Oliver,
The words, "My God, my God! Why have you foresaken me?" culminate in the weakness and nihilism of the Last Man, he who has also "yielded up the spirit" and now belongs to the living dead. Man, forsaken, loses confidence and strength and yields up the ghost.

It is worthy to note, both Nietzsche and Nazism despised Western Judaeo-Christian Civilisation and its two products, Liberalism and Socialism, introducing a “third option” - aristocratic radicalism - between “corrupt egalitarian democracy” and the “materialist socialism of the mob”. In addition, both advocated the rule of an Aryan universal “Master Race” transcending the boundaries of states and nations; and finally, both Nietzsche and the Nazis dismissed the “decadent” Jew from civilisation, considering him alien to the natural order, an incarnation of the slave morality. One can certainly link the occult character of Esoteric Nazism with the pagan Aryanism of Nietzsche.

It is also worth remembering how long the ‘west’ waited before finally facing the challenge posed by Nazi totalitarianism and Hitler. Many were reluctant to acknowledge that an effort on the scale of what became World War II was actually necessary, and most wanted to believe that the threat could be wished away with trivial sacrifices.

It is no accident that the death of God and The End of History is also attended by "The Sense of an Ending" (Kermode) as The End of Faith (Harris), The End of Reason, The End of Science (Horgan), The End of Modernity (Vattimo), The End of Democracy, The End of Ingenuity (Homer-Dixon) or even The End of Food (Pawlick). "It is finished".

Ostrae (Easter), the Anglo-Saxon goddess of the dawn, shows the ‘finish’ is however, but a part of the cycle.

George.
Thank you for your very thoughtful post. I am reminded of a school boy rhyme:

“A minus times a minus is a plus, for reasons we need not discuss.”

Your post tends to undermine the self-righteousness of the empirical scientist who never tires of claiming the only ground of knowledge. Even that knowledge requires some kind of trust in propositions that cannot be tested.

I liked very much your suggestion from Wigner about the “unreasonably effective” way that faith describes the world in a similar way that mathematics does. In my efforts to combat the rationalists by claiming rationality for theology I neglect this “unreasonable effectiveness” of faith, perhaps another name for mysticism although I have trouble with that. Could “apophatic” be better? Just as we find it difficult to speak about imaginary numbers so too there is an end to language when talking about faith.

Peter Sellic

Peter,
Thank you for your appreciative words. I think only those find it difficult to speak about imaginary numbers or about religious symbols (a think faith is something more than just an understanding of religious symbols) who have not been acquainted with the respective conceptual worlds they belong to. In case of mathematics it suffice to study it, in case of religion I think you also have to live it.

I would not compare mathematics with mysticism, I would rather see the parallels along the lines mathematics -> science (physics) -> material world and (rationalised, Christian) theology -> religion -> "spiritual" world. I think as sensual perception represents a direct contact we have with with the material world (where no mathematical awareness is necessary) so mysticism represents a direct contact an individual can have with the spiritual world with no explicit need for a rationalised theology. This, of course makes neither mathematics nor rationalised theology superfluous.

Sells:

I have no problem thinking Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. Nor is there a problem with sex as prescribed within the bounds of lifelong marriage, as prescribed by God's word.

Life on earth is a gift from God. Life after death is also a gift.
Jesus says "Follow me." Life is to be lived learning to love one's neighbor as oneself (learning to be like Jesus).

What greater plan for life could there be than that? Implementing the words of God will mean peace on earth, literally the antithesis of war an d other forms of violence.

How is that a "spiritual exercise that loses its impact on our daily and fleshly lives"? Following God means the most exciting, interesting way to live life, with God taking the lead, with God's goals as one's own, including "world peace" and the absence of interpersonal violence, both unachievable by mere human means.

"At no time does Jesus become spirit": What of "God is a Spirit" John 4:24?

P.S. any gnostic element(s) comes from the pre-Christian pagan practice of reincarnating until one is able to lose the hated body (the flesh as evil) through "knowledge" or gnosis. Pre-Christian paganism involved human sacrifice which was based on a pre-scientific understanding of the nature of the universe and what it would take to uphold the world and human beings (existence itself). Pagans believed that disembodying the human sacrifice would uphold the world (the slain individual's eyes becoming the sun, etc).

Relda,

-- "My God, my God! Why have you foresaken me?"

Popkin et al., through the differing prisms of Satre (‘Nausea’) and Kierkegaard, notes, the religiously devoted assign elsewhere the consequences of their decisions. Herein, “the saving grace of Kierkegard’s irrationalism is impossible, having chosen it, the responsibility of what follows would be God’s, not man’s”.

Spirit in Heaven, a Body in Palestine:

Had a living Jesus kept his body, for a few hours, after his “spirit” ascended. Jesus, the man-body, would be a living tomb to the Jews and a shell to the Greeks. Very unclean and a frightening aberration. A zombie.

A Miltonian Body-of-Jesus, “A Paradise Locked?” ;-) ?

Being a man-god is problematic for a Saviour. Detachment from heaven, transfiguration and palingesensia are too ill-formed to be perfect. Would not a real God do a better job, i.e., full detachment from the godhead?

--"Nietzsche and Nazism despised Western Judaeo-Christian Civilisation.”

Agree. In a German-made drama on Hitler’s last day’s in the bunker, the actor playing a death-fated Hitler states, “the Western democracies are soft and will loose to the more disciplined East”: Probably posits a Hitler truth.

Yes, Nietzsche would have no time for inferior religious congregations. However, a Pope leveraging his Church to serve personal superior advantage might be more admirable? More recently, Lee Yuan Yew’s ventures into eugenics come to mind.

-- “Challenge posed by Nazi totalitarianism and Hitler”.

Not Fully Nietzsche? Before the “Coming Storm” came, Western countries were insular/protectionist not merely soft.

George,

In a null environment, within non-existence, can a perfect circle exist, as an unobserved concept, without any universe or any god?

Martin and religionists,

(a) How would you infallibly recognise god, if It appeared in history?
(b) If a supernatural power communicates, “I am God”. How do you know the entity IS God?
(c) How do you MEASURE scripture as the GENUINE word of God? How are constructs validated?
(d) Why is the allegedly REAL Christian God copied, as if, from known MYTHICAL theocrasia
(e) Why is God made Man, still part God?

- No links please. Answer the questions

George,

Welcome to the thread.

1. Why do you see theology as antecendent to spirituality? Both theocentric and cosmocentric societies are spiritual. Thus, hinting spirituality comes first?

2. Want to try a few of Martin's questions (above)?

All,

[Could be offline for a few says. Hope no-one was offended by my Mickey Mouse Club parity. I needed an escape to some right brain activity. My point was Paul spun a Hellenised Jesus.]

Peace and clear thoughts,

O.