FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-19-2001, 05:39 PM   #71
Ender
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lusitania Colony
Posts: 658
Thumbs up

Originally posted by Amos: Nietzsche was torn between heaven and earth.

I don't think Nietzsche was 'torn' between a promise of the after life and the current life. Rather he wanted to find a replacement for the dead God since that was the source of our values, our knowledge, the meaning of life- and came up with the Ubermensch as a solution.

Yes it was timeless but can be shot down because he is not illusive enough. I read it in a mad rush when I had 7 courses in front of me. So really, I should not comment other than that I could tolerate Nietzsche.

His best and my all time favorite is his camel allegory where we load up like a camel and proceed towards the oasis. Before we get there we must become like a lion and for most of us our bagage will be to great to act like a lion and hence few of us will ever reach the oasis.

You're conveniently forgetting the third stage of the allegory- the child who starts anew at the oasis.

I have no objection to his "God is dead" and can justify his position here.

Actually, please do so. I have been doing a bit of scrounging around and found out that Hegel actually said it first, before Nietzsche

(hint: it's in his Phenomenoly of the spirit masterpiece)

~WiGGiN~
Ender is offline  
Old 09-19-2001, 10:26 PM   #72
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Irate Ender:
<STRONG>Originally posted by Amos: Nietzsche was torn between heaven and earth.

I don't think Nietzsche was 'torn' between a promise of the after life and the current life. Rather he wanted to find a replacement for the dead God since that was the source of our values, our knowledge, the meaning of life- and came up with the Ubermensch as a solution.

Yes it was timeless but can be shot down because he is not illusive enough. I read it in a mad rush when I had 7 courses in front of me. So really, I should not comment other than that I could tolerate Nietzsche.

His best and my all time favorite is his camel allegory where we load up like a camel and proceed towards the oasis. Before we get there we must become like a lion and for most of us our bagage will be to great to act like a lion and hence few of us will ever reach the oasis.

You're conveniently forgetting the third stage of the allegory- the child who starts anew at the oasis.

I have no objection to his "God is dead" and can justify his position here.

Actually, please do so. I have been doing a bit of scrounging around and found out that Hegel actually said it first, before Nietzsche

(hint: it's in his Phenomenoly of the spirit masterpiece)

~WiGGiN~</STRONG>
Oh no, I did not for forget about the third face but left it out because so few of us get that chance. This child that start anew is "the child that is to become the father of Man" as William Woodsworth wrote. This child is the Christ-child that was born at the midnight (6), midwinter (6) midlife (6) period of our life. Its number is therefore 666 and "is the number of Man", so the story goes, and while everybody else thinks it is the most evil symbol of life I just showed you proof that few of us get there because it is the most welcome sign of our life. It is precisely for this reason that I find Nietzsche's allegory so great.

Amos
 
Old 10-02-2001, 09:30 PM   #73
mattfeld
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 6
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Papaver:
<STRONG>OK, this has gotten into the realm of ridiculous.

The author(s) of the Genesis story, were early Semetic people. They did NOT, I repeat did NOT believe in a Satan or any kind of evil diety.
So how could they, figuratively or metaphorically be referring to Satan or some other icon of evil ? ANSWER - THEY DIDN'T !!
You all are reading things into the story that are not there. But, that is par for the course for scriptural interpretation, proceeding from the stupid to the ridiculous !</STRONG>
It is my understanding that the Hebrews are re-working an ancient Mesopotamian myth that observed that Mankind once had a chance to obtain immortality but lost out being tricked by the god he served. Adam is a re-casting of Adapa and the Serpent is a re-casting of Ningishzida, the Sumerian serpent-god who could take on human form as well an animal. As an animal he his shown walking on all four legs, with wings, RED serpent body and two horns atop his head. He dwelt originally in the Underworld, but was ressurected to heaven to guard the gates of the heavenly paradise. Ningishzida, "Lord of the Good Tree," offered Adapa the food of life which would confer immortality. Adapa refused to eat it being forewarned by the god he served on earth, Enki, that if he ate anything offered him he would surely die. Enki did not want his human servant to become immortal. Viewers with an interest in all this can access the following url
http://www.bibleorigins.net/ningishzida.html

All the Best, Walter R. Mattfeld
mattfeld is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.