Death

[Immanuel Can]

Only one of us here knows what I've read and researched, and its not you.

Perhaps. But both of us can see, based on the empirical evidence of your comments, whether as a result you actually *know* anything about what you've read. I can only say that if you're actually read it (which, I note, you have not actually claimed above) you understood none of it.

You have to assume it is innocent of mortality until proven guilty.
A hard ask for Christians.

I don't even understand what you said here. And it's not because I didn't read it.

There are three types of in dependant existence in Christianity: God's existence (we know this is independent because it came before any other existence). Two: the existence od the world and us. Three: the existence of heaven, a post-death place

I'm afraid that this is just plain wrong, Bernard: every Christian philosopher -- indeed, every knowledgeable lay Christian -- knows that God's existence is (philosophical terminology coming) "neccessary," not "dependent." I'm sorry, truly...I really don't mean to be difficult here, but you're completely off base, and short of pointing that out I do not know how to respond to such wildly untrue statements as you are issuing.

basically unless you feel inclined to take Jesus with a bit more seriousness than your little Christian mind is used to and see heaven spread out before you on earth.

I'm not bothered by the insult, Bernard. My pride is nothing. But just so futile is your anger: it changes nothing. If you were right, you would not need anger; but as you are wrong, anger will not change that. I entreat you, be more reasonable. So let me present to you two options: choose which you prefer. 1) Continue to be wrong, as publicly as you can, and 2) Put your pride aside, and go and find out whether what you say is truth or not.

I admit that the former is more tempting, but I can hope and have faith in your character that you will choose wisely. You may find the courage to actually go and meet some Christians, talk with them, and find out what they actually believe. Somebody has been selling you a lie.

I am content to let the matter rest there, until you have made your choice.

[Bernard]

Only one of us here knows what I've read and researched, and its not you.

Perhaps. But both of us can see, based on the empirical evidence of your comments, whether as a result you actually *know* anything about what you've read. I can only say that if you're actually read it (which, I note, you have not actually claimed above) you understood none of it.

I first read Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls and gnostic texts when I was eighteen. Nag hammadi I found very exciting and interesting. Essenes were great as well to read. You mention empirical evidence, which is not relevent unless you share the same base from which to ascertain what is empirical evidence, and you are basically placing my spiritual experiences as the basis, yet you cannot know my spiritual experiences. By spiritual experiences I am referring to what resonated with me in my reading and research and how that formed my thinking and way of seeing. Can't you argue what I offer on face value rather than look for whether my own experiences are valid?

You have to assume it is innocent of mortality until proven guilty.
A hard ask for Christians.

I don't even understand what you said here. And it's not because I didn't read it.

Its simple: there is existence and nothing can be imagined or made possible outside of that.

There are three types of in dependant existence in Christianity: God's existence (we know this is independent because it came before any other existence). Two: the existence od the world and us. Three: the existence of heaven, a post-death place

I'm afraid that this is just plain wrong, Bernard: every Christian philosopher -- indeed, every knowledgeable lay Christian -- knows that God's existence is (philosophical terminology coming) "neccessary," not "dependent." I'm sorry, truly...I really don't mean to be difficult here, but you're completely off base, and short of pointing that out I do not know how to respond to such wildly untrue statements as you are issuing.

Okay i made i a typo: I meant independance not in dependance. That should have been fairly obvious though.

basically unless you feel inclined to take Jesus with a bit more seriousness than your little Christian mind is used to and see heaven spread out before you on earth.

I'm not bothered by the insult, Bernard. My pride is nothing. But just so futile is your anger: it changes nothing. If you were right, you would not need anger; but as you are wrong, anger will not change that. I entreat you, be more reasonable. So let me present to you two options: choose which you prefer. 1) Continue to be wrong, as publicly as you can, and 2) Put your pride aside, and go and find out whether what you say is truth or not.

I was using you in the general rather than personal sense. Was wondering how you'd take it - should have used the more impersonal one as in one's little Christian mind. It is insulting toward Christianity in general though, and I don't retract in that sense. I don't need to be more reasonable because my ideas all totally work for me. There is no cringe, no doubt. I know for example that my individuality eventually ends - that is reasonable - what is not reasonable is Bernard, or Immanuel or Jesus or anyone else living forever in heaven - or God possessing existence independent of existence.

I don't put my pride or anger aside just because a Christian demands it. That's one lesson I learnt the hard way after my heavy Catholic upbringing. "Be guilty, be very guilty" is what it demanded.

I admit that the former is more tempting, but I can hope and have faith in your character that you will choose wisely. You may find the courage to actually go and meet some Christians, talk with them, and find out what they actually believe. Somebody has been selling you a lie.

I am content to let the matter rest there, until you have made your choice.

I have met plenty of good and honest Christians, and I'm sure you are one - I'm just challenging what has been placed before you in terms of beliefs. I'll stick with Nietzsche's stance though: "There was only one Christian and he died on the cross". Or that story from Jesus' own homeland that persists there till this very day: "Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of the Christians meet once a year in a garden and talk long, but always part saying to each other "My friend, I'm afraid we will never agree."

[Immanuel Can]

I have met plenty of good and honest Christians, and I'm sure you are one - I'm just challenging what has been placed before you in terms of beliefs.

Challenge is fine. I have no objection to that. Mischaracterization, however, is unhelpful to rational discourse. It obliges us to correct the error, or else proceed on false assumptions. If I refuse your proffered assumptions, it is not personal: it is only that they stand to interfere with progress toward sound conclusions.

I'll stick with Nietzsche's stance though: "There was only one Christian and he died on the cross". Or that story from Jesus' own homeland that persists there till this very day: "Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of the Christians meet once a year in a garden and talk long, but always part saying to each other "My friend, I'm afraid we will never agree."

Nietzsche is full of tidy aphorisms that are untrue. He's both quotable and badly wrong frequently. In this case, his aphorism is only good inasmuch as Christ is recognized by Christians as the perfect embodiment of many "Christian" virtues, plus a whole lot more: the Son of God. But it's false insofar as Christ deals with our human imperfections, and ultimately God conforms us to His image. Nietzsche knew nothing of that: he lived an angry man, and he died syphilitic and insane. No one ever saw the light of Christ in him.

As for agreeing with Jesus, if in anything we disagree, He is right and I am wrong. And by the Grace of God, I will not, as a Christian, cling to my errors in defiance of His truth. Yes, I am fallible; fortunately, He is not. I may not be now what I should be, but "never" is a long time. I am better now for knowing Him than I ever would have been if I had not. If you knew me better, you would be the first to see the truth of that.

On the other hand, at present it will probably be difficult for you and I to agree. Eventually, if we are both humble, we can reconcile in the truth about Jesus Christ; otherwise it will not happen at all. But in this we are like all persons in this world. Human beings always discover that there shall be no peace without the Prince of Peace.

[Bernard]

Oh look Immanuel, as a rule I don't regard myself as fundamentally different from others. We are all much more similar and able to get along with each other than we often think. The realm of ideas has to be taken on an impersonal platform as much as possible - even with those with virtually identical view points. In that spirit, I sincerely admire and thank you for your perserverence.

It's a myth BTW that Nietzsche had syphillus. He had a tumour behind one of his eyes which resulted in his physical collapse. I can point you to the research that deals with that if you wish to follow further. Basically, syphillus doesn't take 11 years to kill someone, as in N's case - two or three at most - his migraines from adolescence, his nervous condition and photos that show the affected eye point to a slow developing benign tumour that eventually grew large enough to damage his brain and associated neural pathways
There is no evidence that he was a habitué of brothels or that he slept with any prostitute
Despite the myths about that.

It's nonsense that he lived an angry man as well. None if his contemporaries or close company described him as such. In fact he was so polite, genial and well-mannered that you sense others would have desired him to behave at times toward the opposite. True, his work is often polemical, but your own Jesus was often on the attack as well. Nietzsche has not unwisely been called the most Christ like man since Christ for this very reason.

Your Christianity has an evangelical style of ring to it. Evangelic Christianity was pretty well non-existent!in Nietzsche's day, so the type of emphasis you place on the Christ would have been a little unfamiliar. His father was a Christian pastor though and N certainly was well versed and studied in Christianity.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no evidence that he was a habitué of brothels or that he slept with any prostitute
Despite the myths about that.

Perhaps so. If I've defamed him, I repent. Yet from a Nietzschean perspective, why would it matter if he was? It's only from what he called (in a fit of redundancy) a "Judeo-Christian" moral perspective that anyone would think it was bad if he did surf brothels.

Evangelic Christianity was pretty well non-existent!in Nietzsche's day

Umm...no. It was perhaps alien to his geographical location, but it was going like a house on fire elsewhere. In North America, for example, between the 17th an 20th centuries, a huge series of revivalist Christian movements swept through Europe and North America. I doubt Nietzsche could have been entirely unaware of these, unless he strictly avoided reading both history and newspapers. And even so, evangelicalism was very far from unknown in Germany and Austria.

I have few doubts he hated Christians and Jews, and saw both as impediments to his social and political ambitions. He misunderstood both, it's true; but he hated them nonetheless.

[Bernard]

Well yes, evangelical Christuanity may well have been known to him but I don't recall any mention or reference to it in his work. He may well have preferred it to the pious brand of Chriatianity within his ethos. Then again, abscence of reference may be thought of as disinterest, which is more likely.

A lot if people regard N's amorality as irresponsibility. Far from it as is evidenced in the way he carried himself through
Life. No, he was challenging the morality that didn't spring as priority from an individual's own heart and mind - from your own inner Zarauthustra or Christ, if you like, though not sure if you would (like) - as opposed to an imposed morality that didn't stand up to one' s own personal scrutiny.

N didn't hate Christians. He had many Christian friends. He challenged them, yes. N certainly didn't hate Jews - standing up for them and actively castigating anti-Semitic sentiment. Take his comments about Bernard Forster, his sister's anti-Semite husband.

[Bernard]

To be fair, I think Nietzsche over-wrote many of his topics and gave an exaggerated sense on his true feelings on almost everything he had to deal with contemporarily and historically. He was maybe left too much to his own devices, but with few able to understand and therefore sympathise with his views how else could it be for an essentially solitary man like that with no social touch for public relations. Sounds like me.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, I have no doubt that Nietzsche was a sensationalist and a blowhard. He liked to make hyperbolical, insulting statements for their shock value, I think. I would hate to think he *actually* believed every word he said; for if he did, he clearly was a bigot, a misogynist, a racist and a racial supremacist, as well as an amoralist.

Yet he had a few good things to say; unfortunately, his insights often get lost, because he often couched them in language so inflammatory that it is hard to take him seriously at all.

This is perhaps a salutary reminder to all of us to measure our rhetoric. After a certain point, hyperbole and venom simply undermine the message.

[Bernard]

Well I don't know, I can only speak from my own reading of his works especially the pivotal ones surrounding Zarathuatra and Zarathuatra itself: an intensely
Poetical and beautiful inspiration. Then there is the solid and sure hand of Beyond Good and evil. Not forgetting the musical qualities and light stepping of The Gay Science. I guess any reader's reading experience owes a lot to their own subjective states and objective purposes in reading what they choose to read. The occasional invective and barb - and it is occasional - can seem amplified and dominating of the rest of the substance when that substance is essentially delicate and refined almost undetectable to the mind - a bit like choosing to go indoors where someone has farted and complaining about the air quality of the region.

I find that the only enjoyable way to read is to suspend judgement, allocating benefit of doubt in the murky moments until at least the end so as not to disturb the broad picture the author is attempting to represent, which is after all the only thing which counts to reader and author in the end.

Anyway thanks for the discussion if I didn't say it before.

PS maybe saying only a few good things is enough. I mean look at St Francis of Assissi: not a lot from him, but quite an enduring impact.

[jackles]

when you die you dont go anywhere cos you are already there .heaven is you or not you on how you cope with just you.

[Immanuel Can]

Well I don't know, I can only speak from my own reading of his works especially the pivotal ones surrounding Zarathuatra and Zarathuatra itself: an intensely
Poetical and beautiful inspiration. Then there is the solid and sure hand of Beyond Good and evil. Not forgetting the musical qualities and light stepping of The Gay Science.

You should read George Steiner on this subject. The "music" of Nietzsche was the soundtrack of the gas chambers that killed his family.

The Nazis were certainly not deaf to poetry. They infused their propaganda with Wagnerian beauty, and soaring phrases about blood and soil. They were real aesthetes, to be sure.

Be careful about what poetic talent may hide.

P.S. -- Yes, I know Nietzsche didn't like Nazis personally. Yet that didn't stop his greatest disciple from using his ideas to rationalize killing 6 million Jews, and 8 million of his own people as well.

Ideas have consequences: if we put them out there, we cannot later disassociate ourselves from those who act upon them consistently.

[Bernard]

So poetry is the source of evil and the Nazi's could have beautified the world because they were such good aesthetes. I'm supposed to imagine Nietzsche was pettily scheming away in a dark cellar to bring down humanity. Sorry, not happening. Hitler was no more Nietzsche's disciple than he was Jesus's, though he used both their good names.

[Bernard]

I mean that everyone has a dark side, including Jesus, that anyone else can magnify, exaggerate and distort completely out if shape to their own ends and means.

[Immanuel Can]

So poetry is the source of evil and the Nazi's could have beautified the world because they were such good aesthetes.

Of course not. Don't be silly! Really, Bernard...

Poetry is not the source of evil. But it's not automatically the source of good either. It can be used for good purposes, but it can also be used (to quote Shakespeare) to "sugar o'er the Devil." It can be made to "sell" evil in the name of purity and light. The Nazis were evil, of course; we all (should) know that; but they also 'spun' their program in terms of things like heroism, national pride, purity, progress, and yes, beauty as well. That is why we must be more not less vigilant when we the wings of poesy soar -- beautiful words can convey beautiful wisdom, but they just as easily hide folly and even stygian wickedness.

I'm supposed to imagine Nietzsche was pettily scheming away in a dark cellar to bring down humanity. Sorry, not happening.

Again, Bernard, can we get serious here?
No, I think Nietzsche was just what he said: a self-willed man who did not much care if lesser mortals were ground to pulp under the wheels of his personal advancement, and who claimed to transcend rather than violate basic morality in doing so.

Hitler was no more Nietzsche's disciple than he was Jesus's, though he used both their good names.

Ridiculous. Seriously, Bernard...
The Jewish Carpenter who said "Love your enemies and do good to those who spitefully use you" told no one to do what Hitler did. You are right to say that therein Hitler abused His Name for illegitimate purposes.

But Nietzsche...well, he never had much of a good name. And Hitler's program is in most ways a direct projection of Nietzsche's theories of the ubermensch, the denial of the moral and the unprincipled extension of the will-to-power. Heidegger, the philosopher most closely associated with the Nazi regime and who was directly approving of it at one time, was clearly a Nietzschean. The links are clear and unmistakable to any fair observer.

Now, that's not to say that nothing Nietzsche said was good and useful. I find his analysis of power very interesting, if not perfect. And even some of his venomous characterizations of superficial religiosity I find quite apt. It's just that capitulating to Nietzsche's high rhetoric without engaging our critical faculties is extremely unwise. He was, in many ways, an extremely rash, unkind and selfish man.

Congratulations. You have inherited my first three-eyeroll message. That being said, I don't dislike you and don't want to attack you on this. But let's be careful not to imply of each other that we are saying more or other than we are, okay? Fair enough?

[Immanuel Can]

including Jesus,

Be careful what you say about the Son of God, Bernard...not because of me, for I am not the Ultimate Defender of that Name. But there is One who defends it, and for all the world I would not see you run afoul of Him on that score.