Paradox; the meek shall inherit the Earth

[DrZoidberg]

This parable is about being humble is good and that we should all strive to humble ourselves. This is what Nietzsche had a problem with and which he called Slave Morality. I just realized something about this. I don't know if I'm just the last person to get it. But anyway, master morality and slave morality, according to Nietzsche exist together. Master morality is about valuing things that are useful and will give us power. It's about eliminating that which is harmful. Slave morality exist in relation to master morality. It's someone who believe they aren't strong enough to have the things that the masters have, so they pretend like they don't want them, and create a moral system where anything that the masters want is sinful and immoral, and they can sit perched upon their loser horse and feel smug about being morally superior, even though they're living a lie and their life objectively sucks.

That was a long warm up. Here's my point. Saying that the meek shall inherit the Earth, is self contradictory. Jesus isn't humble at all. He's saying that he wants to inherit the Earth. He wants power. He wants everything the masters want and that by pretending and acting humble the meek will eventually get it. That's just disingenuous. And an excellent example of the inner workings of Slave Morality.

Thoughts?

 

[steve_bank]

I think Politese posted what the word master would have meant in the language of the day.

In terms of Jesus amd Christianity I see it more as the alpha male than master - slave. Humans naturally fall into a hierarchical power structure. Historically male.

The Abrahamic god is the ultimate alpha male. The believer puts god at the top and owes allegiance to the alpha male above all else.
The Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russel Wilson says in interviews, 'God first, family second, football third'. It gives the believer a sense of stability and empowerment. Not a master slave relationship.

In western culture master would refer to the male head of household, and mistress the female. Brits still recognize aristocratic titles, like lord. Lord of the manor.

From the gospels Jesus wa not a social activist. From the Sermon On The Mount and a few other passages one can infer passivism. The Jesus theme was bear your burden whatever it is and your eternal reward is in heaven.

To me Jesus is schizophrenic or bipolar. He goes from the pacific Sermon On The Mount to rage in the Temple. There is no coherent message in the gospels.

Will the real Jesus please stand up. On picks the Jesus that suits you. The old and new testaments are paradoxical if you take any of it literally. None of it was intended as a coherent moral guide.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think Politese posted what the word master would have meant in the language of the day.

My use of the word "Master" comes from Nietzshe. Not the Bible. "Master morality" is a Nietzschian term. Master and Slave are dichotomies and I think they are supposed to evoke our modern idea of that relationship. A Master is dependent on no one, and the Slave is dependent on someone. I'm convinced Nietzsche was well aware of the unlikely situation that a person is ever not dependent on anyone.

In terms of Jesus amd Christianity I see it more as the alpha male than master - slave. Humans naturally fall into a hierarchical power structure. Historically male.

The Abrahamic god is the ultimate alpha male. The believer puts god at the top and owes allegiance to the alpha male above all else.
The Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russel Wilson says in interviews, 'God first, family second, football third'. It gives the believer a sense of stability and empowerment. Not a master slave relationship.

Nietzsche's Master Morality is a morality of people. Not God. Nietzsche was an atheist. Nietzsche was convinced that humans wrote the Bible. Nietzsche also defends Jesus and attacks Paul.

I think Nietzsche's attitude towards Christianity is the most misunderstood aspect of Nietzsche. "God is dead for we have killed him", isn't us gloating of the death of God. Nietzsche was what he called an "affirmative nihilist". Nihilism just means nothing matters. A true nihilist won't get anything done and has no reason to get out of bed. It's a paralyzing and pointless existence. "Affirmative Nihilism" is when you pick a meaning of life. You elevate something to sacred and use that as a guiding principle for your life. It could be anything. As long as it gets you out of bed, it's good. He's not having a go at Christianity. I think Nietzsche thought Christianity was a perfectly fine type of affirmative Nihilism. Yes, he thought it was a delusion. But we all cling to delusions to get by in life. I think it's not "ha ha, God is dead, for we have killed him". It's "oh, no, God is dead for we have killed him". Nietzsche isn't anti Christian. His project isn't to destroy Christianity. What I think he did say that industrialism and the Enlightenment had, in his lifetime, killed Christianity already. Which explains why we have the buffet style McDonalds Christianity of today. Which has very little to do with Christianity of old.

Another mistake is to see Nietzsche's masters as superior. The übermensch. As far as Nietzsche was concerned, being authentic and true to yourself will lead to endless grief and pain in your life. You will be admired by a little group of fans or others who are similar, but hated by most of society, for not complying. The life of a slave (ie, those with slave morality, not actual slaves) is a much more pleasant life. Less conflict.

Nietzsche's project wasn't to vilify Christians. It was just to describe the underpinning sociological mechanic in plain terms. I think he thought the death of Christianity was a catastrophe for human social cohesion, and would lead to grief and destruction, as the social norms keeping humanity from murdering each other willy nilly would come off.

Interestingly enough Kierkegaard (one generation before Nietzsche) made a very similar argument to Nietzsche. Kierkegaard's apology for Christianity comes down to, "meh... why not? What else are you gonna do?" It's not much a ringing endorsement.

In western culture master would refer to the male head of household, and mistress the female. Brits still recognize aristocratic titles, like lord. Lord of the manor.

From the gospels Jesus wa not a social activist. From the Sermon On The Mount and a few other passages one can infer passivism. The Jesus theme was bear your burden whatever it is and your eternal reward is in heaven.

To me Jesus is schizophrenic or bipolar. He goes from the pacific Sermon On The Mount to rage in the Temple. There is no coherent message in the gospels.

Will the real Jesus please stand up. On picks the Jesus that suits you. The old and new testaments are paradoxical if you take any of it literally. None of it was intended as a coherent moral guide.

I think this is by design. The Bible has a little bit of something for everyone. You can take from it what you will... pretty much. Christians did put in a lot of effort into collating the Bible and spent a bizarre amount of time talking over every aspect of it. A major project for the post-Constantinian church was to get all the Christians on the same page.

I think Jesus in the Bible is schizophrenic for a reason. That's the Jesus we needed at the time. And the continued popularity of Jesus seems to prove the point that he's still needed.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus isn't humble at all. He's saying that he wants to inherit the Earth. He wants power.

How do you get that? You're quoting from a sermon (not a parable) in which he is pretty dismissive of the kind of strong-arm power you describe.

To inherit the earth is not to conquer it. If you say that you anticipate inheriting your father's wealth someday, does that indicate that you plan to take it from him by killing him? Well, perhaps, if you've been knee-deep in Thus Spake Zarathustra lately.

I don't care for Nietzsche. I don't need any slaves, or misguided notions of virility, to get through my day. I am also no one's slave, despite never having sought to dominate anyone save in the occasional strategy game or forum debate. My pride and self-respect are built on sterner stuff than pseudo-philosophical puffery, and they aren't injured by the reality of belonging to a society I do not personally rule.

 

[FwL]

Perhaps what he really meant was that the meek will find themselves face down in the dirt.

 

[steve_bank]

The intent of the OP was to infer a slave relationship with Jesus-god by qutingNietzsche . My point is it does not fit.

I think Nietzsche's attitude towards Christianity is the most misunderstood aspect of Nietzsche. "God is dead for we have killed him", isn't us gloating of the death of God. Nietzsche was what he called an "affirmative nihilist".

Both Marx and Nietzsche are from a different era and culture. Civilization has moved on. There are still die hard Marxists who frame today in tem,s of 19th century Marx and the capitalism of the day. Culture and civilization f has evolved and moved on.

Quoting Nietzsche is analogous to quoting the bible. Another -ism.

One can make Jesus into anything you want, you can also find a philosphy to suit your views. Six a one half a dozen the other.

Neither region or phi;philosophy offer practcal solutions to problems.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've often equated the christian religion with a slave / master arrangement. I see I'm not alone.

 

[steve_bank]

I've often equated the christian religion with a slave / master arrangement. I see I'm not alone.

Master - slave in this country is a loaded term and evokes images of brutal slavery in the past. You can assume any definition.

As the thread is in religious texts, the issue should be what is the context of the terms in the gospels.

As a general term to me master denotes a higher position of skill or authority, A mrtial arts master. A chess master.

 

[Politesse]

I've often equated the christian religion with a slave / master arrangement. I see I'm not alone.

Master - slave in this country is a loaded term and evokes images of brutal slavery in the past. You can assume any definition.

As the thread is in religious texts, the issue should be what is the context of the terms in the gospels.

As a general term to me master denotes a higher position of skill or authority, A mrtial arts master. A chess master.

To this, I would argue that the ancient context of masters and slaves is closer to your plantation interpretation than that other sense of being good at something. A δοῦλος, or servant/slave was anyone compelled to do the will of another, which could mean anything from a paid servant to a chattel slave in the worst sense. The whole potential scale of service is implied; the antonym would be ἐλεύθερος, a freeman, a relative class minority in antiquity. The only ancient term referring exclusively to those who we would today call slaves is ἀνδράποδον (literally "man-footed stock animal") a phrase found often in ancient legal writings but nowhere in the Christian Scriptures. A κυρίοις, a lord or master, was the owner or employer of a δοῦλος and was assumed to have plenary rights over the lives of those in their care. This wasn't just slave owners; any free man was κυρίοις at least of his own household, including his slaves, political subjects, servants, animals, wife and children, under the law. An entitled noble was κυρίοις of all his citizens; though poetically, he was often called their δοῦλος as well, especially after the rise of Christianity itself. A god of any kind was inherently a κυρίοις over any human, so its application to the Hebrew God in religious writings isn't remotely surprising, it would be more strange if gods and men were implied to be equals in any ancient work. Thought simply did not run that way, even in the equivalent of atheist circles. Jesus' own frequent uses of the phrase and metaphor of the master and servant is very controversial, with some interpreting it merely in the sense of owing responsibilty to another in some way, others accusing him of outright endorsing slavery, and almost every conceivable position in between. The matter is impossible to resolve with our paucity of information about the Koine language and the very limited set of quotations we have from the Nazarene on the matter. I will note that Christians at the time of legalization almost universally believed that the Bible compelled the manumision of slaves, which some have taken to imply that to native speakers, the connotations of the lexical choices in Scripture were clearer than they are to today's scholars.

You did not ask about the Holy Qur'an, but I think it is relevant to discussion of the social issue; Arabic does distinguish between voluntary and involuntary service, and while servant metaphors are as common in that work as they are in the New Testament, they are explicitly and pointedly only ever understood as voluntary in nature. This includes the Qur'anic rendition of Jesus' teachings. On the other hand, as a social practice slavery is never explicitly condemned, either, and the Book promotes a legal theory concerning how slaves ought to be more fairly treated, which however comendable on a very relative scale is a far cry from abolishing the practice.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Jesus isn't humble at all. He's saying that he wants to inherit the Earth. He wants power.

How do you get that? You're quoting from a sermon (not a parable) in which he is pretty dismissive of the kind of strong-arm power you describe.

To inherit the earth is not to conquer it. If you say that you anticipate inheriting your father's wealth someday, does that indicate that you plan to take it from him by killing him? Well, perhaps, if you've been knee-deep in Thus Spake Zarathustra lately.

If you are humble, then why do you want to control it at all? You are treating it like a game. As if, if you play the right morality game, you will end up victorious and have the power. That's not what it means to be truly humble. If you are truly humble you rejoice in other people's success. Then you are not competing to dominate. What you are describing is pretending to be humble, when you are really not. Which is Nietzsche's point.

I don't care for Nietzsche. I don't need any slaves, or misguided notions of virility, to get through my day. I am also no one's slave, despite never having sought to dominate anyone save in the occasional strategy game or forum debate. My pride and self-respect are built on sterner stuff than pseudo-philosophical puffery, and they aren't injured by the reality of belonging to a society I do not personally rule.

I don't think you understand Nietzsche.

The masters don't care about the slaves. They're not trying enslave them, and are not dependent on the approval or subservience of the slaves to be happy. The masters are spiritually independent. Masters are fine with other people succeeding. They don't feel threatened by other people's success and they don't compare themselves to others. They have their own standards for what is meaningful, valuable, and worth fighting for. They have friends who are honest with them and who they therefore, know they can trust. When they open their mouths they ask themselves what they think is appropriate to say. They don't first scan the room, trying to figure out who might be offended. If they hear a joke that's funny, they just laugh. They don't first think through whether or not the joke is appropriate. They love themselves unconditionally. They're not bitter. They accept their fate. This is his concept of the übermensch. They're cool with other people not liking them. If they like a sweater, they will wear it. They don't care that everybody they meet tell them it's ugly. Because by wearing it, the chances of them one day, meeting another person who also likes that kind of sweater is greater.

The slaves, on the other hand, care about the masters, and other slaves. They have a weak core/sense of self and weak values. Their sense of self worth is dependent on others for approval They might not even know what they feel or think about anything. They've obliterated their own sense of self and replaced it with symbols of happiness and success. This is the psychological root of consumerism. They do feel threatened by other people's success. They're jealous and resentful. They're polite even when they should be angry. In psychology both the narcissist and the co-dependent victim of narcissistic abuse, are examples of slave morality. They're both slaves.

Another way to put it, the master asks themselves, "what do I want in life and what do I need to do to get it?" And then they do that. The slaves instead worry about what others might think, and they adapt to that. They worry about what is socially appropriate, rather than focusing on what is actually of benefit to people and society.

I'm not talking about actual historical masters and slaves. I'm talking about how Nietzsche uses the terminology.

 

[Politesse]

If you are humble, then why do you want to control it at all?

Why do you assume that a humble person, having inherited the earth, would want to control it? It's precisely because of their lack of avarice that they are worthy of the land's generosity, from a Christian perspective.

As for Niestzche, it's not necessary to act like a complete asshole just to have self-respect. In fact, when I meet people acting as boorish as you describe, my first thought is usually that they are extremely insecure. People who are truly self-actualized don't the need to put on some wild performance of not caring what other people think, they just exist and get well along. Do you really think refusing to say "bless you" when someone sneezes is proving your independence somehow? A boy's philosophy, is what it is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you are humble, then why do you want to control it at all?

Why do you assume that a humble person, having inherited the earth, would want to control it? It's precisely because of their lack of avarice that they are worthy of the land's generosity, from a Christian perspective.

Which is getting something rather than nothing. It's a sales pitch. Be humble = gain power. This is a competition for power between the humble and the non-humble for control over the Earth. A sales pitch directed towards people who have nothing, but want something.

I don't think you've thought this through.

As for Niestzche, it's not necessary to act like a complete asshole just to have self-respect. In fact, when I meet people acting as boorish as you describe, my first thought is usually that they are extremely insecure. People who are truly self-actualized don't the need to put on some wild performance of not caring what other people think, they just exist and get well along. Do you really think refusing to say "bless you" when someone sneezes is proving your independence somehow? A boy's philosophy, is what it is.

You're creating a straw man. It's not being an asshole, or boorish. Christianity straight up teaches people to be passive aggressive. It elevates self sacrifice above all else. Martyrdom. Why wouldn't an overman say "bless you" when someone sneezes? It's the a nice thing to do. The masters/the overmen aren't assholes. They're just honest with themselves. They're not necessarily honest with others. But they have a laser focus on what they want in life and will do whatever it takes to get that. Since we are a social species, that often means being kind and helpful to others. Or wrapping up negative feedback in a way that doesn't hurt others feelings. But they're not indiscriminately kind or self sacrificing. Which is the the Christian ideal. Assholes rarely get what they want, because other people don't like them.

A good example is foreign aid and welfare. People are more willing to pay taxes in their own country to help people in their own country, than helping people in other countries. Why? Because by helping people in our own country and culture, we know we are more likely to get help if we´d ever need it. Which is exactly what we see in the world. If we look at what Christians are doing, (rather than saying) it's pretty clear that they do generally strive to empower themselves. Ie, their talk is just talk.

 

[rousseau]

This parable is about being humble is good and that we should all strive to humble ourselves. This is what Nietzsche had a problem with and which he called Slave Morality. I just realized something about this. I don't know if I'm just the last person to get it. But anyway, master morality and slave morality, according to Nietzsche exist together. Master morality is about valuing things that are useful and will give us power. It's about eliminating that which is harmful. Slave morality exist in relation to master morality. It's someone who believe they aren't strong enough to have the things that the masters have, so they pretend like they don't want them, and create a moral system where anything that the masters want is sinful and immoral, and they can sit perched upon their loser horse and feel smug about being morally superior, even though they're living a lie and their life objectively sucks.

That was a long warm up. Here's my point. Saying that the meek shall inherit the Earth, is self contradictory. Jesus isn't humble at all. He's saying that he wants to inherit the Earth. He wants power. He wants everything the masters want and that by pretending and acting humble the meek will eventually get it. That's just disingenuous. And an excellent example of the inner workings of Slave Morality.

Thoughts?

I largely agree. A few months ago I had a conversation at another forum that I was re-reading recently. In it I mentioned the idea of a 'stable philosophy' which I think applies here. A stable philosophy is a set of ideas that persist across time because it feels good to hold them.

Many people will take great pains to hold on to philosophies that justify their lack of success or position in life, it's a kind of protective mechanism. If the mind can orient a person in a way so that they're satisfied even despite a lack of success, that person is more likely to feel positive / have kids, than if they give up all hope. So there's a kind of evolutionary pressure to think this way.

I can think of a number of examples of such philosophies, but the common thread is that they allow us to get around the problems of uncertainty and failure.

 

[Politesse]

Which is getting something rather than nothing. It's a sales pitch. Be humble = gain power. This is a competition for power between the humble and the non-humble for control over the Earth. A sales pitch directed towards people who have nothing, but want something.

If that's true of someone, then the earth is not theirs to inherit. According to the teaching you're quoting. Jesus abhorred hypocrisy, quite famously. I don't know why you think outwardly pretending to be humble while secretly supparating in greed would cut it in this philosophy.

 

[rousseau]

Which is getting something rather than nothing. It's a sales pitch. Be humble = gain power. This is a competition for power between the humble and the non-humble for control over the Earth. A sales pitch directed towards people who have nothing, but want something.

If that's true of someone, then the earth is not theirs to inherit. According to the teaching you're quoting. Jesus abhorred hypocrisy, quite famously. I don't know why you think outwardly pretending to be humble while secretly supparating in greed would cut it in this philosophy.

The people who held onto this point were very likely not aware of their motives in holding it. That's the tricky thing with belief - often our own motives and reasoning for belief is hidden to us.

You can be sincerely mild-mannered and well-intentioned, but still be motivated by self-interest without realizing it. That's not to say that such people are greedy, it just means that they might not have completely thought through their own beliefs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which is getting something rather than nothing. It's a sales pitch. Be humble = gain power. This is a competition for power between the humble and the non-humble for control over the Earth. A sales pitch directed towards people who have nothing, but want something.

If that's true of someone, then the earth is not theirs to inherit. According to the teaching you're quoting. Jesus abhorred hypocrisy, quite famously. I don't know why you think outwardly pretending to be humble while secretly supparating in greed would cut it in this philosophy.

I think saying that the meek shall inherit the Earth is a hypocritical statement. Why would the meek give a shit, if they inherit the Earth? They're meek. And when have ever anybody ever benefitted in any way from being meek?

I think hypocrisy IS the philosophy. I think Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical. Nobody can live up to the Christian ideal. The whole point of the moral system is that everybody should feel like horrible sinners who will spend their entire lives trying to be better people, or at least good enough (lol... they never will be). Which is actually fine. At least Christians are making an effort to better themselves. That beats lazy nihilists any day.

But it's based on hypocrisy. It's a rat race. In practice, historically, the moral teachings of Christianity is only ever applied to the common people. The nobles, in general, couldn't give less of a shit. Those with power seemed to have seen through the Christian bullshit and treated it as theatre. A game to play. And if they play it right they will stay in power. And that's actually not such a bad thing.

For example... the Roman empire.. what it had going for it, which their barbarian neighbors didn't was the idea that their emperor couldn't do whatever he wanted. There was laws that were inviolable, even to the emperor. The emperors who disagreed all got swiftly murdered. It was a stable system. The Roman empire fell apart for other reasons. Arguably that their neighbors learned of this method, and copied it. The Vandals, Goths and Lombards were all Christian. The Persians were Zorastrian, which is a similar moral code. The Muslims were Muslim. Same same. But it's no less hypcritical

 

[Politesse]

Why would the meek give a shit, if they inherit the Earth?

They wouldn't, that's the whole point. Those who actually crave power can't be trusted with it, but to those who avoid causing pain to others, the eschatological promise is given.

 

[Politesse]

And when have ever anybody ever benefitted in any way from being meek?

When they inherit the earth.

 

[Politesse]

It was a stable system.

*cough cough* year of six emperors

 

[abaddon]

That was a long warm up. Here's my point. Saying that the meek shall inherit the Earth, is self contradictory. Jesus isn't humble at all. He's saying that he wants to inherit the Earth. He wants power. He wants everything the masters want and that by pretending and acting humble the meek will eventually get it. That's just disingenuous. And an excellent example of the inner workings of Slave Morality.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that this whole convo is literal-minded people being literal-minded.

This "master morality" stuff is as compensatory for feeling like a nobody as the notion that god's going to literally give the earth to the meek someday. In BOTH cases it's weak people fantasying about being strong as compensation for how they're not. People who want to be unique individuals rising above "the herd" do it to "win" over what they perceive as an antagonistic world.

"Rich" people likewise live in what they choose to perceive as an antagonistic world. They obsess about acquisitions as compensation for their terror of death and meaninglessness. Whereas people who don't feel a need to do that are inwardly rich and thus "inherit the earth".

Thomas Traherne, a Christian mystic, wrote about all that's "given" to him. And it's clear he meant the world around him, and in a present instead of a future tense:

"Your enjoyment of the world is never right, til every morning you awake in Heaven; see yourself in your Father’s Palace; and look upon the skies, the earth, and the air as Celestial Joys: having such a reverend esteem of all, as if you were among the Angels…. You never enjoy the world aright, til the Sea itself floweth in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with stars: and perceive yourself to be the sole heir of the whole world."

He was seeing it from the first-person POV. If you, in mystic-speak, can "be at one with the world", then the preoccupation with the acquisition of wanted things and the avoidance of unwanted things drops away. Then it's all just "given to you". Mind not only can't pick-and-choose what's "given", it just of its nature is open to all phenomena so in effect holds all phenomena - iow, the world is "yours" in this sense. The choice is to delight in what's "given" or walk around feeling impoverished because you wish it were any different than as "given".

So I'm suggesting that if... just maybe... Jesus was a "oneness" contemplative too, like Traherne and some other "mystics", then he wasn't talking about the literal earth being literally given by a distant, alien god to some select believers in a far-distant future. But if this suggestion is wrong, if Jesus was talking about that, then obviously he was engaged in the kind of compensatory deception that I mentioned.