Was Nietzsche familiar with Orthodox theology? Seems like none of his criticisms of Christianity can be applied to Orthodox Christianity
Are you a shitposter or are you just devout and insistent on discussing Orthodoxy exclusively?
Why wouldn't they? It's still slave morality.
>>510547
Nietzsche saw slave morality as stemming from resentment, and master morality as stemming from love of life. So no.
>>510551
>master morality from love
No he didn't. He didn't support matter morality. Read him again.
>>510551
Sounds like you don't understand master-slave morality.
>>510557
*master
>>510557
No, I've read him several times. He explicitly says master morality stems from an impulse of gratitude love of life, and slave morality stems from a hate of it and resentment. Nietzsche says love is beyond good and evil.
>muh sect's theology is so much better than all the others
No-one cares.
>>510546
He is an Anglo-Catholic Christposter from /lit/ who decided a few months ago to switch to Orthodox memeing here
>>510574
Quote it then. He recognized both master and slave moralities as the ideologies of the classes from which they originated. They were both shit to him, the point was to overcome them both.
>>510574
Where does he say that?
Master morality isn't the morality of those who love life, but the morality of those who are strong. It states that assertion of the will and nobility are good, rather than things which help humanity.
Slave morality is the morality of the weak. Being weak, their morality was a response to master morality, attempting to bring the strong down to their level by villifying them. Asserting your own will was bad, but charity (giving to the weak) was good. Confidence and nobility were bad, but humility was good.
Nietzsche sees Christianity as slave morality because it celebrates things like charity and humility. Are you telling me that the Orthodox Church doesn't support those two things?
>>510603
I have to go right now, but I will get back to you on that
>>510610
>Master morality isn't the morality of those who love life, but the morality of those who are strong
Which, in Nietzsche's estimation, is why they love life, why they are grateful toward life. Whereas slave morality hates life, that is why it is anti-material
>>510639
It's more to do with power, "the weak fear the strong" and the strongest thing at the time was god, so Neitzche said fuck that and killed god through logic and abstract thinking. It doesn't mean you can't create god through logic and abstract thinking It just has to fit every world view, good luck
>>510610
>>510639
Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 49, says gratitude was the principle of Greek religion.
Chapter 60, 74, 79, 96, 153
216 make it clear that the master even loves his enemies, on some level or another (or else they could not be worth to be his enemies)
Very clearly, Orthodox Christianity is not slave morality, unless Nietzsche himself is espousing it.
>>510529
>Was Nietzsche familiar with Orthodox theology? Seems like none of his criticisms of Christianity can be applied to Orthodox Christianity
One of his criticism comes from focusing on an afterlife instead of the life at hand. That you have to do certain things in this life to be rewarded once you're dead. That makes Christianity a nihilistic religion since it doesn't value the life at hand over death.
Surely the Orthodox church belies in an afterlife.
>>510897
They do, but it's the same state regardless of whether you're naughty or nice.
>Seems like none of his criticisms of Christianity can be applied to Orthodox Christianity
This is a bold claim, and also a bullshit one.
Who cares if he didn't know jot and tittle of Orthodox theology? He quite clearly annihilated Christian ethics and life-denying nonsense anyway.
>>510924
How is any of that related to Orthodox Christianity?
Also, seeing your enemy as being worthy of your derision, is not the same as turning the other cheek, and not defending yourself against evil(Which is what Christianity advocates).
>>510924
>>510794
Orthodox Christianity falls just as short as other forms of Christianity as regards Nietzsche. If anything, its sheer morbidness makes it more slavish, not less.
Orthodox Christianity is rooted in otherworldliness, in a good/evil moral system instead of a good/bad moral system, in asceticism and self-denial instead of pride and self-assurance.
The "love of one's enemies" felt by a master is not the pity of the Christian, the soppy crocodile tears of desiring your enemy to enslave himself to you willingly, and become your friend.
It is rather the admiration of your enemy as a man-like-yourself, the concept of the Worthy Opponent.
The Christian's love of one's enemies makes a mockery of the very concept of love, by implying you could 'love' someone as a friend while still killing them as an enemy.
>>510939
But heaven in Orthodox Christianity is not a separate realm, it is another dimension that is rightfully harmonious with the physical. Bringing them back into harmony is what Christianity is about, that's what Divine Liturgy is supposed to be.
As for evil, it is literally nothing. Not evil a negative, it is a lie, a deception. That is why Satan is called the Father of all Lies. Evil doesn't exist, because nothing can exist without God actively sustaining it.
>>510964
>not evil a negative
That is, it isn't even negative, it is zero.
>>510964
>>510969
1. That doesn't matter. Whether its another world, or a future state, or a mystical state of being, its "otherworldly" because it means looking for happiness and meaning in something other then this world, as it exists now, and your own will and values.
2. That is not the point. Nietzsche wrote of two kinds of moralities, master morality which is based on an instinctual spontaneous affirmation of itself, which it calls Good, and its counterpart, which is simply its failure, Bad. Whereas slave morality starts by demonizing the master, calling his Good, "Evil" and then defining itself against that.
Christian ethics based in virtue ethics or natural law, like those represented by Aquinas for instance, are closer to a master morality because they start with a definition of Good, then define its Evil as almost just Badness, but its still not quite the same, because its a formal definition of Good, its not a self-affirmation in practice.
In theory, the Saint is saying "I, and my desires and values are good, and their lack is bad", but in practice he says "I am evil"
Formal theological morality is just slave morality dressed as master morality.
>>510964
>Evil doesn't exist, because nothing can exist without God actively sustaining it.
Which he does, if you believe Isaiah 45:7, but I'm going to assume that you cherrypicked that part out.
>>510992
I'm the guy defending Nietzche, but any dunderhead knows that the word "Evil" has changed meaning since the time that text was written. Modern translations use the word "Disaster" in its place.
In ye olden times the word "Evil" could mean just "a bad thing". Such as in the context
"We have suffered many evils of late" or
"There are many evils in the world."
>>510996
And?
If you as a person visited tornadoes and earthquakes upon people, they would most likely call you evil.
Nietzsche conflates the Nazarean with what was attributed to Jesus in Nietzsche's time. icycalm's right that Jesus wasn't resentful, he was like Dostoyevsky's idiot (I've met one guy like that in my entire life, had a very low IQ and would give you his Xbox or anything else if you asked for it, not sure what the biology of that is, but it can happen). But then you get Paul, and by the time you get to Augustine war is on the table and property rights and tons of non-Nazarean things have survived but are called Christianity because it plays well with the mob (and only just this millenium, do you realize, has the mob begun to reject the branding).
>>511008
They might call you such, but in the context of either Christian or Nietzschean morality, it wouldn't necessarily make you so.
>>511021
It clearly would if such acts were specifically condemned as "evil" in other personages within the narrative.
>>511013
>icycalm's right that Jesus wasn't resentful, he was like Dostoyevsky's idiot
Didn't Nietzsche make just that comparison?
>>510992
The word used here is synonymous with "adversity", which can also mean evil (Satan means the Adversary, after all)..
>>511098
Sure, but even if it is as you say, God is the source of it, at least according to that verse at any rate.
>>511008
God is beyond good and evil. He's not a Platonic form.
>>511129
muh divine command theory
>>511119
God often does bring adversity upon us, but a, dversity is not always synonymous with חָטָא which is synonymous with ἁμαρτία.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia
>>511134
More like Kierkegaard.
>>511137
Sure, but this doesn't answer my criticism.
You said evil didn't exist because god sustains everything, and he isn't sustaining evil.
And when I pointed it out that the Bible specifically says that he does, you retort with textual criticism and semantics.
You're a true theologian.
>>511129
>God is beyond good and evil.
Good and evil are human value judgements. Why should a God we created be beyond them?
>>511156
>words can't have more than one definition
>>511157
Good and evil are carnal value judgments.
>>511170
Words can absolutely have more than one definition, but the point is that 90% of the translations on this page:
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
Say either, disaster, calamity or evil.
And you are welcome to avoid answering what that says about the nature of God without some bullshit appeal to Kierkegaardian suspension of the ethical, but that's not an argument. That's just saying "I have faith, so that's how it is".
Just so you know.
>>511172
Prove it.
>>511170
As long as you are a trip you will always have a holier than thou attitude.
Take the trip off and discuss god, get on everyone else's level
>>510529
sweet jesus pooh, that's not honey! you're eating dostoevsky!
>>511172
All of the first mentions of the word good in the bible were divine judgements.
>>511182
Calamity is certainly acceptable, and is the Orthodox translation
>>511187
If you suggest that they are more than carnal, they must be merely a representation, (icon, ειkόνα) . If you suggest they are more than that, then you are making them Platonic forms. The Greek word for "form", εἶδος, is literally where the word "idol" ( εἴδωλον) comes from.
>>511196
"Good" can be used as an icon, but not an idol, since God is ineffable.
>>511228
God didn't specifically try to make things good before the fall?
>>511189
True.
>>511247
There was no good and evil before the fall. Why do you think Adam and Eve weren't ashamed of their nudity?
>>511258
>There was no good before the fall
>LaughingYahweh
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
>>511270
Just start ignoring him m8. He's just a sophist, like every theologian.
>>511270
A: This word here is an icon (unless you are someone who takes Genesis literally)
B: Its primary definition isn't nearly the same as in English
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2896.htm
>>511280
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-9.htm
Its the same version of good used when talking about the knowledge of good and evil acquired during the fall.
>>510529
>make a joke image mocking some internet community
>that internet community finds the image and fails to get the joke
>they now use it as a flag to promote their agenda
Happens way too often.
>>511349
Indeed, see the Philokalia's commentary on this. "Good and evil" here are strictly carnal (pleasure and pain). Man's enslavement to that is a product of his fall.
>>511357
>>510529
This is a nice image and shows truth but unfortunately I'll never truly be able to have belief without some sort of proof.
>>511372
What is God's enslavement to it a product of?
>>511567
Constantine, I know you will love me for it, as you are a well of love and love everything and everyone, but your posts read like The Onion articles.
>>511586
Being a fool for Christ is the highest calling, friend.
On a more intellectual note, Christianity really is an absurdist religion in a Kafkaeque world (no surprise that Kafka was more influenced by Dostoevsky than anyone else).
>>511567
If man is enslaved to choosing between good and evil, what keeps God enslaved to do good before the fall if good is strictly carnal and a result of the fall?
>>511643
Are you Thomas from lit?
>>510546
He's definitely a shitposter. I'm about 99% sure he comes on to be BTFO by more knowledgeable people, to fulfill some kind of obscure masochistic impulse he has.
>>511999
Nah, I would say he is serious and genuine, his fault is that he is an attention whore therefore he can't stop using tripcode.
The fact of the matter is that the influence of power determines who decides the rules. However, rules are merely framework for learning a system. As such, the overman is undoubtedly a he who knows unlimited love, wisdom, and knowledge.
>>510574
>No, I've read him several times
And by reading this thread, its pretty obvious you understood exactly 0 (zero) of what you read
>>511643
>Christianity really is an absurdist religion in a Kafkaeque world
whatever keeps you believing and intelectualizing your belief my dear friend
>>512261
Don't be mad; he's clearly demonstrated he doesn't understand the Bible either, and I'm sure he's read that more than a few times.
We should have pity on his obvious mental defects.
the more I hear about this Nietzch guy the more I feel he missed the point of Christian morality
>>511222
They are nothing more than subjective value judgements is what I am suggesting. Absurd fictions.
>>512431
To be perfectly fair, he understood religion as a socially useful institution. He didn't say "God is dead and we killed him" as a statement of celebration.
>>511222
So where does divine judgement come in than?
What is sin and why do you need to cleansed of it?
This sounds closer to something like Nietzsche in which only consequences exist and good and evil are merely terms to describe desirable vs undesirable consequences and the agents that lead to them.
>>512431
or people reading Nietzsche missed the point of Nietzsche
i've never found what i've read from him to be specific towards any creed, i found it to be more spiritual than practical. But hey, I don't claim to be an expert.
>>512767
To be perfectly fair, he said he "despised" Christianity, and wrote a book called Antichrist.
>>513037
That doesn't mean he didn't understand its social utility. You can be opposed to something's ethics and still think it was a useful social institution.
Just because he didn't like it, doesn't mean he didn't understand it. The sooner you can grasp this about life, the better off you'll be.
>>513062
He saw it as cancerous and altogether something to abolish. The reason the death of God wasn't something Nietzsche celebrated is because he saw the ghost of Christianity lingering in liberalism and socialism and scientism. Nietzsche want Christianity completely dead, including its legacy. He did not see any social utility in it, he saw it as a perversion, and even the Catholic Church wanted to destroy all that was noble, and that was why it launched crusades against Muslims.
>>513073
No, he believed it served a useful role as a social institution, he wanted art to take its place and admired the Greeks for how they used plays and poetry to teach lessons about morality and life.
Are you actually going to respond to this >>510991
Constantine?
>>516389
1. How is a "mystical state" within the world, and involving all five senses, looking for happiness and meaning in something other than this world? It's true that Christianity doesn't see the material as everything, but it also doesn't see the material as something to be rejected, but as a gift from God for us to enjoy and find happiness in. Spirituality involves finding happiness in the material, the material and the spiritual becoming harmonious.
2. Early Christianity hardly has an antagonistic attitude toward slave owners.
"Evil" in Orthodox Christianity isn't really a common term, it's almost completely absent from our theological works. "Hamartia" is more often employed.
>>510603
leftie detected
Since this seems to be the General Orthodox Thread, I'll ask here.
>cradle atheist
>studied many religions
>landed on orthodoxy
I'm pretty sure that short of the Virgin Mary herself popping out of an icon, I will never believe in God.
Considering the very large cradle atheist population in Russia, is there a particular group that ministers to (or will deal with) an atheist in their midst?
Thanks.
>>518222
I don't mean to downplay your issue here, but if you don't believe in God, how did you "Land" on Orthodoxy? What attracts you to it if you are still apparently an atheist?
