Christianity after Nietzsche.

by Narkissos 56 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Most of us are familiar with, or at least have heard of, Friedrich Nietzsche's virulent criticism of Christianity: according to Nietzsche the belief in, and desire for, "another (higher or future) world" and "eternal life" betrays a hatred of this world and real life, of power and beauty, of the animal and the "body," a "slave morality" which essentially consists in "resentment" against everything real, powerful, beautiful, etc. Christian "spirituality" is shameful "nihilism," nihilism in disguise, the central emblem of which is the cross, understood as the very negation of life, with the "will of power" and the cruel beauty it is made of. Nietzsche lumps together Christianity and Anarchism as expressions of the same basic rejection of reality. Btw Christianity is the main, but not unique or isolated target of this criticism: in a sense it applies to the whole Western philosophical tradition, starting from Socrates and Plato, and extends to Eastern thought as well (e.g. Buddhism), although the negative aspect of the latter is less hidden, hence less perverse.

  I am wondering about the possible strategies Christianity may use to face this criticism -- inasmuch as it accepts the confrontation, of course. So I'll leave aside ignorance (that of the old man in Zarathustra, who "hasn't yet heard that God is dead"), or apologetic denial.

  I can see two opposite ways:

  1. Transforming Christianity into a positive, humanistic, life- and reality-friendly religion, by clearing it of its "deadly" dogma and symbols. Sweeping "sin," "repentance," "death" and the cross under the carpet and trying essentially to "look happy" (re: the Nietzschean comment that Christians didn't "look saved"). This, I feel, has been the main strategy so far, in liberal theology and mainstream Christian "communication" at least.

  2. Accepting and thinking afresh, in a more lucid way, the negative, anti-humanistic, anti-realistic aspects of Christian tradition, without converting them too hastily into "positive" virtues... considering that it may indeed play an essential, paradoxically liberating, part in human "economy" (both socially and psychologically, for instance), while acknowledging its dangers (especially where it is still in a position to dominate and repress life and creativity).

  Side reflection: I often thought that, if I had to give a blasphemous award to the dumbest and most perverse Bible verse, I would grant it to the famous Deuteronomy passage: "I have put life and death before you: you must choose life." Dumb because nobody can have life without death. Perverse because it is, typically, a tyrant's word (it is actually inspired of the Assyrian treaties of allegiance imposed by the suzerain on their vassals): the tyrant knows nobody can break free from his rule without, at some point, choosing death...

  Thoughts welcome.
• 

  real one

  Christianity will remain the same. The world is always opposite to what the Bible says. If God said run the world would say walk. Go figure.
• 

  hamilcarr

  One possible strategy is the so-called weak theology (I would add perspectivist theology) as put forward by John De Caputo.

  On the classical account of strong theology, Jesus was just holding back his divine power in order to let his human nature suffer. He freely chose to check his power because the Father had a plan to redeem the world with his blood. ... That is not the weakness of God that I am here defending. God, the event harbored by the name of God, is present at the crucifixion, as the power of the powerlessness of Jesus, in and as the protest against the injustice that rises up from the cross, in and as the words of forgiveness, not a deferred power that will be visited upon one’s enemies at a later time. God is in attendance as the weak force of the call that cries out from Calvary and calls across the epochs, that cries out from every corpse created by every cruel and unjust power. The logos of the cross is a call to renounce violence, not to conceal and defer it and then, in a stunning act that takes the enemy by surprise, to lay them low with real power, which shows the enemy who really has the power. That is just what Nietzsche was criticizing under the name of ressentiment.

  – John D. Caputo, The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event

  This involves a new all-embracing view on this world and real life since it doesn't expect a deferred punishment for the enemy.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Narkissos, your thread reminds me of this piece I read yesterday detailing correlating Christianity with modern currents of thought (you might enjoy it):

  CHRISTIANITY AND EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS: SKETCH TOWARD A RECONCILIATION

  Now back to your comments.

  Transforming Christianity into a positive, humanistic, life- and reality-friendly religion.

  I really can't address this as you would probably like me to Narkissos. I don't think Christianity is negative, anti-human, or life-unfriendly.

  This, I feel, has been the main strategy so far, in liberal theology and mainstream Christian "communication" at least.

  Yes. The religion is born anew in every age and adapted to the human needs of the time and place where it exists. The Catholic Pope is here in the US for a visit this week. Much of his rhetoric has focused on human rights, the dignity of the human person as a reflection of God, and the sanctity of human life. He grounds these values in the Christian heritage. As for reality, well, it is your perception that is real--to you, and to me. Without getting into specific strains of Christianity, we really can't address which parts are antireality, I think. Perhaps you have some examples?

  Accepting and thinking afresh, in a more lucid way, the negative, anti-humanistic, anti-realistic aspects of Christian tradition, without converting them too hastily into "positive" virtues... considering that it may indeed play an essential, paradoxically liberating, part in human "economy" (both socially and psychologically, for instance), while acknowledging its dangers (especially where it is still in a position to dominate and repress life and creativity).

  I'm thinking that we need the negative in the human experience. Suffering becomes imbued with meaning. Is this what you are thinking of? I'm a bit dense. Could you please illustrate?

  Dumb because nobody can have life without death.

  Perhaps this is inherent in the Christian tradition also.

  Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

  Burn
• 

  R.Crusoe

  On listening to Eckhart and his many references to Biblical references to Jesus, as well as some from other belief systems, I notice how the holistic aura he appears to know so well carries a collective awakening for any who are able to embrace and employ it.

  However, his arrival at his notions seems to stem from his personal experience of casting off all ego and role - or at least that's how he comes across. He suggests he hit a prescence where ego fell away and the reality of his formless self emerged and has dominated his NOWness thereafter.

  My problem is in, not reaching into the egoless nowness, or emerging from it void of all egos and roles, but to do so carrying a zeal,vigour and desire for the life within the form that I am.

  In this respect I struggle to emerge in the way Eckhart has and I wonder if in fact he has emerged, not into his formless self - content with its own everlasting needless isolation, but into a super egoic role for the liberation of humanity which he is now living the nowness of.

  I do not know or understand - whether I will I will see?
• 

  R.Crusoe

  What does Eckhart bring to the table?

  Evil or satan is the expression of negative egos we each possess. So if you feel aggravated and display an action to anothers action - it is an ego that has evolved within you which is not your true self but one of a role you have adopted for the world you are in and all it expects of you.

  Your true self is the perfect god given aspect of yourself which is only imperfect because of its incompleteness due to its being bound by the form of your body which is its temporary residence. It will move onwards - meantime you must focus on it to evolve its sense of self and lose all ego attachments - roles you identify with and act out in realtime which constantly dwell on the past or future wishes RATHER than on this split secomd life within which is the truth of your formless (bodyless) self.

  So he teaches you how to let go of ego by living in the very second of your nowness - focusing on life and living whilst surrounded by chaos - like being an invisible human to any.

  So binding evil/satan with ego is an evolutionary intellectual human 'next step' in our species and will help us isolate belief systems which target us with a super egoic belief strata rather than the one of the nowness of the inner being - individual and living - as Jesus alluded to!
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Another thought.

  The OP seems to describe a desire to reconcile Christianity with modern humanism; the modern and postmodern culture in general.

  This is a moving target. The culture will move on in decades and centuries to come and become other "ïsms"". To think that the current iteration is the endpoint of all development is a bit hubristic.

  To bind the faith so tightly to the current worldview is to mean that it will break, when the current breaks, or dies and leaves seeds for the new.

  Christianity has shown much more resilience than that.

  Burn
• 

  hamilcarr

  To bind the faith so tightly to the current worldview is to mean that it will break, when the current breaks, or dies and leaves seeds for the new.

  Christianity has shown much more resilience than that.

  You seem to imply that binding christianity to postmodernity is an attempt to break the former. Christianity's capability to survive all the mentioned -isms is not to be doubted, the question, however, is: how to attract a new generation with a different view on reality to the christian message without renouncing its core values.

  This question may be more urgent or real in Europe than the US.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  You seem to imply that binding christianity to postmodernity is an attempt to break the former.

  I don't imply it is an attempt to break the former. At least I did not mean to.

  Christianity's capability to survive all the mentioned -isms is not to be doubted, the question, however, is: how to attract a new generation with a different view on reality to the christian message without renouncing its core values.

  Right.

  Burn
• 

  hamilcarr

  And you are granted the right to define these core values?

  h