/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16842419]

Defence of Christianity and its morality

God is dead, but christianity remains. In the early 19th century, philosophers struggled with the question of a God conceptualised as a personal humanistic god, focused on the preservation or destruction of peoples based on their moralistic relation to the jews. In a scientific age, this God was irreconcilable with the physical and technological truths uncovered by the scientific method, calculated and discovered over the course of the previous millennia. They peaked into the depths of reality and saw no bottom. We had shed the belief in a God, while remaining christian in our actions and institutions.

Many great figures thereafter posited a new morality based on the aesthetic beauty of man and the universe, the recognition of the will to power and survival of the fittest, and the celebration of our place; and possiblities granted by our immense creativity. While this is certainly a worthwhile endeavour, these philosophers, (namely Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and their contemporaries) grew up steeped in the christian mindset, and so very easily took for granted the benfits bestowed by the careful theological creation that is christianity.

[Anonymous No.16842453]

>>16842419
This style, along with the preservation of a single people of israel for almost its entire record, allowed for the continuation of theological exploration on a scale unparalleled anywhere else throughout our planets history. Our perception of Christianity and its God has drifted immensely over time, we have forgotten many of its truths. I will name here some misconceptions we now hold and sift through the ashes to obtain once again the ancient and crucial truths to which we owe our present existence.

To understand this, first we have to recognise that the authors of this great work lived in the same world we inhabit today. While hermaneutics change, the physical world, its laws and human nature remain unchanged. This was the same for the authors of Genesis as it was for the author/s of the Book of Matthew. The reason this is important is because the contents are narratives that relay the actions of its characters, and then details its consequences. Each reference to God is a reference to the same world we inhabit today, viewed through the lense of Joshua, Judas, Ezra or Daniel. Over time each jew would be intimately connected with the moral lessons of his forbearers, and expand upon them with his own. Whether there is distinct, concious intent behind the patterns of existance we call God is besides the point here. We each take daily action in our various communities which result in consequesnces from which we learn.

[Anonymous No.16842457]

>>16842453
Peoples throughout every time and place have done this, but nowhere has it been continuously recorded and relayed for such a length of time as with the jews and then ultimately the christian church. We may now cast off the superstitions of the past, but let us not lose what was valuably gained by Christianity.

Another conception of heaven and hell is not a place your conciousness goes after death, as conceptualised by a child... But the remembrance of your soul in the minds of those who come after you, and the waves you pushed forth in your life, taking affect mellennia after. Our parents imprint their traumas on us, we pass the kindess we received to others. Both of these are small examples of heaven and hell that is very real and for which the effect is immediately exxperienced.

The things we value today are the immediate limbic satisfaction of the things that provide comfort and ease, the technology. We prize this as the pillar of our societies. In the time of the new testament, the romans had aqueducts and amphitheatres, before then Alexander mounted the walls of Tyre with towering seige engines. None of these technological advancements were mentioned in the bible because its focus wasn't on the transitory nature of the body, but on the immortality of the soul.

[Anonymous No.16842525]

>>16842419
>The things we value today are the immediate limbic satisfaction of the things that provide comfort and ease, the technology. We prize this as the pillar of our societies.
That much is apparent in your case when you say things like this:
>In a scientific age, this God was irreconcilable with the physical and technological truths uncovered by the scientific method
However, it makes no sense. A "personal humanistic god" is not effected by technological advancement.

[Anonymous No.16842545]

>>16842419
>We had shed the belief in a God, while remaining christian in our actions and institutions.
They're not. Just read the OT, it feels as alien as talibans tribes history. Aristotle ethics or Marcus Aurelius thoughts read much closer to our mindset. We've never ceased to be more Roman than christian and that's a good thing.

>None of these technological advancements were mentioned in the bible because its focus wasn't on the transitory nature of the body, but on the immortality of the soul.
OT is monist, they believe in a kind of "breath" (nefesh) but it's neither immortal nor separated from the body. That's why the ultimate promise is resurrection after all.
NT is more messed up about this subject due to the influence of zoroastrianism and platonism in late judaism and early church fathers.
Immortality of the soul is definetly a platonician concept that we've come to think as christian while it is not (it conflicts with resurrection).

[Anonymous No.16842597]

>>16842525
That's the point, it's the mindset commonly held but it negates itself. Technology is used as a substitute for meaning when no god is affected by technological advancement.
The tower of Babel story doesn't even mention man's attempt to 'reach the sky' as the sin, but the disregard of the command to 'go forth and multiply'. The fact they congregated and did not socially heterogenize.

[Anonymous No.16842626]

>>16842545
These thinkers distained the religion and therefore aimed to remove it all together from their philosophical models, ultimately removing the foundations on which they stood. They saw that platonic thinking detached the physical world from the spiritual, and recognised that this separation was useful to comment upon its components. However our minds are intimately connected to our bodies, relying entirely on the constant sensory input it provides to maintain its reality and functionality. The biblical framework built upon this separation and reconciled the two in both its literary style and its constant, repeated call to action. Each passage avoids formal phylosophical and theological theory in favour of entirely moralistic narratives based on the actions of the characters

[Anonymous No.16842662]

>>16842419
>God is dead
You fell for that meme?

[Anonymous No.16842682]

>>16842662
It is in the eyes of most western nation. It's sad but it's true take a survey of people on the street in the UK, Germany, Australia
US is the last holdout because it's such a young melting pot so any forms of identity are clung to.

[Anonymous No.16842694]

God is Dead, but Christ rises within you.

[Anonymous No.16842713]

>>16842662
The very conception of memes is proof that yes, God is Dead. No, contrary to what you believe, Nietzsche was not happy about this, and the statement is not literal. Go read a book, retard.

[Anonymous No.16842721]

Hahaha

[Anonymous No.16842725]

>>16842713
Wait really? I thought he wanted to become the ubermensh so he could go kill God. What did he actually mean then?

[Anonymous No.16842752]

>>16842725
He meant that "God" didn't hold sway IN PEOPLES MINDS as he once did. God could be still alive, or maybe he never existed, it doesn't matter, because people weren't listening to him anymore. Christianity's power had been broken, and thus people were free to choose their own morality, or be subjected to alternative moralities.. This is generally a bad thing. Nietzsche never said he was the ubermensch. "God is Dead" has nothing to do with the ubermensch, because it was all of the people who AREN'T the ubermensch who, as Nietzsche said, had "killed" him.

[Anonymous No.16842769]

>>16842725
The guy was originally going to become a theologian. He saw the beauty of God.