Nietzsche on the Bible

[Anonymous No.15290345]

From The Genealogy of Morals
>I do not like the New Testament...
>The Old Testament—that is something else again: all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people.
>In the New one, on the other hand, I find nothing but petty sectarianism, mere rococo of the soul, mere involutions, nooks, queer things, the air of the conventicle, not to forget an occasional whiff of bucolic mawkishness that belongs to the epoch (and to the Roman province) and is not so much Jewish as Hellenistic.

[Anonymous No.15290383]

>>15290345
Old Testament was fucking metal. God was unforgiving, killed people left and right, never gave a shit and sometimes helped out of the blue, like the absurd reality we live in. The only bad part about it is the Jews.

New Testament is mostly flowery hippy bullshit. Not all of it is completely Sklavenmoral, but even with the most generous interpretations, much of it is.

[Anonymous No.15290437]

>>15290383
>The only bad part about it is the Jews.
Pretty sure the God of the Old Testament would agree. They just fuck up again and again.

[Anonymous No.15290444]

Did he hate Christianity or any system of prescriptive mortality?

[Anonymous No.15290467]

>>15290444
He was in favor of master morality over slave morality. He hated Christianity in particular, although he criticized other religions as well; he hated Protestantism more than Catholicism; he condemned Buddhism for its life-denial.

[Anonymous No.15290472]

>>15290383
Old testament YHWH had big dick energy/

[Anonymous No.15290485]

>>15290472
The reverse, actually -- he blows.

[Anonymous No.15290489]

>>15290467
He actually praised buddhism many times

[Anonymous No.15290492]

>>15290345
Nietzsche absolutely hated Paul who wrote the majority of the NT. He seems to respect Christ as a person who created their own virtue, for refuting the law, but paints Paul as a butt-hurt faggot who couldn't get over the law himself, so he plagiarizes Christ to get back at the Jews.

[Anonymous No.15290515]

>>15290485
You're saying the evidence points to YHWH being a mouth slut? All the etymological evidence does seem to point to that

[Anonymous No.15290519]

>>15290489
He called it a "religion of decadence" and "nihilistic" in The Antichrist, and mentioned "Buddhist negation of the will" in Birth of Tragedy. He did also praise it though, you are correct, but he would not have endorsed it.
>>15290492
Nietzsche on the apostles:
>Impassioned vehemence, not passion; embarrassing gesticulation; it is plain that there is no trace of good breeding. How can one make such a fuss about one’s little lapses as these pious little men do! Who gives a damn? Certainly not God.

[Anonymous No.15290535]

>>15290444
basically this >>15290467
N. looks to the overman who creates his own value merging the greatest evil with his own personal good. Dogmatic religions inhibit creation and suppress overcoming. Think of a tall man crouching to get through a small, narrow gate--this is slave morality that halts life-affirming human flourishing

>>15290489
He does only so far as buddhism negates the ego

[Anonymous No.15290548]

>>15290345
oh dem smooth thighs

[Anonymous No.15290549]

>>15290467
Maybe he was like those Americans that grow up in extremely oppressive religious climate and rebel once they grow up?
Like this Anon says >>15290492 Christianity's moral values aren't trash, it's how you arrive at them that makes the difference.

[Anonymous No.15290609]

>>15290549
>Christianity's moral values aren't trash
This would characterize Nietzsche's thought. An example he frequently appeals to is chastity. He rejects Christianity's demonization of sex but he also says things like "chastity is a virtue to some and a vice to others", not as a way to explain moral relativism in communities but to say restrained sex might be best for you but having sex is best for me, and it's up to ourselves to decide that for ourselves.
>and yes christcucks, having premarital sex is best for me

[Anonymous No.15290632]

>>15290519
Check out aphorism 68 about Paul from The Dawn, you might enjoy.

[Anonymous No.15291023]

>>15290548
Want to see another pic?

[Anonymous No.15291067]

>>15291023
Sure

[Anonymous No.15291177]

>>15291023
yes pls

[Anonymous No.15291192]

>>15291023
i'm guessing it's either a boy or a doll
if it's a doll don't bother
if it's a boy then make sure you include the feet

[Anonymous No.15291227]

>>15291192
>i'm guessing it's either a boy or a doll
This. Do post more anyway.

[Anonymous No.15291238]

>>15291192
>if it's a doll don't bother
100% it's a doll.

[Anonymous No.15291280]

>>15291023
>>15291067
>>15291177
>>15291192
>>15291227
>>15291238

[Anonymous No.15291294]

>>15291067
>>15291177
>>15291192
>>15291227
>>15291238

[Anonymous No.15291295]

>>15291280
I would.

[Anonymous No.15292675]

>To have glued this New Testament, a kind of rococo of taste in every respect, to the Old Testament to form one book - the “Bible”, 'the' book - that is perhaps the greatest audacity and “sin against the spirit” which literary Europe had on its conscience.

[illiterate retard No.15293025]

>>15292675
>>15290345
>rococo of the soul
What does this pseudery even mean?

[Anonymous No.15293205]

>>15290383
Old Testament is great because it plagiarized the Sumerians

[Anonymous No.15293243]

>>15293025
>What does this pseudery even mean?
I think he is trying to say the New Testament is bland, unoriginal, contrived, fake, overtly sweet, dollish.

Compare Rococo to the Old Dutch Masters.

[Anonymous No.15293446]

>>15290519
In Nietzsche, we find a man who himself desires to be God, so it is no wonder he lambasts those prostrate themselves before the Almighty.

[Anonymous No.15293475]

>>15291280
>>15291294
Much better than I was expecting. I was afraid I might have to save some 3DPD to my computer.

[Anonymous No.15293607]

>>15290383
>New Testament is mostly flowery hippy bullshit.
Except it's not because you haven't bothered looking into the actually theology of the church and instead cling to the pop heresy interpretations of other groups to form your opinions. Easy way to show how stupid your interpretation is to examine the appearances of pre incarnate Christ throughout the old testament and to read into how retarded the view is of this supposed division between the old and new testaments.
Not to mention the master/slave dialectic doesn't even make sense in the context of the Christian worldview.

[Anonymous No.15293687]

>>15291280
>>15291294
PLEASE, Please, pleeeeeeeeease tell me that doll has a penis

[Anonymous No.15293904]

>>15293475
>I was afraid I might have to save some 3DPD to my computer
The very thought is chilling.
>>15293687
Shut it, freak.

[Anonymous No.15294112]

>>15290345
>ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation. Whilst the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories being accepted as matters of fact, the artist has no concern at all with such a thing, since he freely and openly gives out his work as his own invention. But Religion has sunk into an artificial life, when she finds herself compelled to keep on adding to the edifice of her dogmatic symbols, and thus conceals the one divinely True in her beneath an ever growing heap of incredibilities commended to belief. Feeling this, she has always sought the aid of Art; who on her side has remained incapable of higher evolution so long as she must present that alleged reality of the symbol to the senses of the worshipper in form of fetishes and idols,— whereas she could only fulfil her true vocation when, by an ideal presentment of the allegoric figure, she led to apprehension of its inner kernel, the truth ineffably divine.
>It was otherwise with the Christian religion. Its founder was not wise, but divine (1); his teaching was the deed of free-willed suffering. To believe in him, meant to emulate him; to hope for redemption, to strive for union with him. To the "poor in spirit" no metaphysical explanation of the [215] world was necessary; the knowledge of its suffering lay open to their feeling; and not to shut the doors of that, was the sole divine injunction to believers.
>Our best guide to an estimate of the belief in miracles, will be the demand addressed to natural man that he should change his previous mode of viewing the world and its appearances as the most absolute of realities; for he now was to know this world as null, an optical delusion, and to seek the only Truth beyond it. If by a miracle we mean an incident that sets aside the laws of Nature; and if, after ripe deliberation, we recognise these laws as founded on our own power of perception, and bound inextricably with the functions of our brain: then belief in miracles must be comprehensible to us as an almost necessary consequence of the reversal of the "will to live," in defiance of all Nature. To the natural man this reversal of the Will is certainly itself the greatest miracle, for it implies an abrogation of the laws of Nature; that which has effected it must consequently be far above Nature, and of superhuman power, since he finds that union with It is longed for as the only object worth endeavour.

[Anonymous No.15294116]

>>15293607
>Not to mention the master/slave dialectic doesn't even make sense in the context of the Christian worldview.
It does though. God is depicted as the master. All else the slave, no?

[Anonymous No.15294123]

>>15294112
>What we understand in general by the artistic province, we might define as Evaluation of the Pictorial (Ausbildung des Bildlichen); that is to say, Art grasps the Figurative of an idea, that outer form in which it shews itself to the imagination, and by developing the likeness—before employed but allegorically—into a picture embracing in itself the whole idea, she lifts the latter high above itself into the realm of revelation. Speaking of the ideal shape of the Greek statue, our great philosopher finely says: It is as if the artist were shewing Nature what she would, but never completely could; wherefore the artistic Ideal surpasses Nature. (2) Of Greek theogony it may be said that, in touch with the artistic instinct of the nation, it always clung to anthropomorphism. Their gods were figures with distinctive names and plainest individuality; their names were used to mark specific groups of things (Gattungsbegriffe), just as the names of various coloured objects were used to denote the colours themselves, for which the Greeks employed no abstract terms like ours: "gods" were they called, to mark their nature as divine; but the Divine itself the Greeks called God, "ο θεος." Never did it occur to them to think of " God " as a Person, or give to him artistic shape as to their named gods; he remained [217] an idea, to be defined by their philosophers, though the Hellenic spirit strove in vain to clearly fix it—till the wondrous inspiration of poor people spread abroad the incredible tidings that the "Son of God" had offered himself on the cross to redeem the world from deceit and sin.
>We have nothing here to do with the astoundingly varied attempts of speculative human reason to explain the nature of this Son of the God, who walked on earth and suffered shame: where the greater miracle had been revealed in train of that manifestation, the reversal of the will-to-live which all believers experienced in themselves, it already embraced that other marvel, the divinity of the herald of salvation. The very shape of the Divine had presented itself in anthropomorphic guise; it was the body of the quintessence of all pitying Love, stretched out upon the cross of pain and suffering. A—symbol?—beckoning to the highest pity, to worship of suffering, to imitation of this breaking of all self-seeking Will: nay, a picture, a very effigy! In this, and its effect upon the human heart, lies all the spell whereby the Church soon made the Græco-Roman world her own.
>the Saviour's birth by a Mother who, [218] not herself a goddess, became divine through her virginal conception of a son without human contact, against the laws of Nature. A thought of infinite depth, expressed in form of miracle.

[Anonymous No.15294137]

>>15294112
>>15294123
>but the mystery of motherhood without natural fecundation can only be traced to the greater miracle, the birth of the God himself: for in this the Denial-of-the-world is revealed by a life pre-figuratively offered up for its redemption. (3) As the Saviour himself was recognised as sinless, nay, incapable of sin, it followed that in him the Will must have been completely broken ere ever he was born, so that he could no more suffer, but only feel for others' sufferings; and the root hereof was necessarily to be found in a birth that issued, not from the Will-to-live, but from the Will-to-redeem.
>But that picture of Raphael's shews us the final consummation of the miracle, the virgin mother transfigured and ascending with the new-born son: here we are taken by a beauty which the ancient world, for all its gifts, could not so much as dream of; for here is not the ice of chastity that made an Artemis seem unapproachable, but Love divine beyond all knowledge of unchastity, Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption. And this unspeakable wonder we see with our eyes, distinct and tangible, in sweetest concord with the noblest truths of our own inner being, yet lifted high above conceivable experience. If the Greek statue held to Nature her unattained ideal, the painter now unveiled the unseizable and therefore indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to the plodding reason, but to enraptured sight.
>Though we have not been attempting an account of Art's historical development from the religious idea, but simply an outline of their mutual affinities, yet that historic career must be touched upon in dealing with the circumstance that it was almost solely plastic art, and that of Painting in particular, which could present the religious dogmas—originally themselves symbolical—in an ideally figurative form. Poetry, on the contrary, was constrained by their very symbolism to adhere to the form laid down by canon as a matter of realistic truth and implicit credence. As these dogmas themselves were figurative concepts, so the greatest poetic genius—whose only instruments are mental figures—could remodel or explain nothing without falling into heterodoxy, like all the philosopher-poets of the earliest centuries of the Church, who succumbed to the charge of heresy. Perhaps the poetic power bestowed on Dante was the greatest e'er within the reach of mortal; yet in his stupendous poem it is only where he can hold the visionary world aloof from dogma, that his true creative force is shewn.

[Anonymous No.15294156]

>Now, in respect of plastic art it is palpable that its ideally creative force diminished in exact proportion as it withdrew from contact with religion. Betwixt those subhimest revelations of religious art, in the godlike birth of the Redeemer and the last fulfilment of the work of the Judge of the world, the saddest of all pictures, that of the Saviour suffering on the cross, had likewise attained to its height of perfection; and this remained the archetype of the countless representations of martyred saints, their agonies illumined by the bliss of transport. Here the portrayal of bodily pain, with the instruments of torture and their wielders, already led the artists down to [222] the common actual world, whose types of human wickedness and cruelty surrounded them beyond escape. And then came "Characteristique," with its multiple attraction for the artist; the consummate "portrait" of even the vulgarest criminal, such as might be found among the temporal and spiritual princes of that remarkable time, became the painter's most rewarding task; as on the other hand, he early enough had taken his motives for the Beautiful from the physical charms of the women in his voluptuous surroundings.
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form, to which the actual world alone seemed henceforth visible. What shape this actual world at last took on, and what types alone it offered to the plastic arts, we will still exclude from our inquiry; suffice it to say that that art which was destined to reach its apogee in its affinity with religion, completely severing itself from this communion— as no one can deny—has fallen into utter ruin.


>>15294116
>he doesn't know about the omega and the alpha
You're thinking of the OT.

[Anonymous No.15294178]

>>15294156
>Once more to touch the quick of that affinity, let us turn one glance to the Art of Tone.
>While it was possible for Painting to reveal the ideal content of a dogma couched in allegoric terms, and, without throwing doubt on the figure's claim to absolute credence, to take that allegory itself as object of ideal portrayal, we have had to see that Poetry was forced to leave its kindred power of imagery unexercised upon the dogmas of the Christian Church; employing concepts [223] as its vehicle (durch Begriffe darstellend), it must retain the conceptual form of the dogma inviolate in every point. It therefore was solely in the lyrical expression of rapturous worship that poetry could be approached, and as the religious concept must still be phrased in forms of words canonically fixed, the lyric necessarily poured itself into a purely musical expression, un-needing any mould of abstract terms. Through the art of Tone did the Christian Lyric thus first become itself an art: the music of the Church was sung to the words of the abstract dogma; in its effect however, it dissolved those words and the ideas they fixed, to the point of their vanishing out of sight; and hence it rendered nothing to the enraptured Feeling save their pure emotional content.
>Speaking strictly, the only art that fully corresponds with the Christian belief is Music; even as the only music which, now at least, we can place on the same footing as the other arts, is an exclusive product of Christianity. In its development, alone among the fine arts, no share was borne by re-awaking Antique Art, whose tone-effects have almost passed beyond our ken: wherefore also we regard it as the youngest of the arts, and the most capable of endless evolution and appliance. With its past and future evolution, however, we here are not concerned, since our immediate object is to consider its affinity to Religion.
>In this sense, having seen the Lyric compelled to resolve the form of words to a shape of tones, we must recognise that Music reveals the inmost essence of the Christian religion with definition unapproached; wherefore we may figure it as bearing the same relation to Religion which that picture of Raphael's has shewn us borne by the Child-of-god to the virgin Mother: for, as pure Form of a divine Content freed from all abstractions, we may regard it as a world-redeeming incarnation of the divine dogma of the nullity of the phenomenal world itself. Even the painter's most ideal shape remains conditioned by the dogma's terms, and when we gaze upon her likeness, that sublimely virginal Mother of God lifts us up above the miracle's [224] irrationality only by making it appear as wellnigh possible. Here we have: "That signifies." But Music says: "That is,"—for she stops all strife between reason and feeling, and that by a tone-shape completely removed from the world of appearances, not to be compared with anything physical, but usurping our heart as by act of Grace.

[Anonymous No.15294182]

>>15294156
>You're thinking of the OT.
No, I was referencing the NT in specific. Can't remember which book, or verse, as I was listening to it at work. Possibly Luke. Something about remaining servants to God.

[Anonymous No.15294208]

>>15294178
>This lofty property of Music's enabled her at last to quite divorce herself from the reasoned word; and the noblest music completed this divorce in measure as religious Dogma became the toy of Jesuitic casuistry or rationalistic pettifogging. The total worldlifying of the Church dragged after it a worldly change in Music: where both still work in unison, as in modern Italy for instance, neither in the one's displays nor the other's accompaniment can we detect any difference from every other parade of pomp. Only her final severance from the decaying Church could enable the art of Tone to save the noblest heritage of the Christian idea in its purity of over-worldly reformation; and the object of the remainder of our essay shall be, to foreshadow the affinities of a Beethovenian Symphony with a purest of religions once to blossom from the Christian revelation.
>To reach that possibility, however, we first must tread the stony path on which may be found the cause of downfall even of the most exalted religions, and therewith the ground of decadence of all the culture they called forth, above all of the arts they fructified. However terrible may be the scenes the journey must unfold to us, yet this alone can be the road conducting to the shore of a new hope for the human race.

>THE theory of a degeneration of the human race, however much opposed it seem to Constant Progress, is yet the only one that, upon serious reflection, can afford us any solid hope. The so-called "Pessimistic" school of thought would thus be justified in nothing but its verdict on historic man; and that must needs be vastly modified, were the natural attributes of pre-historic man so clearly ascertained that we could argue to a later degeneration not unconditionally inherent in his nature. If, that is, we found proofs that this degeneration had been caused by overpowering outward influences, against which pre-historic man could not defend himself through inexperience, then the hitherto accepted history of the human race would rank for us as the painful period of evolution of its consciousness, in order that the knowledge thus acquired might be applied to combating those harmful influences.

[Anonymous No.15294246]

>>15294182
Well obviously you retard, if a God weren't greater than man then he wouldn't be a God. The point of my statement was that it was not merely the image of power of Zeus or the OT God, but the character of the all embracing, and all redeeming. Omega and Alpha, remember that verse?

[Anonymous No.15294275]

>>15294208
>In this by no means timid picture of an attempt at regeneration of the hum an race we may neglect, for the present, all objections which friends of our Civilisation are likely to raise. ... Waiving all such conceivable objections, we therefore have only to confirm ourselves in one radical persuasion: namely that all real bent, and all effective power to bring about the great Regeneration, can spring from nothing save the deep soil of a true Religion. And now that our general survey has repeatedly brought us within range of vivid hints in its regard, we must turn in especial to this main head of our [244] inquiry; for it is from it, as premised in our title, that we first shall gain a certain outlook upon Art.
>"Have you ever had to rule a State?" asked Mendelssohn Bartholdy once of Berthold Auerbach, who had been indulging in reflections on the Prussian Government, apparently distasteful to the famed composer. "Do you want to found a new religion? "—the author of the present essay might be asked. As that person, I should freely admit that it would be just as impossible as that Herr Auerbach could have deftly ruled a State, if Mendelssohn had managed to procure one for him. My thoughts have come to me as to a working artist in his intercourse with public life: in that contact it must seem to me that I [251] should light upon the proper road if I weighed the reasons why even considerable and envied successes have left me uncontented with the public. Upon this road I grew convinced that Art can only prosper on the basis of true Morals, and thus could but ascribe to it a mission all the higher when I found it altogether one with true Religion.

[Anonymous No.15294287]

>>15290383
Isn't life itself as the Old Testament?

[Anonymous No.15294313]

>>15294246
>Well obviously you retard
That isn't very Christlike, anon.

>if a God weren't greater than man then he wouldn't be a God
This has little and less to do with what I said. One can be "greater" than the other without forcing said other into a master/slave relationship.

>Omega and Alpha, remember that verse?
No. Recently finished the OT. Working through my first read of the NT. Link it if you wouldn't mind?

[Anonymous No.15294341]

>>15294313
>That isn't very Christlike, anon.
Okay retard.

>>15294313
>This has little and less to do with what I said. One can be "greater" than the other without forcing said other into a master/slave relationship.
Do you really think the absolute can be put into the sense of terms of a master-slave dialectic? And it wouldn't it be quite weak to suppose man can get no sense of such unity? As if in every respect of life is master/slave.

>>15294313
>No. Recently finished the OT. Working through my first read of the NT. Link it if you wouldn't mind?
No. Because I don't believe you, that is a very famous line. Are you sure there isn't perhaps one singular very important book that you haven't read?

[Anonymous No.15294394]

>>15294116
While I think the servant-God dynamic is more subtle than just saying god is master and man is servant basically yes. However specifically Nietzsche's secular dialectic of the master/slave morality is incoherent inside of the Christian paradigm so ultimately the criticism is void; it means nothing to a Christian.
>>15294313
>That isn't very Christlike, anon.
The guy you're talking to isn't me but I'd like to point I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Christian and calling someone a retard. In fact the Bible refers to people as fools plenty of times and many of the church fathers/saints were remarkably adversarial not only in character but in the language they used. This is the problem with imprinting secular perceptions of things like submissiveness or humbleness onto Christianity and then expecting us to receive these as valid criticisms.

[Anonymous No.15294412]

>>15294341
>Okay retard.
You're beggar king would not be pleased.

>Do you really think the absolute can be put into the sense of terms of a master-slave dialectic?
Maybe? I'm not particularly well read in this area (really any area for that matter). Was simply asking a question.

>Are you sure there isn't perhaps one singular very important book that you haven't read?
Plenty.

[Anonymous No.15294474]

>>15294394
>However specifically Nietzsche's secular dialectic of the master/slave morality is incoherent inside of the Christian paradigm so ultimately the criticism is void; it means nothing to a Christian.
Thank you for the clarification.

>The guy you're talking to isn't me but I'd like to point I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Christian and calling someone a retard
I took issue with the context in which I was being attacked, not the attack it self. Generally speaking, Jesus (any major figure, for that matter) has reason for calling out others (i.e., the Pharisees due to their misteachings and/or their traditions over divine commandment).

[Anonymous No.15294814]

>>15290515
Dude, it's one thing to disrespect the word 'god' and it's another thing to disrespect the actual name of God. Just be careful.