END NOTES1. This contradiction is presented poetically in Omar Khayyam>–see Appendix “A,” below.2. This is C.S. Lewis’s approach to the problem in Christianity>. See Book Four, Chapter 3, “Time and Beyond.” Cf., Letter XXVII.3. of “justice” and “power,” the following text from is quite interesting: “If you are not in your ownpower, then someone must have you in his power who is either morepowerful or less powerful than yourself. If he is less powerfulthe fault is your own and the misery just. But if someone, morepowerful than you are, hold you in his power you will not rightlythink so rightful an order to be unjust” (3.6.19). 4. The Apostle Paul dealt with such objections, not by defendingthe justice of God–and especially not by appealing to “free will”–but by pointing out the absurdity of the creature passingjudgment on the creator:Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, andwhom he will he hardenth. Thou wilt say then unto me,Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted hiswill? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest againstGod? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter powerover the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel untohonour, and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:18-21).There are elements of this in Augustine’s approach, but his extremediscomfort with the “core” of the problem is evident–a discomfortwhich is not evident in the writings of St. Paul.5. At this point, I beg those staunch defenders of orthodoxy whotruly know and love the Lord their God to bear with me. Despitethe seeming harshness of my criticism, I assure you that I am notyour enemy. And, despite their reputations, neither are Spinozaand Nietzsche, to whom I now turn.6. Such external powers are not essentially opposed to me. Inanother context, the same power might work to my advantage.7. Nietzsche himself calls Spinoza his “precursor” (PortableNietzsche 92). His discovery of Spinoza seems to have come afterthe publication of the Human, All To Human.8. By “will,” here, I indicate our desire to do that which iswithin our power, not a mere whim or wish.9. It would not be desirable to eliminate such emotions insofar aseach has a positive function. 10. I have emphasized the practical similarity of these concepts. For a more detailed theoretical analysis that emphasizes theirdifferences, see “Spinoza and Nietzsche: and fati>” in Volume Two of Yeimiyahu Yovel’s Heretics>, Princton Univ. Press, 1989.11. What many find unacceptable in Christian thought (or at leastin some, not insignificant, strands of it) is that 1) In the nameof piety, attempts are made to limit freedom of speech and thought;2) the body, and the temporal order in general, is disparaged asintrinsically flawed or evil; 3) it is demanded that one acceptmythic and religious imagery as scientific/historical explanationsof phenomena; 4) various prevailing cultural norms are accepted asabsolute moral imperatives, not subject to rational criticism; and5) particular texts are idolatrously accepted as the essentialfoundation rather than the creative expression of religious faith.12. I came across this definition of “myth” in a Jungian analysisof medieval romance, the title and author of which escapes me atthe moment.13. I am merely asserting the last of these three “theoreticaladvantages” and do not attempt to defend it explicitly in thispaper.14. At this point, I feel somewhat like Paul, whose gospel was, tothe Jew, “a stumbling block,” and to the Greek, “foolishness.” “Orthodox” Christians imagine (understandably) that the legitimacyof their faith depends on the historical truth of the gospelnarratives. They stumble at the notion that countless millions,past and present, have had a similar experience of faith andsalvation–people who never heard the name of Christ, or haverejected the name because of that which they associate with it;people who, despite their ignorance of Jesus of Nazareth, or theirrepugnance to traditional Christianity, may, nonetheless, knowChrist–in the Spirit, as it were–just as intimately as anyorthodox believer. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to considerall “god-talk” to be foolishness. Preoccupation with such things,they might say, is a vestige of a more primitive (or perhapsinfantile) stage of human development–something that one shouldcast aside in maturity.15. The right relation to our neighbor is more accurately construedas the effect, not the cause of our right relationship to God,although it may be the case that the two are inseparable.16. Zarathustra teaches, “,that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow afterlong storms” ( 211).