Very little of the Bible's moral code is original

[Egalitarian Zetetic]

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-morality.htm


---------------snip----------

...
Christians may then object that that there is something unique about the Bible that makes it a superior moral code. Unfortunately for Christians, there is actually very little law in the Bible -- either Old Testament or New -- that is original. Consider the Torah of the ancient Jews. The laws of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians, Hammurapi, Eshnunna, Hittites, Mishnah, and Israelites all bear a striking resemblance to each other, due to widespread copying of laws. Shared social norms produced identical laws against sorcery, kidnapping, sale of an abducted person, false witness, business dishonesty, bribing judges, property right violations, shutting off irrigation canals used by others, etc. The complete list of identical laws and customs is quite extensive.

Nor is the New Testament's approach to the law unique. Most Christians can probably think of nothing more unique than the Apostle Paul's approach to the law, but any student of ancient Greece knows otherwise. Many of the themes that fill Paul's writings were lifted from his Greco-Roman background. During New Testament times, the Greco-Roman world was filled with Mystery Cults, sporting such names as Eluesinian Mysteries, the Orphic Mysteries, the Attis-Adonis Mysteries, the Isis-Osiris Mysteries, Mithraism, and many others. A common feature of these secret cults was a belief in a heroic redeemer, a heavenly being who would visit earth in human form, battle evil, die a sacrificial death, rise from the dead and ascend to heaven, offering salvation from death to all who follow him.

Another influence on the New Testament was Greek philosophy. In particular, Greek dualism taught that the world was sharply divided into opposites: good and evil, body and soul, man and woman, hot and cold, life and death, etc. Now, the Greeks from Plato on had taught that the body is evil, but the soul is pure. The ancient Jews had never believed this; they considered both the body and soul to be a masterwork of God's creation, which he had pronounced good. But Paul, taking a page from Plato, wrote: "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other."

On the other hand, killing, lying, cheating and stealing against those outside the group may actually promote survival, and therefore can be considered moral, even heroic behavior. That is why, despite a commandment prohibiting killing, God often commanded Israel to kill her enemies. The critical question is whether the target of the action is inside or outside the group.

[mark414]

1. unfortunately

people don't know how to think critically

[rkc3]

2. A rudimentary examination...

of religious right views and those of the Islam appear to be fairly similar. Both advocate assigning women to secondary status, both advocate killing of their enemies. The Muslims we are bombing into freedom are against free speech - so are the nutjobs (see New Mexico as a recent example).

It would be interesting to read a more thorough examination of the shared beliefs of these groups and have them presented to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. A pair of heart attacks from these guys might do the world a bit of good.

[salvorhardin]

3. Zoroastrianism

As I understand it, much of what we think of as Christian philosophy originated with Zoroastrianism, most importantly dualism.

[Pillowbiter]

7. Though it may have influenced, I don't think Zoroastrianism is the root

Though it is older than Judeo-Christianity, it was effected by the same things that effected every other religion in the area.

The funny thing is that it seems the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda became a demon or demons for various other religions, from Hindus to Greeks.

[madrchsod]

10. i think that zoroastrianism started the "one god" idea

judeo-christian should really be roman-greco christianity because the coptic church is closer to a judeo-christian history

[Texican]

17. The Threee Magi

were priests of Zorastor. They were changing gods but performing the same ritual under the old Roman astrological sign of the manger for the new god They would have traveled from Persia, {the East} where it is still practiced. They are also important in the holy trinity and yep the xmas tree. Three gods and traveling is an old theme that would take a few books to discus its influence on xtianity. They also have to do with the Osiris cult which is part of xtianity. Yes the good god and the evil god came from their religion as well as the structure of xtianity. One British fellow wanted to explain how all of these beliefs tied together and how they morphed into one another,{syncrity}. He was named Frazer and it took him twenty four volumes to show how one belief came from another. His work is called the Golden Bough.
The tales in the Bible are not in anyway original. If you are intersted you might go to a good library and get the videos called Testament or the book. I can't be sure but a think a guy named Romer wrote it. Be sure and follow at least one version of the ten commandments and don't boil any baby goats in their mother's milk.
Amen Ra

[Tigermoose]

31. Christianity is different.

In Christianity, evil is merely the lack of good. They are not both forces. A physical example would be that a cave is dark not because of any positive force of darkness, but because there is no light there.

Thus, every person is essentially good, but some people are "bent" away from seeing the Truth, the Way, and the Light. As Christians we try and help them see the source of Light instead of futilely trying to see the air that is illuminated by that Light.

[Beaker]

69. Mithraism was even more influential

Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disicples.

Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

He performed miracles.

As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

His resurrection was celebrated every year.

He was called "the Good Shepherd"and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.

His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

"His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."

Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"


the main reason that christianity survived and Mithraism didn't, is that christianity had allowances for the forgiveness of sins- which made it more appealing to the emporer Constantine.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. But RWCs have to have the superiority

of believing in the RIGHT faith. It is inherent in their psychological make-up. They can't afford shades of grey or other colors, because that make make a scary world all that much more frightening.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[Az]

5. You will find

That a succesful religion has to tailor itself somewhat to the human condition. That is in order to survive it has to both be acceptable to human society and promote a healthy society. A religious doctrine will not effectively propogate from a society that is torn asunde by its codes. It will not convey any avdantages to a society that is healthy and thus be quickly rejected.

It is this that creates one of the forces that guides the evlution of religions. Thus since each religion will be effected by this human constraint what you will see is that their core moral components are often in line with what is ideal for humans. Thus you will see the same moral positions reflected in wildly differing societies.

[indigobusiness]

15. Religion is about transcending the human condition.

For example the repeated reference and admonitions to turn away from the "things of man".

[Az]

16. Consider

A religion lives for itself. It is willing to sacrifice members in order to promote itself. It needs to seperate the notion of self preservation and place itself in that position in a person's mind. To this end it creates concepts like souls and life after death. These concepts seperate peoples identity from their body. The death of the body approaches meaningless as the identity is contained within the soul/spirit which is eternal and gets to go to a good place depending on whether you follow the rules.

Thus it is in a religions advantage to streamline the focus of its adherents. Other sources of joy and distraction become its enemy. There are also neurological aspects that the religion will attempt to prune so that only the prescribed forms of altered states of consciousness are allowed. Thus when the religion exhorts its followers to turn away from the things of man it is in fact enticing them to adhere to only its voice.

[indigobusiness]

19. Wrong! Religion is an owners manual for realizing the ultimate potential

of being human.

Transcendance includes transcending religion.

You have narrowed the scope.

[redqueen]

21. "Transcendance includes transcending religion."

Spot on!

Slay the buddha! :thumbsup:

[indigobusiness]

23. Precisesly, that is exactly what the Buddha meant...

And that is why the Idolatry of Christ is so frightening in the Christianity modern America.

[Nlighten1]

63. If you meet the Buddha on the road...

kill him!

[Az]

25. Not all religions use the same methodologies

Think of some as carnivores and some as herbivores. They each set out methodologies for making themself palitable to various minds. The extremely fast spreaders are more akin to carnivores. They attempt to force their way by using threats and rewards to compell adherence.

Then there are the slow growing beliefs. They rely on quality of life here and now as a means of providing benefit to the individual. These become the introspective philosophies. No where near as dangerous as the dogmatic religions. They attempt to give ways for their adherents to explore the inner nature of their own mental landscapes. Their succes is dependent on the efficacy of their teachings. Those which offer no insite die out quickly. Those that do offer insite are propogated.

It is unfortunate that in our particular culture when one mentions religion it is often assumed that it is one of the Abrahamic sects that are being discussed. These also tend to form the template of how most see religion as needing to conform to. Yet the word religion itself is derived from the greek word meaning to gather together. Religion from its start has always been about sharing the ideas and concepts about the world around us that we find in common with our fellow humans.

So yes, some religions encourage people to transcend everything including religion itself. Other religions strive to dominate and control thought. And between these polls the bulk of society exists.

[redqueen]

27. All 'religions' are dangerous and manipulative

Nothing more than people trying to control other people, disguising their machinations in the guise of something spiritual - the better to manipulate them with.

[indigobusiness]

29. Sounds like you are confusing the teachings (Religion) with

the institutions (Church, etc.)

[redqueen]

37. Nope, I'm including the teachings

Teachings like the idea that women are the subjects of men.

[Az]

30. That would be an example

of narrowing the definition of religion down to the dogmatic authoratarian sects. There are plenty of religions that challenge a person to think for themself. They reject the notion of control.

At its very base a religion is simply people gathering together and discovering that they share some view of the world around them. If they find some value to this they may try to share this with others. It is a tool. And it can be used for good or evil.

[redqueen]

38. Wow... somehow I've missed all those religions that reject control

Would appreciate any examples so I can rethink my thinks! :)

[Az]

40. Here ya go

Unitarian Universalism
Buddhism
Church of Freethought
Scientific Pantheism
Taoism

Just a few to start you off. The aggressive religions are going to dominate the society. They take an active roll in trying to do so. The less aggressive religions do not try to press their teachings and instead attract people to them by means of the efficacy of their practice.

You will note a key difference in that the fast spreaders promise rewards in some future realm while the slower contemplative ones offer means of finding peace here and now.

[redqueen]

43. Familiar with Buddhism (obviously)

but encountered the dogmatization of that as well. Even with 'the buddha' himself expressly forbidding it!

So... I figured with the corruption of even buddhist teachings that no 'religion' could escape the perversion. I'll have to check into the others you mentioned, though.

Thanks! :hi:

[Malva Zebrina]

35. that may be true, but if it is, how does that explain those ancient

beliefs in the original post, I wonder. Buddhism is not a religion, per se. There is no god worshipped there. Yet Buddhists have survived as a philosophy for thousands of years.

I am not sure if it is the human condition to contemplate one's "potential". That seems to me to be a religious concept ie, sin and striving for one's forgiveness, sloth, laziness or any other concept that religion poses to us as a reason to either change our sinful ways or be punished by a god.

It seems to me, if a religion does not meet the needs of a society, it will disappear or change itself to meet those needs. Fundamentalism seems to be the last hurrah of those who cannot adjust to that reality. So we can trace back all religions that emerged and try connecting the changes in those religions to the changes in the society.

[Az]

41. This is a biased view of religion

Buddhism is a religion. It does not have gods but this does not change the fact that it is a set of teachings shared by many. Religion does not have to be about a god. It does not have to be about a doctrine. It does not even have to have one consistant creed.

A religion is about the people that share it. What they bring to it defines it. If they bring the a shared joy about the wonders of science and the human mind(such as the Church of Freethought) that is enough to be a religion.

The Abrahamic sects have so dominated our society that they have usurped the word religion. This is unfortunate because people in a society will always gather together and share the things they find in common throughout the world. And when they gleen what they believe to be wisdom within this shared knowledge they will wish to share it with others. This is simply our nature. Religion is a very natural outflowing of our social nature. Unfortunately it is easily hijacked by social contructs that would make use of this nature for its own purposes.

[Malva Zebrina]

47. it may be interpretated as such by some

but hardly lies in the common modern interpretation of a religion. If that is the case, then we can take any philosopher and declare those ideas postulated by that philosopher, a religion.

If that is the case, we can then say that a philosopher , even though an atheist, is promulgating a religion--take

Bertrand Russel for one. Would you say he postulates a religion?

If that is the case, then atheism can also be considered a form of religion. Which of course, is an absurdity.

[indigobusiness]

48. Are you joking?

Where do get these notions about religion?

Religion---the word itself means to relink. As in relinking man with God.

It is a way for each person to deal with the human condition in the ultimate way possible. It is not about societies or churches or cults or dogma. Those things are merely aspects and connotaions.

Buddhism is full of gods, probably more than any other belief system. With the God-head as the ultimate goal...very similar to Christianity and others.

You seem to bring a personal attitude to your definitions.

-sp edit-

[Az]

62. Attitude?

I try to bring understanding of how the mind works in conjunction with our social constructs. If my semantics do not suit you perhaps we can turn to a dictionary to examine the idea of religion.

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Now how do you suppose people come together to form religions. Do you suppose it requires a supernatural act declaring the starting point of the "religion"? Or do you suppose a group of humans come together and find they share similar beliefs about the world and organise along those lines?

In the absense of global events all religions originate from social structures. They form when a group of people find some form of wisdom in their shared beliefs. The natural desire to share this with others leads them to try to describe this wisdom to others. Over time this can lead to organised structures. And from this an evolutionary process favoring those systems which propogate most effectively takes over.

As to Buddhism there is no creator god. There are as you suggest ideals which practitioners attempt to emulate or learn from. As in any such system some forms elevate these ideals to identities while others maintain them as constructs. Thus you can have a wide range of Buddhists. Some believing that these entities exist and others seeing them as guides.

[indigobusiness]

46. Buddhists aspire to Buddha-mind,, like Christ-conciousness,

a form of transcendant wisdom and ultimate human potential. The Godhead of Buddhism is a semantic difference because of the absence of a Creator in the mythos. What is merely is. Understanding it is up to you, and how much you are willing to try to find out.

[Malva Zebrina]

49. I do not reject finding out anything

but I do know it is not necessary to worship a god in order to live a productive and happy life much the same as any one who believes in any god.

It simply is not necessary to believe in a god to be a good person, "good" meaning that which is accepted as "good" by our society.

However I still maintain that the "potential" is really a religious concept and is not one that is present unless one does embrace some religion.

It could very well be that the absence of a god as one's guiding light, has nothing to do with living a productive, and a happy life. And there are many around us who are proof of that. Just as many who claim that belief in a god keeps them on the straight and narrow.

With one who does not have that connection to a god, it could be said the absence of a "punishment" from anyone holding over them that fear, even adds to their natural moral imperative as they transverse this life.

[indigobusiness]

51. I'm not lobbying for God, or Religion...

Just trying to keep the descriptions and representations on track.

But, I will add: One must reach for a brass ring for a chance of grasping it.

[Malva Zebrina]

52. Unless the lure of capturing a brass ring, due to some athletic

ability, means nothing at all. :-)

[indigobusiness]

54. That's trite.

You are wasting your time, and mine.

[Malva Zebrina]

57. I am sorry

maybe you do not know of the brass ring analogy. Nevertheless, resorting to ad hominem does not bolster your argument much.

See, it used to be a long time ago, when one rode the carosel, otherwise known as the merry go round, that , on the outside of the circle that the carosel travelled, there was a post upon which hung there in provocative display, a shiny brass ring.

I am probably not explaining this so it can be imagined.

But the thing was that if one could reach out from their wooden horse mount on the carosel as they were going round and round, and grab or hook this brass ring in their finger and dislodge it from it's post, one was entitled to a free ride on the carosel when they presented it to the person in charge of the ride.

Of course, that did take some athletic ability and not everyone could perform this feat.

[indigobusiness]

58. Apology accepted...

I am familiar with the euphemism, but don't understand your use of it.

[Malva Zebrina]

59. well, that is OK

we can still be friends, so to speak, and the point was that not all, especially those who are not athletic or are children, or who have short arms, cannot grab the shiney brass ring and get the free ride.



Anyhow, it is not necessary to grab the brass ring in order to take the ride.


we do not need to have a belief in a god, in order to be good people.

[indigobusiness]

65. Yes, it is OK...and we CAN be friends, so to speak

but you missed the point.

[Malva Zebrina]

66. which was?

perhaps you could be clearer.

[indigobusiness]

67. I wasn't unclear.

Nevermind,

[Az]

68. How exactly would you know if you were unclear or not

You probably were clear to yourself. But you are not engaged in a discussion with yourself. You are clear when the person to whom you are talking understands what you mean. If they inform you that your message was unclear then insisting that you were clear doesn't really solve anything. The lack of clarity could come from either side of the matter but if there is any desire for that clarity it behooves one to cooperate and try to seek it.

And it is curious that one would bring this conversation back to the surface just to say "Nevermind". This would have been the case if the comment was never made. But because the comment was made it draws attention to itself. Odd indeed.

[indigobusiness]

70. I can't, nor do I wish to, force anyone to see anything...

But the clarity is self-evident, and I don't wish to argue (meaninglessly) or play games.


parenthetical edit

[Az]

71. Argument?

I see a discussion. A casual exchange of ideas. Why do you see an argument? My perception is that someone was offering an honest expression of good will and the fact that some point was not understood. Yet you insist that your statement is self-evident.

There clearly is a miscommunication going on here. So claims of self-evidence are lost. One can choose to turn it into a game or one can dismiss all question of semantics by clarifying a statement. In either case a choice is being made.

[indigobusiness]

73. Reread the posts...they speak for themselves

Where the the point I referred to was made and lost is clear. As was the point. I am happy and eager to discuss, but not willing to go around in circles. It began to seem an honest intellectual effort wasn't being made. At that point, I give up.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. LOL

DUH!

[Trajan]

8. LOVE the Steve Kangas "Liberalism Resurgent" website ....

Too bad he is not amongst us anymore .... Something about Sciafe and some job ? ...

Anyone ??? ...

[tjwash]

9. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you...

...despite popular notion is not in the bible, and Christ never said it. Confucius did...

[indigobusiness]

12. It's basic Karma...

But isn't it in The Lord's Prayer?

[indigobusiness]

14. Maybe I'm thinking of the tresspass

segment.

Similarly, karmic law.

[Az]

13. Matt 7:12

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets

[indigobusiness]

11. "Nothing new under the sun"...

Wasn't that in the Bible? If so, it pretty much renders any argument moot.

As to the critical thinking deficiency in this land... It seems more and more true by the day That people of America grow increasingly morally relativistic and build their beliefs with axiomatic logic.

Scary? No shit.

[Tigermoose]

28. Comes from Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes 1 : 9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

The writer of Ecclesiastes -- Solomon -- comes to the conclusion that since man can know nothing for sure, the best path is to fear God and obey Him. You must realize, this is from an Old Testament Writer...and before Christ that was true. But that is why Christ, the manifestation of God in temporal reality, was so important. After that, we can Know God if not totally understand Him. We have his Words and his examples, so that we can be like little children imitating His example. Before Christ, you had to be an esoteric philosopher like the Platonists or the eastern religions to begin to come close to an understanding of God-- and they got closer than most (besides the Jewish people who had the benefit of Him partially revealing Himself through Moses and the Law). But with Christ, we now can Know him. Theologians and seek to understand God, but Christians seek to know him through Christ.

Ecclesiastes is very postmodern, and postmodernism is exactly what life is like for someone who doesn't know the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

[indigobusiness]

33. "Be as little children" was more an admonition to view the

world with awe and without ego, than one to ape his example.

[redqueen]

18. IMO religion and domga are preversions of spirit

Looking forward to the day when people can rejoice in the spirit without the corruption of religious dogma screwing everything up.

[indigobusiness]

22. Dogma...certainly...and religion used misguidedly..

but the heart of all wisdom traditions have a religious beat.

[xchrom]

20. amazing that faith should open people's minds

to the wonder and joy that makes up this world and the creator{s} love for this world -- and instead they waste their time worrying about being more right than somebody else.

this was a great read -- stuff i really knew already but always good to be reminded.
i still wanna see a decontruction of the bible and then a new bible put together for christian -- one that would contain new writings that get on with spreading universal, nonjudgemental love.

[indigobusiness]

26. Good response...It ain't about being right...

The argument should be a dialog to reach a clearer understanding.

Ever seen tibetan Buddhist monks Debate? Spectacularly logical.

[Tigermoose]

32. Many paths to the same Truth...but

we should do our neighbors a favor and show them the only way that a human can truly experience -- Christianity. It is partially because we will never be able to understand God, but we can Know him through Christ. This opens the way to God for everyone, and not just esoteric intellectuals.

It is so hard for a Christian to explain that which cannot be understood until you have experienced it. I just ask that you trust me as a witness to this as being true. You'll thank me for it later.

[Az]

34. Experience

This is one of the things that really ramps up the power of belief. The experience need not be understood but the emotional impact raises the belief behind it far beyond the reach of reason or logic. It cements the belief in place like few other things can. The trouble is of course that the experience may not be correctly interpretted.

[indigobusiness]

36. You operate from the fundamentally flawed notion that you "know"...

From the Tao: "He that says he knows, doesn't know...he that knows he doesn't know, knows."

With all due respect, that says far more than all of your convoluted self-righteous bs.

[Az]

42. The tao that can be spoken is not the true tao

Each person's tao is their own. To assume that your tao will be the same tao for another is to not understand the tao.

[indigobusiness]

44. More self-righteous, self-serving, spirituality by emotional covenience.

So to speak.

[Az]

60. Glad to see

you got that self righteous thing under control.

Perhaps you could describe specifically what you mean by this little rant.

[redqueen]

39. It's equally hard for a buddhist to explain

that which cannot be understood.

Mu.

:)

[indigobusiness]

45. A Buddhist wouldn't try...

Foolishness contravenes a basic Buddhist tenet.

[Nlighten1]

64. Have you read "Tricycle" for Summer 2004?

Page 15 has a story called "Dharma Deluxe" and it is exactly what you are talking about.

[Tigermoose]

24. Augustine addressed all -every one- of your points in the 4th century.

Come back when you've read Confessions and The City of God.


Intellectualism without Love is a disease. Be careful not to catch it.

[MissB]

50. Whose Love?

Clarify, please.

[Malva Zebrina]

55. and Augustine was pure without any disease?

Augustine had the disease of misogyny. Not an uncommon thing in hierophants of the day.

[Nikia]

53. I disagree. Christ preached about loving one's enemies

Although the Old Testemanent did teach conquering those outside the group, this is not what Christ taught. He preached that to do God's will that we need to love others besides just those who love us. He preached that our neighbor is often someone from outside the group. In this, he was unique from those who went before him.
Unfortunately, many who preach Christianity seem to forget this radical notion.

[Malva Zebrina]

56. and this Jesus also said to not pay attention to the gentiles.

Jesus told his followers that they were to teach the word of God only to the chosen few: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles....but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:7)

St. Paul tells the Ephesians, "So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. (Ephesians 4:17-18)

[pollock]

61. Greeks, from Plato, did not teach the body is evil.

That is what is so thrilling about "greek" thought.
Though Plato did believe (or not?) in the afterlife, never said the body is evil; no such thing.

[nolabels]

72. Perhaps it was projection

The bag of hammers knows no master but each one in it is willing to do for whomever picks it up.

"Perhaps nobody yet has been truthful enough about what 'truthfulness' is. -Nietzsche"

"The conditions of God. --- 'God himself cannot exist without wise men' --- Luther said, and was right. But 'god can exist even less without unwise men' --- that good old Luther did not say. -Nietzsche"

"To become wise, one must wish have certain experiences and run, as it were, into their gaping jaws. This, of course, is very dangerous; many a wise guy had been swallowed. -Nietzsche"

http://www.miniluv.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=471