Requiem for Nietzsche

Zapata asks:

How does one kill God? If God is merely an idea, one might could prove that the idea is merely a figment of our imagination, the result being that God has been killed.

This diluted form of idolatry is implied by my reference to The Neverending Story and the sociology of religion; in both, a non-material person’s reality depends on the act of belief by a group of people. If the will to believe disappears, so does the transcendent person.

This also crops up in the Arthurian legends, as the idea that the pagan gods were replaced in the hearts of the people, and hence destroyed, because of a clever PR campaign by the Christian church.

This is expressed nowadays in political terms. If the voters lose their will to believe in the Republican Party, it will die, and the assertion is that along with it will die conservatism, Christianity, and civilization itself.

I say that if losing faith in a political party means the death of a political, religious, or cultural dogma, then let it die. What survives will be closer to the eternal. This thesis is sometimes known as Christian anarchism.

It seems to me, though, by the Secular Axiom of Vox, which claims that secularism is impotent against Islam, if we don’t get a grip on things, under Islamic control atheists along with feminists will go the way of the dodo bird.

I’m not sure what the concern is here. Are you an investor in this company?

The Secular Axiom, as you present it, is silly. For most people, the choice is to beat the folly out of them or tempt them away from it with a greater folly. According to the Luxenberg Proposition, the US counterterrorism effort should be led by the California Raisins. From that perspective, an aggressive secular marketing effort that integrates traditional indigenous cultural artifacts and tasty modern treats would probably be the most successful at destabilizing the Mohammedans.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Requiem for Nietzsche

  1. You’ll never make money as a comedian. You’re like Bob Hope magnified by 100. You know he said something funny, you just have to think real hard to figure it out.

    The link to Zapata Corporation and Bush is funny. I keep getting some hits from google for “zapata county pig.”

    I don’t know if we’re talking about the same thing on the Secular Axiom of Vox. I think it’s kind of profound, not silly.

    Condemning a set of beliefs is the first step in opposing a bad set of beliefs. The multicultural/secular mindset teaches people to not condemn religions and belief systems, or at least treat them all the same, and that makes way for the most aggressive culture to eventually dominate.

    I guess you have to eventually change hearts, but if you never officially condemn something (beat the folly out of them?), then when you try to tempt them away from their beliefs, because their original set of beliefs remains a viable option (it’s never been condemned), your temptation may not be seen as very tempting.

    But there would be multiple reasons to condemn beliefs. Part of it would be out of self-defense rather than for evangelizing.

  2. The proposition that “secularism is impotent against Islam” implies that religion is not. Proposing religion as the field of conflict implies that:

    A. We’re spiritual brothers, so we shouldn’t fight, at least not in malice.

    B. We’re equally matched spiritual antagonists in an eternal push-me-pull-you relationship. If you believe this, you’ve gone over to the dork side of the farce.

    C. We’re both pawns in The Great Game, a cross between The Matrix and World of Warcraft. However, I think if you take the red pill, you’ll wake up in your mom’s basement surrounded by cold pizza and comic books.

    D. One of us is doing the will of the Living God, and one is not. The loser will not pass the gates of heaven and will not collect any white grapes. In this world, the loser will also be powerless against ungodly, secular influences.

    Oops, did I just contradict the original premise? I meant to do that.

  3. Of course we haven’t defined impotent. It seems you’re talking in the grand, Biblical scheme of things.

    My first inclination was to partially agree with you and say that only Christianity is not impotent against Islam. But, I’m thinking the possiblity exists that a non-Chistian religion could battle it out with Islam and come out dominant.

    And this all brings up my complaint about trying to debate by the written word. Clarifications that might take a few seconds in conversation can’t happen efficiently through non-dynamic communication. We either wrongly assume and talk past each other, or we have to work too hard to try to communicate.

  4. I presented those four scenarios because I think they pretty much sum up the prevailing perspectives among US Christians today.

    The first is naive but I am wary of criticizing it. The second is corrupt and heretical, although I do love the Tao Te Ching as poetry. The third is kind of exciting but distorted by immaturity; it is also perhaps Vox’s view, in a broad sense, and it includes The Secular Axiom as a corollary.

    The fourth is my view, and leaves open the possibility that Christians may lose their way and suffer defeat in this lifetime (Ezekiel 22:29-31), without losing their salvation.

    As to that other statement about folly, I can’t remember where I got it from. I hope it was from someone respectable, like Macchiavelli, but maybe I just made it up.

    You’re absolutely correct about the nature of written communication, and I generally avoid it with people I know personally. However, I’m much wittier in writing than in person, and it allows me to leverage certain strengths that other people seem to lack, such as nearly perfect spelling.

  5. Yea, every form of communication has its advantages. There’s no real elegance to a verbal conversation. But to hash out an argument through writing when it gets complicated… It gets too hard.

    Now that I think about, in a conversation, we do the same thing as what we’re doing now, we pick one point out of many things that has been said, and go off on a tangent. It’s just with written dialog there’s a record of what’s been said, so there’s the possibility of attempting to address every point.

    I think my view of life is much more simplistic than yours. And you’re leaving out intermediate implications like a mathematician writing terse proofs.

    Your D.:

    D. One of us is doing the will of the Living God, and one is not. The loser will not pass the gates of heaven and will not collect any white grapes. In this world, the loser will also be powerless against ungodly, secular influences.

    And:

    The fourth is my view, and leaves open the possibility that Christians may lose their way and suffer defeat in this lifetime (Ezekiel 22:29-31), without losing their salvation.

    I guess you’re saying that ungodly, secular influences are the most powerful force to be reckoned with. (Missing implication?: So even though Christians are winners in the spiritual sense, they can still lose in this world to secular, ungodly forces.)

    But I would disagree with that secular forces are always the greatest enemy. Islam is a loser in a Biblical sense, but it looks to me as though Islam, at this time, is the most powerful force to be reckoned with.

    Communism showed that a secular/athiest mindset can be a powerful force, but Islam has been around a long time and is making a comeback.

    Evil comes in many different forms. It all gets down to who is the most aggressive and determined.

  6. God is the most powerful force to be reckoned with, but people who don’t know God will be sucker-punched by the world. When a son of God is smacked around, we call it divine discipline.

  7. I keep getting some hits from google for “zapata county pig.”

    Hey, thanks for including that search string in your comment. Now I get onto those search results too!

Instigate some pointless rambling

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s