On The Genealogy Of Morals

[Anonymous No.20423381]

I’ve seen quite a few arguments between Nietzscheans and Christians that cite The Antichrist as Nietzsche’s main critique of Christianity. In my view, this is not correct. The Antichrist was meant to be the first part of the book The Reevaluation Of All Values which was never finished. Naturally, before reading his book on how values should change in the future, one should read his recount of values changing throughout the past. It is in The Genealogy Of Morals that Nietzsche talks about his perspective on the origin of Christianity and the impact it has had on the west. I am going to share some select passages from the book in this thread.

[Anonymous No.20423386]

“Nothing that has been done on earth against ‘the noble’, ‘the mighty’, ‘the masters’ and ‘the rulers’, is worth mentioning compared with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, which in the last resort was able to gain satisfaction from its enemies and conquerors only through a radical revaluation of their values, that is, through an act of the most deliberate revenge [durch einen Akt der geistigsten Rache]. Only this was fitting for a priestly people with the most entrenched priestly vengefulness. It was the Jews who, rejecting the aristocratic value equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = blessed) ventured, with awe-inspiring consistency, to bring about a revesal and held it in the teeth of the most unfathomable hatred (the hatred of the powerless), saying: ‘Only those who suffer are good, only the poor, the powerless, the lowly are good; the suffering, the deprived, the sick, the ugly, are the only pious people, the only ones saved, salvation is for them alone, whereas you rich, the noble and powerful, you are eternally wicked, cruel, lustful, insatiate, godless, you will also be eternally wretched, cursed and damned!’ . . . We know who became heir to this Jewish revaluation . . . With regard to the huge and incalculably disastrous initiative taken by the Jews with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the words I wrote on another occasion (Beyond Good and Evil, section 195) 21 – namely, that the slaves’ revolt in morality begins with the Jews: a revolt which has two thousand years of history behind it and which has only been lost sight of because – it was victorious . . .”

[Anonymous No.20423390]

“This Jesus of Nazareth, as the embodiment of the gospel of love, this ‘redeemer’ bringing salvation and victory to the poor, the sick, to sinners – was he not seduction in its most sinister and irresistible form, seduction and the circuitous route to just those very Jewish values and innovative ideals? Did Israel not reach the pinnacle of her sublime vengefulness via this very ‘redeemer’, this apparent opponent of and disperser of Israel? Is it not part of a secret black art of a truly grand politics of revenge, a far sighted, subterranean revenge, slow to grip and calculating, that Israel had to denounce her actual instrument of revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail him to the cross so that ‘all the world’, namely all Israel’s enemies, could safely nibble at this bait? And could anyone, on the other hand, using all the ingenuity of his intellect, think up a more dangerous bait? Something to equal the enticing, intoxicating, benumbing, corrupting power of that symbol of the ‘holy cross’, to equal that horrible paradox of a ‘God on the Cross’, to equal that mystery of an unthinkable final act of extreme cruelty and self- crucifixion of God for the salvation of mankind? . . . At least it is certain that sub hoc signo Israel, with its revenge and revaluation of all former values, has triumphed repeatedly over all other ideals, all nobler ideals. – –”

[Anonymous No.20423393]

>>20423381
its a fun, thrilling read but I wouldn't necessarily consider it "worldview important"

[Anonymous No.20423408]

Face it, the reason we live in a world today that demonises straight white males because they have historically been more powerful than others and worships black people and homosexuals in the street because they are seen as oppressed is because we adopted a morality that posits the best way to live was to imitate Jesus who spent his time helping the most marginalised people in the middle east and said things like “the meek will inherit the earth” and “it is harder for a donkey to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.”

[Anonymous No.20423465]

>>20423408
But those straight white males are mostly Christians, while the niggers and the homosexuals are mostly atheist leftists...

[Anonymous No.20423472]

>>20423465
And it’s the Christian countries that are letting mass amounts of immigrants in and having the pride parades thrown in them. The “atheist leftists” are just practicing an extreme version of Christian morality. Their values didn’t come from nowhere.

[Anonymous No.20423475]

>>20423381
Imagine buff Christchads beating up this loser. There’s your rule of the strongest bro.

[Anonymous No.20423486]

>>20423408

the aristocratic value equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = blessed)

I suspect this can be undercut by the word meek. Meek has been taken to mean lowly timid and fearful, but has also been defined as being strong and able to fight, but keeping one’s sword sheathed.

[Anonymous No.20423488]

>>20423408
Except Christianity has two types of moralities
> Sexuality morality
no divorce, no sodomy or fornication outside of marriage or births out of wedlock
> General morality
kindness, compassion and forgiveness and that kind of stuff

The question is why did sexual morality die off in the west, but not the latter?

[Anonymous No.20423490]

>>20423475
Based

[Anonymous No.20423492]

>>20423486
That is just Jordan Peterson projecting his own beliefs (probably informed by Nietzsche and Jung) onto Christianity with literally zero historical or linguistic basis.

[Anonymous No.20423494]

>>20423472
> And it’s the Christian countries that are letting mass amounts of immigrants

But the oldest Christian nations: Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia don’t have that stuff. Seems like the west is just naturally homo. I think you’re confusing white depravity for Christianity.

Also doesn’t “pride” actually go against Christian teachings? How are “pride” parades Christian?

[Anonymous No.20423498]

>>20423488
Good question. It’s because the kindness, compassion, and forgiveness overwhelmed the other stuff. Compassion for homosexuals who can’t help who they love overwhelmed the verses saying homosexuals are bad.

[Anonymous No.20423502]

>>20423494
Armenia and Georgia are more ethnically homogenous and so they have continued to pass down their beliefs to their children. Places like America started out as multicultural and all these people from different places of Europe only had Christianity as the common ground and so the religion came to the forefront of society. After WW2 American hegemony spread this sort of culture to western Europe.

[Anonymous No.20423507]

>>20423472
>It’s another “this group that hates Christianity are ackchually Christians cuz xyz” episode

[Anonymous No.20423508]

>>20423494
Pride parades aren’t necessarily Christian but the idea that gay people are le good because they are oppressed minorities is quintessentially Christian.

[Anonymous No.20423513]

>>20423507
People raised in a post-Christian culture would obviously have remnants of Christian morality in their thought even if they don’t identify as Christian. Why is this hard for you? Midwits can’t think beyond identity politics.

[Anonymous No.20423526]

>>20423408
So did powerful men like Constantine and medieval kings adopt Christianity because they wanted to be demonised as oppressors? Kinda weird. How does Nietzsche explain this?

[Anonymous No.20423542]

>>20423526
Most medieval kings adopted Christianity for political power. They wanted to be in the new cool international clique. They only adopted it superficially, though. For practical purposes, Europe remained pagan. The idolatry of Notre Dame would not be condoned by Jesus. The Crusades only happened because Christianity was rebranded as a warrior religion to appeal to Germanic pagans. There’s an entire book called the Germanisation of Christianity. During these periods the masses were not able to read the Bible and just listened to the authority of the church. It wasn’t until the protestant reformation that Europe actually practiced christcuck values. Protestantism is all about following only the Bible and not what Pope’s say, and Protestants are (this is even said by other denominations) the ones most tolerant of degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.20423543]

>>20423472
>And it’s the Christian countries that are letting mass amounts of immigrants in and having the pride parades thrown in them.
Which "Christian countries" you mean? If by Christianity you mean Protestantism then you are absolutely correct, if by Christianity you mean Catholicism then you are fucking wrong, see the fucking Poland for fucks sake, even Orthodoxs in Russia don't like homosexuals. Pic related, Poland don't let the Muslims in and don't like faggotry either.

>The “atheist leftists” are just practicing an extreme version of Christian morality.
This is insane, only a person detached from reality can think like this. This guy basically say everything I think about your comment >>20423507 those leftists atheists have Nietzsche as reference for everything they do. The “atheist leftists” aren't practicing an extreme version of Christian morality but the reevaluation of all values. Guess who don't like sodomites?

[Anonymous No.20423551]

>>20423513
If that were true then Christian morality should have prevented the Nazis from being elected into power in the 20th century. Why didn’t germs have Christian morality in their thoughts?

[Anonymous No.20423552]

>>20423465
>black people
>atheists
I don't know where you get this from, but this is far, far from the truth. In fact almost the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.20423556]

>>20423508
Holy fuck you are retarded and you know absolutely nothing about Christianity

[Anonymous No.20423557]

>>20423543
Not read the news lately? Not seen the Pope kissing the feet of niggers? Not seen the first Lesbian bishop? Not seen the Christian churches donating to Israel? Not seen the Polish churches helping African refugees?

Protestants are the only ones who practice “true Christianity” as the follow sola scriptura.

The atheist leftists are so consumed by the virtues of acceptance, tolerance, and inclusion that they hate Christianity for saying trannies and homosexuals are bad.

Also, people at pride parades have never heard of Nietzsche, lmao.

[Anonymous No.20423562]

>>20423551
WW2 was the last fight against Christian morality (a religion of Jewish origin). Christian morality is what made the Americans and British fight against their Germanic brothers to defend the Jews that were literally child trafficking and committing usury.

[Anonymous No.20423567]

>>20423552
This. Blacks probably make up the majority of Christians in the world by now. Lots of black churches in America and churches in Africa.

[Anonymous No.20423570]

>>20423543
Secular humanism is Christianity's final form. Those other countries haven't gotten around to adopting it yet.

[Anonymous No.20423581]

>>20423542
>Most medieval kings adopted Christianity for political power. They wanted to be in the new cool international clique. They only adopted it superficially, though
And this is simply wrong. Most kings were really religious people, see the Catholic Kings of Spain.

>For practical purposes, Europe remained pagan.
And you are retarded. See the Baroque.

>The Crusades only happened because Christianity was rebranded as a warrior religion to appeal to Germanic pagans.
Holy fuck you cant be serious. Nobody can be this dense.

>It wasn’t until the protestant reformation that Europe actually practiced christcuck values
It wasn't until the Reformation that Christianity stopped being Christianity (Catholicism). Luther cut with Rome and with the values of the Catholic Church. That you probably live in a Protestant shithole doesn't mean that Italy and Spain were amazing countries through history thanks to Catholics.

>Protestants are (this is even said by other denominations) the ones most tolerant of degeneracy.
No shit

[Anonymous No.20423585]

>>20423581
*weren't

[Anonymous No.20423589]

>>20423542
This is clearly not true and seems like cope. Have you read Bede? He gives tons of examples of converted pagan kings behaving as the gospel says

> Sigbert their king, successor to Sigbert the Small, was a friend of King Oswy and often used to visit him in the province of the Northumbrians. Oswy used to reason with him…showed him how God is rather to be understood as a being of boundless majesty, invisible to human eyes, almighty, ever-lasting, creator of heaven and earth and of the human race. “So he talked it over with his advisers, and with one accord they accepted the Faith and were baptized with him by Bishop Finan in the king’s village…The king was murdered by his own kinsmen. This horrid crime was committed by two brothers who, on being asked their motive, had no answer to make except that they hated the king because he was too lenient towards his enemies and too readily forgave injuries when offenders asked pardon. This then was the fault for which the king was killed, that he sincerely observed the teachings of the Gospel.

He also gives an example of Sigeberht of East Anglia, who converted to Christianity.

> At an unknown date, which may have been in the early 640s,[30] East Anglia was attacked by a Mercian army and Ecgric was obliged to defend it with a much smaller force, though one that was not negligible. The East Angles appealed to their former king Sigeberht to leave his monastery and lead them in battle, hoping that his presence and the memory of his former military exploits would encourage the army and make them less likely to flee. Sigeberht refused, saying that he had renounced his worldly kingdom and now lived only for the heavenly kingdom. However, he was dragged from the monastery to the battlefield where, unwilling to bear arms, he went into battle carrying only a staff.

Christianity was not rebranded as a warrior religion. And what international clique was Constantine trying to be apart of? The 10% oppressed clique.

[Anonymous No.20423596]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1516900460501864457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1516900460501864457%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fmatthew-dowd-msnbc-jesus-groomer-woke

Watch this video. You cannot blame extreme left ideology on atheists, lol.

>>20423543

[Anonymous No.20423613]

>>20423589
>The 10% oppressed clique.
Christians were the oppressed ones?

On the 14th of November in the year 435, Theodosius II ordered the death penalty for all "heretics" and "pagans" of the Empire. The only religion that was considered to be a legal non-Christian religion was Judaism. And people wonder how Jews ended up controlling the West. Christians have always been cucks for "God chosen people" and have regularly sided with them over their own brothers.

[Anonymous No.20423619]

>>20423562
I won’t deny that Nazis were pagan. They were since pagans have a tendency of losing against Christians for some reason.

[Anonymous No.20423620]

>>20423581
>And you are retarded. See the Baroque.
The Baroque came after the Renaissance which was a return to pagan aesthetics and a rediscovery of the classical values of ancient Rome and Greece.
>It wasn't until the Reformation that Christianity stopped being Christianity (Catholicism). Luther cut with Rome and with the values of the Catholic Church.
I agree, except the values of the Catholic church aren't Christian values, Protestant values are, because they follow what is written in the Christian bible rather than a Pope in power who claims to be a proxy for God.

[Anonymous No.20423622]

>>20423557
>Francis
>a real Pope
>he thinks a real Pope would touch a nigger feet
Lol, post-Vatican II "Popes" aren't real Popes. See Catholicism before the Second Council. (Pic)

>Protestants are the only ones who practice “true Christianity” as the follow sola scriptura.
Protestantism is heretical according to the Catholic Church because that book say that they are fucking wrong. Catholicism is the antipode of Protestantism, they are as different as a Buddhism and Islam.

>The atheist leftists are so consumed by the virtues of acceptance, tolerance, and inclusion that they hate Christianity for saying trannies and homosexuals are bad
Then you contradict yourself.

>Also, people at pride parades have never heard of Nietzsche, lmao.
Go to any LGBT website and ask for their favorite philosopher, do you think trannies read Aquinas and St Augustine?...

[Anonymous No.20423631]

>>20423622
>Lol, post-Vatican II "Popes" aren't real Popes. See Catholicism before the Second Council. (Pic)
Lmao. Cope.
>Go to any LGBT website and ask for their favorite philosopher, do you think trannies read Aquinas and St Augustine?...
They don't read at all. Also, seriously, can you midwits try to push yourself to think beyond identity politics? It's not about them following Christianity as a religion but rather being a result of Christianity's subversion of morality infecting society.

[Anonymous No.20423634]

>>20423613
> Theodosius II ordered the death penalty for all "heretics" and "pagans" of the Empire.

lol talk about exaggerations. He did no such thing.

> Theodosius seems to have adopted a cautious policy toward traditional non-Christian cults, reiterating his Christian predecessors' bans on animal sacrifice, divination, and apostasy, while allowing other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open. There is evidence that Theodosius took care to prevent the empire's still substantial pagan population from feeling ill-disposed toward his rule. Following the death in 388 of his praetorian prefect, Cynegius, who had vandalized a number of pagan shrines in the eastern provinces, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples.[127][124][128] During his first official tour of Italy (389–391), the emperor won over the influential pagan lobby in the Roman Senate by appointing its foremost members to important administrative posts.[129] Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history (Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391. Modern scholars think there is little if any evidence Theodosius pursued an active and sustained policy against the traditional pagan cults.[124][125][126]

[Anonymous No.20423642]

Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you;"

Tradlarper Christians that send infographs about Jewish power don't even realise that Europeans following Christianity is what allowed them to attain it.

[Anonymous No.20423659]

>>20423620
Really? Protestant values always seemed more worldly and capitalistic to me.

Catholicism with its celibate priests, monks and nuns and their asceticism. Its self-flagellation (which Protestants strongly detested) and other extreme practises.

[Anonymous No.20423674]

>>20423542
> The idolatry of Notre Dame would not be condoned by Jesus.

Don’t think he would mind. It’s literally based on the temple of Solomon.

> Gothic architecture was heavily influenced by the bible, including its design. When designing Gothic cathedrals, medieval builders drew on sacred measurements laid out in the pages of the Bible. This manuscript reveals that, to the builders of Notre Dame, the dimensions of Solomon's Temple were profoundly important: 30 cubits to the first level, and 60 cubits to the second level. These numbers are built into Notre Dame.

> The large space at the center of the transept and nave in Amiens is fifty roman feet square, a number derived from the measurements of Noah’s ark (Gen. 6:15).

> The height from floor to vault keystones in Amiens is just about 144 roman feet (42.55 meters), the same as the measure of the New Jerusalem (in cubits) seen by John in the Apocalypse (Apoc./Rev. 21); and that passage was read by the bishop at the dedication of the cathedral

Although Gothic architecture was not condoned by Nazis. They didn’t like it.

> “What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. . . . What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. . . . The Führer cannot relate to the Gothic mind. He hates gloom and brooding mysticism. He wants clarity, light, beauty. And these are the ideals of life in our time.” - Goebbels diary

[Anonymous No.20423688]

>>20423674
>> The idolatry of Notre Dame would not be condoned by Jesus.
>Don’t think he would mind. It’s literally based on the temple of Solomon.
I wasn't talking about Jesus not liking the architectural style, although you've shared some very interesting information. What I meant was that, based on my reading of the Gospel, I believe Jesus would say something like "do not build large cathedrals in my honour, but rather dedicate those resources to housing the poor" or something. I've heard a few protestants say they think it's wrong to spend lots of money on big churches while there are people starving and I personally think Jesus would side with them given how he lived a humble life. As for me, though, I think building magnificent buildings is based.

[Anonymous No.20423695]

>>20423620
>The Baroque came after the Renaissance which was a return to pagan aesthetics and a rediscovery of the classical values of ancient Rome and Greece.
You are quite uninformed honey, first the baroque was a Catholic cultural movement promoted from Trento to counteract the advance of Protestantism, second the Renaissance happened in the most Catholic country in the whole world at that time, that's why most of the paintings and sculptures come inspired by Christianity; it is true that paganism was given its place as an honor to what it represents for Western history, but Catholicism had already surpassed Paganism in every way, that is why the baroque order was the defeat of the Renaissance. The Baroque was neither a vestige of the Middle Ages nor a blind reaction to the Renaissance. It was Catholic and as a society believed in God before everything. It was a social and political order that gained its hegemony to heal the wounds and doubts and divisions caused by the Renaissance, confining that movement to certain parts of Europe for almost two centuries. Politically and socially, the Renaissance was a crisis and the beginning of a movement that produced this modernist society values that you criticized so much and gave rise to all the stupid ideologies: absolutism, state power, fascism, Marxism and nationalism. The Renaissance was the beginning of an alternative bourgeois modernity that ultimately militarily, but not culturally, defeated the Baroque.

>I agree, except the values of the Catholic church aren't Christian values, Protestant values are, because they follow what is written in the Christian bible rather than a Pope in power who claims to be a proxy for God.
If you think Protestantism is Christianity you will hate it endlessly, the values of the Catholic Church are the Christian values: prudence,justice,temperance, andfortitudewith the threetheological virtuesoffaith,hope, andcharity. Isn't the Pope, its Tradition.

If Western civilization has given us the miracles of modern science, the wealth of the free market economy, the security of the rule of law, a unique sense of human rights and freedom, charity as a virtue, art and a splendid music, a reason-based philosophy, and countless other gifts that we take for granted as the richest and most powerful civilization in history, it was thanks to the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church; Catholic priests developed the idea of free market economics five hundred years before Adam Smith; the Catholic Church invented the university; Western law grew out of the canon law of the Church; and it was the Church that humanized the West by insisting on the sanctity of all human life.

I think your problem is with Protestantism. Good luck

[Anonymous No.20423699]

>>20423695
>honey
The second you called me honey I stopped reading. Please fuck off back to r*ddit unbearably repugnant queer.

[Anonymous No.20423704]

>>20423631
>Lmao. Cope.
I haven't meet the first Catholic that like Modernity. Dante literally burn the Popes he didn't like in his Inferno, you clearly don't understand Catholics.

[Anonymous No.20423714]

>>20423699
Not an argument, read the whole thing faggot.

[Anonymous No.20423718]

>>20423704
I think I have made it pretty damn clear that I am not criticising the views of any Catholics as individuals, merely the values of Christianity as they are communicated in the gospels.

If you try to assert that Catholicism is based because Dante was based I can equally assert that Catholicism is degenerate by naming some modern Pope or Bishop.

[Anonymous No.20423732]

>>20423688
> As for me, though, I think building magnificent buildings is based.

Germanic pagans must have been Protestant in spirit since they didn’t think it was based

> “They [Germans] conceive it unworthy the grandeur of celestial beings to confine their deities within walls, or to represent them under a human similitude: woods and groves are their temples; and they affix names of divinity to that secret power, which they behold with the eye of adoration alone.” - Tacitus

[Anonymous No.20423736]

>>20423714
Fine, but you are the faggot for saying "honey."

>>20423695
>If Western civilization has given us the miracles of modern science, the wealth of the free market economy, the security of the rule of law, a unique sense of human rights and freedom, charity as a virtue, art and a splendid music, a reason-based philosophy, and countless other gifts that we take for granted as the richest and most powerful civilization in history, it was thanks to the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church; Catholic priests developed the idea of free market economics five hundred years before Adam Smith; the Catholic Church invented the university; Western law grew out of the canon law of the Church; and it was the Church that humanized the West by insisting on the sanctity of all human life.
Not true. All the scientific innovations come from Western society due to racial factors, not religion. Western Law comes from ancient Rome and reason based philosophy comes from Ancient Greece. The only correct thing you said is that the Church insisted on the sanctity of all human life which is why we have modern day equality that insists Africans are somehow equal in worth to Europeans and child rapists don't deserve the death penalty.

[Anonymous No.20423742]

>>20423732
Fair point. Doesn't really change anything though, just proves my views don't exactly align with Germanic pagans.

[Anonymous No.20423749]

>>20423718
>Christianity as they are communicated in the gospels.
You're not even doing that, you're criticizing the Protestantism of the people where you live, (probably North America or some northern European country orphaned by the reform). Nietzsche also did that, he thought that the Lutheranism Germany, of his father, sister and companions was the same shit as the Catholicism of Spain, Italy, Ireland and Poland, and reduced everything to a single prototype of a person, when Catholicism was the religion of conquerors...

>If you try to assert that Catholicism is based because Dante was based I can equally assert that Catholicism is degenerate by naming some modern Pope or Bishop.
I already give you my opinion of Modernity and those modern "Popes".

[Anonymous No.20423752]

>>20423688
Except the churches that were built did help the poor. It employed many people and paid them (no slavery like in Roman construction projects), which is why they often took so long to build since there had to be money to pay the workers.

The money churches got from pilgrimages to their churches were also later used to distribute to the poor.

[Anonymous No.20423776]

>>20423749
>>Christianity as they are communicated in the gospels.
>You're not even doing that, you're criticizing the Protestantism of the people where you live, (probably North America or some northern European country orphaned by the reform). Nietzsche also did that, he thought that the Lutheranism Germany, of his father, sister and companions was the same shit as the Catholicism of Spain, Italy, Ireland and Poland, and reduced everything to a single prototype of a person, when Catholicism was the religion of conquerors...
Protestants follow the Bible while Catholics follow traditions. If following the Bible alone leads to more degeneracy then the text itself is probably degenerate.
>I already give you my opinion of Modernity and those modern "Popes".
"Any Christian who does something I disagree with isn't a real Christian." It's just a cope, man.

[Anonymous No.20423783]

>>20423718
> If you try to assert that Catholicism is based because Dante was based I can equally assert that Catholicism is degenerate by naming some modern Pope or Bishop.

You think that will destroy Catholicism? Medieval Europe had just as many degenerate popes. My personal favourite was Pope John XII.

The Holy Roman Emperor, Otto the Great, even wrote this amusing letter to Pope John XII, challenging him to a duel:

> “Everyone, clergy as well as laity, accuses you, holiness, of homicide, perjury, sacrilege, incest with your relatives, including two of your sisters, and with having, like a pagan, invoked Jupiter, Venus and other demons. Either you send me two bishops who will swear the charges are not true, or two champions who will decide the matter in a trial by combat with two of my men.”

[Anonymous No.20423788]

>>20423783
>people continue to follow Catholicism despite people in power in Catholic institutions being filthy hypocrites
Yeah, I know. Your point?
>You think that will destroy Catholicism?
Don't care. This thread is about Nietzsche's argument that Christianity lead to the subversion of morality and it's turned into one about the identity politics of different denominations.

[Anonymous No.20423790]

>>20423642
> Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you;"

Leftists certainly do not love Nazis, nor do they bless them and do good to them or pray for them lol

[Anonymous No.20423795]

>>20423790
But leftists do love the big corporations destroying their countries, lol. White leftists also love the african and arabic immigrants raping their women.

[Anonymous No.20423800]

>>20423795
This is about the most Christian thing ever.

[Anonymous No.20423828]

>>20423736
>>20423736
>All the scientific innovations come from Western society due to racial factors, not religion
I think you don't understand the Church’s crucial role in the development of science. The Christian tradition, from its Old Testament prehistory through the High Middle Ages and beyond, conceives of God and, by extension, His creation as "rational and orderly". The regularity of natural phenomena is described as a reflection of God’s "goodness, beauty, and order". For if the Lord “has imposed an order on the magnificent works of his wisdom,” that is only because “He is from everlasting to everlasting” (Sir. 42:21). The world for Christians was the handiwork of a supremely reasonable God, endowed with lawfulness and purpose: the regular return of seasons, the unfailing course of stars, the music of the spheres, the movement of the forces of nature according to fixed ordinances, are all the results of the One who alone can be trusted unconditionally, etc, etc. If you see Wisdom 11:21, in which God is said to have “ordered all things by measure, number, weight.” This point lent support to Christians in late antiquity who upheld the rationality of the universe, but also inspired Christians a millennium later who, at the beginnings of modern science, had embarked on quantitative inquiry as a way of understanding the universe. This is why every single father of modern science was a Catholic. You can read Edward Grant about the beginnings of Western Science.

>Western Law comes from ancient Rome and reason based philosophy comes from Ancient Greece.
Catholicism is Roman Law and Greek Philosophy. In most Western countries, if a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, but goes insane between the moment of sentencing and the moment of execution, he is kept alive until he regains his sanity and only then is he executed. The reason for this unusual proviso is entirely theological: Only if the man is sane can he make a good confession, receive forgiveness for his sins, and hope to save his soul. Modern Western legal systems are a secular residue of religious attitudes and assumptions which historically found expression first in the liturgy and rituals and doctrine of the church and thereafter in the institutions and concepts and values of the law. When these historical roots are not understood, many parts of the law appear to lack any underlying source of validity. The origins of the Western concept of law is intimately bound up with distinctively Western theological and liturgical concepts of the atonement and of the sacraments. As for philosophy, those who defended Plato and Aristotle were the Catholics. Modern philosophy didn't give a shit about either of them.

>why we have modern day equality that insists Africans are somehow equal in worth to Europeans
*which it's why we don't commit suicide and eat dogs like the Asians

[Anonymous No.20423844]

>>20423776
>Protestants follow the Bible while Catholics follow traditions. If following the Bible alone leads to more degeneracy then the text itself is probably degenerate.
Protestants do not follow the Bible, Protestants follow themselves, they are narcissistic at a pathological level, they do not believe in the Bible, they believe that their interpretation is correct, that their church is true, etc etc. that was the thought of Henry VIII, Calvin and Luther, that is why they fragmented and delayed Europe, for believing in themselves and not in God.

>Any Christian who does something I disagree with isn't a real Christian." It's just a cope, man.
Google SSPX

[Anonymous No.20423846]

>>20423828
>I think you don't understand the Church’s crucial role in the development of science.
I do, Nietzsche even wrote about it. Europeans still would have excelled in science compared to other peoples without Christianity, though, and if Christianity spread to sub-Saharan Africa before Europe they wouldn't have made the discoveries Europeans did.
>Catholicism is Roman Law and Greek Philosophy.
Agreed. So why are you bringing up Catholicism to defend Christianity? The virtues promoted by the Catholic church are from Ancient Greece and Rome. The virtues promoted by the Protestant church are from Jesus. Therefore, it makes sense to look at Protestantism as an example of Christianity.
>*which it's why we don't commit suicide and eat dogs like the Asians
I think you'll find that Asian religions don't elevate humans above animals by saying only humans have souls and therefore animal cruelty is largely prevented by religious doctrines while in the west that is not the case.

[Anonymous No.20423876]

>>20423508
Let us be honest, the argument for homosexuality has always been that it is natural. That it is find across the animal kingdom.

No one argues homosexuality should be accepted because Christianity says to be kind to those who sin. They argue it should be accepted because it is genetic (it can’t be helped) and it is natural. That’s what people like you have to argue against.

Maybe it’s a meeting of science and Christianity. Oh? It’s genetic and natural? Just let us be nice then.

[Anonymous No.20423889]

>>20423876
Literally isn't genetic and natural. There is no gay gene and evidence suggests homosexuality is a mental illness that occurs in people who have been molested as children. The reason people are in favour of LGBT people is all about equality and acceptance. Libertarian arguments about how the government shouldn't control what people do in their bedrooms are also responsible for it's legalisation.

[Anonymous No.20423890]

>>20423795
But those aren’t actual leftist enemies so doesn’t count

[Anonymous No.20423895]

>>20423890
The entire leftist position is a traitorous one that is in favour of demographically replacing one's own people with foreigners and demonising one's ancestors because they were stronger and exerted their strength upon the weak. Love your enemies is the root of all of this.

[Anonymous No.20423918]

>>20423889
Oh yes. Did you know 10% of rams were sexually abused?

> One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs is the domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[9]

Also. I thought you didn’t believe in morality. Why this strong belief in sexual morality? Why accept only one set of morality as a construct (compassion and empathy kind), but not when it comes to sexual morality?

At least Christians don’t contradict themselves in this regard.

[Anonymous No.20423926]

>>20423895
> traitorous

That’s a very Christian word you have there.

[Anonymous No.20423946]

>>20423895
How can someone weak be an enemy? No good Christian king would have regarded peasants as their enemy.

[Anonymous No.20423984]

>>20423846
> I think you'll find that Asian religions don't elevate humans above animals by saying only humans have souls and therefore animal cruelty is largely prevented by religious doctrines while in the west that is not the case.

Oh. So you think animals shouldn’t be treated like inferior beings just because they’re supposedly ‘inferior’ or ‘weaker’? I think so too. Although I maybe a bit too progressive for your liking since I also apply this belief to humans. I don’t want to be a hypocrite after all.

[Anonymous No.20423992]

>>20423846
>>20423846
>Europeans still would have excelled in science compared to other peoples without Christianity
Speculative, in what do you base that argument? What if Islam took over Europe or a child sacrifing pagan cult?

>if Christianity spread to sub-Saharan Africa before Europe they wouldn't have made the discoveries Europeans did
It worked in America with the Spanish colonies.

>So why are you bringing up Catholicism to defend Christianity?
>The virtues promoted by the Protestant church are from Jesus.
Catholicism is Christianity. Protestantism is Gentilicized Talmudism. Let's get that clear.

>The virtues promoted by the Catholic church are from Ancient Greece and Rome
The Church was the heir of Rome, no shit. They are also in the Bible, St Paul have them in his Epistles. Charity and Faith weren't virtues in Rome and Ancient Greece as far as I know. Seneca did wrote about Hope but we consider him a proto-Catholic.

>Therefore, it makes sense to look at Protestantism as an example of Christianity.
16th century theologian ramblings doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

>I think you'll find that Asian religions don't elevate humans above animals by saying only humans have souls and therefore animal cruelty is largely prevented by religious doctrines while in the west that is not the case.
Aquinas holds that animals do have souls just like humans, and I hold metahumanism anyways, so I don't like animal cruelty, and I don't believe you, chinks eat rats, dogs and a lot of weird shit. Pajeets too.

[Anonymous No.20424007]

>>20423889
> homosexuality is a mental illness that occurs in people who have been molested as children

Oh so you care about children now? That’s strange since you were just telling me how one shouldn’t care so much for those who are “weaker” than us.

[Anonymous No.20424028]

>>20423846
> Europeans still would have excelled

They would have needed to abolish slavery like Christianity did in Europe, but to abolish slavery in a place like Europe then one has to be like Christianity, so I guess you still end up in the same place as you are now

[Anonymous No.20424058]

>>20423562
It’s funny to think that Nazis might have won if they treated their conquered enemies in a morally more Christian manner. Isn’t it ironic?

[Anonymous No.20424118]

>>20423472
>And it’s the Christian countries that are letting mass amounts of immigrants

You know Japan isn’t the only nation on earth. Most nations get immigrants these days.

[Anonymous No.20424130]

>>20423502
Why should Scandinavia somehow turn out more Christian than Armenia and Georgia?

[Anonymous No.20424165]

>>20423542
> The Crusades only happened because Christianity was rebranded as a warrior religion to appeal to Germanic pagans. There’s an entire book called the Germanisation of Christianity. During these periods the masses were not able to read the Bible and just listened to the authority of the church

You would be surprised at how much it was quite the opposite of what happened

> Ulfilas translated "all the books of Scripture with the exception of the Books of Kings, which he omitted because they are a mere narrative of military exploits, and the Gothic tribes were especially fond of war, and were in more need of restraints to check their military passions than of spurs to urge them on to deeds of war.”

[Anonymous No.20424220]

>>20423475
>>20423475
In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche quotes at length Tertullian’s vision of the righteous delighting in the suffering of sinners on the Judgement Day. Nietzsche does this to document the sniveling weakness of those slave moralized Christians who fantasize that they themselves are noble, violent aristocrats. In reality, they are so pathetic that they must shunt their weakness into visions of strength, in this case, Christchads.

Sent from my iPhone

[Anonymous No.20424249]

>>20423542
>The Crusades only happened because Christianity was rebranded as a warrior religion to appeal to Germanic pagans.

That was the result of pure religious fanaticism, not of rebranding. A religion may speak for peace and against violence, but it can’t speak expect such results when it also declares itself to be the only truth religion. As Emperor Julian himself noted when commenting about the extreme violence between Christians themselves.

[Anonymous No.20424304]

>>20423488
Sexual morality was a source of strength, it protected in some form. To give a group of people that morality and then subvert it to hurt them is what happened.

[Anonymous No.20424309]

>>20423465
They keep Christian moral values.

[Anonymous No.20424313]

Only one problem retard: Christ is king and the Bible is true

[Anonymous No.20424315]

>>20423507
Disprove it then.

[Anonymous No.20424326]

>>20424220
>sniveling weakness of those slave moralized Christians

That’s not fully how people saw Christians. Nietzsche might not think highly of fortitude, but it is what Christians excelled at and why their enemies always seemed to relent despite their “master morality.”

[Anonymous No.20424334]

>>20423494
The west's problems all come from Germany. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.20424340]

>>20424309
We all do in one way or another.

[Anonymous No.20424373]

>>20423620
>The Baroque came after the Renaissance which was a return to pagan aesthetics and a rediscovery of the classical values of ancient Rome and Greece.

So you admit that the west has actually been pagan since the renaissance? Now quit blaming Christianity for west’s problems.

[Anonymous No.20424389]

Holy shit, what an embarrassement for Nietzscheans here. You bunch of retards, it was not Christianity the direct responsible for the actual state of social consciousness, but only indirectly. Christianity destryoed the ancient pagan worldview, their values and mythos upon which all their institutions were founded. With Christianity the temporal line extends in as a straight line and no longer as a tragic cyclical chain. That is, it was a deep change in human consciousness itself. But you see, Enlightenment philosophers will draw from christian values, consciously (like Kant) or unconsciously (like most of them), making a secular morality, after all the whole authority of God was seen as a means to preservation of civil duties among citizens. The final blow and what will indeed put an end to any natural mythopoesis and theology will be Socialism and later Marxism. You can say these two are two more radical forms of that gnostic element in Christianity. There is also the Jewish cooptation of the Nazi solution of them as scapegoat, universalizing Jews as eternal actual and potential victims.

[Anonymous No.20424395]

>>20424315
>>20423408
>>20423498
>>20423557


Soon you guys will be arguing that religious tolerance actually comes from Christianity. Hilarious. There goes the enlightenment philosophers.

[Anonymous No.20424402]

>>20423992
>Speculative, in what do you base that argument?
The fact that ancient Greeks and Romans also excelled in art and science.
>It worked in America with the Spanish colonies.
You are confusing geography with race. I clearly said Europe's scientific accomplishments are due to racial factors. You are merely pointing out that Europeans made similar accomplishments outside of Europe.
>Catholicism is Christianity. Protestantism is Gentilicized Talmudism. Let's get that clear.
It's hilarious when Christians say Protestantism is a Jewish subversion of Christianity as if the Bible wasn't predominantly written by Jews.
>Charity and Faith weren't virtues in Rome and Ancient Greece as far as I know.
Yeah, only the good virtues were inherited from ancient Rome.
>16th century theologian ramblings doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
The catholic church didn't even allow most of the population to read the Bible. What the Pope says doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
>Aquinas holds that animals do have souls just like humans, and I hold metahumanism anyways, so I don't like animal cruelty, and I don't believe you, chinks eat rats, dogs and a lot of weird shit. Pajeets too.
Eating animals that are taboo to eat in different cultures isn't animal cruelty. Aquinas may be a rare case but I'm pretty sure most Christians believe only humans have souls.

[Anonymous No.20424430]

>>20424007
Being a child isn't a permanent state of weakness. This is a pathetic attempt at an argument and you know it.

>>20424028
Why do you need to abolish slavery to excel in science? Did the Ancient Romans not make advances in science despite having slaves? If anything, having slaves allows people to focus on science while the slaves take care of the other work.
>>20424118
>You know Japan isn’t the only nation on earth. Most nations get immigrants these days.
And most nations except Japan are rapidly deteriorating because of immigrants. High trust homogeneous societies like Japan will always have the lowest crime rates.

[Anonymous No.20424480]

>>20424430
>Being a child isn't a permanent state of weakness

That’s hardly a good argument to make for why children should be protected. In fact, I recommend you read the surprising similarities in morality between Nazism and Marquis De Sade.

https://www.academia.edu/37993109/Sade_Enlightenment_Holocaust

[Anonymous No.20424492]

>>20424480
Children should be protected because they are the future. Men should focus on improving the world for their descendants instead of being so focused on gaining entry into a non-existent afterlife so much that they neglect the real world.

[Anonymous No.20424544]

>>20423556
>blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth
>it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god
>plus every other parable in the gospel about rich “worldly” powerful people being sinful and poor oppressed people being poor in this world but blessed in another world
is the connection really that hard to make? liberalism exists because of Christianity

[Anonymous No.20424551]

>>20424492
The appeal to the future to answer what is morally wrong or right. Not sure it will pass the test though.

> Men should focus on improving the world for their descendants instead of being so focused on gaining entry into a non-existent afterlife so much that they neglect the real world.

Why is that? What morality are you basing that on?

[Anonymous No.20424590]

>>20424492
>>20424551
>>20424544

Liberal morality is quite simple really. It’s based on the no harm principal. Christian morality on God.

Far-right or nazi morality. Goodness. What a muddled mess. Is it often based on appeals to nature: might is right, instinct and all that stuff. None of which holds up as well.

[Anonymous No.20424595]

Did Schopenhauer have anything nice to say about Christianity?

[Anonymous No.20424598]

>>20424551
Pre-Christian European paganism.

[Anonymous No.20424607]

>>20424590

[Anonymous No.20424613]

>>20424598
What a fucking retarded quote, jesus christ. I’m even opposing the christian values here but holy shit, read how this romanticized view is in complete opposition to the pessimism spread among the Greeks. Even Nietzsche acknowledged it, but knew that out of this pessimism Greeks managed to create a very particular cultural spirit, the tragic spirit. And it is still far from optimistic.

[Anonymous No.20424616]

>>20424595
Who?

[Anonymous No.20424618]

>>20423381
>>20423386
>>20423390
I agree and just want to add that Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity go even deeper than this. He argued against Christian metaphysics and its root, Platonic metaphysics, as well, all throughout his bibliography.

After reading and understanding Nietzsche in full, it becomes impossible to think of concepts like the Christian God, good and evil, heaven and hell, and even truth as anything more than relative notions stemming from weakness (as the projections of the weak), resentment (as the deceptions of the resentful), or socialization (as the assumptions of nobles from earlier periods). His revaluation of all matters of truth into matters of power makes far more sense, especially when modern science is taken into consideration.

[Anonymous No.20424622]

>>20424595
He thought Augustine's dogma was repugnant but liked the asceticism of Jesus' teachings.

[Anonymous No.20424624]

>>20424613
You know there are more kinds of paganism than Ancient Greek paganism, right? I believe he was talking about Odinism or Wotanism.

[Anonymous No.20424630]

>>20424618
Based. Good to see someone who has actually read and understood Nietzsche responding to my thread.

[Anonymous No.20424643]

>>20424598
What is this pagan morality based on? Just tell me? Be straightforward.

[Anonymous No.20424648]

>>20424607
Good to know that social justice warriors you hate so much are actually pagan, considering how active they are instead of passive.

[Anonymous No.20424662]

>>20424607
So John Stuart Mill was a pagan?

[Anonymous No.20424668]

>>20424643
Idk Christians destroyed it all. There's a lot of similarities with Hinduism as they have the similar origin of the ancient Indo-European religious beliefs. Common themes are reincarnation and striving towards excellence as opposed to heaven and abstaining from sin. You talk like a faggot btw.
>>20424648
I don't hate social justice warriors for being active. People should be actively fighting for what they think is right. I agree with Christians on a lot of things but I despise them because they are passive and have let things get so far. The most they have done is make teachers wait until the third grade to groom children into being gay.

[Anonymous No.20424675]

>>20424662
No, he was a utilitarian. I've said this many times in this thread and I'll say it again -- you midwits cannot think beyond identity politics. You need to group everything into a category before you can even process any information.

[Anonymous No.20424684]

>>20424624
>Odinism and Wotanism
So he was referring to revival movements of some specific pagan cultures? Wow this is even more retarded than I previously thought. And yes, I know there are more than Ancient Greek paganism, Mesopotamian and Babylonian paganism are likewise filled with pessimistic literature. Anyway, Christianity positing rewards, after life, presence of God within, etc. is far from solely pessimistic. Look at protestant evangelicals.

[Anonymous No.20424703]

>>20424668
Why do you even expect Christians to do something? The last time they cared about something passionately was in 17th century and they got a lot of shit for it in the 18th century. Christians are no more able to prevent what is happening today than pagans were able to prevent Christians from taking power. But I doubt you hate pagans as much for simply rolling over and allowing Christians to seize power in the 4th century.

As for Hinduism. That’s not what Schopenhauer thought. Didn’t Schopenhauer argue that Buddhism and Hinduism are the most truthful religions, because they both acknowledge the vanity of earthly existence?

[Anonymous No.20424707]

>>20424618
You know Christianity good and evil, heaven and hell are just forms of the same mechanisms the gentiles used (and they had to) in order to secute their own community with duties, right? Plato talks about it in Gorgias iirc. I know, they had an active and creative power, after all they founded the civil order, whereas Christian values were more reactive, progressive. Anyhow, this simplistic distinction of yours doesn’t go far enough.

[Anonymous No.20424767]

>>20424703
>As for Hinduism. That’s not what Schopenhauer thought. Didn’t Schopenhauer argue that Buddhism and Hinduism are the most truthful religions, because they both acknowledge the vanity of earthly existence?
Why are you talking about Schopenhauer? Your response is phrased as if I am using Schopenhauer to support my arguments. While you're right in saying that's Schopenhauer's view, Nietzsche's view was that the Lawbook of Manu is superior to The Bible as a moral guide of how to live. Hinduism has a strong emphasis on glorifying that which is noble, strong, beautiful, and intelligence. This is why India has such a strong class system. These aristocratic values are what were subverted in Europe by Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20424776]

>>20424668
History already proved that Greco-Roman pagans are not so different from modern Christians. Christianity didn’t need to take hold in the Roman Empire. The only reason it did was because pagans didn’t care enough to stop it (and they could have stopped it. Didn’t Japan stop it? Didn’t ancient Egypt prevent the worship of Aten being imposed on them?)

As Edward Gibbon noted himself.

> Gibbon believes that Constantine was ready, indeed anxious, to be seduced by Christianity. The Church was rich and powerful, and had drawn to itself much of the brains and energy of the Empire. The non-Christians were largely inert, like the nobility, or poor and uneducated. The intellectual vigor of the Christians is patent in the third century, especially in the second half. The emperors had, from Decius on, irregularly fought the new faith, and then gradually attached Christians to the government. Gibbon is careful to point out that although the Christians represented a distinct minority in the Empire, they were dedicated men who stood out from their degenerate contemporaries, writing that :

> “In the beginning of the fourth century the Christians still bore a very inadequate proportion of the inhabitants of the empire; but among a degenerate people, who viewed the change of masters with the indifferenceof slaves, the spirit and union of a religious party might assist the popular leader to whose service, from a principleof conscience, they had devoted their lives and fortunes.”

It’s not matter of Christians being more passive. Far from it during the early centuries. They were far more active about their religion than pagans to the point it was regarded as ‘excessive superstition.’

It’s just that soon enough everyone eventually stops caring. It happened with pagans and now it’s the same with Christians.

[Anonymous No.20424789]

>>20424776
>History already proved that Greco-Roman pagans are not so different from modern Christians.
They are quite different, though.
>Christianity didn’t need to take hold in the Roman Empire. The only reason it did was because pagans didn’t care enough to stop it (and they could have stopped it. Didn’t Japan stop it? Didn’t ancient Egypt prevent the worship of Aten being imposed on them?
This is a very valid point. Ancient Romans are absolutely retarded for letting a Jew on a stick become the main point of worship in their countries. I don't deny this -- the weakness of ancient Europeans that allowed this semitic religion to become dominant in Europe are absolutely guilty in this situation.
>It’s not matter of Christians being more passive. Far from it during the early centuries. They were far more active about their religion than pagans to the point it was regarded as ‘excessive superstition.’
Yeah, I never said Christians were always passive, just that modern conservacuck ones are.

All of this has little to do with the fact that Christianity subverts the aristocratic value equation - the main point of this thread from which we have long ago deviated.

[Anonymous No.20424800]

>>20424767
> noble, strong, beautiful, and intelligent

Words literally no one associates with India. Also South India is richer than the more “aristocratic” north India. That should tell you enough.

Striving for excellence? The average Christian in India is wealthier than the average Hindu (it’s true. Search it up.) There’s your ideals about Hinduism and then there’s the actual reality.

[Anonymous No.20424818]

>>20424800
Again, focusing on identity politics rather than what is actually written in the books associated with the religion. I guess it is true when they say /lit/ doesn't read.

[Anonymous No.20424882]

>>20424818
In India Christians might as well be the aristocrats.

In Japan too.

> There have been about 58 PMs of Japan since 1885. 7 of them where Christians, making Christians 10% of all Japanese PMs despite Christians making up only 1% of the Japanese population.

Nietzsche might argue that Christianity is life-denying, but reality says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20424897]

>>20424882
>Nietzsche might argue that Christianity is life-denying, but reality says otherwise.
Thing is that Nietzsche’s argument rests on what is written in the Bible while your argument rests on the correlation between income and religious affiliation. You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.20424994]

>>20424776
>History already proved that Greco-Roman pagans are not so different from modern Christians.
because bothe Late Greco-Roman paganism and Christianity were heavenly influenced by platonic philosophy and neoplatonism, that Nietzsche pointed as the origin of things he criticized in oppose of the more archaic traits of the mythopoetic traditions that were criticized by Plato for not following his model of morality

[Anonymous No.20425013]

>>20424897
It’s just science, you know. I agree that Christianity’s teachings are not exactly life-affirming, but I care about the actual evidence. And what does it show? That Christians whether in India, Africa or East Asia tend to do just as well as other religious groups when in competition, so they’re no less focused about this earthly life. They have the time to put themselves on top. It seems they have the time to think about this world and the next.

It’s amazing that statistics has not destroyed Nietzsche because that is all it takes.

[Anonymous No.20425087]

>>20425013
>but I care about the actual evidence.
It's literally not evidence you fucking retard.
>It’s amazing that statistics has not destroyed Nietzsche because that is all it takes.
It really is true that the stupidest people are the most arrogant.
>so they’re no less focused about this earthly life. They have the time to put themselves on top. It seems they have the time to think about this world and the next.
Reminder that Christians allowed this world to become as degenerate as it is. Christians are to blame for immigration, allowing the Jews to gain power, and all the other biggest problems we face today. Making lots of money =/= care about the world you leave behind for your descendants.

[Anonymous No.20425098]

>>20425087
Might as well go back far enough to blame the pagans since they’re the ones who were literally stupid enough to adopt a foreign Jew religion with not much resistance. I mean what were pagans thinking?

[Anonymous No.20425107]

>>20425098
>Might as well go back far enough to blame the pagans since they’re the ones who were literally stupid enough to adopt a foreign Jew religion with not much resistance. I mean what were pagans thinking?
Literally this.

[Anonymous No.20425137]

>>20424662
Yes.

[Anonymous No.20425144]

In the same vein:
>The Jews--a people "born for slavery," as Tacitus and the whole ancient world say of them; "the chosen people among the nations," as they themselves say and believe--the Jews performed the miracle of the inversion of valuations, by means of which life on earth obtained a new and dangerous charm for a couple of millenniums. Their prophets fused into one the expressions "rich," "godless," "wicked," "violent," "sensual," and for the first time coined the word "world" as a term of reproach. In this inversion of valuations (in which is also included the use of the word "poor" as synonymous with "saint" and "friend") the significance of the Jewish people is to be found; it is with THEM that the SLAVE-INSURRECTION IN MORALS commences.
--Beyond Good and Evil (195)

[Anonymous No.20425152]

>>20425098
Just further proof that nationalism is truly a 19th century invention. People had different mindset back then and it’s not the blood and soil type they like to imagine.

Obviously Pagans didn’t hate the Jews enough to reject their religion like now you often find with some people. I guess modern people are actually more blood and soil then those from the past if anything.

[Anonymous No.20425189]

>>20425144
Nietzsche is wrong here and I’m sorry to tell you, but the Jews were not the only people scorned as a slave race by the Romans. The Goths (so germs) and Scythians were too

> For late Roman easterners, the words Gothus were synonymous with slave. Emperor Julian, for example, scorned the Goths as a race fit only for Galatian slave traders. Every household had Scythian slaves, Synesius remarked, since these were the best adapted to serving Romans.

[Anonymous No.20425203]

>>20425189
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That a different enslaved people would've been expected to develop slave morality? I think it's a specifically Jewish view of things because their origin story as a people is based on the Exodus, when God delivered them from slavery in Egypt, showing a clear preference for the Hebrew slaves over their masters.

[Anonymous No.20425221]

>>20423475
Then they really wouldn't be Christian. Nietzsche is hardly a money changer in the temple.

[Anonymous No.20425255]

>>20423488
You could argue that in the historical context the commodification of women (outside of africa) was tied to a woman's ability to assure offspring of the husband's family. If a woman was promiscuous she would be robbing her family. If a man was rich he could have multiple women and deprive the rest of society of their allotted female.

[Anonymous No.20425262]

>>20425013
Nietzsche argues about the christian values on the bible. Do you see most christians acting like they should according to the bible? Do you think that affects the outcomes of these studies?

[Anonymous No.20425273]

>>20423581
>Holy fuck you cant be serious. Nobody can be this dense
One of the main reasons they started the crusades was to have the knights do something other than murder each other all day.

Everything else that anon said was accurate too

[Anonymous No.20425291]

>>20424220
Yeah but that’s more accurate to Nietszche than Christchads. Last time I checked nobody outside of philosophy students and neopagans even knows or cares who he is. So how is he stronger than Christianity?

[Anonymous No.20425313]

>>20423542
(This is what neopagans actually believe)

[Anonymous No.20425399]

>>20425291
Appealing to the masses is proof of strength?

[Anonymous No.20425457]

>>20425399
Friendly reminder that while Nazis and communists had to take power through the common slave masses by way of revolution or democracy, Christianity took power through a militarily successful emperor.

And yes, that makes Christianity more aristocratic than any modern political ideology.

[Anonymous No.20425486]

>>20425457
>that makes Christianity more aristocratic
“Egalitarianism is more aristocratic than aristocracy.” If you actually believed in Christianity you wouldn’t be trying to argue Christianity is better because it’s more aristocratic. This is a spin on the classic “might is right means Christians are right” even though Christians don’t think might is right.

[Anonymous No.20425525]

>>20425457
Who cares about Nazis and Communists? Christianity like the gnostic movements of the late antiquity was a phenomenon of the rabble. I don’t condemn Christianity in its entirety, but it opened the path, due to its beliefs and values, to the most slavish values and idolatry of the weak mentality we have today. (Also commies and socialists are products and these of gnostics and christians movements).

[Anonymous No.20425539]

>>20424395
Nice Strawman bro.

[Anonymous No.20425580]

>>20425486
Well, I’m not a Christian but I argue in favour of it to piss you all off. Either way, I’m not saying Christianity is intentionally aristocratic, but unintentionally.

There’s a reason Christians ended slavery. They knew Christians are too superior for it. Pagans tolerated it because they knew the majority of pagans are made for it. In Christianity everyone is his own master.

[Anonymous No.20425628]

>>20425525
Someone needs to tell Alexander the Great about his unacceptable slave morality!

[Anonymous No.20425665]

>>20425580
>christianity is aristocratic unintentionally, christians ended slavery because they were too superior for it
Holy shit you are really retarded

[Anonymous No.20425696]

>>20425628
What does it have to do with anything I said in that other post? Also, what about this quote would fit in slave morality according to you? It can only be defined whether it is or not if we know what Alexander meant by his factor of differentiation (virtue).

[Anonymous No.20425708]

>>20425580
>Well, I’m not a Christian but I argue in favour of it to piss you all off.
OP here. There are 22 unique posters in this thread. Most of the replies in favour of Nietzsche have been from me, and only about 4 haven’t been. If your goal is to piss a lot of people off you have chosen the wrong side. Also, your argument is laughable. Christians didn’t end slavery because they thought they are superior, it was more them thinking that all men are equal under Christ. Egalitarian, not aristocratic. If Christians were content being superior over non-Christians why did they make such effort to convert people? Why did missionaries travel to Asia and Africa to spread the message of Christ? Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.20425721]

>>20425665
Christianity is not inherently wrong in its morality. History has more than proven that “everyone who is now last will be first.” No one knows what the future holds.

Also

> The Christian religion, which commands men to love one another, no doubt wills that every people should have the best political laws and the best civil laws, because they are, next to itself, the greatest good that men can give and receive…. But, as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural, though, in some countries, it be founded on natural reason; and a wide difference ought to be made betwixt such countries and those in which even natural reason rejects it, as in Europe, where it has been so happily abolished. Plutarch, in the life of Numa, says, that, in Saturn’s time, there was neither slave nor master. Christianity has restored that age in our climates. - Montesquieu

[Anonymous No.20425755]

>>20425721
>The Christian religion, which commands men to love one another, no doubt wills that every people should have the best political laws and the best civil laws, because they are, next to itself, the greatest good that men can give and receive…. But, as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural, though, in some countries, it be founded on natural reason; and a wide difference ought to be made betwixt such countries and those in which even natural reason rejects it, as in Europe, where it has been so happily abolished. Plutarch, in the life of Numa, says, that, in Saturn’s time, there was neither slave nor master. Christianity has restored that age in our climates. - Montesquieu
This just proves Christians didn’t abolish slavery because they felt too superior for it, more so that they felt that all men were equal. It’s them shying away from feeling any sort of superiority over any other men and shaming others for feeling superior also. Like I said before, Egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.20425766]

>>20425708
Christians did believe they were superior unlike pagans. After all, they believed they were made in the image of God. Pagans did not. Christianity believes no human should see themselves as being inferior or as a slave. When Constantine took power, he outlawed branding on the face out of respect for the biblical doctrine that the human visage was created in the image of divine beauty.

Christianity rejects submission.

[Anonymous No.20425769]

>>20423386
Marxists think like this, which Makes sense, seeing how it was founded by Jews.

[Anonymous No.20425834]

>>20425769
Nazism is actually more Jewish. In fact, Nazism should be called Judeo-Nazism as one believes in a “chosen race” while the other believes in the “master race.” Christianity and Marxism rejects and discards this very Judaic belief.

[Anonymous No.20425872]

>>20425721
>he keeps bringing Nazism as his only argument
But yeah we all know you are baiting as you yourself just admitted, why keep responding? Why do you continue with it?

[Anonymous No.20425894]

>>20425834
>Anyone who dislikes Marxism is a Nazi
That's a pretty Jewish argument

[Anonymous No.20425896]

>>20425766
Christians saw only themselves created in the image of God? So not the Jews who wrote this story? Rejecting submission is a trait of a slavish and inferior nature, failing to recognize your place in the world, this is how communist operate, you know. Anyway this doesn’t even make sense. If you want to achieve your objective, try makiny better bait posts, dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.20425897]

>>20425766
>Christians did believe they were superior unlike pagans. After all, they believed they were made in the image of God. Pagans did not.
Christianity teaches that all men are made in the image of God, whence the deep philanthropy of Christianity, and the desire to love other men as you love yourself, and to see the sinner as a lost son, languishing in his ignorance, eliciting pity and compassion rather than hatred. Of course, Christians did see themselves as superior, in the sense that they spurned the errors of the pagans. They did not partake in idolatry, whoredom and what have you. More importantly they had that sense of religious exclusivity, they were the elect, God's chosen. It was a very different thing when Christianity was a minority sect.
>Pagans did not. Christianity believes no human should see themselves as being inferior or as a slave.
You're perhaps going a bit far, but you're correct that the imago dei granted granted the Christian dignity.
>Christianity rejects submission.
No it didn't. Have you forgotten the Middle Ages? The era of Feudalism, of pledges and oaths of fealthy to one's lord, in which treason was the greatest sin? It was a direct continuation of the Germanic warrior-culture's institution of loyalty and fighting in the nameof your master as a part of the retinue of a warlord. Subserviance was always a part of it, especially considering how this warrior master-servant dynamic was transcribed to the relationship of God and the Church, rendering the ideal Christian a knight and slave of Christ.

[Anonymous No.20425924]

>>20425834
Nazis don't believe in a chosen race. They just believe genetics is more important than anything else. Marxism is very much Jewish because it was founded by Jews (Marx, Hess, and Lenin) who believe in an exalted group of people the proletarian mob, the lower class scum of society, should have a revolution to destroy all forms of high culture out of pure spite and jealousy. Modern Marxism takes it future to argue non-white people are the chosen ones, and they must replace their European masters. The Marxist theory of social change is literally just Jewish Millennialism from the Talmud. Jews use the lower classes as cannon fodder, they believe the goys should fight, while the Jews set the ground work for their future rule. That's why the Jews control the banks and the media - to raise armies goy who will sacrifice themselves for their utopia.

[Anonymous No.20426027]

>>20425896
You’re essentially admitting that one should be a cuck? Cause submission to anyone is nothing but cuckery. Why should I submit to Hitler anymore than I should submit to a nigger?

[Anonymous No.20426077]

>>20425897
Everyone was free in the Middle Ages. In fact, I would say it was the last time humanity was truly free. Renaissance with its reestablishment of classical values happened and humanity was once more enslaved and slavery unleashed once more during the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

[Anonymous No.20426109]

>>20425924
Absolutely wrong

> Nazi Racialism presents the crudest form of materialism, singularly cruder then that of economic materialism. It corresponds to an extreme determinism and a final negation of spiritual freedom. Members of the out-cast race suffer the fatal consequences of their blood and cannot hope for salvation. Economics depends upon ideas, not upon physiology and anatomy, and its determining factors are after all not conditioned by the shape of the skull and the colour of the hair. Thus racial ideology is dehumanised in a greater degree than proletarian ideology. From the standpoint of social class, in fact, a man may gain salvation by proceeding to transform his conscience, for example, by adopting the Marxist conception of the world. Even if he is by birth a bourgeois or an aristocrat he can hope to become a people’s commissar. From the racial point of view, however, the Jew can have no salvation; neither conversion to Christianity, nor even adherence to national socialist doctrines can help him in the least. Blood overrules any development of conscience.

[Anonymous No.20426111]

>>20425766
>Christianity rejects submission.
The whole point of Christianity is submission to God. Your argument that Christians see themselves as superior as they are made in the image of God makes no sense. Christians believe that about all men. If all men are equal there can be no superior men, ergo Christianity is not about superiority.

>>20425769
Indeed. Marxism is an extreme version of equality, and you’re right, it’s a Jewish creation, just like Christianity.

>>20426027
If you’re unable to discern which sort of people you should follow based on the traits they exhibit then I seriously don’t think there is any hope for you.

[Anonymous No.20426165]

>>20426111
Submission to God, but not to any earthly person. There’s a difference since only God is superior.

>>20426111
I follow those who don’t tell me to submit to them. Why should anyone submit to a former homeless beggar like Hitler anyway? He’s no better than anyone else. Only God is.

[Anonymous No.20426179]

>>20426111
Nazis believed in equality (class equality within race). So they were just more hypocritical about equality than communists. That’s the only difference.

[Anonymous No.20426219]

>>20426165
>>20426179
No idea why you guys keep bringing up Hitler and Nazism. I’ve never mentioned it in any of my replies. I think someone else just said Nietzsche’s description of Christianity also applies to communism and you morons assumed they were a nazi. This thread is about Nietzsche’s philosophy and Christianity not Nazism and Communism.

[Anonymous No.20426230]

>>20426165
>i follow those who dont tell me to submit to them
>i only follow god because he obviously dont care about people following him

Can we just stop responding to this baiting retard?

[Anonymous No.20426254]

>>20426230
>Can we just stop responding to this baiting retard?
Good point. It seems the Christians that were here to argue in good faith all gave up and now there are only bait repliers, lmao. This has been a good thread.

[Anonymous No.20426392]

>>20423381
Reading this thread, I see it’s mostly euroshits trying to somehow simultaneously blame Christianity for their modern problems while arguing how they were never Christian to begin with for the last 1700 years. Absolutely hysterical.

Christianity raised euroshits so high and now it brings them down so low. If so, Christianity has done its job. It has proven itself true in its teachings. But it seems that euroshits never picked up on Christian teachings before it was too late. They got too prideful as happened with the Nazis. They mistook the temporary success they achieved under some Jew religion for innate superiority and they blundered. One doesn’t try to overturn a thousand years of morality overnight and that’s what Nazis tried to do. It backfired. And as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the extremity of the nazis created an equally extreme reaction that we now see today.

No. The problem isn’t Christianity. The problem was G*rms and their prideful conceit that Christianity has so often warned against as a cause of downfall for many, but it’s too unbearable to admit and blaming Christianity brings greater solace and ease.

[Anonymous No.20426406]

>>20426392
You are brown.

[Anonymous No.20426450]

>>20426406
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. 1945. The year it was proven true.

[Anonymous No.20426455]

>>20426165
>not to any other earthly person
Romans 13: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Paul clearly tells you to submit to earthly authority.

[Anonymous No.20426494]

I remember when /lit/ wasn't ruined by Christian tradlarpers. It was a better time.

[Anonymous No.20426506]

>>20425766
Retard, Christianity corresponds with the rise of divine rule in Rome and beyond. It was and is the biggest enabler of monarch power.

[Anonymous No.20426536]

>>20423408
The actual answer is that it's a reaction to National Socialism, to the extent that such people are practicing "Christian values" it's due to attempting to outflank Christianity by declaring it a failure.

[Anonymous No.20426586]

>>20426506
Honestly without monarchs adopting Christianity, it would never have had any power just like in Japan. It’s funny to think the people who fought hardest against Christianity was the Saxons and it was because they lacked a king to impose Christianity on all of them. It was the Saxon lower classes who resisted Christianity most while the warrior aristocracy that Nietzsche so highly praises caved in

> “The position of the Saxon aristocracy was also strengthened by Charlemagne’s new codification of Saxon tribal law in the Lex Saxonum, which widened the social gap between nobility and the rest. Much of the Saxon aristocracy seems to have accepted the fact of Carolingian domination at an early stage, but enough resistance remained at a tribal level for the war to continue. In return for handing over hostages from the ranks of free men and litt (half-free), the existing Saxon tribal aristocracies mostly seem to have retained their lands and status. In fact the next phase of the struggle against Carolingian domination seems largely to have been fought by the middle and lower ranks of Saxon society, while much if not most of the Saxon aristocracy supported the Frankish conquerors and Christianity.”

[Anonymous No.20427782]

>>20424707
>You know Christianity good and evil, heaven and hell are just forms of the same mechanisms the gentiles used (and they had to) in order to secute their own community with duties, right?
It isn't. Read Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche explains the differences in major depth. The former pagan morality was good and bad, not good and evil.

[Anonymous No.20427893]

>>20427782
This was a later aristocratic ethos. All societies had to be founded on religious principles, and by rule religious principles are morals of the highest force (metaphysical/theological). Check also Plato’s Gorgias, but Fustel de Coulanges’ Ancient City, for example, is also a good source. However, the primitive pagans, at least the Indo-European ethnos, were also guided by conquests and domination and thus they instituted their religions and customs on the indigenous people of Europe.

[Anonymous No.20427928]

>>20427893
Plato came later and isn't relevant. Nietzsche's master morality originated from Theognis, a poet who lived a century prior to Plato, and it refers to the morality of the nobility spanning previous centuries and millennia, no doubt introduced to Europe by the patriarchal horse-riding kurgans who emerged from the steppes several thousand years prior to build the earliest known fortresses and militarily take over the territory, the fabled "hyperboreans" or those from "beyond the north wind." Good and evil meanwhile is Zoroastrian in origin, it's an Arabic mentality from further south.

[Anonymous No.20428192]

>>20427928
Are you stupid? My referring to Plato was that he knew what served the institutions both practical and theoretical. I know Nietzsche was influenced by Theognis, and you confirm what I said about an heroic, aristocratic age as the foundation of Nietzsche's ideas (which I agree is the most sublime). But no community can prosper without their own mores, and the lower, savage, foreign men menacing the stability of a tribe was not simply considered bad, but a menace, an evil. There is no exclusive good and evil value to Zoroastrianism, or ''arabic mentality'' (does it even make sense when Greek people was mingled with indigenous, steppe people, dorians, and many near eastern peoples, just like near eastern peoples suffered from invasions from the steppe too?).

[Anonymous No.20428217]

>>20426109
>Source
>Some (((marxist)))
Nobody cares about Shekelburg's opinion on Nazism.

[Anonymous No.20428249]

>>20423381
I recently returned to this work -- resentment and justice as revenge. In the U.S., all those who want 'justice' actually want revenge.

[Anonymous No.20428285]

>>20428192
>But no community can prosper without their own mores, and the lower, savage, foreign men menacing the stability of a tribe was not simply considered bad, but a menace, an evil
You don't understand the difference between bad and evil and the attitudes that configure one or the other in their value system. The more intelligent, more honest nobility of a Theognis recognized the perspective of the other while the unintelligent and cheating slaves didn't; in other words, slaves didn't see or believe in any higher and lower, which was the motivation for their dishonesty and impulsive violence. That nobility saw the slaves as bad, as in poor quality, because they understood them — the slaves didn't understand the nobles and just saw them as beasts of prey, or monsters.

You're wrong anyway. Communities don't need to believe in evil or label things as evil. What they need to do is recognize the differences between themselves and others, and recognize what is good for them and what isn't — but at no point do they also have to embellish it with ignorant religious dogma. That is an Arabic mentality, and we can see Arabs today demonstrating this, since so many of them are violent, dirty cheats.

[Anonymous No.20428289]

>>20428249
Nietzsche's theory of slave morality coincides with his constant critiques of socialism and socialists. Pretty much work Nietzsche wrote he slammed socialists for promoting utopianism and slave values such as equality and envy towards aristocratic values. There was this excellent essay that as least a book length that discussed his critique in length. I have to find it though.

[Anonymous No.20428295]

>>20428249
Actually, here you go
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d5ebd47df6e1f0001d75c10/t/5d6690855a060f0001e42dae/1567002757608/Nicholas+Buccola+Nietzsche+on+Socialism.pdf
Its very, very relevant to leftism today in the US.

[Anonymous No.20428368]

>>20428285
I'm not misunderstanding anything, I am the one recognizing both attitudes, but you are the one missing their order of existence. Communities do need to believe in an absolute set of values, which Nietzsche himself says in the GoM how cruel and terrible they needed to be in order to determine a group of people as united, cohesive (hence again what I said about the theological force above).
>but at no point do they also have to embellish it with ignorant religious dogma
This is the conceit of the modern scholar speaking, like all grammarians and scholars missed the tropes in ancient literature for mere rhetorical devices, embellishments as you also think, when in reality they were epistemological necessities and corollaries.

>The more intelligent, more honest nobility of a Theognis recognized the perspective of the other while the unintelligent and cheating slaves didn't; in other words, slaves didn't see or believe in any higher and lower, which was the motivation for their dishonesty and impulsive violence.
100% true. You are just missing that this implicates a previous age, thus a previous mentality. The nobles recognized themselves as divine, as descended from the gods, as favoured by them, whereas the plebeians were seen by them as godless, as beasts. The passage to good vs. bad needs to follow the good vs. evil for the very reason that where the divine speaks and influences directly all the institutions and culture of the primitives, the contrary and menace to this order is also grounded on theological nature, hence it is not bad but evil itself (the condition which dehumanizes, destroys the community and makes the noble and all people return to that bestial condition).

Now take into consideration all the purificatory rites most pagan societies were obsessed with. The profane, or the forces and acts against the pure, divine order are not simply dismissed as bad, as the noble attitude will have with plebeians, they are actively, daily opposed. Is this the behaviour of a noble class to think all the time about what is simply bad, lesser? To revolve their whole institutions around this struggle? I'll stop here, I think it is enough, if not, I can only recommend you to read books (Walter Burkert, Fustel de Coulanges, Vico, Girard, Dodds).

[Anonymous No.20428384]

> medieval kings and aristocrats be like: yeah I worship a low-class, poor carpenter. What’s the problem?
> 21st century peasants be like: I can’t worship this Jew/Semite cause we were kings n shiet

Who says we don’t live in a more aristocratic age than ever?

[Anonymous No.20428401]

>>20428368
>Communities do need to believe in an absolute set of values
Both bad and evil are "absolute values." Their absolute nature is not what differentiates them, because they share that nature. What differentiates them is the strength of will behind the projection. The one who deems the other as bad has sufficient strength to understand the other, while the one who deems the other as evil doesn't.

Not every community has to believe in evil in order to function or even survive. However, in this world, such communities have to learn to become invisible, which is really what Nietzsche was hoping for. That's one of the biggest reasons why he publicly denounced the anti-Semites — they made too much of a display.

[Anonymous No.20428405]

>>20428384
After centuries of worshipping Jesus, the West's appetite for weakness has lead them to more extreme practices of worshipping weakness (BLM and LGBT pride parades) and demonising strength (tearing down statues of European men).

[Anonymous No.20428411]

>>20424430
> Did the Ancient Romans not make advances in science despite having slaves?

Besides one Egyptian guy living in Alexandria, they actually didn’t make advances in science. Even Wikipedia can only list two scientists from the Roman Empire.

[Anonymous No.20428425]

>>20428411
The Romans built roads, invented the water wheel, and constructed vast aqueducts that we marvel at today. Also, Ancient Greece had slaves too and they produced Pythagoras, Archimedes, and Ptolemy.

[Anonymous No.20428428]

>>20428405
And what weakness were pagans worshipping for centuries that led them to also worship an oppressed and weak man like Jesus and tear down statues of strong pagan Gods?

[Anonymous No.20428434]

>>20428428
The reason for that transition is not the same. What was the reason? See my relevant replies above. Your attempts to be clever have grown increasingly pathetic throughout the progression of this thread.

[Anonymous No.20428437]

>>20428401
>What differentiates them is the strength of will behind the projection. The one who deems the other as bad has sufficient strength to understand the other, while the one who deems the other as evil doesn't.
Yes, this is what I meant by theological force of the primitives' mentality. Or do you think the demoi, the plebeians, foreigners were actual different creatures from the nobles and that these were actually descended from gods? Or you think that they invented all the theological and mythological literature because they wanted something cool to believe in order to ground their pre-established rational values on these cool stories? Can you even think for a second?

>Not every community has to believe in evil in order to function or even survive.
We just agreed on the force of will behind these beliefs. The first peoples did employ all their will against these contrary forces (we can even discuss about the nature of this evil here, which is not the same as in dualist theologies, despite being still a force to be repelled, much like also demons are). They did employ all their blood in order to secure their stability in daily shedding of blood.

I suggest you go read books because you can only repeat the same things about Nietzsche, arabs and semitic people. At this point I doubt you have ever even read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20428452]

https://youtu.be/PEuG6sPJtV8

[Anonymous No.20428459]

>>20428437
All theologizing and mythologizing comes from a lower rung on the hierarchy of wills. It's not the masters with the greatest strength of will doing those things, but the artists and priests who idolize the masters and turn them into the subject matter of their works.

>At this point I doubt you have ever even read Nietzsche.
This is rich coming from the guy who is trying to convince others in the Nietzsche thread that belief in good and evil is a necessary constituent of life.

[Anonymous No.20428496]

>>20428459
Ah, by strength of will you were referring to Nietzsche's conception of will. By that I was taking it literally, as it was obvious from all I wrote (that is, how they were DAILY performing complex rituals and purifications against profane forces, i.e. by strength I meant they were really dedicated to it). But yeah, I agree, again, that this first era is below the rung of the noble and heroic age. But can you understand that this noble and heroic age was not simply the foundation of the fucking Greek world, jesus fucking christ?

>This is rich coming from the guy who is trying to convince others in the Nietzsche thread that belief in good and evil is a necessary constituent of life.
I'm not trying to convince that good and evil is necessary you absolute illiterate braindead nigger. Learn how to read and interpret a composition of letters and words before posting. Anyway, I tried, I'm off to bed now and I seriously expect you to start reading books (after you become literate).

[Anonymous No.20428530]

>>20428496
>But can you understand that this noble and heroic age was not simply the foundation of the fucking Greek world, jesus fucking christ?
But it was. It was these masters' wills, capable of organizing all others, in greater depth than all others, that made civilization possible, and "evil" was not something that their wills posited on the earth.

[Anonymous No.20428759]

Fact is only an extremely fringe and politically extinct group will now be receptive to Nietzsche's identification of Christianity as the origin point of every form of egalitarianism in Western thought. Christian conservatives want to claim Christianity because it is the only concrete tradition that is even thinkable to appeal to, while conveniently ignoring Christianity's obviously subversive subtext. The Left also rejects the aforementioned conception of Christianity because this would mean that theirs is a movement that occurs within a religion; they're a just a millenarian sect of the debunked skydaddy cult. Interestingly however they do tacitly accept the characterization in part when they gloat about having "flanked Jesus from the left", surpassing and overcoming his doctrines by taking only the ethical kernel while discarding the theology.
That leaves, let's call a spade a spade, racist Darwinists and pagans as the only ones that both accept the identification and want to act on it. There are some liberals that recognize their indebtedness to Christianity though, for this I would strongly recommend the book Inventing the Individual. Keeping it /lit/ related. Easy read but pretty compelling stuff. If you want a more striking and quickly verifiable proof of Nietzsche's contention: go look up anything about the English Civil War or American abolitionism. You'll find Calvinists all the way down

[Anonymous No.20428762]

>>20428759
Quality post.

[Anonymous No.20429180]

>>20428434
Sounds like cope to me.

[Anonymous No.20429286]

>>20428759
It’s fringe among the liberal mainstream, but not among historians and academics in general. I’ve noticed there tends to be a great deal of affection for Christianity among atheist historians and this is no doubt because academics tend to be on the liberal side. Tom Holland is one liberal example. He is a Roman historian, but his appreciation for Christianity grew over time.

He is now obsessed and literally attributes everything in the west to Christianity (from science to the concept of secularism itself). You should listen to his history podcasts. It’s hard for him not to mention Christianity all the time.

Some liberals can also be quite defensive about Christianity. Tim O’Neil who is clearly an atheist liberal has a whole blog defending Christianity (not its teachings but its historical actions).

The atheist socialist George Orwell even bemoaned the death of Christianity and those who had tried to destroy the ‘soul of the west’ like Voltaire and Gibbon. During the eve of WW2, George Orwell wrote

> For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool full of barbed wire. It is as though in the space of ten years we had slid back into the Stone Age. Human types supposedly extinct for centuries, the dancing dervish, the robber chieftain, the Grand Inquisitor, have suddenly reappeared, not as inmates of lunatic asylums, but as the masters of the world. Mechanization and a collective economy seemingly aren't enough. By themselves they lead merely to the nightmare we are now enduring: endless war and endless underfeeding for the sake of war, slave populations toiling behind barbed wire, women dragged shrieking to the block, cork-lined cellars where the executioner blows your brains out from behind. So it appears that amputation of the soul isn't just a simple surgical job, like having your appendix out. The wound has a tendency to go septic.

> Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity’ and ‘Fear God, and keep His comandments: for this is the whole duty of man’. It is a viewpoint that has gained a lot of ground lately, among people who would have laughed at it only a few years ago. We are living in a nightmare precisely because we have tried to set up an earthly paradise. We have believed in ‘progress’. Trusted to human leadership, rendered unto Caesar the things that are God's — that approximately is the line of thought.

[Anonymous No.20429293]

>>20428425
Sorry but these days nearly every historian will give credit to Christianity above other things. In fact, they think it was vital.

> Historians of medieval Europe often treat the expansion of European Christian culture during the early and high Middle Ages as a protocolonial endeavour. Much of Central Europe was conquered or colonised by Christians, and the expansion of Europe’s frontiers came as a result of conquest, colonisation and mission.

> During the centuries after 800, the area of western, Christian culture—of Latin Christendom—at least doubled, as it came to encompass much of eastern and northern Europe and, in due time, also the Iberian Peninsula. This was a momentous development; it caused the population of Europe to reach a critical mass, which made possible the great ascendancy of European civilization that continues to this day. That greater population laid the foundation for more intense land use, more commerce, the reorganization of government, the expan�sion of education, and military innovations, among the many developments of the high Middle Ages that make up the historical background of modern western society. Europe’s expansion during the centuries around the year 1000 was, thus, not only a precedent for Europe’s colonial expansion to other continents in the early modern period, but also a necessary precondition for it.

[Anonymous No.20429305]

>>20429293
I don’t deny that most of the greatest scientists throughout history were Christian but their scientific excellence has nothing to do with them being Christian. Genesis basically says it’s evil for humans to pursue knowledge themselves and should rather submit to God and trust his word. If Christianity spread to Africa before Europe the Africans wouldn’t have made any significant contributions to science and Europe probably still would have.

[Anonymous No.20429449]

>>20429305
Except Christian tradition doesn’t hold that the tree of knowledge in itself was bad or evil but that the evil came from disobeying God.

> In Christian tradition, consuming the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the original sin committed by Adam and Eve that led to the fall of man in Genesis 3. In Catholicism, Augustine of Hippo taught that the "tree" should be understood both symbolically and as a real tree – similarly to Jerusalem being both a real city and a figure of Heavenly Jerusalem.[20] Augustine underlined that the fruits of that tree were not evil by themselves, because everything that God created "was good" (Genesis 1:12). It was disobedience of Adam and Eve, who had been told by God not to eat of the tree (Genesis 2:17), that caused disorder in the creation,[21] thus humanity inherited sin and guilt from Adam and Eve's sin.[22]

So yeah Christianity never thought pursuing knowledge was evil. They believe disobedience towards God is evil.

[Anonymous No.20429508]

>>20429449
So eating the apple of knowledge was only bad because it was disobeying God, right? That means the apple of knowledge isn't bad in itself. My question is, why did God tell them not to eat the apple of knowledge? Why would God prohibit something unless it was bad? Did you know there was this ancient document that the catholic church tried to have destroyed, but was later rediscovered, called The Apocalypse of Adam which is the Genesis story except Yahweh is the antagonist? Might broaden your perspective.

[Anonymous No.20429577]

>>20423381

[Anonymous No.20429583]

>>20429305
>Genesis basically says it’s evil for humans to pursue knowledge themselves and should rather submit to God and trust his word
Bruh, the endeavour of science took root in the west because of the specifically Christian claim of the intelligibility of the universe. Stop treating Christianity as being synonymous with evangelical fundamentalism.

[Anonymous No.20429618]

>>20429508
It was just a test brah like everything else

[Anonymous No.20429650]

>>20429577
That guy is pretty clearly a retard who has no idea what he is talking about.

[Anonymous No.20429658]

>>20429577
Why do retards think that a twitter screenshot somehow has credibility? It’s just a guy stating his views without making a single argument. You just took a random twitter user’s word for how you should view Nietzsche instead of thinking about it for yourself.

[Anonymous No.20429669]

>>20423488
There was never sexual morality, Augustine and Aquinas both said prostitution should be legal and Charlemagne openly kept concubines. No one took sexual morality seriously except virgin girls and monks until the puritans came on the scene and started getting angry Christians didn’t care about it

[Anonymous No.20429670]

>>20429650
Except he's right and Nietzsche is a bitch who would lose in a battle of rhetoric AND pure power when Plato pops his shoulder out of its socket with pure physical strength

[Anonymous No.20429774]

>>20429577
This guy is such a retard. A dimwit "artist" using big names and just uttering baseless opinions. Can guarantee you he hasn't read a single work of Plato or Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.20430040]

>>20429669
Do you know anything about why the Puritans were like that with sex? I’m thinking it must be something like sex-as-idol but I don’t really know. They seemed to be a really strange blend; sometimes anti-conformist sometimes proto-totalitarian. I think they deserve more attention because institutions they founded basically control the intellectual world now

[Anonymous No.20430264]

>>20423486
>meek
What was the original word from the New Testament?

[Anonymous No.20430699]

>>20427928
>Good and evil meanwhile is Zoroastrian in origin, it's an Arabic mentality from further south.
Zoroastrianism came from Central Asia, not the Levant, you moron. The Gathas indicate an origin somewhere in Yaghnob valley or Pamir mountains, collectively referred to as "Khorasan".
Also, if establishing a metaethics or normative ethics makes you 'Arab', which is something Nietzsche never claimed, then pretty much every world tradition is Arab then.

[Anonymous No.20431883]

>>20429669
>There was never sexual morality
Bullshit.

[Anonymous No.20432352]

>>20429669
"Their marriage code, however, is strict, and no feature of their morality deserves higher praise. "
Tacitus, Germania

[Anonymous No.20433239]

>>20432352
>Tacitus
shit source
he never went to germania and many of his claims were disproved by archaeology
he was just projecting his own opinions on morality in the germans as a way to say "we became worse than the barbarian" to other noble romans

[Anonymous No.20433467]

>>20424326
Oh wow, a suicide death cult, if Jim Jones lived in antiquity we would all be Jonesians.

[Anonymous No.20433476]

>>20424618
Any book recs for the criticism of Christian metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.20435133]

>>20429583
What counts as science to you? We were inventing technology thousands of years prior to even Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.20435251]

>>20423386
Literally the greatest writer of all time. No one else in human history has matched him in raw ability.

[Anonymous No.20435318]

>>20435251
Agreed, even someone who doesn't agree with his thoughts should see it. His writing is like music, even in English. He hits all the right notes within and in between every sentence.

[Anonymous No.20435433]

>>20423381
I disagree. The Antichrist is Nietzsche's main critique of Christianity. It is true that The Antichrist was meant to be the first volume of his planned magnum opus: The Will to Power. It is also true, that The Will to Power was not completed, he only finished the first volume of it. which we now know as the Antichrist. But each volume was meant to address a completely different topic, which is why he referred to each section as a volume. What you wrote implies that The Antichrist was somehow unfinished in some way, which is incorrect. The Antichrist was completely finished, polished, and published by Nietzsche himself (he submitted it in 1888, but the people he submitted it to didn't publish until some time later). The work we encounter in the Antichrist is exactly how he intended it. He wasn't able to write the other books to constitute the whole magnum opus, but it doesn't detract from The Antichrist. Especially since you'll see below that the topics of the different works in it are completely different. For his criticism of Christianity, The Antichrist is absolutely the primary source. But now that I think about it, what would have happened if he had the chance to complete the other volumes? What I wouldn't give to read them

His full plan for this work, as originally drawn up, was as follows:

Vol. I. The Antichrist: an Attempt at a Criticism of Christianity.
Vol. II. The Free Spirit: a Criticism of Philosophy as a Nihilistic Movement.
Vol. III. The Immoralist: a Criticism of Morality, the Most Fatal Form of Ignorance.
Vol. IV. Dionysus: the Philosophy of Eternal Recurrence.

[Anonymous No.20435468]

>>20435433
Never meant to imply that the Antichrist is incomplete, just that it exists within the context of a larger work regarding the re-evaluation of all values. The Antichrist discusses Christianity moving forward, while The Genealogy of Morals discusses Christianity’s influence on the past and present. Perhaps I could have used a better word than “main” to convey my point, but my point was simply that Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity within The Genealogy of Morals is a lot more powerful than the points he raises in The Antichrist. The reason I think it is a lot more powerful is because Nietzsche highlights the negative consequences of Christianity on society rather than just examining it as a worldview. In The Antichrist Nietzsche is sort of comparing Christianity to his own philosophy while in The Genealogy of Morality he compares it to Paganism. Nietzsche’s arguments in The Antichrist have been proven, in other threads, easy for seething Christians to strawman. As for his critique in The Genealogy of Morality, you can see that not a single Christian has been able to refute what he wrote.

[Anonymous No.20435483]

>>20435433
Those other three volumes would have been excellent. Even some of the passages among his unpublished notes that clearly would have found their way into them in some form (like all the writings on the types of nihilism and what develops nihilism) are still stunning reads.

[Anonymous No.20436517]

>>20433239
So there WAS sexual morality it was just in the Romans not the Germans?

[Anonymous No.20438337]

>>20436517
there was Tacitus personal opinion, not the roman general position

[Anonymous No.20438557]

>>20423408
Dumb nigger drivel. Actually kill yourself

[Anonymous No.20438636]

>>20438557
Not an argument. You are the only one behaving like a nigger in this thread. Seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.20438652]

>>20423381
Nietzsche is no-go territory for me as far as posting my thoughts. I’ve read him a lot and love him but Nietzsche threads here are wild. It’s obvious some never even read him, some read a little and misjudge him, some read him and think they know him too well. It creates quite the thread. I like my interpretation of Nietzsche even if it isn’t 100% correct, and I’ve benefited from it a lot. So fuck you all

[Anonymous No.20438663]

>>20438652
What kind of interpretation of him do you have?

[Anonymous No.20438683]

>>20438652
I feel the same way. Fuck you too, but in an understanding way.
>>20438663
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.20438757]

>>20438663
As this anon said>>20438683
I will say though, that Nietzsche didn’t want blind followers anyway

[Anonymous No.20438772]

>>20438757
By blind followers, I meant blind loyalty

[Anonymous No.20438977]

>>20438683
>>20438757
I know it is generally dangerous to give your takes on Nietzsche publicly like this, for there will always appear someone to deride or instantly attack you for it. But I was just genuinely curious. I think he is quite clear and direct in some passages (BGE comes to my mind easily) that he wants his readers to think about, absorb wisely what he writes. I could also add that the fact that he presents no systematic corpus and does present paths that may lead to different expressions of will contribute to this wish of his.

[Anonymous No.20438994]

>>20438977
A barebones interpretation I have is: the values forced on you by society aren’t necessarily your values. Go inwards to find yourself, and be your best true self, fuck the haters

[Anonymous No.20439043]

>>20438994
Yeah, this one is quite uncontroversial, the values we receive are forces exerted on ourselves, and our reception of them (totally accepting or denying) will also depend on how we take or is affected by them.
Go on.

[Anonymous No.20440002]

>>20423589
>He gives tons of examples of converted pagan kings behaving as the gospel says
That doesn't disprove what he said or demonstrate a flaw in his logic.

[Anonymous No.20440264]

>>20439043
You won’t fool me. I’ll just say that a lot of my thoughts on him are influenced by Kauffman.