/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17880417]

Christ as Overman.
The Holy Ghost as Will-to-Power.
God, the Father as the eternal return.

Here we go fellas; Christianity is nietzschean. You can thank me later.

[Anonymous No.17880452]

>>17880417
>The meek shall inherit the Earth
>turn the other cheek
>do unto others as you would have them done unto you
>love thy neighbour
>Ignore this world in favour of the next
>follow this absolute morality codified by God
Nietzche spent his entire career ridiculing Christianity and you have the nerve to call it Nietzchean. Truly, this board does not read.

[Anonymous No.17880461]

>>17880417
kek

[Anonymous No.17880473]

>>17880452
i prefer the translation the gentle shall inherit the earth

[Anonymous No.17880551]

>>17880452
>>The meek shall inherit the Earth
>>turn the other cheek
>>do unto others as you would have them done unto you
>>love thy neighbour
>>Ignore this world in favour of the next
>>follow this absolute morality codified by God
All of those are contextual and were not meant to be new commandments-as-such.

[Anonymous No.17880560]

As a Christian, no

[Anonymous No.17880651]

>>17880452
you say that, but some of neitzche’s earliest followers were american christians who adopted much of his ideas.

if you are so dull that you cannot comprehend dynamicly applying a structure, and who solely go by the milquetoast letter of the law of neitzche that any first time 90 iq retard could quote, i think it is YOU are the one who lacks reading skills.

Still might be a shit idea, but i applaud dynamism.

[Anonymous No.17880705]

>>17880417
I saw this take on twitter the other day. Did you steal it?

[Anonymous No.17880712]

>>17880417
Wouldn't Christ and the Father be inverted? Why is the Son the Overman and not the Father?

Even apart from that, this reeks of Nietzschean or even Christian apologetics. Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.17880751]

>>17880651
>some of neitzche’s earliest followers were american christians
They followed Nietzsche? Then they did not understand him.

I will not even bother addressing the rest of your drivel.

[Anonymous No.17880769]

>>17880417
Existentialism was co-founded by a Christian who worked in parallel to Neitzche.

Knight of Faith as Overman.
Knight of Infinite Resignation as Last Man.
Leap of Faith as Will to Power.
Embrace of the Absurd as Eternal Return.

[Anonymous No.17880779]

>using Overman
It's Übermensch.

[Anonymous No.17880811]

>>17880751
you are aware he was very much an apreciator of Americana, Henry David Thoreau and all. And yes, you can find his letters back and forth to them.

[Anonymous No.17880826]

>Here we go fellas; Christianity is nietzschean.

No it isn’t. There’s no indication that Christianity ever tried to transcend anything that wasn’t already there, and create something radically new, and if that was the plan, it quickly decayed into the old ways of the world, actually providing a neat cover story to hide its immense corruption. This was possible, because it never allowed anyone to address any of the deep rooted problems within monotheism, which made people eventually turn its back on it

[Anonymous No.17880838]

>>17880779
who cares if you use gay foreign terms or anglo ones when the English one makes just as much sense.

[Anonymous No.17880845]

>>17880826
you are right, its the other way around, nietzscheanism is essentially christian.

[Anonymous No.17880852]

>>17880473
Fucking shit translation lmao.

[Anonymous No.17880890]

>>17880845
>call yourself literally the Anti-Christ
>fast forward more than a century and Christians try to claim you as one of your own
I thought you needed to convert to become a Christian. Has the bar to jump over dropped into the ground?

[Anonymous No.17880908]

>>17880651
So the nazis weren't misconstruing the meaning of Nietzsche's texts for their own purposes, they were only 'dynamically applying a structure', whatever the fuck that is. Of course, I don't think you'll see it in those terms, because you are just a Christian apologetic trying to combat 'the letter of the law' with vagueries and far-fetched connections.

[Anonymous No.17880909]

>>17880417
Why do the Christians on 4chan want to embrace Nietzsche’s conclusions so bad? They seem to accept all of Nietzsche’s conclusions regarding morality. Even mediocre Nietzsche clones like Ayn Rand have a following among Christians for no explainable reason.

[Anonymous No.17880916]

>the Antichrist was Christian
Truly the most intelligent take on /lit/

[Anonymous No.17880920]

>>17880811
You're ridiculous. Am I a pagan now for reading Homer?

[Anonymous No.17880921]

>>17880651
>dynamicly applying a structure
Holy moly, an actual Petersonism in the wild! Let’s wait for the physiological proclivities!

[Anonymous No.17880927]

>>17880920
According to the Bible, absolutely

[Anonymous No.17881104]

>>17880417
No. Nietzsche was just in denial about his Christianity. He seethed over it his entire life. His inability to accept the truth of Christianity literally drove him insane and killed him.

[Anonymous No.17881134]

>>17880890
Being a christian philosopher is not about what you write, but WHY you write.

Nietzsches entirel bibliography was a big lamentation of his own fate and his struggle with god.
Read about his father.

[Anonymous No.17881138]

>>17881104
This was Lou's take. Basically you think like a woman

[Anonymous No.17881150]

>>17881134
>Being a christian philosopher is not about what you write, but WHY you write.
And Nietzsche makes it pretty clear that he wrote that Christianity was peak nihilism, which he utterly despised

What’s next? Was George Washington actually a secret monarchist to you?

[Anonymous No.17881155]

>>17880909
They are afraid of going over the edge. Christianity is their safety rope.

[Anonymous No.17881163]

>>17881104
>if you want to completely erase a religion and replace it with something different entirely, you’re actually just a follower of that religion, but in denial
This is some peak Christian cope. Are you people getting some sins done right now because it’s Sunday tomorrow? Because that’s some hardcore bearing of false witness if I ever saw it

[Anonymous No.17881177]

>>17881138
Nietzsches entire philosophy is just one big cope.
For his weakness, sickness and his inceldom. His fathers early death and his fate.

Still very nice usage of the german language though.

Also: Zarathustra heavily relies on archetypes of the german lutherian bible. His writing is basically a dialog with god.

[Anonymous No.17881190]

>>17881150
>peak nihilism, which he utterly despised
You can despise something that you yourself are.

He admittd this in Ecce Homo. He always was a nihilist, basically daring god to show him otherwise.

Will to power, overman, eternal return etc. are all just (very weak) copes for this fact.

He admitted this himself!

[Anonymous No.17881191]

>>17881177
>Zarathustra heavily relies on archetypes of the german lutherian bible.
Okay great, so have have no idea who Zarathustra refers to and why that matters. Way to expose yourself as an imbecile

[Anonymous No.17881199]

>>17881190
>You can despise something that you yourself are.
Yes, but generally you don’t then want to be what you despise in yourself.

Is this the amazing power of Christian cope? Is death anxiety the most powerful hallucinogenic ever invented?

[Anonymous No.17881208]

>>17881191
>Okay great, so have have no idea who Zarathustra refers to and why that matters. Way to expose yourself as an imbecile

Of course I know that, I wrote my master-thesis about this topic.

[Anonymous No.17881211]

>>17881177
>Also: Zarathustra heavily relies on archetypes of the german lutherian bible. His writing is basically a dialog with god.
Zarathustra was based on Nietzsche's interpretation on German translations of Zend Avesta and his historical role. Nietzsche was subtly critiquing the historical Zoroaster, yeah.
Also, only Gathas goes back to Zoroaster.

[Anonymous No.17881223]

>>17881208
Then your teacher should’ve given you a solid F, because your interpretation is the most flawed, ass backwards one I’ve ever read.

[Anonymous No.17881249]

>>17881199
>Yes, but generally you don’t then want to be what you despise in yourself.

True.
But the rejection of yourself will lead you back to yourself, intense seething is the result.
Yes, you are right, Nietzsche did NOT believe in god, and he hated himself for that fact, envying his father.

Envying his father for a fate that led him, despite being a learned scholar, to a family and believe in god.

Nothing could be more christian.

[Anonymous No.17881253]

>>17881223
That is because we are not on the same level of research on this topic. I have been reading and discussing Nietzsche for years in an academic setting.

You have bearly read his wiki-page.

[Anonymous No.17881254]

>>17881249
>But the rejection of yourself will lead you back to yourself, intense seething is the result.
No, it will usually lead you to replacing your old self by something new, usually something that’s better.

See, all you’re doing here is just projecting your own Christian induced asshurt onto others. You can’t move on, so that means no one can move on. Get fucking real

[Anonymous No.17881265]

>>17881211
That is of course true, yet my point still stands. A lot of sentences were directly lent from the german lutherian bible. As a direct "answer" to those thoughts.

In the german version that is perfectly clear.

[Anonymous No.17881279]

>>17881265
Which apparently told you nothing about the influences on that very Bible, which is one of the main points Nietzsche is trying to make

[Anonymous No.17881289]

>>17880452
>>17880473
Meekness does not equal weakness. Meekness is the controlling of your own power to turn the other cheek. Like a tamed lion or wild horse. Full of ferocity and power but due to the taming of the master/God that power can instead be channeled in productive ways.

[Anonymous No.17881304]

>>17881254
>No, it will usually lead you to replacing your old self by something new, usually something that’s better.

He literally admitted that he failed this project. See Ecce Homo.
Also the whole idea of changing yourself is apriori impossible. You can always just cope see "amor fati".

Also yes, I am a christian by name, even though I do not believe in god, so yes I can feel his struggle, yet I chose not to cope what is uncopeable.

[Anonymous No.17881305]

>>17881289
pic related

[Anonymous No.17881307]

>>17881289
And ‘productive ways’ being ‘whatever benefits those above you in the religious hierarchy’, which is the real source of weakness.

It’s why Christianity rotted, decayed and died

[Anonymous No.17881314]

>>17881279
Yes of course. That is in itself an attack on the bible, just as those reversed sentences.

[Anonymous No.17881316]

>>17881304
>Also yes, I am a christian by name, even though I do not believe in god
So you’re a larper?

[Anonymous No.17881317]

>>17881253
>he thinks anyone here respects academic "intellectuals"

[Anonymous No.17881320]

>>17881305
>the inalterable word of God means whatever I want it to mean
Is this supposed to be a dunk? Because you just played yourself

[Anonymous No.17881327]

>>17881253
You show surprisingly little of any of your supposed intellectual competence, then.

[Anonymous No.17881330]

>>17881307
It will be replaced by islam in the next 500 years.

But exactly because, not christianity failed, but the west failed to follow christianity.

Quite ironic.

[Anonymous No.17881337]

>>17880890
He's saying that it's christian in essence, not in intent. Like how Groundhog Day wasn't meant to be a Buddhist movie but carries Buddhist themes in a positive light.

[Anonymous No.17881343]

>>17881316
No I am the overman.

[Anonymous No.17881349]

>>17881330
>a new aggressive monotheism will replace another monotheism, and people won’t be reminded of all the major flaws of monotheism, in order to counteract them

Also, I love how you apparently have a crystal ball that can look 500 years into the future with perfect accuracy. Because the future is never wildly unpredictable or anything

[Anonymous No.17881352]

>>17881327
Ok
>>17881317
Ok

[Anonymous No.17881353]

>>17881320
>reading things in their historical context is bad
k

[Anonymous No.17881357]

this thread is fucking terrible

[Anonymous No.17881365]

>>17881337
>He's saying that it's christian in essence, not in intent.
>if something mentions Christian ideas and themes, that makes that work automatically Christian
Does is make the New Testament Zoroastrian in essence as well? Or does this logic magically only work in your benefit?

[Anonymous No.17881374]

>>17881353
When you claim they’re supposed to be independent of that? Then yes, that’s pretty fucking bad

[Anonymous No.17881391]

>>17880452
Imagine being this guy

[Anonymous No.17881416]

>>17881365
The New Testament is many things, Zoroastrian could be one of them. On balance I imagine it's a lot more Hellenic and Judaic though.
You sound really angry throughout this entire thread, anon. I suggest you take the calm pill, especially if you actually want to discuss things productively and learn.

[Anonymous No.17881419]

>>17881349
This prediction is crystal clear for me, but argumenting it would require a lot of writing from me. Yet it is still very possible for you to not understand me, so I will just list a few unchangeable principles this prediction is based on:

-All progression of humanity is an illusion (technology excluded) that is easy to see.
-Human being will as a collective mind, never know everything (this has been proven by f.e. the fitch paradox)
-A religion that produces more believers grows larger
-Atheists neither reproduce nor convert.

[Anonymous No.17881424]

>>17881416
>You sound really angry throughout this entire thread, anon. I suggest you take the calm pill, especially if you actually want to discuss things productively and learn.
I love how you can assess this from anonymous posts. Because that doesn’t make you look stupid at all

[Anonymous No.17881428]

>>17881416
Not him, but Judaism was born from resentment towards their superiors, that is Zoroastrian Persians. Read Anders Hultgard. Jews never had a real culture and originally resembled Gypsies.

[Anonymous No.17881430]

>>17881365
>Does is make the New Testament Zoroastrian in essence as well?

Yes of course. Not important for the posed question though.

[Anonymous No.17881441]

>>17881419
>-Atheists neither reproduce nor convert.
That must be why the vast majority of atheists were at some point theists.

Is this actually you big knockdown that you’ve based your flawless 500 year prediction on? A few shitty assumptions that a dumbass like me can push over? Are you aware of the la dini?

[Anonymous No.17881452]

>>17881430
Considering that Christianity claims an absolute monopoly on truth, I’m going to disagree with this one

[Anonymous No.17881471]

>>17881441
I reject this, propably highly sought after, chance to continue my discussion with you, with the suggestion that you read more classic works of history.

[Anonymous No.17881482]

>>17881424
just proving my point bud

>>17881428
I'm not educated on the topic; there are different eras of Judaism though aren't there? Like how there was temple Judaism before the Romans dabbed on them and afterwards they wrote the Talmud.
How close to Persia were the earliest Jews?

[Anonymous No.17881486]

>>17881452
>Considering that Christianity claims an absolute monopoly on truth, I’m going to disagree with this one

American education was a mistake...

[Anonymous No.17881489]

>>17881452
It does not do that.

[Anonymous No.17881492]

>>17881471
So admit you’re full of shit? Excellent, I accept your apology

[Anonymous No.17881497]

>>17881482
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

G-d, sometimes I think I am the only one on this board that actually has any profound knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17881498]

>>17881489
So Jesus isn’t the Way, the Truth, the Light, the only way to the Father, etc.? Was he lying when he said that?

[Anonymous No.17881508]

>>17881498
Have you finished highschool yet? You sound like a /b/ poster.

[Anonymous No.17881513]

>>17881482
Anders Hultgård has an essay on this in Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism (Chapter 7: "Zoroastrian Influences on Judaism, Christianity and Islam"), which is edited by Michael Stausberg. Judaism was largely developed during early Achaemenid empire in order to win favor from their superiors. It's why they invented stories about Esther and Haman. A lot of Judaism's history is just about trying to be relevant in the face of their overlords. The reality is most Achaemenid kings didn't care for them.

[Anonymous No.17881519]

>>17881508
Great retort

[Anonymous No.17881550]

>>17881519
It was an ad hominem.

I would like to answer earnestly just... your point is so incredibly bad...
Consult wikipedia about how the new testament came to be.

[Anonymous No.17881583]

>>17880417
Because this is just a thinly veiled christianity thread, a reminder that believing in the Trinity is literally polytheism.

[Anonymous No.17881610]

>>17880769
I think you mean:

Great man as Overman.
Centre of Indifference as Last Man.
Everlasting Yea as Will to Power.
Centre of Immensities as Eternal Return.

[Anonymous No.17881622]

>>17881583
It is, by definition, apodictically A priori, not.

[Anonymous No.17881709]

>>17881622
Oh, so you believe god is made up of three parts instead?

[Anonymous No.17881799]

>>17881709
I am not here to correct your ontological mistunderstandings.

[Anonymous No.17881809]

>>17880417
>The Holy Ghost as Will-to-Power.
"No."

[Anonymous No.17881867]

>>17881550
>please do all the work for me

No sorry, it’s your point. You should defend it. Tell me why my point was bad

[Anonymous No.17881887]

>>17881799
Perhaps the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are just names for the same God, kind of like how Allah has 99 names. All I know is, it surely cannot be something as absurd as 3=1. How absurd would that be? And how silly would a person be to maintain that this is the case?

[Anonymous No.17881897]

>>17881497
>G-d, sometimes I think I am the only one on this board that actually has any profound knowledge
absolutely fucking embarrassing

[Anonymous No.17881903]

>>17881497
wait, anon do you think that Babylon was in Persia?

[Anonymous No.17881905]

>>17881887
Meditate about that question.

[Anonymous No.17881918]

>>17880417
Based and Eternal Return of the Same pilled

[Anonymous No.17881937]

We are reaching dialectical levels that even Hegel thought was impossible kek

[Anonymous No.17881976]

>>17881903
>who were exiled in the Babylonian exile
>which king freed them and what empire was he the king of

Like talking to a child

[Anonymous No.17882015]

>>17881905
Just kidding, the person would be extremely silly to believe that 3=1. Let me put it exceedingly clear, you are the silly person who believes 3=1.

[Anonymous No.17882034]

>>17881177
Okay Lou, now go back to shoving dildos up your ass.

[Anonymous No.17882070]

>>17882015
If you are not willed to learn maybe this board is not the right place for you. You can reply to me again if your research has lead to questions. I am willing to answer them.

Otherwise I am not going to respond.

[Anonymous No.17882087]

>>17881391
>substanceless post
>appeal to ridicule
this is an anonymous board, faggot
you can't simply make the no-no opinions go away through social pressure

[Anonymous No.17882096]

>>17882015
https://www.christianity.com/god/trinity/god-in-three-persons-a-doctrine-we-barely-understand-11634405.html

This should be dumbed down enough for you.

[Anonymous No.17882100]

>>17880452
Nietzche does call Christ an overman somewhere in his work.

[Anonymous No.17882144]

>>17882100
Are you sure you aren't confusing the line "Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ" to mean that Christ is the overman?

[Anonymous No.17882164]

>>17882096
>First of all, Christians don't believe in three Gods. That's a heresy called Tritheism. Second, we don't believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three "forms" of God—like, steam, water and ice. That's the heresy called Modalism. Third, we don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "parts" or "pieces" or God. That would imply that Jesus is 1/3rd God, the Father is 1/3rd God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3rd God.
you're implying that I am the dumb one when you literally believe that 3=1.

[Anonymous No.17882177]

>>17882164
Continue reading.

[Anonymous No.17882213]

>>17882177
>There is so much we would like to know about God, but our finite minds cannot comprehend it. We are not free to create God in our own image. The Trinity sets the limits for human speculation. God is more than the Trinity, but he is not less than that
>After all, if we could explain God, he wouldn't be God. I have no doubt that God is much more than "one in essence, three in Person," but since I can't even understand those simple phrases, I don't worry at all about what else might be true about God. If you feel baffled by the Trinity, join the crowd. The greatest minds of history have stood in amazement before a God so great that he cannot be contained by our puny explanations.
So it's a psyop designed to stupify the masses. I've guessed as much. This article does your peurile delusion no favours.

[Anonymous No.17882225]

>>17882213
mass literacy was a terrible mistake

[Anonymous No.17882240]

>>17882225
Yes, I'm sure it would be far more convenient for your cult if everyone was uneducated and illiterate.

[Anonymous No.17882244]

>>17882225
>of course it doesn't make sense to humans, we're too stupid!
>what do you mean this makes no sense?? you're just a pleb!!

[Anonymous No.17882260]

>>17882225
>my beliefs are so dumb that they’re actually smart
No my dear, they’re not

[Anonymous No.17882263]

>>17881610
What is that, Carlyle? Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.17882269]

>>17881163
Not even baptised mate. Its clear as day. Anti Christian people are just edge lords who don't want to accept that the gospels have everything you need to know about how to live and more.
>>17881138
Who is Lou? NoI don't care.

My lesson for today: stay out of Nietzeche threads.

[Anonymous No.17882275]

> thread about Nietzsche and Christianity
> no mentions of Scheler

[Anonymous No.17882279]

>>17882269
>Anti Christian people are just edge lords who don't want to accept that the gospels have everything you need to know about how to live and more.
Like mindless obedience to a god who’s okay with genocide, and literal thought control?

[Anonymous No.17882290]

>>17882240
>>17882244
>>17882260

Another anon here.

Your posts are a proof that:
1. mass literacy was a terrible mistake
2. The strongest argument against democracy is and was the people that are allowed to vote.
3. Argumentations have no guarentee to succeed, no matter how good, even no matter if able to disprove at all
4. questions of higher importance should only be discussed by experts.

[Anonymous No.17882299]

>>17882279
The concept of trinity can be understood without god.

Start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.17882315]

>>17882290
>Argumentations have no guarentee to succeed, no matter how good, even no matter if able to disprove at all
Shitty ones don’t, no. Like the ones presented in this thread which desperately try to claim Nietzsche, one of the most explicitly anti-Christian thinkers of all time, as a Christian

>questions of higher importance should only be discussed by experts.
And those experts would have to earn their reputation. If you get a diploma, that doesn’t automatically make you smart. You still have the ultimate test to deal with, which is the test of time

[Anonymous No.17882331]

>>17882299
Why do christtards never explain anything they claim to have good reasons for, but just refer critics in the general direction of some experts, to demand that they do all the work for them? Are you people just fucking lazy, or do you people just not have any good reasons for what you believe in?

[Anonymous No.17882334]

>>17882290
You are free to explain how three equals one anytime now.

[Anonymous No.17882358]

>>17882334
If this >>17882096 was not dumbed down enough for you, then you just lack the intellectual capacity to understand this simple concept.

[Anonymous No.17882364]

>>17880417
>Christianity is nietzschean
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.17882394]

>>17882331
see
>>17882096

[Anonymous No.17882424]

>>17882394
Again, why do you refer us to others to explain it for you? Why don’t you explain it in your own words?

[Anonymous No.17882426]

>>17882358
Again, I'm not the person in this thread who believes that 3=1. And besides, if the concept is so simple, then why has 'The greatest minds of history' never been able to comprehend, let alone explain, such a simple concept? But nevermind that, seethe some more about your kike on a stick.

[Anonymous No.17882446]

>>17882424
Because I don't feel like it right now.

[Anonymous No.17882448]

>>17882331
> please do my homework for me while I call you names and insult your intelligence
No thanks, faggot.

[Anonymous No.17882473]

>>17882426
You are the only one seething here, simply because this concept (to my honest suprise) has very clearly shown to you, your significant lack of philosophical understanding.

I am very sorry to say this, but I am afraid that you are ngmi.

[Anonymous No.17882542]

>>17882473
It would certainly require a significant amount of 'philosophical understanding' (read: schizophrenia) to delude myself into believing 1=3 or 3=1. With that matter settled, explain to me what you meant by ngmi? You were talking about heaven, right?

[Anonymous No.17882668]

>>17882448
But that’s literally what you just did. You referred me to Dr. Expertman, told me to assemble your answer for you, and never addressed any point I was making. What a lazy and passionless way to defend Christianity, no wonder it’s dying

[Anonymous No.17882736]

>>17882668
>What a lazy and passionless way to defend Christianity, no wonder it’s dying

This is not about christianity. The trinity is an aristotelian concept, used by the church to logically explain the seemingly inexplainable way gods presents himselves in the bible.

Like using mathematics to construct a cathedral.

Is math christian? By your definition you would have to answer yes.

[Anonymous No.17882753]

>>17882736
>The trinity is an aristotelian concept
Which work of Aristotle did you get this from? Give me the exact quote that demonstrates this.

[Anonymous No.17882786]

>>17882753
Praedicamenta by aristotele

[Anonymous No.17883203]

>>17881374
how is what I've claimed independent?