Is the glorification of oppression a form of Christian heresy?

Positron said:
[redacted]
Click to expand...

That part of the Passion of the Christ is more about praying for God's Will to be done above your own will, than it is about escaping suffering. Read 1 Peter 3:14—"But if also you suffer any thing for justice' sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled." The suffering is ultimately a blessing because it allows us to come out of the other end with glory. Please note that this is not the only verse that recalls or claims that suffering is a blessing—there are plenty more in both the Old and New Testaments.
 
Glorification of oppression is actually an essential part of the Christian faith. That's why there's so many saints who used dirty needles, ate boogers and puss sores.
 
Its interesting to read about the first roman converts to christianity. They remind me very much like modern day blue hair SJW's.
Usually they were bored rich kids. Almost all were from aristocratic families. They all immediately adopted and relished the aesthetic of impoverished Christian. They were all really in your face and probably quite annoying.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Jimboree
No but the ephasis on suffering does have interesting contrasts with modern sjws concepts.

Christianity defined itself in it's early period by suffering, as a religion its almost an obsession and reflected their behavoir even when completly irrelivant. A sort of pessimmistic masocism.
The appalling hypocrisy of it was this emphasis on how hard done by they were was wheeled out when it came to weighing a persons worth. From loser hermits sulking in the desert being fucking useless to frothing fanatics butchering non-believers. Glorification of suffering leads ultimatly glorification of failure and so being a total fuck up becomes the highest virtue.

"oh I have it so hard to I don't have to consider how much of a cunt I'm being." Certainly strikes a cord with some of the woke posse Whever someone calls them on their shit they'll fall back on their suffering as a defence. Christianity has however had centuries to refine this thought process to an art form. Demands to check privalidge are soft ball compared Saint augustines psychotic rantings on non-believers and how they're oppressing him by existing. With no sky dad to rubber stamp the misery it will always remain itself abborant even if the individual suffering is admired. No one can hate life like a 4th century Roman Christian because he presumes his misery is relavent in the grand scheme of things, wereas the average tumblrina knows that the universe will grind on without her.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Jimboree
Glorification of being a poor downtrodden minority is a phenomenon of globalism. POC from third world countries look longingly at the wealth from huwhite countries because technology allows so much flow of optics. Cosmopolitans from the first world glorify the "others" as a two pronged will to power because it's a civic virtue, and a boon for cheap labor to pad their portfolios.
 
Random thots here, I might be wrong about some of this since I'm relatively new to Nietzsche but;

OP, you should really read Nietzsches "A genealogy of morals". It is a great book which deals with both weaponized guilt and shame being the power of the weak to tame the strong, featured most prominently and effectively in Christianity (he cites the "blessed are the meek" thing).

Other less obvious sources for this basic idea are Freud's idea about society, as it grows more civillized, forgiveness, reparations, and the taming of the strong man is necessary for man to function in a more complex society.
This hinders the ambitious and aids the weak, creating a more predictable society.

Foccault also talks a lot about this taming of man, in relation to power and punishment. Don't let dumb political considerations hinder you from Foccault or Freud, understand that the Nietzschean view is not merely that social justice is weaponized guilt and shame, but also racial, ideological, and sexual purity. Machiavelli is also an interesting character to consider when thinking about right and wrong, since he shares some views with Nietzsche, though not all.

None of these authors says that guilt, shame, slave-morality is directly bad and something which should be avoided at all costs, instead Nietzsche for instance takes the view that if you're strong enough, you should strive to live according to a creed which you yourself want just because it pleases you, free from shame and guilt (and nihilism) because it is biologically healthy. Now Nietzsche claims that guilt/shame/social justice is more powerful than strong men with their own values (since there are many more weak than strong, and weak people loose, become angry and spend all their time plotting revenge while the chad has fun), but he specculates(or maybe he hopes) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra that the dichotomy can be overcome by the übermensch(i haven't read it so idk how). Napoleon is an example of a strong man with his own values, yet loved by the poor and downtrodden.

If you want to find out more about Nietzsche right now, check out a philosophy-podcast called "partiallyexaminedlife" and their episodes about Nietzsche. Will Durant's "Story of philosophy" is an audiobook with a chapter on Nietzsche which is all over youtube but it really sucks and just tries to write off Nietzsche as juvenile (as a lot of pompous accademics do you'll find)

I hope that wasn't too much of a mess to glean something from lol
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Dracula's Spirit Animal and Emperor Julian
Goatlord said:
Random thots here, I might be wrong about some of this since I'm relatively new to Nietzsche but;

OP, you should really read Nietzsches "A genealogy of morals". It is a great book which deals with both weaponized guilt and shame being the power of the weak to tame the strong, featured most prominently and effectively in Christianity (he cites the "blessed are the meek" thing).

Other less obvious sources for this basic idea are Freud's idea about society, as it grows more civillized, forgiveness, reparations, and the taming of the strong man is necessary for man to function in a more complex society.
This hinders the ambitious and aids the weak, creating a more predictable society.

Foccault also talks a lot about this taming of man, in relation to power and punishment. Don't let dumb political considerations hinder you from Foccault or Freud, understand that the Nietzschean view is not merely that social justice is weaponized guilt and shame, but also racial, ideological, and sexual purity. Machiavelli is also an interesting character to consider when thinking about right and wrong, since he shares some views with Nietzsche, though not all.

None of these authors says that guilt, shame, slave-morality is directly bad and something which should be avoided at all costs, instead Nietzsche for instance takes the view that if you're strong enough, you should strive to live according to a creed which you yourself want just because it pleases you, free from shame and guilt (and nihilism) because it is biologically healthy. Now Nietzsche claims that guilt/shame/social justice is more powerful than strong men with their own values (since there are many more weak than strong, and weak people loose, become angry and spend all their time plotting revenge while the chad has fun), but he specculates(or maybe he hopes) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra that the dichotomy can be overcome by the übermensch(i haven't read it so idk how). Napoleon is an example of a strong man with his own values, yet loved by the poor and downtrodden.

If you want to find out more about Nietzsche right now, check out a philosophy-podcast called "partiallyexaminedlife" and their episodes about Nietzsche. Will Durant's "Story of philosophy" is an audiobook with a chapter on Nietzsche which is all over youtube but it really sucks and just tries to write off Nietzsche as juvenile (as a lot of pompous accademics do you'll find)

I hope that wasn't too much of a mess to glean something from lol
Click to expand...
It's been a lot of years since I read any Nietzsche, but I remember getting the notion from his thoughts that in a way, he was coming up with his own proto-Buddhist stance. The superman being kind of like Atman, The "amoral" choice of the superman freed him from attachment to suffering, sort of thing. That detachment would allow for right living etc... and "power" dynamics of weak and strong were Samsara.

It's been a long time though, so maybe I have built that understanding from half remembered readings and realizations at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goatlord
Dracula's Spirit Animal said:
The "amoral" choice of the superman freed him from attachment to suffering, sort of thing. That detachment would allow for right living etc... and "power" dynamics of weak and strong were Samsara.
Click to expand...

Nietzsche indeed says that the strong man (which I think we can take for granted that the superman is in some respect, remember that the superman is a new man, not the invention of the old aristocratic values of pre-christian antiquity) should strive to be free from morality, but that is so he can use his superior strength of will to create his own values and impose them on the external world(including its people which to him does not constitute proper subjects unless they're as capable as him), and therefore I'm not sure that he would say that power-dynamics are Samsara.

To surpress the natural biological urge to lead and follow is the kind of thing he thinks is unhealthy, which, I think, is what he describes when he's talking about the will fighting itself; Asceticism. He does advocate a form of detachment, but i think the kind of detachment he talks about is to be drunk on your own values so to speak, and unconcerned with whatever guilt and/or shame society throws at you, to be in the very midst of what "most people" would deem either morally abhorrent or nihilistic, yet being strong enough to intoxicate yourself on your own values.

Nietzsche also talks about seperating oneself from the herd of people, but personally i don't think he's advocating isolation here since that is fundamentally an ascetic concept. I think its more about seeking out individuals that serve ones goal of self-created values, to attain a higher rank of man than the plebian.

Nietzsche's "forerunner" Arthur Schopenhauer (the philosopher of pessimism) was more in line with the Buddhist doctrine of ending craving to attain freedom from suffering (he was a huge fan of Bagavad Gita and such), but Nietzsche says that this is a twisted rejection of life because it, again, involves a painful process of the will fighting itself. Nietzsche recognizes that this is a true form of power but that it is the power to self-destruct and become "as dead" and that it cannot bring the happiness of one whom truly faces life head on and relishes in and laughs in the face of even the hardest pains of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back