i see a lot of you attempting to be forceful and willful thinkers with seemingly a greater emphasis on heroism than on kindness, preferring more the european ferocity of achilles or sigurd to the meek frailty of christ or moses. how can you resolve this with your claimed faith that directly contradicts the ideologies that are most praised in your local area? need i remind you that virtuosity (courage against meekness, justice against forgiveness, tzedakah often against prudence) is a sin and that the dedication to self improvement or becoming your best in the place of defacing yourself for others is thoroughly anti-christian. if you wouldnt let a wanting man lie with your wife then you cannot claim to be a generous christian.
"master morality christians"
Jeremiah Fisher
Mason Lee
Meekness =/= weakness
We literally went over this yesterday in the 'meek' thread. But, because a fedora like you can't be bothered to look through the catalog ill give you the TL;DR:
The orginal greek Jesus used was "praus". See pic related
Also, it takes more courage to die for others than it is to kill people because you commander told you to.
Ryan Hernandez
Would you start substantiating your claims, fam? It seems clear to me that you're just going by feel and have no in-depth knowledge of Christian teaching, but you could at least post some Bible verses or citations from a catechism to back up some of these statements.
Why do you say this, for example? What has lead you to this conclusion? It's not obvious to me that this is the case, especially since sex outside marriage is a grave sin in Christianity, punishable by death if necessary. (Leviticus 20:10)
Camden Thompson
i see it very often, people trying to absolve the less likable parts of christianity by relating them to european ideals, often greek culture or philosophy. a ton of the refutations of nietzsche do this too, failing to realise that is simply proves the point. if you always resolve the perceived problems by explaining how similar they are to european thinking, then what arguments are there for taking the jewish religion at all?
Wyatt Miller
Dude, it's literally in the Greek Septuagint. Im sorry you public school never taught you greek, but no matter how hard you tip your fedora at me, you are still wrong.
Let me ask you this:
If your best friend was framed for a crime he didn't commit would you lay down your life and take his place agianst the firing squad?
Which would only get you killed and delay your friend's inevitable unrighteous execution.
So would you? Do you love your friend enough to sacrifice your life for his?
Henry Taylor
Correction on my part, the Septuagint is the OT, i ment the NT when Jesus mentions it. I believe it's called the Textus Receptus, but my Orthodox brothers in Christ would be able to confirm my points either way.
Easton Mitchell
its valuing your own dignity over the opportunity to be charitable to another. its sin as clear as day. and yeah it goes against the rules but in an atheist culture its the rules that fade but the values that remain, which is why the modern situation exists.
bear in mind that as much as we have imperfect translations of semitic words, they also have some imperfect translations of ours. though Praus is a warlike thing when used by someone like homer, in the context of the pacifist slave martyr who criticise both cunning and violence is it really the same thing? pretty sure he meant the lower chaste person by using that word.
im not sure why you bought up the sacrifice suggestion but the way to put it is this, if i could be sure that the man had a higher capacity for greatness than i did (if he were inspired and i disabled in some way) then im pretty sure i would yes. i would not for a stranger, nor for one equal to me or lower.
Jace Morales
I reject this claim completely, Moses was hardly frail, he was a war-leader and law-giver, equivalent to Solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta in the gentile world. And Christ is a King who has a feudal style right over us, who are his vassals, (Luke 9:59).
Furthermore, you have uttered the most heinous phrase imaginable, absolute heresy;
Contrast to 1 Corinthians 6:20; "You were bought at a price therefore honour God with your bodies."
To be self effacing is the quality of the centurion in Matthew 8:8 "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but just say the word and my servant shall be healed."
That is to be self EFFACING, to be self defacing however is far easier, just get a tattoo and eat cheese whiz on a couch until you expire from neglect.
Pardon the acerbic comments, but you are espousing the informal heresy of "nice Christianity."
Liam Perry
Pick one! How is cursing your own household generous?
Lincoln Cook
Again, you are missing the point, its not about weakness, its about loyalty. Its about following the two commandments Jesus gives us:
Okay, but look at it from Jesus' perspective. Jesus considered everyone His friend. He died for EVERYONE. Thats more courageous than any feat a greek hero could do. He died so we could be free from the eternal bondage of our failures. He died so we dont have to suffer eternal damnation that the jewish elders and pagan preists would lead us to. He died so we can follow his example of loving self sacrifice so we could build others up. In return others would build us up too.
We show love to strangers because we would want them to do the same for us. But that doesn't mean we let them take advantage of us.
Also:
Daniel Martin
thats the reason that so many people are put off. he was captured and killed not by his own choice. to call this courageous and to use the same word is to stain and distort that word to mean its opposite.
i really wish it meant this, but thats not how it works. it isnt through denying the laws and values of nature (what you call evil) that we achieve quality, as the only way to define quality is through nature. the violent and uncaring man provides more adversary and therefore more quality to others than the quaint and frail one.
people tend to value those they are more familiar with as higher for a reason, because its functional, without it we are mere internationalists without any higher concept of hearth nor home. immeditately vulnerable to those who have not lost that idea. also in that hypothetical situation i would know the man better and woud know whether to trust him with the value of the life i trade for his.
what i really want to point out is the idea of chaste that is flipped on its head. the steed of "praus" was the important idea here, the lower thralled individual who in abrahamic thinking is impeccably obedient but secretly deeply resents his highers and dreams of a hell where they are tortured for eternity. it is this that he claims will inherit the earth and it is this that he praises and is translated as "meekness" that is the lowly thing that is insidiously put in the place of virtue.
Brayden Perez
One final comment;
…Is the most perverse thing written in recent memory, it also inaugurated the post-Christian era. There is no such dichotomy in reality, there are those who govern themselves justly, and then there are "master moralists" who secretly hanker for serfs to beat. Likewise, there can be no "slave morality" because going around permitting oneself and others to be outraged and violated everywhere is not moral.
We were told to bless those that curse us, and not to instinctively repay violence with violence, in the context of petty slights. To "turn the other cheek," to "resist not an evildoer" etc. corresponds to the modern law of tort, or civil wrongs, like slapping someone, or property damage. Would you take a lead pipe to the car of the man who scraped your bumper and drove off if you saw it in a car park? Doing so isn't manly, it's just unreasonable.
If someone slapped you in public, why not say "do it again why don't you? You'll just have to pay me more money." It costs you nothing, and it makes the other person look a fool… Or you could accept the invitation to a duel and stab them to death in a park with a long fancy metal stick. Up to you I guess.
Ethan Morris
That's false, go back and read the Scripture again.
Samuel Edwards
Wrong, Jesus could have fled his captors when Judas betrayed him, but instead he:
He could have fled (like a coward) but he didn't. He knew his duty to God (fortold in the prophecies of the OT). He also knew if he did flee, his disciples would have been tortured for his location.
He willingly gave himself up. When he was put on (((trial))) and all the false witnesses were stacked agianst him, he didn't rebuke them because he knew it would be a waste of time and go agianst the duty he has to God (again foretold by the prophecies of the OT).
Also dont put words in my mouth. I never said the laws of nature were evil. It shows you are only arguing in bad faith. It shows to me and everyone else you are a coward.
The fact that you dont value your neighbors like you do you friends shows your character. Also, why even bother comming to this board?
Christian Cox
thats only true if there is an alternate solution, which isnt always and even less so historically.
you have to understand that it would have been written even if it didnt happen. the entire point is to respect him for being lower, its dificult to persuade people of that if there isnt a choice of his involved
i was waiting for someone to realise. good work, i suppose the thread is over now
Josiah Jackson
The thread is over because you're arguing in bad faith, coward.
Andrew Thomas
You do realize that Nietzsche himself was in every way the opposite of his ideal man of master morality, chronically ill, depressed, and unintentionally celibate.
Usually this counts as an ad hominem, but when you propose the image of the ideal man, you better have proof that at least your philosophy worked for you.
Jeremiah Jenkins
chad
Asher Jones
Sure, this is a shameful thread and you should feel bad
Aaron Taylor
Read Ressentment by Scheler, he tackled this crappy Nietzchean criticism quite exhaustively
False dichotomy. Also the central tenant of Christianity isn't about mere kindness, in fact this 'just be kind :)' morality was the creation of an atheist who literally invented the word altruism, Auguste Comte. You still see this in contemporary secularists: 'you don't need religion to be kind, we're good without God'.
The soppy pseudo-Christianity that you mention does exist, but contrary to what Spengler said, secular humanism is the grandmother of this pseudo-Christianity, which is of the Antichrist in ethos.
Aaron Mitchell
i've read a few refutations of nietzsche, they all justify it by linking the criticised ideas usually to greek philosophy. which as i mentioned begs the question why divert from that in the first place if its the thing people go to as the measure of either "good".
was the needless sack of thebes by alexander the evil kind?
or the rape of the sabynes and slaughter of the gallics by the evil empire rome kind?