Nietzsche's portrayal of Christ IS idiosyncratic, there is no doubting that, and I think mostly Arthyron is just pointing out examples of this idiosyncracy. Nietzche says this "psycology of the saviour" shines out of the Gospels IN SPITE of the Gospels (he certainly doesn't hold them to be infialliable works where every line must be taken as being equally valid)
Why I would suggest we should buy into his idiosyncratic portrayal is because of its honesty, self-consistency and the cutting insights it brings into the wider picture of sin and how it is to be overcome. The opposed picture put forward by the "Christian" church is incomprehensible.
Regardless I would be interested in hearing Arthyron's take on the passages regarding Jesus and the parallels with Bhuddism (20-45). Personally I think they are some of the most moving passages in all of Nietzsche's work and well worth reading.
link -
Nietzsche : The Antichrist
Precisely why I, as a Christ Follower, rely on Christ and His teaching rather than the dogma of men who have placed themselves in authority.
I'd be happy to give my opinion regarding Christ's teachings and Buddhism as examined by Nietzche, allow me a bit to read and decipher and I'll get to it.
I'll cover
20 first.
In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions--they are both decadence religions--but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.--1. Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. 2.The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared.
1. I wonder where his basis for comparison comes from, when he says "realistic" as it applies to spirituality, which is not based on physical reality.
2. Nietzche didn't follow his progressions all the way. While true that a "god" or "diety" plays no active role in Buddhism, that does not mean that the concept does not exist, or that it is unneccesary. Rather, on the contrary. As in all religions, within Buddhism, there is a system of metaphysical mechanics. There's the system by which one achieves enlightenment, for example. It's a gradual process that culminates in reaching a certain metaphysical plateau. One can only assume that logic, being the all-pervasive, "omnipotent" concept it is, also applies spiritually (if Logic does NOT apply, then there's no use discussing it, as it all becomes meaningless subjective nonsense where up is down, red is blue, and custard falls from the sky). Where exactly do these processes come from? By what power or authority was this system by which any human spirit can achieve this enlightened state brought into existence? Even Buddhism, which lacks a diety figure, neccesitates one or something like a god in its processes. Logic would dictate that something had to bring all these levels and planes of spiritual achievement and existence into being. So despite its reluctance to name any specific force/universal consciousness/entity/power, even in Buddhism, there is neccesarily a source for all things, and thus I disagree with Nietzche's claim that they've "disposed" of a god of some sort, because the evidence is right there to the contrary.
1. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil.--The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, and secondly, an extraordinary spirituality, a too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion of the "impersonal." (--Both of these states will be familiar to a few of my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me). These physiological states produced a depression, and Buddha tried to combat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the open, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; caution in the use of intoxicants; the same caution in arousing any of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood; finally, no worry, either on one's own account or on account of others. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or good cheer--he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts. He understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes health.
1. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree here. He states that a struggle with sin is not positive (in claiming that Christianity is not a genuinely positive religion), and then turns around to acknowledge the "struggle with suffering" and later in the paragraph the "depression" that results from the practice of Buddhism that Buddha combatted with hygienic measures. That's a rather self-defeating statement from where I'm standing. The only two conclusions I can make are thus: Either both Christianity and Buddhism are genuinely positive, or neither are. Christianity contains the same edict that suffering shall take place along with trials and tribulations, and that the Believer should rejoice when he encounters trials and tribulations. Interesting the things that he prescribes for overcoming the struggle with suffering are all things that Christ preached as simply the right way to live (moderation, abstaining from lusts and other impure impulses, avoiding intoxication, and the admonition against worrying), not simply as a means to an end. I'd also be curious as to how both Buddha and Nietzche come to this concept of "state of goodness." Where, how, and under what authority does Nietzche determine what is "good?" Nietzche seems to paint a rather Machiavellian perspective of the Buddha, as if all the things he does are simply means to an end, and have no intrinsic merit, but I guess that's the whole point of Nihilism (things not having any intrinsic worth). Guess that's where Freddy and I have to agree to disagree, that's too subjective for my tastes, especially for all his talk of objectivity.
Prayer is not included, 1. and neither is asceticism. There is no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of a monastery (--it is always possible to leave--). These things would have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above mentioned. 2. For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with unbelievers; his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to revenge, aversion, ressentiment (--"enmity never brings an end to enmity": the moving refrain of all Buddhism. . .) And in all this he was right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main regiminal purpose, are unhealthful. The mental fatigue that he observes, already plainly displayed in too much "objectivity" (that is, in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and of "egoism"), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual interests back to the ego. In Buddha's teaching egoism is a duty. The "one thing needful," the question "how can you be delivered from suffering," regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet. (--Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon pure "scientificality," to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to the estate of a morality) .
1. Asceticism is a decidedly Catholic trait, of which I do not practice. I don't ever recall Christ declaring we are not to deny all pleasure, but merely we're not to be seekers of pleasure rather than seekers of God, that when we seek God first, all those things will fall into place, whereas when we try to seek life, it will elude us.
2. Also a tenet of Christianity. "As long as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." and also the other passages about turning the other cheek, going the second mile, etc. Then, there's "vengeance is mine" says the Lord, so revenge is not for our sake. "Do not let the sun go down on your wrath." etc etc. Christianity has comparable teachings related to different contexts (as they developed in very different cultures, so the message is thus tailored to those cultures).
That about sums it up for 20. I'll get to 45 in a bit.
Is that what you were looking for, or would you like me to elaborate more on anything specific?
Time for
45.
1.--I offer a few examples of the sort of thing these petty people have got into their heads--what they have put into the mouth of the Master: the unalloyed creed of "beautiful souls."--
2."And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city" (Mark vi, 11)--How evangelical!
3."And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark ix, 42) .--How evangelical! --
4."And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire; Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark ix, 47)15--It is not exactly the eye that is meant.
5."Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark ix, 1.)--Well lied, lion!16 . . . .
6."Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For . . ." (Note of a psychologist. Christian morality is refuted by its fors: its reasons are against it,--this makes it Christian.) Mark viii, 34.--
7."Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew vii, l.)17--What a notion of justice, of a "just" judge! . . .
8."For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matthew V, 46.)18--Principle of "Christian love": it insists upon being well paid in the end. . . .
9."But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew vi, 15.)--Very compromising for the said "father."
10."But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew vi, 33.)--All these things: namely, food, clothing, all the necessities of life. An error, to put it mildly. . . . A bit before this God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases.
11."Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." (Luke vi, 23.)--Impudent rabble! It compares itself to the prophets. . .
12."Know yea not that yea are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelt in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple yea are." (Paul, 1 Corinthians iii, 16.)19--For that sort of thing one cannot have enough contempt. . . .
13."Do yea not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are yea unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (Paul, 1 Corinthians vi, 2.)--Unfortunately, not merely the speech of a lunatic. . .
14.This frightful impostor then proceeds: "Know yea not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?". . .
"15.Hat not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. . . . Not many wise men after the flesh, not men mighty, not many noble are called: But God hat chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hat chosen the weak things of the world confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hat God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." (Paul, 1 Corinthians i, 20ff.)20 --In order to understand this passage, a first rate example of the psychology underlying every Chandala-morality, one should read the first part of my "Genealogy of Morals": there, for the first time, the antagonism between a noble morality and a morality born of ressentiment and impotent vengefulness is exhibited. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge. . . .
To preface this, something to note, this whole segment is a rather disingenuous portrayal of Scripture. It's easy to insinuate and suggest anything you want really, when you display and criticize isolated verses of scripture without context. That's how men tried to justify slavery. This isn't a flaw of Scripture though, any text could be used in this manner. It's simply a dishonest intellectual practice. So do keep in mind he's only referencing individual scriptures, without placing them in context, so feel free to look up the verses as they relate to the chapters they come from as I will probably do, to ensure them an honest and legitimate hearing.
1. Here's the part where Nietzche admits to committing intellectual suicide. Without grounds, he insinuates that Christians either A. falsified the words of Christ, or B. speak from an authority they do not have (as Nietzche doesn't believe in any god). The intellectual suicide comes in the deliberate misrepresentation of Scripture by presenting isolated scriptures, then ridiculing them with sarcasm. This is not philosophy, this is an embittered small dog barking at a gentle large dog.
2. Try your best, and if they reject you, then move on, and the fate of their souls will be on their own hands. What's so terribly egregious about that? People won't listen if they don't want to, no matter if what you say is true or not. If they've closed their hearts, there's nothing more you can do for them. I fail to see his qualm.
3. So apparently Nietzche's an advocate of child abuse? Because all that verse is saying is not to cause a child to stumble, not to impede their development and growth or do them harm or lead them astray. Christ, as an aspect of God, is speaking about his sons and daughters which he loves, and realizes how vulnerable and helpless humans are as children, and makes a very grave warning against doing harm to them. Nietzche is (knowingly or unknowingly) defending pedophiles, abusers, and all those who would do a child harm in his mockery of that passage. Well done, Freddy. Remember, Christ specifically speaks not only as a teacher of morals, but as a God who is the essence of justice and will judge all those who do evil.
4. Finally he gets one right. Not sure what point he was trying to make here.
5. Sorry, Nietzche, if you look at Christ's wording during this, he's foretelling of his death, his ressurection, and the events that take place just prior. Christ came into his kingdom after he died (remember he told the thief who asked him to remember him when he came into his kingdom "I tell you that this day you will be with me in paradise"). After he rose (another fulfillment of this prophecy) before he ascended, he referred to going to "prepare a place" for his Disciples. Where do you think he meant, Wal-Mart? His kingdom of heaven of course. And finally, his kingdom could also be referring to when the Holy Spirit came to reside within men on Pentecost, when the Disciples spoke in tongues with tongues of fire above their heads. So there's three instances of how Christ's kingdom need not refer to his second coming. And many of them DID live to see those three events...so once again, sorry Freddy.
6. I fail to see how the phrasing in which its morals are related makes them any more or less valid. If you wanted to phrase it without stating what must be done, and later referring to it using "fors," it could easily be done. What on earth is he trying to say here?
7. Yeah, and? It's pretty simple, if you judge others, you will also be judged, so don't do it. If you judge others, then the same stick will apply to you, and most judgemental people are hypocrites to begin with. This speaks nothing about the legitimacy of God's "skill" or "method" in judgement. *shakes head*
8. Honestly...how did he interpret it that way? The purpose of this passage is to show that we are to love all people, not simply our friends or those we're acquainted with, because even tax collectors (who were known to be illicit often-times, as they'd request more money than was neccesary to line their pockets) would treat their friends and family well. As Christians we're required to go beyond what comes naturally and have love and compassion for all who need it, not just for our friends and family. It has nothing to do with a payoff, and everything to do with compassion.
9. Not at all. We, being men with sin, who have been shown the ultimate mercy of salvation, are in no place to withold forgiveness to anyone. God, being without sin, being pure and just, and our creator, has every right to judge us accordingly, as we deserve. It's only by his grace that he does not, to our benefit. But those who do not forgive others basically implicitly consider themselves too good for forgiveness, which not even God withheld from us despite the fact that we didn't deserve it, so there's absolutely no reason we should not do the same. If we don't, then why should God forgive us, if we are not willing to have grace for others as he did for us. I wish he'd think deeper and be objective about this rather than simply looking for holes and flaws, that's not an honest way to go about interpreting text, leads to a flawed perspective.
10. I don't see what he's trying to prove. There's only one instance of God being a tailor, and that's in Genesis when Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree and realize the dichotomy of good and evil, and are thus aware they are naked and are shamed, and he takes animals and turns their skins into clothes. This verse has nothing to do with that, it lists our needs as things the Lord will provide for, as he always has, and all we must do is seek God first, rather than things of this earth, which are fleeting. God knows what we need and has the power to give them to us.
11. Simple, oftentimes the prophets were the harbingers of God's impending wrath upon the wicked. They were beacons of righteousness, and men cursed and persecuted them for this. All the verse is saying is to rejoice and stay strong in the path of righteousness, even though you will face persecution, because the prophets too faced persecution for this, even men as great as they, so do not fret over it, for the Lord is on your side. It has nothing to do with Christians thinking they're as great as the prophets.
12. When we recieve Christ, and the Spirit resides within us, we are symbolic of God's temple, as God's spirit once resided in the far back room of the temple/tabernacle (called "The Holy of Holies"). If we basically take our temple (in which God's Spirit resides), and do all kinds of horrible things to it, we're effectively defiling God's temple. I can see why Nietzche lashes out against this, as he was so big on individual merit, but in Christianity, we are not our own, we were bought with a price, the blood of the Lamb (Christ). We are God's, and when we have his Spirit within us, we shouldn't spit in its face by doing harm to ourselves. It's not that difficult.
13. Theologically it makes perfect sense. Through Christ's sacrifice, when we transcend this realm through death and our spirits are made clean, reborn, we become without sin (as we'd need to be to exist in God's presence). Christ Himself said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Conversely that says "he who is without sin may cast the first stone." Thus, those who are without sin are allowed to judge those with sin, which is why God is worthy of judging us. This is because those who are without sin are in essence like God, made of the same absolute moral good essence (as it's God's nature which defines what is good). So at that point in time, we will be without sin, and thereby justified in being in the seat of judgement.
14. There were angels who turned against God (as many angels also have free will). Sin is sin is sin, no matter if it's perpetrated by angel or man, celestial or mortal. Those who are without sin will judge those who are with sin.
15. Haven't read his book, but it basically sounds like a shameless plug and an attempt at brainwashing. "In order to understand this passage [rather than reading it and judging it on your own merits], you have to first understand this other system of morality [which isn't Christianity], then read my book [you insolent worms, I'm like sooooo smart], so you can adequately understand it [because I need to spoonfeed everything to your ignorant minds]." Sounds pretty lame and pretentious to me.
Basically, it sounds like Nietzche really just doesn't understand Scripture very well. It makes sense, though, if you read Scripture carefully, that he wouldn't. Consider these verses:
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
" 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."
This is the segment that precludes the verse Nietzche posted in "#15" of the segment of section 45, which gives context to it. God does this all such that no one may boast in themselves, because no one has any reason nor legitimacy in boasting in and of themselves, as their greatest achievements are less than God's farts (if God farted, of course), basically.
And consider also 1 Corinthians 3:18-23
" 18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God."
