Since we are going to attempt to do both the Gospel of Luke Passion Narrative and the prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra I think it best to pick sides. Tell me of the two who you find more attractive i.e. who do you wish to follow; Jesus or the man who claimed that God was dead? Be sure to tell me why?
Hopefully we will be able to go over both texts tomorrow, but if not be sure to at least focus on developing an interpretation of the Gospel passage. For those who saw Jesus Christ Super Star be thinking about the role of Judas and whether or not we can truly classify him as a villian.
See ya soon,
Dr. Layne
I would prefer to follow Jesus rather than someone who claims that God is dead. It is human nature to wonder about the start of humanity; some people go to religion, while others go to science, but regardless of how they explain existence, everyone searches for the answers. Zarathustra fails to supply any answers: he loves "those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down". Apathy on the subject is simply not an appealing point of you.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, if Zarathustra is not saying God is dead in a literal sense (or, more specifically, that he does not exist), but as a commentary on modern views of God, then I agree with him. The current knowledge of religion is poor, and religion is no longer an acceptable means by which to control morals: religion simply does not have the social backing to provide a foundation for society now. Additionally, atheism is becoming prevalent enough (and was at the time of Nietzsche) to create a solid argument that "God is dead".
I firmly believe in following Jesus Christ and the value of faith in God above all earthly things. In the prologue, Zarathustra proclaims that God is dead, whether he means this in the literal sense or in the abstract sense that God no longer has influence over our lives, I disagree. Is he then saying that there is no eternity? While it may be true that secularization is occurring in the contemporary world I believe that for many people God still directs their lives. I disagree with Andrew in saying that religion cannot provide a foundation for society. The problem lies not with religion but with individuals who get caught up with worldly pleasures and think that religion should change to accommodate the declining values of today. I personally don’t know where I would be today without my faith, it has made me stronger in my difficulties and given me the strength of perseverance. God gives meaning to my life and helps me to understand things that without faith would be difficult to put into perspective. I believe that God has a plan for all of us and it is up to us as individuals to grasp this and believe it. Therefore God is not dead in any sense.
ReplyDeleteI must side with Nietzsche because his ideals seem to describe humanity's direction rather well. He says that "God is dead," not because he himself says and believes so, but because he believes that humanity has "killed" god. We are the reason that god is so much less prevalent in society, what with the prevalence science and atheists. However, that is not to say that Nietzsche ever believed in god in the first place. He merely views god from an atheist's perspective, and says that the "god" of his time has much less influence compared to the "god" of the past. We humans seem to have contorted this image of god into something less than ideal. Furthermore, humans started to become less dependent on god for things, started to search for answers and morals on their own, rather than turning to god. In a sense, Nietzsche is saying, even in the absence of a god upon which one can base one's morals, humans that do not believe in a higher power somehow still find morals and answers to questions without god's aid. He is exploring the question of how non-theists obtain their morals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin in that Nietzsche was implying that human culture is what has "killed", or led to the decreased influence, of God. However, I would still choose to follow as Jesus as he is a symbol of redemption for humanity. This gives humanity something to strive towards, not just continue a reckless journey of depravity.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Zarathustra, the passage where he speaks of blasphemy against God being the greatest blasphemy once upon a time, and God now being died, shows the idea of how he thinks God has died to society. At least the meaning of God. Now a days people use God simply as a way of escape from their struggles. Once he was praised for the good and the bad by everyone. Now it is often people only speak to God when they are in need. When they have a problem God is their escape. In my opinion this "kills" the original purpose of God that was instilled in the beginning. The idea of following Jesus takes us back to how it was supposed to be. Finding God to find one's self, not just make our problems go away. People need to resort back to this initial mind set of God. The majority of our society have “killed” God by making him merely a way to have a better life, versus being a better person.
ReplyDeleteI follow Jesus. Without the unending love and grace that I receive, I would be nothing. My life would be meaningless, and I would not be who I am, nor who I strive to be, but rather a pathetic excuse for an individual.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Nietzsche probably did not mean 'God does not exist' when claiming that 'God is dead,' but that it was probably more an observation of a society that supposedly 'killed' God. These individuals did not live lives that were focussed on God and his purpose in their lives, however, I do not believe that this means God was 'killed' by this society. Our sin, which I believe to be defined as anytime we put our desires before God's will, separates us from God, but no matter how far we move away from God, we could not kill him. Not even a generation or society of rebellious individuals could kill God, for even if one does not believe in God, God still loves that individual more than he or she could ever understand. Therefore, God could never truly be 'killed' or removed from our lives, because he is still seeking after the individuals who have not developed a relationship with him. It seems to me that Nietzsche argued for the fact that we removed God because the lives he saw were not defined by God's will, but I do not believe it could ever truly remove God, yet alone 'kill' him.
This choice between following Jesus and Nietzesche's nihilism reminds me of a story, in which an atheist and an apologist for Christianity were discussing their views. At one point, the atheist is on stage, shouting and screaming that God does not exist and never could, and wrote on the chalk board behind him:
GOD IS NOWHERE.
As the atheist sat down, challenging the Christian apologetic to refute him, the gentlemen merely stood up and walked over the chalk board, and wrote on the chalkboard right below the previous line:
God is now here.
The apologetic sat back down, and the atheist had no response.
I have been enrolled in a Catholic school since I started kindergarten. I was forced to go to Church every Sunday and would always try to fake sick so I wouldn’t have to go. It wasn’t until my senior year in high school that I first started believing in the faith I was baptized in. A horrible event happened that year that brought me closer to God then ever before. I needed someone to turn to when I couldn’t talk to my friends or my parents and so God slowly came back into my life. I can’t fathom what I would of done without God in my life last year. To go further and describe God as dead gives me a sense of hopelessness. I see God as a mentor in my life, someone who works with me to become a better human being for the sake of others and myself. Therefore God is very much alive to me.
ReplyDeleteI would also have to follow Nietzsche, for the same reasons as Kevin. Nietzsche, of course, didn't mean that God is actually dead; simply that God isn't particularly relevant in society any more. To add to this, I'm going to go so far as to say Christianity isn't particularly relevant in society any more.
ReplyDeleteI went to St. Louis University High School, a Jesuit school in St. Louis. We prayed every day at 7 50a and 3 00p and had a two-minute "examen" period before sixth period every day. But how many of my "Catholic" classmates attended the Mass that was offered in the mornings? Less than 20 (in a school of 1100). To be honest, I didn't go either. In fact, although my family is Catholic, I haven't been to Mass, except times that I was required to go by school, since Christmas. I don't really incorporate God into my life in any aspect. I'm very hardly any form of religious at all, really but when asked what religion I follow I usually answer "I'm Catholic." My senior theology teacher would call me an atheist (along with the people like me, of which there are many).
What Nietzsche is saying is that it isn't so much a matter of "do people still believe in God?" but more of a matter of "do people even really care if there is a God?" And this is what I would agree with. Do I care? Do most people? Like Savannah said, most people resort to reaching out to God when they are in dire need of help, usually when death could be involved (a family member with cancer, preparing for a major surgery, etc.); it seems that the concept of "God" for most people has devolved into an all-powerful, all-good being. And while the Christian faith says that this is entirely true, people are easily discouraged when this "all-powerful" stipulation doesn't end up the way they wanted it to. People tend to fall out of touch with God very easily and, like the prodigal son, tend to come back when they have nowhere else to turn.
Also:
Phil, I've heard another urban legend of the sort. It's kind of inspiring. Here's the link on snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp
The differences I interpreted to exist between Jesus and Zarathustra were twofold. First, Jesus largely believes in the future (i.e., the afterlife) and that one should work towards achieving an agreeable future through deeds in this life. Zarathustra, on the other hand, believes in more instant gratification in the sense that one should work hard for part of this life purely to achieve happiness in the other part of this life, as there is no afterlife -neither good nor bad. This gets slightly mucked up in the sense that he also says that man's purpose is to become Superman, which is a future goal, but it is still earthly and, thus, distinct from Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThe other difference is that Jesus preaches that to reach the goal of a desirable afterlife, one must work with/through God, so that He and the person may join in spiritual harmony. Zarathustra, however, says that man is the only means to his end, and that without constant work by man upon himself, he will never progress to the level of Superman. This is why I believe he loves "those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down." I'm still not sure how going down is a form of ascension, but I do understand that it is a positive thing to him.
All this said, I don't think that I can pick a side. I simply do not know if there is (or is not) a God or an afterlife. I'll be sure to get back to you as soon as I find out, though.
I find Nietzsche's perspective more attractive and I would choose to follow him rather than Jesus. When I think of the concept of God, I imagine a giant judge-like man in the clouds who constantly reviews everyone's actions and decides who is making good and bad decisions. I don't want to feel like I'm being watched, or that I am ultimately controlled by God's will. The phrase "God is dead" means to me that there is no supernatural higher power; the highest power is me (or humans in general). Nietzsche is appealing to me because I want to be in control. I want to take credit for my own actions; I don't want to attribute everything I do to God's will.
ReplyDeleteI have never been a religious person. When people say things like, "God acted through me", it frustrates me because I take pride in important things that I do. God doesn’t make my decisions; I make my decisions. If God was responsible for everyone's actions, then no one is responsible for their own actions, and thus people are just pawns of God. This thought makes me uneasy, so I find Nietzsche's "God is dead" explanation to be much simpler and more empowering. I would rather take responsibility for all of my own actions, both the good and the bad, than to assume that they were all made through God.
I would follow Jesus. Nietzsche does not offer us a philosophy, but rather a negation of one. I beleive that Nietzsche's "God is dead" quote isn't meant as a denial of God. No argument is given against God's existence before or after this immortal quotation. Nietzsche does not provide an alternative value system. He is expressing disdain for conventional chirstians, as well as mediocre atheists. This quote isn't a metaphysical statement. It is a poetic expression of the apathy that Nietzsche is observing in the 19th century. He doesn't mean God doesn't exist. He means that God doesn't exist within us. Our comfortable christianity and rational faith are a far cry from the lightning for which Nietzsche searches. The overman is the passionate creator, and a lawbreaker. He is not a member of the heard. The reason I chose to follow Jesus is because he is the overman envisaged by Zarathustra. He broke the rules. He created. Zarathustra isn't meant to be the anti-christ. He is meant to inspire new christs.
ReplyDeletePutting Jesus up against Zarathustra seems a bit unfair considering much of our class went to Catholic school or was raised Christian. It's like putting somebody I have known my entire life versus someone I met twenty minutes ago.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that he believes God is dead in a figurative sense, that humanity killed God by not believing in him. He might mean this literally, because in some sense, the idea of deities, the divine, is human-made.
If "God is dead" then Zarathustra took the next logical step and made a new God, "Superman." In other words, something bigger than humanity to live for.
I disagree with the notion that without God we could only breed "the last man," that without the blind hope for eternal life we would settle into mediocrity. The idea of Atheism makes the life we are given, the present hour, worth that much more. This life must be made the best possible because it is all the time we are given, and it must not be wasted.
So, by not agreeing with the basis for Zarathustra's philosophy i can't side with him.
Jesus, on the other hand, preaches an eternal life waiting after this one. Through miracles, good nature, and the whole divine being thing, he gives a valid argument for siding with him. He preaches hope and his self-sacrifice for our "sins," and by following his teachings, the good, we can delight in our own goodness helping others and then heaven! If we are really sorry, he even hands out forgiveness in case we mess up.
Okay, a really brief summary of Jesus,
Anyway, I like the basis of what Jesus teaches. The idea that being a just, loving person will give me an eternity of happiness?! I'm so for that.
Regardless of my actual beliefs and skepticism, Jesus seems to be the more attractive candidate in this case.
I may have completely missed the point of this reading, but from what I understood, Nietzsche was advocating a livelihood in which humans work to bring the entire human species towards a greater existence, that of the uber-mensch. N was quite right: every other species has bettered itself, and it is inevitable that humans will either do so, or fail, which N acknowledges as a possibility. We will not remain stagnant. So, he asks us to work for a future which we will not necessarily enjoy. In that sense, N is asking us to be selfless, to better ourselves for the betterment of others. (He tells humanity to consciously do what Adam Smith says we will unconsciously do- work to help ourselves, which Smith says guides the economy, which helps everyone.) Anyways, N advocates a rejection of his interpretation of Jesus’ follower’s beliefs, in that he goes on to encourage pride and dismiss weakness; we need to be proud of who we are, because this gives us confidence, which leads to success. However, I believe this stems from a view of Jesus through his followers, not the inverse.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I must do as those before me have done and differentiate between the historical Jesus and his followers. I find that the argument that N presents that the Church makes men sheep compelling; I have experienced it myself. However, Jesus was a radical, and anyone who truly follows Jesus will be so as well. I haven’t read much N, just summaries of his works, but I must say that, from what I know, N would consider Jesus an uber-mensch; he was in no sense a sheep, I cannot imagine a way in which a man so radically free, mentally, would compel other to be sheep. Jesus had, and N advocated, radical self-confidence; they just argued against different extremes. Jesus warned agains dangerous pride- which, as contrasted with self-confidence, is a bad thing, and N argues against meekness, which is also a bad thing. Jesus was not meek; he whipped money changers out of the temple. It seems to me that the main difference, admittedly a huge one, is that N wanted men to strive for an earthly achievement for themselves and the whole race, whilst Jesus wanted men to individually improve themselves for an eternal reward. N’s word lines up pretty well with Jesus‘ actions, with just a few key differences. As such, this question seems to come down to if one believes in eternal life. If so, then why worry about N’s “will to power,” if not, then Jesus’s emphasis on the eternal makes your life worthless. Being that I see no evidence for the divine, and a plausible explanation for life without the divine, it seems that I should believe the more probable suggestion, which seems to suggest that there is no God, not in the traditional sense. It was science that made God dead. (As it may make all other studies; for example, science has recently proved that men are inherently empathetic, therefore inherently good, which has forever been a potent philosophical question. http://www.ted.com/talks/langengjeremy_rifkin_on_the_empathic_civilization.html ) Wow, I feel like this makes no sense, but I hope it shows that I have been thinking. I love the feeling I get when i read N and cannot stop agreeing, but the progress man has made under Jesus’s ideas has been extraordinary, and, I would argue, inevitable. (Jesus as the anti-thesis to classical virtues, with N and modern thought along his lines being Hegel’s inevitable synthesis?) I feel like I have another thirty pages in me, but I’ll spare you. Winner: Nietzsche, but that doesn’t mean Jesus loses.
I think Colin put it perfectly when he said that God and Christianity are no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that religion was invented by man to explain natural disasters and other phenomena back when people didn't know about science. I personally am not at all religious, and would find it difficult to follow Christ. Of course, I realize that my situation make it easy for me to go without religion. I realize that people in desperate situations with no hope and no direction find comfort in religion. I feel that religion is not relevant in my own life, and I want to say that it should not be relevant in anyone's life at this point in time, but to strip people of that hope would be cruel. It certianly would be nice to side with Jesus; to believe that there is something to look forward to after death, but it is just impossible for me, and thus, I must side with Nietzsche.
ReplyDeleteI would follow Jesus, for his actions and words are the basis for my beliefs and morals. To live as Jesus did is my ultimate goal, to be good and generous and loving. However I do see the issue that Nietzsche addresses when he says, “God is dead,” which, as many others have said, means to say that society today does not value God as it did once before. Many only turn to God when they are in need; many are religious only at convenience, instead religion being the foundation for life. Especially in today’s society with so many distractions, a “microwave” religion is tempting. The line between the being a follower of Zarathustra or of Jesus is fine, as the internet, TV, phones can easily stray one to adopting a God is dead lifestyle. Knowing this, I try to keep God in my life, adhering to his teachings and morals especially when life gets busy.
ReplyDeleteAside from my above ramble, N was also right about perspectivism in today's world.
ReplyDeleteI would not independently describe myself as a follower of Jesus. I am not Christian. I never have been. I've interacted with Catholicism a lot over the past six years (basically since I met Laura, one of my best friends) and my relationship with the church is one of happy coexistence. I've probably been to more masses in recent years than many of my friends who were born into Catholicism, but I'm am not of the church and probably never will be.
ReplyDeleteI would happily and hopefully describe myself as part of the community though. I value in the interaction, the belonging, the works, and the reflection that I find in church activities.
Because, wether or not the followers of Jesus are correct, they are at least trying. They are trying to be good and compassionate and generous. They are trying to be pious and righteous and decent. As, I think, was Jesus wether or not he was divine.
Nihilists, by definition, are not. Nihilism typically judges morality arbitrary and nonexistent. They base everything on nothing, and because of this, they're actions are frequently ones I would consider amoral. More to the point, what point is there in following those who follow nothing?
Following Nihilism or a Nihilist is, in my opinion, paradoxical, pointless, and likely to lead places that are worthless.
I believe in morality to exist and have intrinsic value so given a choice between Jesus and Nietzsche, I would easily choose Jesus.
It does not matter which man you choose because they are the same. They are the same man, with the setting and background changed slightly. From the way I took it, Nietzche does not believe God is nonexistent, just that man has killed God in their constant defining of the supreme being. Zarathustra preaches in the same way that Jesus does, finding like minded individuals (the apostles) to help in the spreading of the word. Both men are stuck in a society which has outgrown its current need for true faith and establish a new form to correct that. So the question is not which man to follow because they are the same, it is what conception of faith do you have. Do you believe in a Supreme Ruler that defines everything, or a mentality that will ultimately define the supreme ruler. It is a cycle, because mankind needs faith. Personally, I'm a huge believer in God, just not so much on religion. I feel it is impossible to know the true religion, and God is something you have to just feel to believe. Religion can not set rules by which for you to believe, the only way to believe, to have faith, is to do it in your own way. Therefore, I would follow, if I had to choose, Zarathustra because he understands that organized religion has killed God, and the only way to bring faith back is to establish something new to believe in. Civilizations go in religious cycles, a decrease in practicing members, then a revival. It is bound to continue to repeat itself, and Zarathustra is just trying to break that organized cycle.
ReplyDeleteI find Zarathustra more attractive because when he says that humankind created happiness, I agree. Some people say that God gave humankind happiness, but I personally believe that humans make their own happiness. He also states that God is dead, and in my honest opinion, I kind of agree because there is no scientific evidence of a God. To be totally honest, I would love to see every religion in the world be wrong and appreciate the truth.
ReplyDeleteMy personal beliefs aside, I was surprised to find that Nietzsche's writing was so...nice. I'd expected something harsher. Yes, Zarathustra declared God dead, but he was the one trying to give to humanity, whereas the saint or "God-following" figure seemed to almost hold himself above humanity because of his belief in God. I think that's an excellent reminder to people, no matter what they believe, to remember that a belief does not make them any better or worse than people who believe something different.
ReplyDeleteWith that out of the way, I would rather follow Jesus. Yes, I believe in doing good things, and I believe in helping out humanity, but if one follows Jesus, truly one does those things too. Some concepts, some qualities, transcend the human race, yet I believe in them: pure courage, pure truth, pure love. If those can transcend humanity, why can't God, which transcends humanity, exist? Why can't Jesus be love? Why can't God be love?
I follow Jesus because I believe in love.
P.S. Colin!!! That link was definitely inspiring. I love it.
ReplyDelete