a state issue.
Philosophical minds much more accomplished than you or I have made commentary on Nietzche's writings ad nauseum:

"The morality of Nietzsche is a mere innovation. The first is an advance because no one who did not admit the validity of the old maxim could see reason for accepting the new one, and anyone who accepted the old would at once recognize the new as an extension of the same principle. If he rejected it, he would have to reject it as a superfluity, something that went too far, not as something simply heterogeneous from his own ideas of value. But the Nietzschean ethic can be accepted only if we are ready to scrap traditional morals as a mere error and then to put ourselves in a position where we can find no ground for any value judgments at all." (C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man (1943) Chapter 2. The Way)

"Nietzsche was personally more philosophical than his philosophy. His talk about power, harshness, and superb immorality was the hobby of a harmless young scholar and constitutional invalid. He did not crave in the least either wealth or empire. What he loved was solitude, nature, music, books. But his imagination, like his judgment, was captious; it could not dwell on reality, but reacted furiously against it. Accordingly, when he speaks of the will to be powerful, power is merely an eloquent word on his lips. It symbolises the escape from mediocrity. What power would be when attained and exercised remains entirely beyond his horizon. What meets us everywhere is the sense of impotence and a passionate rebellion against it." (George Santayana, Egotism In German Philosophy (1915), Chapter XII)

"Speaking of Spinoza he [Nietzsche] says: "How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!" Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "[Thou goest to woman?] Forget not thy whip"—but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Three, Part II, Chapter XXV, "Nietzsche," p. 767)

Russell goes on to say...

"It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His "noble" man—who is himself in day-dreams—is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: "I will do such things—What they are yet I know not—but they shall be the terror of the earth." This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Three, Part II, Chapter XXV, "Nietzsche," p. 767)

"I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Three, Part II, Chapter XXV, "Nietzsche," p. 773)

"If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain." (G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1908), Chapter III - The Suicide of Thought)

The following link gives an excerpt of G.K. Chesterton's full-throated rebuttal of Nietzche and his philosophies and his own defense of Christianity against Nietzcheism.

http://www.anthonyflood.com/mulloychestertonnietzsche.htm
 
All of what you post has merit. That said, his current wife said he had been radicalized in last year, he 'attended' an online school for Islam that was known to have extreme ideas, and of course, another person who has travelled to the ME that authorities are trying to figure out what he did in SA.
Even In elementary school, he was suspended for telling classmates that he was going to kill everyone in the school.
 
Yeah, who would ever want to take out human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, genocide, torture, baby-killing, and rape from a holy book?? o_O
So you literally are in favor of rewriting a kind of historical narrative, in this case the historical narrative of the Israelites, in order to soothe your sensibilities? Hubris. Pure, unadulterated hubris.

Then you'll try to say that the Old Testament is not historical narrative. None of the places, people, or events in the Old Testament existed or occurred in history, right?
 
Yeah, who would ever want to take out human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, genocide, torture, baby-killing, and rape from a holy book?? o_O
That's what you take away from the Bible. So, I'm not interested in rewriting the Bible because you're offended by it. Just buy a Bible with a trigger warning and retreat to your safe space when you come to an offensive passage.
 
Yeah, who would ever want to take out human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, genocide, torture, baby-killing, and rape from a holy book?? o_O
Is it just the bible you want to change? How about Herodotus? Do we rewrite his work? How about Greek philosophers of that same time? Do we rewrite their works to smooth out or omit what they got wrong? How about the Stoics? Do we rewrite Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca... to conform to modern sensitivities? How about anything ever written in the name of science and medicine? Do we right it all to get rid of anything now know to be wrong out of fear some people read it and use it to justify a flat earth or homeopathic cures?

I thought those on the far right who get worked up over liberal fascism were nutty, but man you sure seem to be wanting to prove them right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1
Philosophical minds much more accomplished than you or I have made commentary on Nietzche's writings ad nauseum:

"The morality of Nietzsche is a mere innovation. The first is an advance because no one who did not admit the validity of the old maxim could see reason for accepting the new one, and anyone who accepted the old would at once recognize the new as an extension of the same principle. If he rejected it, he would have to reject it as a superfluity, something that went too far, not as something simply heterogeneous from his own ideas of value. But the Nietzschean ethic can be accepted only if we are ready to scrap traditional morals as a mere error and then to put ourselves in a position where we can find no ground for any value judgments at all." (C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man (1943) Chapter 2. The Way)

"Nietzsche was personally more philosophical than his philosophy. His talk about power, harshness, and superb immorality was the hobby of a harmless young scholar and constitutional invalid. He did not crave in the least either wealth or empire. What he loved was solitude, nature, music, books. But his imagination, like his judgment, was captious; it could not dwell on reality, but reacted furiously against it. Accordingly, when he speaks of the will to be powerful, power is merely an eloquent word on his lips. It symbolises the escape from mediocrity. What power would be when attained and exercised remains entirely beyond his horizon. What meets us everywhere is the sense of impotence and a passionate rebellion against it." (George Santayana, Egotism In German Philosophy (1915), Chapter XII)

"Speaking of Spinoza he [Nietzsche] says: "How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!" Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "[Thou goest to woman?] Forget not thy whip"—but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Three, Part II, Chapter XXV, "Nietzsche," p. 767)

Russell goes on to say...

"It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His "noble" man—who is himself in day-dreams—is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: "I will do such things—What they are yet I know not—but they shall be the terror of the earth." This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Three, Part II, Chapter XXV, "Nietzsche," p. 767)

"I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Three, Part II, Chapter XXV, "Nietzsche," p. 773)

"If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain." (G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1908), Chapter III - The Suicide of Thought)

The following link gives an excerpt of G.K. Chesterton's full-throated rebuttal of Nietzche and his philosophies and his own defense of Christianity against Nietzcheism.

http://www.anthonyflood.com/mulloychestertonnietzsche.htm
Many of these people fundamentally are scared of Nietzsche. He ripped the foundation for their fake morals out from under their feet and they are angry small minded duds living in his great shadow. None of these people were half the historian he was and their romantic laments on his positions do nothing to logically and philosophically attack his position. You can tell by all the ad hominem in your posts how weak they feel in the presence of a great mind that they resort to attacking his every day living instead of his positions, after his death no less. All of these men combined will never have half the effect on the world he did. They will of course always be opposed to him as many of them are sworn christian particularly Lewis and Chesterton. When you believe the world is flat and someone comes in and show you the world is round, it is quite a shock.

This passage is wrong. It shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the author. "Notice the direct contrast between Nietzsche’s seeing the death of God as leading men to an open sea, a sea that has never been so open before, and Chesterton’s portraying the man who thinks himself God as imprisoned within a very narrow universe." In fact, if you read the ENTIRE article and not just cherry pick the one paragraph, Nietzsche explains that the death of god has led man to the abyss of nihilism. He actually laments this and works to propose alternatives, thus zarathustra.

But of course this would actually require that you read and consider his work instead of by default googling anti nietzsche
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

I think the problem is the belief in some moderate majority of Muslims. There's no such thing. Muslim support for sharia law is pretty high in Muslim-led countries. The fact that most Muslims don't engage in terrorism doesn't mean they don't have the same underlying belief system. It just means a smaller percentage of Muslims are willing to wage jihad against the West.

But, I don't want anyone to think I'm suggesting that the real problem isn't Christianity. Clearly, it is. (tic)

No one anywhere has said that there was a "moderate majority." But there are educated moderates both in the West and in the ME. And they're the ones that need to be outspoken and lead their religion out of its own dark ages.
 
Last edited:
Many of these people fundamentally are scared of Nietzsche. He ripped the foundation for their fake morals out from under their feet and they are angry small minded duds living in his great shadow. None of these people were half the historian he was and their romantic laments on his positions do nothing to logically and philosophically attack his position. You can tell by all the ad hominem in your posts how weak they feel in the presence of a great mind that they resort to attacking his every day living instead of his positions, after his death no less. All of these men combined will never have half the effect on the world he did. They will of course always be opposed to him as many of them are sworn christian particularly Lewis and Chesterton. When you believe the world is flat and someone comes in and show you the world is round, it is quite a shock.

This passage is wrong. It shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the author. "Notice the direct contrast between Nietzsche’s seeing the death of God as leading men to an open sea, a sea that has never been so open before, and Chesterton’s portraying the man who thinks himself God as imprisoned within a very narrow universe." In fact, if you read the ENTIRE article and not just cherry pick the one paragraph, Nietzsche explains that the death of god has led man to the abyss of nihilism. He actually laments this and works to propose alternatives, thus zarathustra.

But of course this would actually require that you read and consider his work instead of by default googling anti nietzsche
Of course you ignore Russell (an atheist without question) and the multitude other philosophers who ravaged Nietzsche's "innovations" for falling short of the mark.

The problem you have is that you in essence turn Nietzsche into a god-like figure and his writings into a kind of compilation of "holy" (unholy) texts. You the mistake of creating new religion, even though you'd never call it that, out of Nietzche's philosophies.

And yes, I do think that his "ubermensch" construct is just his way of projecting the way he would like to see himself in the world, even though he was totally disconnecting from reality toward the end of his life, and was nothing like what he wanted to be. (He was a hermit and a recluse, and in very poor physical condition.) The comments I provided are appropriate in context. They savaged him for good reason.
 
Of course you ignore Russell (an atheist without question) and the multitude other philosophers who ravaged Nietzsche's "innovations" for falling short of the mark.

The problem you have is that you in essence turn Nietzsche into a god-like figure and his writings into a kind of compilation of "holy" (unholy) texts. You the mistake of creating new religion, even though you'd never call it that, out of Nietzche's philosophies.

And yes, I do think that his "ubermensch" construct is just his way of projecting the way he would like to see himself in the world, even though he was totally disconnecting from reality toward the end of his life, and was nothing like what he wanted to be. (He was a hermit and a recluse, and in very poor physical condition.) The comments I provided are appropriate in context. They savaged him for good reason.
Why would I waste my time? I'm not claiming Nietzsche to be a god nor creating a new religion, and I am not claiming his writings to be perfect and you've obviously never read it. So what's the point. You want to believe there's a god in the sky who believes the exact dogma you do. I can't argue with you as you have pre determined your fate and the fate of the universe and everyone and everything in it. Like I said, if you want to read it and discuss it that's fine, but I'm not going to debate with someone who doesn't.

oh and as for Russell, as intelligent as he was, his contributions in philosophy were mostly in the math and language area, and he is not really comparable to Nietzsche in aesthetics.
 
Last edited:
No one anywhere has said that there was a "moderate majority." But there are educated moderates both in the West and in the ME. And they're the ones that need to be outspoken and lead their religion out of its own dark ages.
Tough to speak out against the fundamentalists who are only too happy to kill their own.
 
Tough to speak out against the fundamentalists who are only too happy to kill their own.
Which was kind of exactly my point, and is my response when people complain that the moderates don't speak out enough. But that's been the case for every such leader in history. MLK comes to mind. Malala in a smaller way. So far, no moderate Muslim leader seems to want to martyr himself for the betterment of the religion as a whole, and that's exactly what it would amount to in all likelihood.
 
So you literally are in favor of rewriting a kind of historical narrative, in this case the historical narrative of the Israelites, in order to soothe your sensibilities? Hubris. Pure, unadulterated hubris.

Then you'll try to say that the Old Testament is not historical narrative. None of the places, people, or events in the Old Testament existed or occurred in history, right?

There are plenty of variations of the Bible available for people to buy and read. And each one of these variations "rewrites the historical narrative of the Israelites" in their own way, apparently much to your dismay. One such example is a children's Bible. Does the typical children's Bible retain such parts as human sacrifice or killing gays? My guess would be no, more often than not, but I don't know the answer to that.
 
Is it just the bible you want to change? How about Herodotus? Do we rewrite his work? How about Greek philosophers of that same time? Do we rewrite their works to smooth out or omit what they got wrong? How about the Stoics? Do we rewrite Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca... to conform to modern sensitivities? How about anything ever written in the name of science and medicine? Do we right it all to get rid of anything now know to be wrong out of fear some people read it and use it to justify a flat earth or homeopathic cures?

I thought those on the far right who get worked up over liberal fascism were nutty, but man you sure seem to be wanting to prove them right.

This is just a repeat of the Huck Finn example above.
 
There are plenty of variations of the Bible available for people to buy and read. And each one of these variations "rewrites the historical narrative of the Israelites" in their own way, apparently much to your dismay. One such example is a children's Bible. Does the typical children's Bible retain such parts as human sacrifice or killing gays? My guess would be no, more often than not, but I don't know the answer to that.
No church teaches or reads based on a children's bible nor are they considered official church documents, etc. They are simplifications of bible teachings with pictures so children can learn, and they are based on whatever version of the bible the church ascribes to. You'd have been better off discussing the differences between, say, the King James Bible and the New American Bible.
 
No church teaches or reads based on a children's bible nor are they considered official church documents, etc. They are simplifications of bible teachings with pictures so children can learn, and they are based on whatever version of the bible the church ascribes to. You'd have been better off discussing the differences between, say, the King James Bible and the New American Bible.

That's fair. Also what now comprises "The Bible" was of course added to, changed, deleted, etc., both on purpose and accidentally...if I'm not mistaken even as recently as the 15th century, but primarily in the first 3-4 centuries AD.
 
This is just a repeat of the Huck Finn example above.
Huck Finn is fiction, no where near the same, but if you're so confident this idea of yours is a good one how about running over to Europe and asking Jewish leaders to jump on board with your idea of rewriting the Old Testament. I'm sure they'll see nothing wrong with it once you tell them that's as far as it will go.
 
That's fair. Also what now comprises "The Bible" was of course added to, changed, deleted, etc., both on purpose and accidentally...if I'm not mistaken even as recently as the 15th century, but primarily in the first 3-4 centuries AD.
So you're a bible scholar? People who have actually studied the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have stated that there is very good internal consistency. Some of the best-known translations trace their lineage straight back to the original manuscripts.

As for deleting, are you going to contend that the so-called Gnostic gospels belong in the cannon?
 
Huck Finn is fiction, no where near the same, but if you're so confident this idea of yours is a good one how about running over to Europe and asking Jewish leaders to jump on board with your idea of rewriting the Old Testament. I'm sure they'll see nothing wrong with it once you tell them that's as far as it will go.

It actually isn't fiction vs. nonfiction...as I said before, if Huck Finn <or the writings of Herodotus or ...> was the basis of an entire religion then it would be a helpful comparison. So examples of comparisons that I would easily agree with you on would be the many various versions of the Bible, the Quran, The Book of Mormon...

Preserving history (which has come up a few times in this thread, not sure if from you though) is a non-sequitur because today's many existing versions of the Bible would still be in print for probably the remainder of human existence, there would simply be one more new version created for anyone who cared to use/read it. Originally I brought it up as a pure hypothetical but the more I think about it the more I think someone could make some money publishing it. There are so many new mega-churches that are heavily slanted towards positivity and inclusivity and so forth, and it's very difficult for these churches to differentiate themselves except for the dynamism of their preacher and the continuity and amenities of their community...this could be an interesting attempt to stand out even as a supplement and not a replacement.
 
So you're a bible scholar? People who have actually studied the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have stated that there is very good internal consistency. Some of the best-known translations trace their lineage straight back to the original manuscripts.

As for deleting, are you going to contend that the so-called Gnostic gospels belong in the cannon?

I'm definitely not a biblical scholar. How the Bible changed over the years is something I would care deeply about if I believed that the text of the Bible was a direct reflection of what an omniscient god had to say, because I would want to know how much that message might have changed from when said god actually delivered it. But as I don't believe any of that, the only reason I was discussing the origins of the Bible is to point out that it has changed many times over the years and many different versions have been printed over the centuries, even since more popular codified versions such as KJV, and so despite the defensiveness on this thread there's nothing outrageous about yet another variation being published.

There's been an undercurrent in this thread that printing a new variation of the Bible would be like walking into the Louvre and drawing a mustache on the original Mona Lisa. Which is obviously not comparable at all.
 
i'm kind of surprised
There's been an undercurrent in this thread that printing a new variation of the Bible would be like walking into the Louvre and drawing a mustache on the original Mona Lisa. Which is obviously not comparable at all.
iirc,
the jefferson bible was actually provided to all members of congress (and printed by a gov agency) for 50+ years.
the practice was revived since the 90s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: terminalg92
i'm kind of surprised

iirc,
the jefferson bible was actually provided to all members of congress (and printed by a gov agency) for 50+ years.
the practice was revived since the 90s.
Only Masons would say the Jefferson bible is a good version. :) He just picked and chose the parts he wanted to keep from the original cannon. (He removed some of the best parts.)
 
I'm definitely not a biblical scholar. How the Bible changed over the years is something I would care deeply about if I believed that the text of the Bible was a direct reflection of what an omniscient god had to say, because I would want to know how much that message might have changed from when said god actually delivered it. But as I don't believe any of that, the only reason I was discussing the origins of the Bible is to point out that it has changed many times over the years and many different versions have been printed over the centuries, even since more popular codified versions such as KJV, and so despite the defensiveness on this thread there's nothing outrageous about yet another variation being published.

There's been an undercurrent in this thread that printing a new variation of the Bible would be like walking into the Louvre and drawing a mustache on the original Mona Lisa. Which is obviously not comparable at all.
Go for it, dude. Make your own version.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT