[open]God is Dead from Nietzsche

[Im_A]

i hope it is ok to ask this here. since i'm here in WWMC a lot, i'd like to hear other's thoughts on this.

i re-read some excerpts from this excerpt. i'd like to find his book, "The Gay Science" to read it as a whole. i'm sure in time i'll find it.

but the point he is trying to make has been touching some things on my mind here lately. here is an excerpt:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

i just find this really touching on with things on my mind here lately. this rationalization of how Christianity is not some myth but truth, which i'm starting wonder if we are losing the true beauty of the specialness of Christianity. to even in the last century or so, Christianity being rationalized through logic and reason.

then again, i don't know if there would be any other venue to express the concerns because people need to know something in the terms that they understand. to say i'm a mythological Christian is a term that is not understood today, instead of a rational Christian, is a term that is not understood, or taken very seriously today.

and the rationalization or in other words the demythologization of Christianity, i just wonder if this will be the process as humanity evolves. the issues that rationalization or demythologizing christianity tries to accomplish, just makes me wonder if Nietzche was right...in the term that God is the dead and any kind of reconstruction of this God is just a reconstruction of what had died.

just some things on my mind lately, especially since i've read parts of that on the connection between myths book i mentioned in another thread.

feel free to share any thoughts, and i hope this doesn't move over to Philosophy. if i wanted the opinions of posters over there i'd post it over there, but since it is not there yet, i hope i'm still in line with CF's rules to ask the opinions of the regular posters here, and the open tag is on so all you Nicene brethern, feel free to share your thoughts!

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

The church has always claimed to have recieved the lifeblood of christ and deemed the world dead. Ironically, it is as though God has now been drained of life and the church is a corpse-bride, eating and eating and eating in an attempt to regain its God-life, in desperation she now drinks the life-blood of converts and members, and has become what it drinks - a human organism, with a zombie-like holiness. She has not murdered God, she has replaced God with herself. And so God, having been replaced, has replaced his bride. The gospel lives again, and God is available to all, to the world; to those who are more alive than the so-called living church.

God is increasingly dead to church and alive to the world. And the church is dead to the world, and cannot see where Gods life is truly and graciously now lives; in the world.

If the church cannot kill itself and grasp the world again in humility and genuine searching for christ, the curch is not worth saving. But the world is. IMO.

 

[Multi-Elis]

Wasn't it Spong who said:
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

 

[Multi-Elis]

I wanted to add that I don't know much about Nietzsche, so I feel incapable of talking much about this. However, I do believe in "the myth that is true". There are many things in this world that we cannot talk about or grasp so we need to talk about it in metaphores... who knows how much, for example, what NDEs see is metaphore for something they would't other wise be able to explain... They see truth, but the truth is not the form it takes but rather what it means...

 

[artybloke]

There are an awful lot of ideas about God that have been dead for years, but are still walking around like zombies:

1) The idea of God as judge, jury and prosecution.

2) The idea of God as the giver of gifts to "good" religious people

3) The idea of God as Great Male Phallocentric Tower of Virtue

4) The Imperial God of the British/European/Amerikan Empire

5) The idea of God as provider of the crumbs of charity to the poor.

If Jesus came back today, who would he visit first, the President of the United States, or indigenous peoples (Zappatistas) of South America? And who would be the first to crucify him?

God is dead. Long live God.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

But Jesus seeks those who are without him... surely the Americas fair worse off in that regard than the Zappatistas. I reckon Bush needs Jesus to stand in front of him so that the dosey twerp could realise he aint got a clue about Jesus.

 

[Im_A]

There are an awful lot of ideas about God that have been dead for years, but are still walking around like zombies:

1) The idea of God as judge, jury and prosecution.

2) The idea of God as the giver of gifts to "good" religious people

3) The idea of God as Great Male Phallocentric Tower of Virtue

4) The Imperial God of the British/European/Amerikan Empire

5) The idea of God as provider of the crumbs of charity to the poor.

If Jesus came back today, who would he visit first, the President of the United States, or indigenous peoples (Zappatistas) of South America? And who would be the first to crucify him?

God is dead. Long live God.

thank you for posting this.

so what left do you believe is to believe there is God? do you think Jesus gives us reasons to actually believe God is somewhat alive? or are human beings "god"?

 

[Multi-Elis]

This reminds me a bit of what I was thinking about a couple months ago: why look for ways to define God? Why uphold some specific understanding of God, when he will always be too big for it?

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

He?

 

[Im_A]

This reminds me a bit of what I was thinking about a couple months ago: why look for ways to define God? Why uphold some specific understanding of God, when he will always be too big for it?

i think we all want to understand God, cause then, we think we are worshipping something tangible, something understandable.

but i agree, every understanding, Jewish understanding, Christian understanding, Muslim understanding, Hindu understanding, still only let's us see things in a mirror darkly. only those that choose to believe in something they can understand shows us God, can see God...ie Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, or any other character in religion for that matter. the centuries pass. the understanding doesn't match up with people's mindsets, culture, and i guess it almost seems like God continually dies time and time again and gets reborn. just now we're seeing a secular God instead of a pagan God, Jewish God, Hindu God, Christian God. i guess it could be a positive side for God, but then again, it truly makes one wonder what is the point with religion, or anything at all for that matter, if it is all based on human understanding.

 

[DailyBlessings]

But Jesus seeks those who are without him... surely the Americas fair worse off in that regard than the Zappatistas. I reckon Bush needs Jesus to stand in front of him so that the dosey twerp could realise he aint got a clue about Jesus.

And Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Gukkor]

i think we all want to understand God, cause then, we think we are worshipping something tangible, something understandable.

but i agree, every understanding, Jewish understanding, Christian understanding, Muslim understanding, Hindu understanding, still only let's us see things in a mirror darkly. only those that choose to believe in something they can understand shows us God, can see God...ie Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, or any other character in religion for that matter. the centuries pass. the understanding doesn't match up with people's mindsets, culture, and i guess it almost seems like God continually dies time and time again and gets reborn. just now we're seeing a secular God instead of a pagan God, Jewish God, Hindu God, Christian God. i guess it could be a positive side for God, but then again, it truly makes one wonder what is the point with religion, or anything at all for that matter, if it is all based on human understanding.

Nothing is based on human understanding except for human actions. While it is true that our overall understanding of God changes with time, God is not the one that is changing. Rather, our perspective, what small part of Him we can see through our darkened window, that is what truly changes.

 

[zero9ine]

Spong is not very theologically sound. As much as i'd like him to be right, i cannot, in most serious ways, weigh his beliefs. He may seem very exciting, but again, not very theologically sound.
"Spong has led many people away from the true path. i understand anyone who has questions...that doesn't bother me. BUT, I hate it when people present speculation as fact. It makes Spong very dangerous to the average person."-The Wayward Saint Rob (an awesome thinker)

 

[zero9ine]

This reminds me a bit of what I was thinking about a couple months ago: why look for ways to define God? Why uphold some specific understanding of God, when he will always be too big for it?

Because that's a part of christian theology, and its a balance, and for either side to go too far is in either ignorant or biased territory. metaphors, analogies, and the such have their place. What about comparing god to a lion, or a king, or shepherd? all have an aspect or aspect that the writer meaned to convey about the character, personality, and/or qualities of this God, and at the same time, did not intend for it to be taken too far (i.e. anything other than original goal for writing to give understanding). The fairer and even more realistic understanding, i believe, is that these constantly show how God is always bigger than a specific set of analogies or metaphors by only able to use things we can relate to (a neccesity in communication) to get a picture and more correct understanding/direction in viewing this God whom Jesus claimed.

 

[Im_A]

Spong is not very theologically sound. As much as i'd like him to be right, i cannot, in most serious ways, weigh his beliefs. He may seem very exciting, but again, not very theologically sound.
"Spong has led many people away from the true path. i understand anyone who has questions...that doesn't bother me. BUT, I hate it when people present speculation as fact. It makes Spong very dangerous to the average person."-The Wayward Saint Rob (an awesome thinker)

i'm not one who agrees with everything Spong has to say. i'm going to be currently reading one of his books, so i have more reasons to say i agree or disagree.

but the question i was just wanting to propose is, what makes John Calvin more sound theology versuses Jacobus Arminius or visa versa?

what makes the RCC(Roman Catholic Church) theology side more sound than the EO(Eastern Orthodoxy) sides?

what makes Luther's theology more sound than Zwingli on the Eucharist?

point is, who has the ability to say what is sound doctrine? the use of scripture? if the individual is able to make the sound judgement of what is sound doctrine that is humanism at its finest, and i thought humanism was wrong? does Apostollic Succession hold any more credibility than the individual desciding what is sound? i would say maybe historically it may have more grounding, but at the same time, what accountability is there for even this? the Spirit of God? what defines the Spirit of God? those that confess Jesus Christ Lord...well if that is case, then the Spirit of God is the author of confusion, and i dare not tread that ground.

btw, please don't think i'm trying to be mean here. just offering discussion if you'd like to discuss, and if not, then just giving food for thought. God Bless you! <><

 

[Im_A]

Because that's a part of christian theology, and its a balance, and for either side to go too far is in either ignorant or biased territory. metaphors, analogies, and the such have their place. What about comparing god to a lion, or a king, or shepherd? all have an aspect or aspect that the writer meaned to convey about the character, personality, and/or qualities of this God, and at the same time, did not intend for it to be taken too far (i.e. anything other than original goal for writing to give understanding). The fairer and even more realistic understanding, i believe, is that these constantly show how God is always bigger than a specific set of analogies or metaphors by only able to use things we can relate to (a neccesity in communication) to get a picture and more correct understanding/direction in viewing this God whom Jesus claimed.

it may only be me, but it seems if this is this basis of Christian theology, to hold metaphors as dogmatic expressions of the being we serve, aren't we guilty of idolatry?

 

[Im_A]

Nothing is based on human understanding except for human actions. While it is true that our overall understanding of God changes with time, God is not the one that is changing. Rather, our perspective, what small part of Him we can see through our darkened window, that is what truly changes.

with all the differeniating views of God, i don't know if i can believe that nothing is based on human understanding except for human actions. it takes understanding to even comprehend any view at all, and like you said, it is a darkened window view of understanding that changes.

btw, i really can't see where the part of what i quoted from Nietzche is actually stating that God changed, or God is dead or that God never existed. from what it seems it is more along a social level of how God is now disceted from society's lives, thus giving one the ability to say, "God is dead" when as compared before, the ideas, and morality was directed, possibly even on a majority level, on a belief in a god concept.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I've never fully understood the mentality that reading or listening to such and such is "dangerous". Dangerous to whom, exactly? I mean, do you believe that your faith is logically sound or not? If a bumbling commoner can perceive the gaping hole in a doctrine, given the opportunity, than it probably is not true. Knowledge is only dangerous to something which cannot defend itself from the truth.

 

[Multi-Elis]

point is, who has the ability to say what is sound doctrine?

Well, this seems to me to be an entirely different question, but I like it.

Dangerous to whom, exactly?

I am sometimes scared... not that there is a gaping hole in my doctrine, beacause that is something I've come to accept and consider every one to have, but rather -- to be swept away emotionally by somebody so charasmatic, or clever, that logic doesn't seep in and bring a balance untill much damage is done.

 

[Im_A]

Well, this seems to me to be an entirely different question, but I like it.
I am sometimes scared... not that there is a gaping hole in my doctrine, beacause that is something I've come to accept and consider every one to have, but rather -- to be swept away emotionally by somebody so charasmatic, or clever, that logic doesn't seep in and bring a balance untill much damage is done.

just remember to always be critical and hold on to the good and you are in power over yourself not some charismatic preacher who fools you that he is clever with truth in any form. your a creation of God, not some puppet to emotional speakers trying to convince you of whatever they want you to believe.