DB> The question I get from Freidrich, is that if you *have* the vision to
 DB> see what *is*, and see what you can do about it, why do you sit there to
 DB> submit to the will of Allah?  He is telling all mankind to quit asking
 DB> for the help of Daddy, and grow up, and take some responsibility, and
 DB> you cannot *do* that, if you are going around all the time trying to
 DB> figure out what the will of *God* is for crissake.
   But, Day, in _The Gay Science_ Nietzsche sort of betrays his real motive
when he has the Madman say: "....Must we not become gods simply to seem 
orthy
of it...." [the murder of God]   But then he goes on to say a little further
on, that we are still incapable of such a deed so the Madman has come too
early.  Finally: "What are these churches now if they are not the tombs in
sepulchers of God."  
   Bluntly, how can Aristotle's "prime mover" be "dead?"  Is Nietzshe railing
against the differentiated symbol or the derailed and decadent "church
theology or doctrine as it came from the degeneration which issued as the
church fathers used Greek philosophy available to them to form "doctrine" 
hat
could result in popularizing through the Roman ecumene OR is he accepting the
God-deadness symbol of Hegel to assume that the symbol of divinity has not
only come under the full grasp of man but with Feuerbach it can be "killed"
which in effect amounts to sucking a projection of the human side of the
tension back into the clearly mortal and animal so that man himself can 
ecome
Gods?  
   I wholeheartedly agree with you that the doctrine-filled ecclesisastics
(who mostly do NOT read Nietzsche critically) depend too much upon God as a
"Daddy."  Evangelical fundamentalism fosters this, to be sure, but the
derivativd of the medieval church leadership cannot be absolved of blame
either.  The church, in many ways, constitutes a derailment of the Christian
theophany as a further clarification of the spiritual problem of that which 
e
symbolize as "man."  
   One problem with Nietzsche is his premature death.  Even some of his
well-known writings are not NECESSARILY what he would have said in final form
and even in the form they are in they could not be accepted en toto by the
Nazis because they clearly did not fit his "Superman" symbol in any sense.
What, indeed, would a mature Nietzsche have written on certain points of his
rage against the wall of being?
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------