/lit/ - Literature

>>16954413
>"While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, the slave morality says 'no' from the very outset to what is 'outside itself,' 'different from itself,' and 'not itself': and this 'no' is its creative deed."

Incorrect; the slave moralist overcomes the aristocrat while both denying what is "not itself" and affirming what is "itself." Is this another one of those "misinterpretations" that we must "read more" to elucidate? That would be like me telling you to "read the church fathers" in response to the Biblical misinterpretations you'll likely post (if you're high energy) in this thread as "proof" of Christianity being "slave morality."

>If the motivation is to escape oppression, then you're a slave. If the motivation is the establish domination
And this is where I said that one can both seek to escape oppression and establish domination. One can seek to first destroy and then create (as a part of his future plan).

You then flip-flopped definitions (or were a different poster), telling me that "a master morality acts despite the other, while the slave moralist acts because of the other. Of course, you just went from one stupidity to the mother of all stupidities, because the master moralist must always act because of the other if he wishes to overcome the other.

Unless you mean that the slave moralist tries to topple the other (tyrant) because he resents the tyrant and wishes to escape pain, and the master moralist topples the tyrant because he wishes to instate his own values (primarily). In that case, then obviously Christianity's history will be filled with "inconsistencies;" it covers so many populations and time-periods- how could it not? But Christianity itself says to not be resentful- to forgive and even love your enemy, which is the opposite of resentment and an evolution of merely being impassive towards them (which most Nietzscheans claim they are, but obviously are not, as shown by their rabid vitriol)

>>16828119
Many were that at the time, Buttershitsmear. But just having a label to throw around like a buzz word doesn't give you power over the thing you're intending to demean, Buttshit.

>>16828112
Eroticism is indispensable for intermarital relations, but broaden your net and you end up having rotten promiscuity. It is fine, and Victorian puritanism and prudishness is excessive (albeit well-intentioned). So, moderation and loyalty is key

>>16694122
>It's simple, a holy text is dogmatic and is seen as infallible
But there is still room for interpretation

>Culture/tradition in the Pagan sense is more anarchic; one can interpret myths and the properties of certain rituals in a slightly different way than others, without being subjectable to the label of heretic.
Then it is dissolute, and is still minimally dogmatic because it does not allow for the extremes you mentioned. If these extremes were allowed, it would be too chaotic and anarchic to allow for a label. So I ask, why not have a coexisting culture/tradition and holy text? The Holy Text supplies injunctions against "extremes" (in your case, destroying a temple, in my case, the ten commandments), while the culture/tradition supplies the specifics

>>16694223
Just search up "Hinduism and egalitarianism," or "Buddhism and egalitarianism." Thus, you will see that these religions can be interpreted as egalitarian by their adherents, which shows that egalitarianism could have arisen from them. What even is Christian about Marxism? That the two incidentally share some beliefs? Every falsehood contains some measure of truth, distorted, so Marxism having a Christian influence doesn't mean much (when it distorts or exaggerates that Christian component).

>>16694754
Explain why it is important to have a hierarchy of souls? Christianity has individuals who go to Hell, Heaven, Saints, martyrs, or even Purgatory (if you're a Catholic). Is this not a hierarchical system, or is it wrong by virtue of not directly imitating your pet religion?

>>16694759
Therefore, both are important. Prioritizing one over the other is like prioritizing the blade over the handle, meaning you end up with half of the job done.

>>16694765
No, it's hard to have a heresy because practically anything goes, as that anon said. You can believe what you will about the gods so long as you venerate them and do not destroy their temples/holy places. That which you see as "straightforward" can be surprisingly misinterpreted.

>and even if they do they inevitably serve the point because there's a place for everything to be allocated
Conceding my previous point. The only difference is that its dogmas are not only blind, but also ambulant. Christian dogma manifests itself in the laws of the state, how do pagan beliefs manifest themselves? Surely, not also through laws?

>>16694771
The Bible provides archetypes to follow, and its "stringent dogma" isn't so stringent as you think..

>>16694816
Where do you receive your information regarding paganism from? Several books? You do know the Bible is several books compiled into one book?