What is for us dirt and darkness, for the cockroach it means life. Cause we see some people as darkness (poor, ignorant or hopeless), and others as light (educated, intelligence and wealth), this doesn't mean that our view is the truth. Doesn't ignorance begin there where we begin to believe that we know the truth? Being hopeless and suffering depression, aren't they the signs of wealth? Aren't Atomar, Biological and Chemical weapons not a sign of education? Aren't people hopeless and poor because of the ignorance of that part of earth which is educated and live in wealth?
Just like the cockroach's senses are limited to see dirt and darkness as light, our senses are limited too. So how can we judge why god lets those believe who are poor and hopeless? Isn't it the best way to educate dumb and weak a-holes, by giving them everything?

Actually, that sounds more like Marx's view that religion opiates the masses. Nietzsche, on the other hand, viewed Christianity as an invention by "priests" to control the strong, powerful and beautiful, by convincing them that that there was something shameful in their glory.

I haven't read Nietzsche but the more I hear about him and the quotes people post the more I think he was trying to empower narcissists and free up the people who already had power. The people that have power don't need more of it. They need to learn how to extend mercy.

cjs55 posted on Nietzsche this quote:
Post #87
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...42/index6.html

Shahrad, firstly, let me ask you this question: What is the value of truth if it is not a human truth? Why would you care about the truth seen from the perspective of the cockroach? This is a serious question: Even if the cockroach's truth is "truer" than our human truth, why should we care about it?

Secondly, when I use the terms such as "intelligence" or "wealth", I use them in a figurative sense. So, please do not interpret "wealth" or "beauty" only in their immediate, physical meanings. In my estimation, Christianity was (and still remains) a great calamity descending on the education, intelligence, culture and wealth of the ancient world. We are now living in a relatively benign world, not because of Christianity, but "despite" it; thanks largely to the rebirth (that is the meaning of "renaissance") of the ancient ideals of education, intelligence, and wealth (all "human" perfections, alien to the cockroaches everywhere) in the early modern world.
Cheers

Not exactly...Christianity from Nietzsche's perspective was essentially a "slave revolt" against the high values represented by Rome. Priests have always been opportunists shamelessly using the base sentiments of the slaves for advantage. Notice that Jesus himself was not a priest, but he understood the slave morality all too well. Question: Why was that the case? Hint: In order to understand how mice think, you need to be a mouse in spirit.
On that basic point, see Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" in conjunction with "Beyond Good and Evil".
I do not know where you got the impression that my posts support Marx's rather tedious musings about religion as the opiate of masses etc.
Cheers

... in the sense that human understanding is not exhaustive. Does God not exist if we don't have comprehensive knowledge of His ways? Or rather, as I posed to David Sklansky, can God even be God if we fully understand Him?

... exclusively human traits, e.g., limited by time and space.

... by what authority would you judge Him? If we posit the God of the Bible exists, then on what grounds may the created, fallible being judge the Almighty?

... in the same way He's mysterious; His ways are higher than our ways, His knowledge higher than ours (Isaiah 55 says this explicitly).

... in the same way naturalists contend there is an answer for the origin of the universe. Just because we don't know all the answers doesn't mean we don't know anything at all.

It seems yours is a question of epistemology. I don't see any of these as precluding the ability to know God-only the extent to which we are availed to all possible details. Just because we do not know to the extent of omniscience doesn't mean we don't know anything, or know plenty. The argument from Christian Theism is that God has demonstrated Himself in at least these ways:

* The created order - nature, man's conscience being a general understanding of right and wrong, sociology in the observing of people demonstrating reflections of God's attributes such as love, kindness, justice, mercy, sacrifice, etc.--albeit marred, etc. This is known as Natural Revelation.

* special revelation - The Scriptures-the 66 works collectively known as the Bible are the revealed word of God.

* God's providence - God's moving in everyday life.

* the Incarnation - Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, entering history, fulfilling multiple prophecies predicting this part of history.

* the death of Christ - His sacrificial death on the cross, also prophesied in great detail hundreds of years before it occurred-evidence of both the supernatural nature of the Bible and visible proof of the God-man.

* the Resurrection - "God has furnished PROOF to all men by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17)

* the Holy Spirit who moves to convict man of sin, to illuminate, to help walk according to the will of God, to move in the Church.

There are questions of how one knows the Bible is the right/only holy book or one at all, isn't it fallible man who wrote it, aren't all religions the same, isn't it all made up, etc. etc., always by people who haven't studied these things. In faith people make assertions, but the reason 10's of millions are still Christians is because almost 100% of the time, a straw man is attacked and this is not relevant to us. There are literally thousands of books written on these topics for literally hundreds of years. It is beyond ignorant to try to dismiss Christian apologetics in a few remarks, and this is one of the great failings of skeptics.

As I said to Shahrad earlier, this is not a debate on whether God exists.


There is no need to sidetrack on a debate on naturalism. Even if we accept your commentary as true, it is not relevant that these "naturalists" commit the same error.

Yes it is a question of epistomology, but not a very complicated one.

You are greatly mistaken. It is not I who are dismissing Christian apolegetics, it is the people who use the sentences laid out in the OP who are dismissing Christian apolegetics. If God is not scrutable, then there is no need to seriously consider a position that defends knowledge regarding her.

You are claiming that : God (of them monotheistic faiths, at least) persists in the modern wold only in places where humanity is either poor, ignorant or hopeless and actually disappears in places of education, intelligence and wealth.
You are also claiming that : You are using those terms in a figurative sense.
And then you ask: What does that tell you about God? I do understand this as follows (correct me pls if I am wrong). You are claiming: It is only possible that poor, ignorant or hopelss ppl (if you did mean this in a figurative sense, than you did mean that only the refuse (asocials) believes in God and Christianity) believe in God others don’t. With other words: People who are enlightened and don’t have a poor character and personality don’t believe in God.

Now I have the following questions:
.
1) How many ppl do you think exist in the modern world who fulfill those requirements (being enlightened in the sense of Kant and who also don’t have a poor Character)?
2) Do you think that if we could get the percentage of that, that the percentage of those ppl has ever been more or less?
3) Do you think that there has never been and that there aren’t any ppl who fulfill those requirements while believing in God and Christianity?
I guess that if 3 should be true, that it is not possible that one believes in God and is still enlightend that your assumption about God is right, otherwise wrong.
In the second part you are talking about Renaissance and the modern benign world.
In a figurative sense, Renaissance has never been a success. The mass (and in my view politicians with very rare exceptions belong to the mass) has his own rules and no one could till today change it, no Plato, no Jesus, no Mohammad, no Kant and no Nietzsche.
Doesn’t the benign world, that you are talking about, exist since the ABC-Weapons? Do you believe without the ABC-Weapons the world would be still so benign? Where are the boarders of that benign modern world if you did mean those terms in a figurative sense (think of Nato bombarding Yugoslavia for weeks)?
Doesn't places exist where ppl are living (or did live) like it was in the middle age without being influenced through Christianity? What about Tutsis and Hutus, who did masscre eachother without religious motives?
Wasn't it a monotheistic faith who did bring Platos and Aristotels back to Europe?
I could go on and on but I might have misunderstood you in your intention and context. If this should be true, I seriously and deeply apologize.