Nothing Nietzsche said about Christianity was true. Here I shall refute all of his claims point-by-point.
Nietzsche Was A Blaspheming Liar and Fraud
Nothing Nietzsche said about Christianity was true. Here I shall refute all of his claims point-by-point.
it started
Claim 1:
Christianity was a religion adopted by slaves in the beginning.
Refutation:
The original disciples were fishermen or tax collectors, not slaves. Our Lord Jesus Christ and his cousin St. John the Baptist were noblemen descended from the line of King David. There were many converts from all ranks of society. The Roman Centurion is the first example of a Roman convert — a centurion, not slave. There were rich men (Joseph of Arimathea, Theophilus) and poor men. St. Paul, who was a Roman citizen (something very highly valued in those days) and government agent, worked as a tent-maker after his conversion to Christianity. Moreover, the Bible upholds — not condemns — the institution of Roman slavery. St. Paul exhorts Christian slaves to be obedient to their masters — thus proving that there were slaves amongst the early Christian — but also exhorts Christian slave-owners to treat their slaves well — thus proving the existence of early Christian slave-OWNERS. Onesimus, the only example I can think of of a slave in the New Testament, was told to return back to his Christian master by Saint Paul! No matter which way you want to look at it, the early Christians and the later Christians came from all ranks of society, and were not exclusively slaves.
Claim 2:
Christianity teaches weakness.
Refutation:
One of the Seven Christian Virtues is Fortitude, the opposite of weakness. Cowardliness and effeminacy are condemned in the Bible over and over. Saint Paul exhorts his followers to be STRONG and ACT LIKE MEN:
>Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, acquit yourselves like men, be strong.
Claim 3:
Christianity teaches resentment or envy
Refutation:
Envy is one of the seven Christian vices. There is no call to resentment in Christianity. Our Lord:
>“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, unto God what is God’s.”
Claim 4:
Christianity was a power move by the slaves to overthrow the "strong".
Refutation:
Christianity never was a revolutionary religion. It was about the individual’s salvation of his soul, cultivation of his Virtue, and extirpation of corruption and evil from himself by spiritual practices. Saint Paul confirms that Christianity is a spiritual battle: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” In other places, he tells Christians not to revolt against the Prince because the Prince wields the sword for the good of society, to punish those that do evil.
(1/2)
Claim 5:
Christianity is life-denying
Refutation:
Christianity, unlike Gnosticism, does not believe this material world is evil! Christianity rather says that the material world is good but is corrupted due to sin. Christianity teaches the bodily resurrection of all men, and a bodily, physical existence in the afterlife. Christian emphasis on temperance, purification, self-control, and virtue does not make it life-denying! It is not like Buddhism, which seeks after non-existence, nor is it like Platonism, which seeks after a purely spiritual abstract reality. It seeks for a higher EMBODIED existence!
All Nietzsche's claims about Christianity, all his blasphemies against our Lord, were horrendous, horrific lies! Anyone who repeats, believes, acknowledges these lies is putting himself in serious spiritual danger. If you read this undeniable refutation but continue to repeat Nietzsche's lies you are in danger of culpably blaspheming the Holy Ghost.
>All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(2/2)
>Christianity was a religion adopted by slaves in the beginning.
he didn't say this, so i'm going to assume you got everything else wrong too
good posts
Doesn’t matter what the Bible says what matters is what the church emohases
scholarly. very nice
I made a "quotables" of my posts, feel free to borrow.
>One of the Seven Christian Virtues is Fortitude, the opposite of weakness.
What Christians mean by fortitude (enduring adversity) is weakness, the classical conception of fortitude involves both forbearance and confronting fear. ἀνδρεία (fortitude) isn't mentioned in the New Testament, only ὑπομονή (steadfastness) and μακροθυμία (patient endurance). The post-revolutionary definition of fortitude is an inversion, so saying it's the opposite of weakness is an opposite of an opposite.
Enduring adversity isn't weakness.
"Confronting fear" means what exactly? Christianity is not pacifism, as evidenced by its just war doctrine developed by Saint Augustine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Once again Nietzscheans have no idea what theyre talking about
>"Confronting fear" means what exactly?
You don't know it because you are a slave. Kek.
Right - only freemen become atheists. I made this as a submission for a compilation of atheist quotes. You can use any if you wish
>the early Christians and the later Christians came from all ranks of society, and were not exclusively slaves.
you have missed the point entirely of what Nietzsche is saying. Who is blessed in Christianity? Not the victor. Not the healthy. Not the strong. Not the mighty. Not anyone you'd expect to have been "blessed" by any sort of God. Unless it's one of those warhammer gods that gives you leprosy, because apparently that is who Yahweh-Yeshua's blessings are reserved for, the conquered, subjugated, weak, and enslaved—they who are meant to enjoy an eternal Saturnalia when they die, where the first shall be last and the last shall be first. And these saints shall find it pleasing to hear the eternal torture of the strong? What makes Nietzsche's attack on Christianity so difficult for Christian apologists to engage with is that it isn't a matter of materialism, or a mere disbelief in the suprarational or super-natural, it is a kind of neo-Roman condemnation, more in the spirit of a Celsus or a Julian Augustus (pbuh) than a Dawkins or a Hitchens. When you debate a contemporary western atheist, he is trying to save your own school of morality from its bigotries and fantasies. But Nietzsche wishes to push the entirety of Christianity down the stairs in a fit of Schopenahaurian vigor.
Why do Nietzsche worshippers always try to imitate this embarrassing style.
sorry, i know you are used to seeing capeshit before being lectured
Makes no sense.
Probably an ESL trying to make a joke about marvel movies (i.e. >you're so le dumb!)
it's in the bible, which you haven't read either, being an e-convert tradzoom gaslighted by ivan
I'm so confused.
NRX twitter brainrot
the only brainrot is not realizing you are reading capeshit aimed at the Roman underclass and calling others stupid for disliking it
kek, yes goy, you are so smart for reading moldbug and we totally need a king!
christ isn't king?
checkmate stupid larper
Ah, you're part of the genetically israeli - culturally atheist crowd on twitter. Fag city fagocrat?
>anti-semite worships a dead rabbi as master of the universe
>images people who disagree with him must be israeli and uses this as an insult
holy kek it never gets old
>I dryly and factually describe a twitter crowd as genetically israeli and culturally atheist
>you sperg out
kek, damn you "people" really are sensitive about judaism aren't you?
i don't use twitter and i don't know what ecelebs you are talking about, I have simply read the material and rejected your religion, which you are only able to defend by assuming your opponent matches a group you are used to arguing with and then going "lol you are x" it's devoid of any intelligence you might as well be a bot, perhaps a GOLEM
Sure thing bud.
>rejected your religion
not religious, you sound like a retarded twitter tourist
>getting this mad over being called similar to a israeli crowd on twitter
fooling no one
You worship a israeli man as God, so why are you so hateful towards those you pretend are israeli?
I'm areligious. Have any schmears of israeli heritage? You sound desperate to deflect criticism of israelites lmao
>anti-semitic atheist simping for one israeli religion over another
lol, lmao even
>avoids the question whether zher has israeli heritage
>they're all the same goy, heh
>just be an atheist and support israel!
edgy 2004 bush voter core
now I'm confused, if you're such a committed anti-zionist, anti-semite and Bush loathing American you can't possibly be simping for Christianity
We NEED to support Israel brother! You're anti semitic otherwise
Also religion heckin' sucks 🙁
since you've decided i am israeli and that Judaism+ is based despite you being an atheist, and failed to disagree with me on Judaism+ being the worship of a israeli theologian as master of the universe, as a purported israeli atheist and theologian myself you ought to defer to me on these matters, which indeed many Anericans and Bush voters do and did respectively
>since you've decided i am israeli
I simply asked and you've dodged the question lmao. Is it a bad thing? You seem to view it as such. I SUPPORT ISRAEL!
i really don't see why you need an answer, it won't make Christianity real if i am or not, it won't change the origins of Christianity, it won't change the general description of people attracted to christlarping on LULZ, it is a petty attempt at non-refutation and if you are to be believed you are simping for a religion you don't believe in to spite a religion you dislike even more, which is, deeply christian of you
>i really don't see why you need an answer
kek. i guess you do see it as a bad thing. classic anti semite
you are unfamiliar with how this place works, there's no profile page, you have to respond to what is said and there is no who— you are of course incapable of this and have to go back to xwitter, reddit, facebook, vk
>i really don't see why you need an answer
>repeats stock twitter phrases from israelites on twitter
maybe they've read Nietzsche; it's more than you've read in any case
drop your handle on X
>christian is anti-monarchist
what
>Capeshit for the Roman underclass
Greco-Roman paganism had more than enough of this. Christianity spread because it was a universalistic apocalyptic spin-off from Judaism with a bit of meat when it came to its teachings as well as actual faith. In contrast, the Greco-Romans had no real piety left by then.
Just addressing your first point.
Nietzche did not mean that Christianity was a religion of literal slaves, but rather that Christians had the mentality of slaves. Being a slave in the Nietzschean sense has nothing to do with actual power or social status.
Also
>Christianity never was a revolutionary religion.
It was, both in the milieu of Judaism and the context of the empire.
And the rest of your paragraph reveals you might have misunderstood Nietzche. Because that type of behavior is very typical of slaves.
>It was revolutionary
>it just took 400 years by the emperors themselves
>universalistic
>Jesus "I came to save the lost house of Israel"
you naggers are retarded as fuck lol
"I came to X" is not mutually exclusive in truth with the statement "I came to Y", especially when taken out of context from a large body of work.
Well, Christianity isn't some weird offshoot of Judaism only practiced in rural Syria and Anatolia, so it clearly was universalistic.
>jesus literally blesses people by making them physically healthy
>he's anti life!
>he wants you to be sick!
step off twitter, little bud.
that literally never happened, no sick people were blessed by the sorceror and made well, but the weak and sickly are told to believe they can become otherwise by worshiping your volcano demon's wife's son
>volcano demon's wife's son
so you don't actually believe in god or the immaculate conception or resurrection or the miracles, he's just an intellectual exercize or a means to distance yourself from transexuals?
>Volcano demon's wife's son.
did you just log off reddit? be honest.
you all have to go back, this play-pretend christian costume is getting ridiculous, this is a japanese cartoon porn website with racist characteristics, not a bible study group
>getting this mad at being called reddit
>mr. volcano god spagetti monster
drop your reddit account, i'll updoot your posts
>uhhh you are le reddit
you have to go back, go to church the lord be with you pray thirty hail marys for looking at all the lust inducing images
what's your reddit account though? i'll follow
You were shitting your diapers the last time i ever browsed reddit, I was here first
>he's anti life!
Yes.
>Who is blessed in Christianity?
Whoever follows God's commandments and seeks God.
>Not the victor.
???? The "victor" in a war or struggle can be good or bad, being a victor doesn't make you good. King David, a man after God's own heart, was victorious in many, many battles. And yet there are others who, though they be in the right, nevertheless lose battles. Wtf kind of belief is this?
>Not the healthy.
Jesus Christ healed people. Sickness was not God's intention, it is a result of the Fall, which shall be eliminated in the afterlife.
>Not the strong.
Being strong doesn't make you good. But it is not at odds with goodness. For example, King Louis IX is a saint, and was politically powerful. However, Nero was politically powerful, and yet a degenerate.
Are you a BDSM submissive by any chance? Cause that's the only reason I can think why you worship "le strong".
>Not the mighty.
You're just repeating yourself.
>Yahweh-Yeshua's blessings are reserved for, the conquered, subjugated, weak, and enslaved
No, it is reserved for all those who come to God in repentance. King David was not "conquered, subjugated, weak, or enslaved". Yet he was a man after God's own heart. And God made his enemies his footstool. So again, you just made this up.
>where the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Oh, so this is where the misunderstanding derives? The sermon on the mount simply means that those who humble themselves before God and have a true spiritual life will be accepted by God, whereas the Pharisees who like to exalt themselves and have only the externals of religiosity without the inner spiritual life will perish. It's not about praising weakness.
Everything you said was wrong. You don't understand Christianity.
>Are you a BDSM submissive by any chance? Cause that's the only reason I can think why you worship "le strong".
Is the rest of your apology going to get even worse? Nowhere have I said strength is to be worshiped. Instead I have pointed out that Christianity reserves itself for the sick, the weak, the oppressed, and so forth, as the basis of its values. Strength is good because potency is good, greater capacity is... greater. Weakness is bad because impotency is bad, lesser capacity is... lesser. You tell me—which you would prefer to be? Since we aren't always what we'd like to be, it then becomes a question for the "weak" whether strength, which he lacks, is in fact "good," since it seems to belong to those he envies, those who wield it and who he in fact submits to... Worshiping "strength" is exactly the sort of inverted reading of this which an "enslaved" mind would produce, it is not what I am talking about.
>Instead I have pointed out that Christianity reserves itself for the sick, the weak, the oppressed, and so forth.
It's just wrong though. Christianity is often criticized for its universalism and this is literally true. It's for everyone.
>Christianity is often criticized for its universalism
universalism is just the roided up version of being for the bottom
Not really. Mathematics is also universal but not commonly for the bottom.
a universal morality which levels all people is inherently anti-elite, anti-aristocratic, anti-noble etc. because it uses the lowest common denominator
>anti-aristocratic, anti-noble
common mistake to think aristocraticism = virtu or "good"
also kant and aristotle already refuted this line of thinking btw
I didn't say they were, the point is that universal morality grew from slave morality
>"slave" "morality"
spook
thumbnail makes it look like he's sticking his tongue out like a real cunt eater and I prefer that to the reality
>because it uses the lowest common denominator
That doesn't follow, and throughout history the lower class had a more difficult time conforming to the Christian conception of decency.
the gospel IS the preferential option for the poor
Sure but they have a difficult time following its precepts. Even in our atheistic times, the lower class people are the more ethically anti-Christian their behavior. They're more irresponsible, hedonic, coarse, brutal, promiscuous, drunken etc. .
>Strength is good because potency is good, greater capacity is... greater. Weakness is bad because impotency is bad, lesser capacity is... lesser.
Yes, it is good because it is a good tool. But the strong can use their power for good or for evil. King David used it for good, Nero used it for evil. It's that simple.
>Instead I have pointed out that Christianity reserves itself for the sick, the weak, the oppressed, and so forth, as the basis of its values.
You have "pointed out" a total lie. It doesn't exist. It's nowhere in the Bible. You've based your entire argument on a misreading of the sermon on the mount without considering the other parts in the Bible which completely contradict this.
It's like if someone claimed that "CHRISTIANITY SAYS YOU CAN ONLY EAT BANANAS BRO BUT THATS BAD BRO CHRISTIANITY REFUTED". All I can say is: no, you just made that up.
>for good or for evil
you haven't done the reading
>if you dont agree with me it means you didnt read my book
No, it means your book is retarded
>discounting the status of the victim and the victor
So you want Christianity to be a religion for the "victor", whatever that even means? You want God to reject someone because they lost a battle, or are in a bad state in life, and only accept the winners/rich people? You sound childish.
I'm not a fan of football, but growing up in England has acquainted me with these terms. You are someone who is disparagingly called a "glory supporter" -- you have no loyalty to any team, but choose your team based on who is winning, like a weasel.
And on the topic of sports, anyone who has seriously competed in them will know that there is a certain level of respect between competitors. The winner will always show respect to the vanquished in Judo, which is the sport I practice. And if he fails to do so, gloats over his victory, etc., people generally see him as dishonourable and a poor sport.
At a certain point, this all comes down to one's spiritual constitution. I don't believe rational arguments will be convincing here, because this is ultimately not a rationally-motivated position. It is a position of disgust that you have against a very vague notion of "victimhood" or "weakness", like some Indian scammer who takes advantage of the elderly "because they deserve it for being old and stupid".
Christianity condemns cowardice, effeminacy, self-victimisation (despair). It does, however, accept men from all social classes, no matter how politically strong or weak they may be. That is not something I as a Christian am ashamed of.
>It does, however, accept men from all social classes
Christianity is responsible for third world populations like Hispanics exploding into untold dysgenic millions who share your religion and invade our city streets to rub shoulders with our daughters.
nah, marxists libs are to blame
ORANGE MAN BAD!
Global capitalism and inequality is the reason we have mass migration. America was Christian from the beginning and is less and less Christian today, yet you blame Christianity for a recent problem you perceive. Interesting.
>if you dont agree with me it means you didnt read my book
i am certain you have not read Beyond Good and Evil, or the Genealogy of Morality, and in any case why would I uncritically agree with you on what "good" and "evil' uses of power are?
NTA, but I think the point which should be made here is that Nietzsche doesn't criticize Christianity as rejecting victory outright, but by implicitly rejecting it. It implies that all humans have an equal status before God, which is the notion that christians are urged to act on, discounting the status of the victim and the victor, which will always benefit the victim and harm the victor.
Even the Greeks believed in equality after death. In Homer their greatest hero is sent to the underworld where he spends his days seething.
>the Fall, which shall be eliminated in the afterlife.
A repulsive worship of death and life-denial, but anyway you argue like a second rate rabbi trying to charm the credulous. Your Bible is not supposed to stretch and bend like silly putty to accommodate any interpretation you require in the moment.
>A repulsive worship of death and life-denial
Nietzscheans just keep repeating their same script over and over again hoping it will land. This has already been refuted; Christianity is about eternal life, not death. It is death-denying, not life-denying. It does not seek dissipation into nothingness like Buddhism, but an embodied existence in the afterlife. No other religion has claimed that God became fully man in the full Christian sense, and uplifted our bodily existence.
>Your Bible is not supposed to stretch and bend like silly putty to accommodate any interpretation you require in the moment.
There's no stretching and bending. It is false to say that Christianity thinks "the healthy, the victorious, the strong" are not blessed. That is a false statement. Rather, the blessed are those who follow God's commandments and seek God. That is the only criterion.
umm sorry I don't listen to the words of a fallen man immured in sin you'll have to get back to me when you're pure
>Christianity is about eternal life, not death. It is death-denying, not life-denying
death is what gives life value, the christer attitude of "life will be better when I am dead" and its consequences have been a disaster for life
It's not only that but what Christianity says about the afterlife is first of all baseless, secondarily it doesn't make logical sense as something made up, and on top of that anon's interpretation of what gets you there is blasphemous depending on which theology you choose to believe.
It could be any random person coming at me and telling me how the universe works, there's no good reason to believe it, it was something written down by some dumbass, being repeated to me by another dumbass, oh and by the way man is inherently sinful but not me haha you can trust what I say.
Pure reddit.
Not an argument
>muh argument!
autistic redditor detected
Still not an argument
(still a redditor)
you have to go back, this is not a church group, this is a satanic website complete with pokemon, dungeons and dragons, and lust provoking images
>complete with pokemon, dungeons and dragons, and lust provoking images
redditors like you love to overwrite, and yet always sound 105 IQ kek
>u used too many wordes hehe
>misunderstanding what overwriting means
dear sir, please grasp that you are of diminutive mental means - and that reddit is indeed a site of worthy browsing is a confirmation of this ethos
you are digging yourself an even deeper hole now, stick to desert capeshit
sir, the mental imagination of a shovel will not apparate to my self because your cognitive horsepower has proven insufficent. it is possible that an updoot would power your thoughts to cogency
christer apologists aren't sending their best, no more (You)'s
Sir, your reference of the former president of the United States' critique of Mexican foreign policy vis a vis the migration of illegal aliens has proven most droll. If your rather trite and plebeian writings had taken this brusque yet dry presence before, this would have been a tale with a cajoling ending.
It is genuinely fascinating, the very tail end of human intelligence right here right now. No I wont provide arguments for my claim, these two posts serve enough as they are.
Blessed
Why is he white?
white is a good thing
He was not talking about literal slaves and literal masters. Master and slave morality are mere approaches to life, the beggar can be a master, the king can be a slave. Both can be found in modern man.
I want you to kill yourself
turn your screen on
It’s on, and I’m gooning to total christfag death.
>t.
1.the guys in the story are just instances of individuals that may or may not have existed. We are talking about real broader populations of people which we can see were mostly slaves/the masses
2.the seven virtues are Greek. Weakness is more than asking just be strong. It's saying stuff like don't resist evil, surrender whenever, all worldly joy is pointless etc
3.also from Aristotle. Yes envy is staed as bad In Christianity but there is a subtextual envy. The stories about strong or powerful people, conquerers, or even just somewhat wealthy people being punished for trying and the poor being rewarded for mere belief or poverty betray a kind of envy or frustration with real success.
4.it was revolutionary , they knew they could never win a real revolt so they took to subverting traditional morality.
5.>the material world isn't evil it is just totally corrupted with sin and must be destroyed and all pleasurable activities are a son that will put you in forever and the next world is what's good so deny yourself In this one
>The stories about strong or powerful people, conquerers, or even just somewhat wealthy people being punished for trying and the poor being rewarded for mere belief or poverty betray a kind of envy or frustration with real success.
Do Nietzschecels just make things up.
The first Christians were literally slaves and soldiers, read history books cause you have no sources on your claims
He cited the Bible, you cited unnamed “history books”
>tax collectors
Literally the worst person there could ever be
kind of the point. read your bible
"Even today many educated people think that the victory of Christianity over Greek philosophy is a proof of the superior truth of the former - although in this case it was only the coarser and more violent that conquered the more spiritual and delicate. So far as superior truth is concerned, it is enough to observe that the awakening sciences have allied themselves point by point with the philosophy of Epicurus, but point by point rejected Christianity." Nietzsche H2H
There was no "victory of Christianity over Greek philosophy." There was a victory of Christianity over Greek paganism, which was a horrendous, primitive, barbarous spirituality. The Greek paganism you are defending has Zeus, the greatest Greek God, kidnapping young boys like Ganymede and making him into a homosexual sex slave! This is a horrific religion, which was replaced by the spiritual, enlightened truth of Christianity.
Greek philosophy was synthesised with Christianity! But Greek philosophy, which always aimed towards the One, was at odds with Greek paganism, and its ridiculous multiplicity of anthropomorphic deities! That's why it fit so well with Christianity.
Liar. He identified Christianity as a plot by the "slaves" to overthrow the "masters". I have refuted everything he said, drawing on Christian history to show that there were Christians from all classes and not only slaves or lower class people. If you keep repeating Nietzsche's blasphemies you will put your soul in danger.
>Christianity was a religion adopted by slaves in the beginning.
Do you know what 'adopted' means? Is English not your native language? You blundered on your first claim. Try again without starting off with a blunder and I'll keep reading.
source your claim.
the first convert was a roman military aristocrat, idiot.
i'm asking you to state his claim correctly next time you aim to refute it. you seem easily confused by basic english.
If Christianity was a plot by the slaves to overthrow the masters, it follows that the slaves were the ones who adopted the religion in the beginning. But I have conclusively shown that (1) the early Christians came from all classes of society and (2) especially, there were even Christian slave-OWNERS amongst the early Christians. So why would these CHRISTIAN MASTERS wish to overthrow themselves?
This is enough to show that Nietzsche was a monstrous spinner of lies. However, I have refuted every single one of his claims, and not only this particular historical claim.
again you're misinterpreting, or just lying. state the claim correctly before you refute something.
take your time and actually attempt to understand what you aim to refute
misquotes and no sources. yea, you are a great judge of this.
Here's your (You)
>Christianity was a religion adopted by slaves in the beginning.
again, you fumbled on this first 'claim'. why should i consider anything else you have to say?
if you can't defend this, you have no foundation to refute from
>you fumbled on this claim
>has no evidence of it
Yes Nietzsche famously thought Christianity was adopted by aristocrats and master moralists. Have you even read Nietzsche? Please post ANY quotes relevant.
it’s up to you to defend your own claim. i shouldn’t have to explain this to you.
it’s like me saying you suck dicks for fun. is this a fact until YOU disprove it? lol
you must be new to all this
>hasn't even read Nietzsche
lmao. go back to your subreddit lil bud
so you admit to sucking cock? not very christian
I find it lol that you come barging into a Nietzsche thread without even knowing basic tenets of Nietzsche. I'm guessing 97 IQ redditor, probably raised evangelical, likes the idea of Nietzsche's "atheism" without reading him since it's too hard (for you)
you got the first claim wrong
lol
Struck a nerve? lmao @ u
prove me wrong
kek 97 IQ ex evangelical redditor
couldnt defend his very first point…… wow
>is an ex evangelical redditor who hasn't read nietzsche
>just knows him as le atheism mustache man
>he never thought slaves adopted Christianity!
>he just didn't
L M A O
M
A
O
>So why would these CHRISTIAN MASTERS wish to overthrow themselves?
It seems like what you're missing is that his proposition suggests that Christianity was designed to subvert people's own interests through the contruction of a new moral system. That is, the masters become the slaves, because they believe it to be "good".
>However, I have refuted every single one of his claims
You have not even read Nietzsche
>You have not even read Nietzsche
read an actual philosopher like Schopenhauer or Kant. Nietzsche himself would admit so and is more of a poet.
>Christianity was a plot by the slaves to overthrow the masters
this is the first time i heard Nietzsche was a conspiracy theorist
So, wiping out all life except a family and a pair from each animal species is more enlightened than kidnapping a single life?
given that when the earth was flooded there was fallen angels raping human women and making giants that killed men all the time id say yes.
I don't remember The Watchers and Nephilim being in the actual, canon Bible. Would you please provide their respective passages?
genesis 6:4
Sounds like someone needs to start with the Greeks. I went through a deep phase too.
>I went through a deep phase too.
Why'd you stop? Pleb.
>This is a horrific religion, which was replaced by the spiritual, enlightened truth of Christianity.
you sound like a fag tbh
Hedonism is the only way forward, brother.
>Liar. He identified Christianity as a plot by the "slaves" to overthrow the "masters".
Lol that's a different claim than your autistic refutation of "Christianity was a religion adopted by slaves *in the beginning*." You literally only refuted the part of the claim you added, lmao.
why can’t OP source the first claim? what do you think is happening here?
It's called Sklavenmoral in BGE you fucking illiterate retard. I understand reading english is hard for you, much less german.
literally just quote what you think matches your first claim and prepare to be BTFO’d
Do you honestly think "Slave Morality" in the context of BGE means morality only adopted by actual slaves?
No matter how much you hate being a surplus male in an egalitarian society it will not make Christianity real.
I must have seen this post a dozen times.
every day until you affirm life
>affirms life
>spends his time copy-pasting posts on LULZ daily
christer apologists aren't sending their best
he can’t do it
he really cant
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=did+nietzsche+think+that+slaves+adopted+christianity+first
aren't you the guy who didn't know what sklavenmoral even was? lmao
Filtered
This thread is irrefutable proof that all the fedora atheists all became tradlarping theists
Nietzsche thinks resentment is bad but his followers can't seem to help spewing venom on every occasion.
N. is for edgy teens starting to get into philosophy or mentallly ill older folks that were filtered by Schopenhauer or Heidegger, the natural follow-ups
>OP perfectly summarizes the flaws of Nietzschean philosophy.
>You are a heckin "christcuck"
>You reject life
>Go back to "reddit"
The followers of Nietzsche ruining their own reputation. Good Job OP. Not a single argument that you made was refuted.
>OP perfectly summarizes the flaws of Nietzschean philosophy.
Nice try op
Embarrassing post
Also a hypocrite since beyond good and evil most of what he says can apply to his own philosophical inventions people give him too much of a pass because he's like their Jesus and they get very religiously minded about him as if he's sacred.
Also while we are on the subject of worshiping STRENGTH, isn't one of "reasons" your God, is, well, GOD, because he is omnipotent? I'll let you google what that means
Christianity is so slippery because it promotes ostensibly contradictory values. When the critic attacks it in one respect, the apologist cites the other, and of course the theologian can always reconcile these inconsistencies
Turn the other cheek, blessed are the merciful, etc. Then also I have come bearing a sword, sell your cloak, etc.
This was obvious to me during my Reddit-tier atheist phase, though I'm more amenable to Christianity and religion generally now
You wouldn't have those problems if you learnt to recognize very obvious metaphors.
Yeah, it's all a metaphor for whatever you believe at any given moment. Funny how that works
I've never been on Reddit, don't play video games and don't even watch anime. I like the spacing, easier on the eyes
>you misunderstand the scripture
>no u
>no u
2000 years of this
I'm not a Christian and I can recognize the metaphors in the Bible. The problem is with you.
"I come bearing a sword" is admittedly not the best example since the parallel verse in Luke(?) says "division," turn father against son, mother against etc. I get it, but the salience of the word "sword" is obvious, not mere poetic license imo
You have your hermeneutics and I have mine
It's almost universally used as a metaphor, even today (protip: people don't even use swords anymore).
Christ did not literally bear a sword. It is strictly speaking a metaphor, but it's the implications of the metaphor that are disputed
In any case, the notion of the Bible as an internally consistent work is just retarded. So much so that certain sects distinguish the Gods of the Old and New Testaments. The necessity of apologetics is itself a huge indictment. Volumes and volumes of cope for thousands of years.
Projection. I can psychologize too lol homosexual
his followers literally carried swords with him though,,, not that you've actually read the bible once in your life
Where in the Bible does Jesus himself carry a sword? I know his followers did
Are you the same anon? Is it a metaphor or not? Make up your damn mind!
>tells his disciples to carry a sword
>his disciples literally carry a sword
hmm yes i wonder the meaning behind this teaching,,,,
So much for turning the other cheek...
yeah you don't understand what turning the other cheek means buddy. also you're a homosexual
38You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Pretty clear to me. Why would they need swords? Or was the entire Sermon on the Mount a metaphor?
The only way you will understand these seeming contradictions is if you grasp Christ's rhetorical style. Just as Socrates was characterised by irony, Christ was characterised by hyperbole (when he wasn't speaking in parables). He likes taking the moral to its extreme.
For example, he says we must hate our fathers, mothers, brothers and follow him. Does he really mean this? No; one of the greatest commandments is to honour our parents, and he says that anyone who curses his brother is in danger of hellfire.
More examples: he says we should cut out our eyes if they cause us to sin, he says we should call no man father or teacher, he says we should sell everything we have and follow him, etc..
I think the turn the other cheek thing is another example of this. It's true that we should forgive, even radically, and pray for evil people. But does it mean we should never resist them or defend ourselves? I don't think that's what he meant, and the Church has not interpreted it that way. In fact, the Church historically rejected pacifism and formulated a just war theory which says war is good and even necessary in some cases.
>Do not resist the one who is evil.
>But does it mean we should never resist them or defend ourselves? I don't think that's what he meant
Do you not see how this is insane cope? I understand the parables are subject to interpretation, but this is a simple, explicit command
If Christ means what He says, it is a glorification of weakness. If He does not, His language is circuitous, duplicitous and feminine. A strong man is forthright. (Not referring to parables here. Their value is in artistry.)
"Hate your family" is a simple, explicit command.
"Cut your eye out" is a simple, explicit command.
"Sell all you have" is a simple, explicit command.
"Call no man father" is a simple, explicit command.
That's the whole point. Jesus' main rhetorical style was speaking in parables and speaking with hyperbole. He liked stressing the moral to the extreme. Cut your eye out doesn't mean literally cut your eye out, it means cut away anything that is an impediment to your soul. Sell all you have can be taken literally for some people, or less literally as "do not be attached to material goods". Hate your family means "value God above everyone else, even your family". Call no man father doesn't mean you shouldn't acknowledge your dad, it means, "do not give human beings too much worship and praise, rather give it to God". I think it's warranted, in this context, to conclude that "turn the other cheek" means something more moderate than is literally expressed.
maybe for us, who are gay and retarded humans. I get the feeling christ really wanted us to do it though.
can i explain something to you bud? your ego will continue to falter you. you are an obvious case. a head case. it is not difficult to argue either side of a manner. through quick remarks you can only show your ignorance. you know not what you speak of, except when you speak of sucking cock. you have done that a lot
>reddit spacing
>misunderstanding scripture
yeah buddy maybe you should go back to video games?
i think it's pretty obvious how these two messages are reconciled
the filter and the pig?
How does it feel to be a sub-100 iq brainlet?
godless LGBT rise up!
You would describe fully 1/3 of every cocksucking homosexual believing scripture is the word of god as the lot of them being godless?
interesting that the graph leaves off anyone from above average intelligence... you group yourself with the average man. congratulations homosexual
haha wow anon you must be so smart with your 103 iq
you don't need to explain why he... and then he killed him with a... because that thing is more of an impeccable beast
What is it with Nietzsche fans and being some of the most obnoxious homosexuals out there?
mix of teens just getting into philosophy and mentally ill manchildren who never got beyond nietzsche into heidegger, schopenhauer, wittgenstein, etc.
The nu-wave of Christians are just ignorant teenagers who’ve never read any philosophy
(guy who has never read or been in hegel, wittgenstein, descartes threads etc)
The fact that you believe merely being in threads attributes something tells me all I need to know really.
And? Most philosophy is pointless shit
Christianity is just another philosophy, you would know that if you bothered with anything other than it. Though I’m not telling you you must, just pointing out the hypocrisy here.
Just stick to making threads shitting on him, we're a few decades at least beyond Christian apologetics or any kind of Abrahamic retardation sliding on an open forum like this.
What a retarded thread. You need to realize that not everyone is an ex-Christian.
"can this hurt me?"
"can it? or does it just come up where you need it to?"
Nietzsche leads back to nihilism and social decay. You won’t find meaning by “creating your own meaning”. That’s what every college girl thinks she’s doing when she eschews marriage — but all it leads to is sex, drugs, partying, drinking. Creativity requires belief in an exterior, transcendent, not self-created meaning.
>Creativity requires [...] not self-created meaning
If the Bible said water was dry you'd be telling us moisture requires the absence of humidity
>Girl sex bad ewwwwww
Gay.
yes, you are
Nietzsche is the only author from the last 300 years who DOESN'T lead to nihilism and social decay, you fucking homosexual. Kill yourself.
>make your own meaning
That translates to hedonism in practice. It translates to nihilism too. Why? Because a man can’t force himself to believe in something he invented. I can’t make myself think there is a dragon in my room if there isn’t one. A Nietzschean can’t make himself believe life is meaningful in an atheistic conception of the universe with no transcendent so called “life denying” reality. That’s the truth.
"make your own meaning" is fairly reductive of his stance. For Nietzsche, there is no choice in the matter; we are all "making our own meaning" whether we want to or not. Do you see the world as meaningless? Well, "meaninglessness" is a meaning — it is the meaning interpreted into the world by a decadent creature (or, in the language of Stirner, a creature possessed by spooks). Your mind is interpreting things despite your conscious awareness of the process. When Nietzsche instructs his disciples to "make your own meaning," he is really saying, "this life is the will to power, and nothing besides."
Yes because he assumes a self-refuting perspectivalism/relativism which doesn’t allow for objective truth and is fundamentally nihilistic at heart, despite all the flowery rhetoric. But the whole point is that the assumption of such a view leads to nihilism since once you declare that your worldview is made up by muh epic “will” you are acknowledging yourself to be deluded. But the fundamental yearning of the human spirit is to seek the truth exterior to itself and be united with the other. In fact this is so fundamental to the human spirit that any denial of objectivity is immediately seen as self-refuting. All of our discourse, our language, our statements depend on the assumption of objectivity and the ability to connect with this objective truth. If you say “everything is relative” you’ve just made an absolute claim, refuting yourself. So given this desire and need for objectivity any time you realise your life’s meaning is purely invented you cannot bring yourself to believe in it any more than you can mentally conjure a dragon in your room just by willing it. That is why it leads to nihilism.
>All of our discourse, our language, our statements depend on the assumption of objectivity and the ability to connect with this objective truth
if language were objective we would not have dozens of words in a single language for the same things or ideas, let alone hundreds of languages with thousands of such words
Man, sometimes I get really bothered by people on LULZ calling me a retard and disagreeing with me. I think, Perhaps it is I who am wrong, perhaps it is true that I am a stupid fraud. But here you’re not even trying to engage with what I said. Obviously there are many languages and no objective language but my point is that in the syntactical forms of human language, in the formation of our propositional sentences, there is always or almost always an assumption of objectivity and the ability to connect to it. The example I gave was the statement: everything is relative. If that were true then there would be one thing that is not relative — ie the statement itself. Which is a contradiction. Thus this sort of objectivity is inescapable for the human spirit. This relates to Gödel’s incompleteness Theorems, a very loose interpretation of which is that boxed-off relative systems can’t comment upon their own limits. They “perceive” only that which is in the remit of their inherent logical structure, but they cannot see that they are boxed off. But the human mind always reflexively comments upon itself and goes beyond the relative to the absolute — the very act of commenting upon itself and perceiving its own consistency being proof that it is not able to be boxed off in pure self-contained relativity. Thus it is impossible to be a perspectivalist with respect to the whole of life, only restricted parts of it.
Anyway, I quit LULZ now. Hopefully this shall be my last post. The problem with this place is that its total equality of posters means there is no way to vet who is retarded or not. And there is no reward for honesty, effort, or reasoned argumentation, since the next poster may respond with the most stupid fallacies or simply call you retarded. I wish this place were a Socratic sort of Symposium society where everybody is interested in the truth. But it’s not. I quit, for my own sake. (I’m saying this all to myself, anyway, not to you, since as always the only person I will ever fully be able to rely upon is myself).
good riddance christer apologist, language proves nothing objective
>I can't not refute myself if I don't believe my interpretation is objective truth
This is how you sound
Most intelligent people at least want to believe that their interpretations approximate truth.
Yes, and that's why most intelligent people agree with perspectivism today.
Source?
Do we live in mud huts wiping our asses with leaves, or do we fly all around the world in airplanes studying indigenous tribes and establishing urban infrastructure in remote locations backed by corporation and university funds?
I don't understand the connection between airplanes and perspectivism tb.h.
If we thought we knew everything already we wouldn't have bothered connecting the globe via railroads, airlines and the internet while constantly performing xenocentric studies.
Not perspectivism.
No, but it
1) promotes it and
2) is largely motivated by it
and people who don't agree with perspectivism tend to ride off the coattails of the ones who build these things while inventing nothing themselves.
I think only like 0.0001% of airplane flights have to do with ethnological study so I don't get your point. In fact perpectivism seems less relevant than ever in times of globalization.
>I think only like 0.0001% of airplane flights have to do with ethnological study so I don't get your point.
We're talking about intelligent people, aren't we? So about 0.0001% of the population.
>In fact perpectivism seems less relevant than ever in times of globalization.
Why would it?
I dont think most intelligent people are ethnologists though?!
Most intelligent people are scientists THO
In Will to Power Nietzsche gets extremely nihilistic at times, and basically says that the strength of the individual is measured in being able to accept the necessity of lies.
>What is a belief? How does it originate? Every belief is a considering-something-true. The most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief, every considering-something-true, is necessarily false cause there simply is no true world. Thus, a perspectival appearance whose origin lies in us (in so far as we continually need a narrower, abbreviated, simplified world). That it is the measure of strength to what extent we can admit to ourselves, without perishing, the merely apparent character, the necessity of lies. To this extent, nihilism, as the denial of a truthful world, of being, might be a divine way of thinking.
it's about as much as you will ever need to know
>fiction
>for intellectuals
based Nietzsche destroyed christcucks, your cult is dead
(time traveler from 1895)
Nietzsche exalts noble, something deserved by walking alone against the crowd and being more free. This is the principle. Nietzsche wasn't absolutist or dogmatic. He also wasn't an atheist and didn't deny soul.
The Evangelicals like to lump him with materialists but he stated materialism, rationalism and communism is merely continuation of everyone is equal slave morality.
Today in the West something observing something like a Latin mass would be totally against the crowd, so probably Nietzsche would approve. Certainly he wasn't of opinion that there is one true path.
Those who think that Christianity is opposed to the body must have never read the neoplatonists.
ah yes the pagan philosophers, my favorite christians
What I'm saying is that Christians generally have a conciliatory attitude regarding the body, while the neoplatonism that it was competing with was quite different. Plotinus was described as being in a permanent state of disgust with his flesh prison IIRC.
contemporary to the those neoplatonists were the gnostics, as well as the extreme renunciants Christians affectionately refer to as "desert fathers," and while the early church had a variety of competing attitudes towards asceticism the monasteries did indeed flourish and swell with men who considered flesh and worldly life to be evil or demonic and whose solution to these temptations was to cloister themselves... hardly a "conciliatory attitude regarding the body"
I wouldn't say asceticism is hostile to the body, unless it includes forms of self-flagellation and the like. By those standards even Buddhists and Hindu ascetics would be anti-body.
>ohhh woe is me this body is so sinful and the evil coomer demons are trying to make me fap lord save me for i shall dwell in the desert to purge these sins
it seems to have a less than affirming view of the body, it seems to treat the body less as a means of potential for life and more as a threat to one's morality
Not responding to that rant.
they basically wrote things like that, they being the actual believing communities of early believers, who went into the desert and started little homosocial villages to avoid women and commerce and things of that nature
Then how come so many modern Christians think masturbation is degenerate and sinful?
Not sure, I think they the same arguments as adherents of the eastern religions and see it as being contrary to nature. Don't have any sources to quote though.
If you’re a Christian then be one, Nietzsche is not for you. These threads are retarded, seems that you really just need to convince yourself.
people on this board use Nietzsche all the time to blaspheme Jesus Christ. It’s useful to have a refutation of his claims. Christians wouldn’t even think about Nietzsche if people didn’t try to use him against us.
no one on lit could source the first claim in OP. lol
how are you going to establish a debate if you can't quote/source a single claim?
christcucks and philospopseuds never fail to disappoint