Nietzsche and the hypocritical slave morality of Christianity - secular discussion

[chad]

In Nietzsche the following argument concerning the origin of Christian morality is found:

Hating everything in the world, Christian slaves placed their values into another realm, the kingdom of God. The slaves' "hate" comes from their negative experience of the masters; this experience they call “evil.” If someone is not evil - they reason - he must be good. The slaves, then, define themselves in terms of the masters. They have an imagined superiority as they submit to the dominance of these masters. Putting their values into the kingdom of God makes their suffering better, because now it no longer matters. Everything truly worthwhile is in God’s kingdom, not the kingdom of the master. Part of this includes what Nietzsche calls “the will to truth.” The slaves pursue truth as one of the highest values. In doing so, years and years later they, i.e. their descendant culture, discover that God is dead (scientific advances, etc). These enlightened and advanced descendents realize that all that exists is in the kingdom of the masters. Without the kingdom of God, there are no values, for the first step in the slave morality is to place value in that kingdom. We, the enlightened, are left, then, in a world with no values.

These seems about right to me. Every moral philosophy that has attempted to ground morality without an appeal to faith or function has failed. faith is the only thing that can brdige the chasm reason has established; and function is too nebulous to ground the necessary foundation of a universal moral system.

The hypocritical aspect is made evident by contrasting the origin of Christian values and their transformation into the very master morality from which they arose. Now "moral" language is used to dominate instead of relieve.

This is relevant to the constructs of heaven and hell and how the promise of heaven is often not as important in rhetoric as the threat of hell.

Further, we can see how a system of belief that puts value out of this world would have to adopt a conception of self that is nonsensical to those who do not believe in such an outer world.

[BenReilly]

http://www.salon.com/march97/comics/bolling970313.gif

[chad]

Yes. The secular world and the deist world play two different games, and faux-discourse between the two is resovable only by domination or tolerance.

[chad]

:rolleyes: Where are all the posters who thought "morals" belonged in the forum title?

[nicephoras]

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well John 3:16 buddy!

[Mel Brennan]

To admit a belief merely because it is a custom - but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy! - And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions for morality?

-----

The reverse side of Christian compassion for the suffering of one's neighbor is a profound suspicion of all the joy of one's neighbor, of his joy in all that he wants to do and can.

-----

Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.

-----

Really unreflective people are now inwardly without Christianity, and the more moderate and reflective people of the intellectual middle class now possess only an adapted, that is to say marvelously simplified Christianity. A god who in his love arranges everything in a manner that in the end will be best for us; a god who gives to us and takes from us our virtue and our happiness, so that as a whole all is meet and fit and there is no reason for us to take life sadly, let alone exclaim against it; in short, resignation and modest demands elevated to godhead - that is the best and most vital thing that still remains of Christianity. But one should notice that Christianity has thus crossed over into a gentle moralism: it is not so much 'God, freedom and immortality' that have remained, as benevolence and decency of disposition, and the belief that in the whole universe too benevolence and decency of disposition prevail: it is the euthanasia of Christianity.

-----

After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.

[chad]

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well John 3:16 buddy!A better point would have been: you got to have faith, the faith, the faith, ah.

[MikeLastort2]

:rolleyes: Where are all the posters who thought "morals" belonged in the forum title?

Today's Sunday. Maybe they're in church.

[Norsk Troll]

You mean the mall?

[royalstilton]

Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.
---
one has to wonder where FN got these ideas. are they dogmatic Christian notions that had ascendency in his day, or are they culled from his readings, or perhaps they are the distillations of his own unregenerate mind.

in the Christian Bible, there is a quote from a particular person who, being tormented by an evil spirit, after encountering Jesus, says: "I believe, help my unbelief." Jesus views this specific situation as requiring what amounts to exorcism. you can say all you want about sin and doubt, but the fact remains that God is faithful or he isn't. if he is, then doubt is a condition that is irrational, crazy, in light of the truth; whether it is sin or not remains to be seen. if God is not faithful, then any faith directed Godward is crazy.

Jesus told Peter when the latter said Jesus was the Messiah, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father in Heaven." it woud appear to be somewhat of a miracle to recognize, in the face of culture and the human condition, that the Kingdom of God is present and available.

[chad]

---
one has to wonder where FN got these ideas. are they dogmatic Christian notions that had ascendency in his day, or are they culled from his readings, or perhaps they are the distillations of his own unregenerate mind.

in the Christian Bible, there is a quote from a particular person who, being tormented by an evil spirit, after encountering Jesus, says: "I believe, help my unbelief." Jesus views this specific situation as requiring what amounts to exorcism. you can say all you want about sin and doubt, but the fact remains that God is faithful or he isn't. if he is, then doubt is a condition that is irrational, crazy, in light of the truth; whether it is sin or not remains to be seen. if God is not faithful, then any faith directed Godward is crazy.

Jesus told Peter when the latter said Jesus was the Messiah, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father in Heaven." it woud appear to be somewhat of a miracle to recognize, in the face of culture and the human condition, that the Kingdom of God is present and available.Stop trolling.

[ratdog]

---
one has to wonder where FN got these ideas.

An intense study of history and philosophy, a talent for psychoanalysis before that word even existed, and some personal observation of what was going on around him? Just sayin'...

Anyway, ol' Fred was right about how the "death of God" (which does not mean what 90% of people -few of whom having read FN, of course- think it does) has sunk us into nihilism (only we now call it "consumer capitalism") as nothing has replaced the old faiths.

[spejic]

you can say all you want about sin and doubt, but the fact remains that God is faithful or he isn't. if he is, then doubt is a condition that is irrational, crazy, in light of the truth; whether it is sin or not remains to be seen. if God is not faithful, then any faith directed Godward is crazy.Doubt has nothing to do with God's faithfulness. It has to do with his existence, or at least his impact (or lack of it) on the world.

[spejic]

Anyway, ol' Fred was right about how the "death of God" (which does not mean what 90% of people -few of whom having read FN, of course- think it does) has sunk us into nihilism (only we now call it "consumer capitalism") as nothing has replaced the old faiths.Maybe it's the other way around. There are a lot of religious people in America, and there are not a whole lot of them who live like the Amish do.

[BenReilly]

Anyway, ol' Fred was right about how the "death of God" (which does not mean what 90% of people -few of whom having read FN, of course- think it does) has sunk us into nihilism (only we now call it "consumer capitalism") as nothing has replaced the old faiths.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/250px-UFP-Seal.gif

[nicephoras]

A better point would have been: you got to have faith, the faith, the faith, ah.

But I don't want your sex chad.

[christopher d]

:rolleyes: Where are all the posters who thought "morals" belonged in the forum title?
Away from their computers, perhaps? It was a holiday weekend. :rolleyes:

Back to the subject at hand: indulge this admitted neophyte's question if you would
Hating everything in the world, Christian slaves placed their values into another realm, the kingdom of God. The slaves' "hate" comes from their negative experience of the masters; this experience they call “evil.” If someone is not evil - they reason - he must be good. The slaves, then, define themselves in terms of the masters. They have an imagined superiority as they submit to the dominance of these masters. Putting their values into the kingdom of God makes their suffering better, because now it no longer matters. Everything truly worthwhile is in God’s kingdom, not the kingdom of the master. Part of this includes what Nietzsche calls “the will to truth.” The slaves pursue truth as one of the highest values. In doing so, years and years later they, i.e. their descendant culture, discover that God is dead (scientific advances, etc). These enlightened and advanced descendents realize that all that exists is in the kingdom of the masters. Without the kingdom of God, there are no values, for the first step in the slave morality is to place value in that kingdom. We, the enlightened, are left, then, in a world with no values.

Would this same master-slave logic work for a religious culture that did not officially (through its teachings) distance itself from things material? I'm thinking specifically of the pagan cultures that were prevalent in Europe before Christianity was the law of the land. The Gods were certainly more capricious, the punishment for pissing one of them off more direct (and more earthly), but there wasn't this whole need for a cosmic accounting. Does the formula still work without that cosmic accounting in your opinion(s)?

[nicephoras]

Would this same master-slave logic work for a religious culture that did not officially (through its teachings) distance itself from things material? I'm thinking specifically of the pagan cultures that were prevalent in Europe before Christianity was the law of the land. The Gods were certainly more capricious, the punishment for pissing one of them off more direct (and more earthly), but there wasn't this whole need for a cosmic accounting. Does the formula still work without that cosmic accounting in your opinion(s)?

Which cultures are these? :confused: The druidic Celts? I don't think that's a great description of them. Certainly not the Greeks or Romans, to whom the above description is clearly inapplicable.

[christopher d]

Which cultures are these? :confused: The druidic Celts? I don't think that's a great description of them. Certainly not the Greeks or Romans, to whom the above description is clearly inapplicable.
Fair enough. It's late -- I just got back from schlepping across New England. Let me rephrase:

Would this same master-slave logic work for a religious culture that did not officially (through its teachings) distance itself from things material? I'm thinking specifically of the pagan cultures that were prevalent in Europe before Christianity was the law of the land, in which there wasn't this whole need for a cosmic accounting. Does the formula still work without that cosmic accounting in your opinion(s)?

[nicephoras]

Which cultures can you think of without karmic accounting? What's the point of God if at the end of it he's powerless?