Nietzsche singlehandedly dismantles Christian morality

Tyson. He admits that if it wasn’t for D’amato taking him in and being a father to him he would have died on the streets. He became heavy weight champion of the world at 21, a year after D’Amato died. And it was down hill from there. Love and peace and birds

Yeah, love and peace and birds for the extremely violent black man who became heavy weight champion at 21. Definitely nothing was made out of that violence.

incest-obsessed materialist pseud hates God
Why am I not surprised?

You realise Nietzsche was a medic in the Franco-Prussian war and was present at the Siege of Metz, right? Retard.

It was made out of the love loyalty and commitment that was developed between a angry black kid and an old boxing coach. If you think he became heavyweight champion by being angry and black you are very... (deep breath) ill informed

I said that knowing he was a medic

>f-fuck slave weakness morals!
>n-noooo you can’t be violent!!!!!
????

You said "Imagine if he had seen combat," which he had. He treated wounded and dying soldiers, and contracted diphtheria and dysentery.

>incest-obsessed
Christians so desperate they're just making shit up at this point

I think he misunderstands religion quite a bit, like most people. Your average normie is going to be brainwashed in any era, into religion back then, into logical positivism today. Being told to believe in something is not the same as actually believing it. Religious experience and the values that come with it are more freeing than anything else, but it needs to be sincere. If you just do it because you are told to it is not sincere. Once we get away from irrelevant enlightenment thinking we can hopefully be more objective about religion itself, rather than the majority of religious people. Though to be fair, even without christian morals most people are just pathetic weak minded followers, and abandoning religion has not changed that in people whatsoever. Nietzsche was proven wrong on some things simply by the flow of history.

You're just peddling the same bullshit that was peddled to him in order to prevent him from becoming an unmanageable and financially unstable douchebag from hubris. He didn't become heavyweight champion from just love and peace. None of this proves that violence doesn't or can't make anyone either.

I think he 100% needed a father figure to direct his destructive rage into something useful and non illegal

>He shit his pants seeing soldiers post combat

Sounds about right

yes but he wasn't a soldier himself in combat.

What do you think would have changed if he had been?

Like a lot of people who rant about survival of the fittest while sitting alone in their mothers attic, he probably needed to be punched in the face or shot at at least once in his life. That usually cures incellic thinking

youtu.be/uVmXySNKpYI?list=PLGaHgqcdTOe8vnOeoTRHDu0YBpHuMDb6b

Based

Obviously you never met someone who thrives on danger.

Blaise de Monluc was shot in the face, and wounded multiple times, but still remained battailous

I don’t mean wanting to fight, I mean nietzsche’s specific brand of cringey darwinism, coupled with him literally being some skinnyfat incel (there’s a pic of him shirtless somewhere). I’m not criticising actual tough guys

kek

>I mean nietzsche’s specific brand of cringey darwinism
I don't think you've read Nietzsche, retard. lol. He didn't rant about survival of the fittest.
>(there’s a pic of him shirtless somewhere)
If you're thinking of the naked pic, that's not Nietzsche. It's just a man with a similar moustache.

>n-noooo it’s not him!!!
it’s totally a photo of him

the lad could barely sit and write and you're insulting his physique

also volcel

How was he not tough given his circumstances? Raised without a father, yet still became a full time professor at 24, had a range of life experiences by then including a total conversion of his lifestyle and beliefs, continued writing books despite immediately becoming despised in academia, paired himself with Wagner at a time when he was becoming despised in the media, wrote more than the average Yea Forumsizen reads in a lifetime despite having severe chronic health issues, almost alone changed the entire West through his extremely laborious philosophical project. Like most people would ever have the balls to accomplish all of that in a single lifetime during an era of rampant effeminacy and dogma no less.

It's touted as a picture of him with Lou Salome and Paul Ree but neither look anything like them.

Did you even read the OP you mouthbreather?

This

>thriving on danger

I remember being a child

But now you're an old fart afraid even of his own shadow. Sad that such a state of existence is being considered as proper and ideal.

War can be to fight evil!
To stop killing!
Man, this guy was preaching come crazy stuff!
Evil must be fought or it will corrupt everything!
Good must be defended or people will forget what is good!

No, I’m violent. I don’t thrive in danger, like a kid. I’m dangerous. Very very dangerous. Your right, I scare myself. I pray and try to stay at peace with myself and others, because I don’t want to go there, because I will.

Attached: 1562578614376.png (645x773, 11K)

Exactly

>I'm healthier this way and totally not a subdued, repressed coward full of bullshit
Keep telling yourself that.

Talking tough on the Internet
Wow ur so dangerous

No, you’re safer this way
Your welcome

>it's not true if I can physically suppress everyone around me from pointing it out
You're dangerous only because you're retarded.

>thread devolves into some cryptic boomer talking about how dangerous he is
cringe.

>some cryptic boomer talking about how dangerous he is

Best summary of Nietzsche I've ever heard.

cringe.

What r u saying? I don’t really care desu

I’m not saying anything except that real dangerous people are retarded and on their way to jail or death, or , they are trying very hard to be peaceful and loving and to live in a world where they don’t have I manifest the beast inside themselves. All that “thriving in danger” is a bunch of pansy shit

Does Neetch ever actually talk about love? I don't think I have ever really seen the word "love" in the limited amount of works of his I've read.

Why are there so many seething christians on Yea Forums now days bros

yes

You'd better start believing in Catholic boards, user... because you're on one.

Attached: 1566287629259.png (649x366, 429K)

Go back
>>/rel/

Attached: Ill_dict_infernal_p0163-147_caym_1.jpg (1183x1353, 512K)

You're unironically posting on a Catholic board and you either somehow didn't notice it become one, or you're a newfag, since Yea Forums has been majority Catholic-or-at-least-sympathetic-to-Catholics for over 2 years now. There's a reason fedoras/ discord trannies like you get laughed out.

cringe, fake catholic detected. someone for whom religion is a method of social aggression, enjoys excluding other people.

>when you've been dead for more than a century but you still make cringey christcucks seeth to their very core, living rent free in their heads

Truly the Chad of western philosophy

Why are you seething over something that wasn't even implied by my post?

Christ has been dead for 2000 years and you're seething about him now.

RENT FREE

I'm interested in the context of it, because I feel like love is the entire crux of Christianity. Love is kind of the beating heart of the religion. God loved the world enough to keep giving it chances after the Fall. Christ loved mankind enough to die on the Cross. Christians serve God primarily out of love for him, or at least that's how it works in theory. I feel like a lot of Nietzsche's writings on Christianity don't take this really fundamental aspect of it seriously, and merely view the religion through the prism of power dynamics.

Attached: 4d5ee0716edc7532a2521fe81155fd17.jpg (591x963, 120K)

I don't have any problem with catgholics, just fake computer-christians.

Perfect. Notice how I never even mentioned Jesus, yet you still took the bait. Seeth some more, christcuck

2019 ;)

>Christians aren't allowed to use computers
I'm interested to know what disqualifies me from being a Christian in your eyes, O mighty arbiter, because all I did was say (correctly) that Yea Forums is a Catholic board and fedoras and trannies get laughed out.

You mistake convenience for recognition

nietzche was an incel , his opinion is discarded lmao.

Cringe. You violate the spirit of charity, you take joy in cruelty -- you are like the Roman centurions pressing a crown of thorns upon Christ's head. Fine, but don't do it in the name of your supposed religion.

>christcuck
>I never even mentioned Jesus
C O P E
O
P
E

Attached: 1567830256757.jpg (417x414, 46K)

Gonna need some evidence there, pal. You're deluded. I'll pray for you right now because you've clearly got a lot of pent up aggression.

LARP

I'm 100% with you on this but could you give examples on
>Nietzsche was proven wrong on some things simply by the flow of history.
Thanks

Trying so hard lmao
Go back

2019 ad

laughing at trannies = hellfire

>Makes a career on the freedom created by a Christian nation, by executing the education provided by a Christian nation, by exercising the freedoms privileged by a Christian nation

Sunday. Do you worship the sun today? Did you worship Saturn yesterday?

he would be a little bit less edgy.
And perhaps he would get the balls to get a gf lol

Yes, and Thor on Thursday

Delusional God believers, how does it feel knowing that going to hell is almost inevitable for you?

He was in the Prussian Cavalry you nothing.

Attached: 1567723169102.png (534x800, 478K)

Just because Nietzsche doesn't like Christianity doesn't mean that he completely disagrees with everything it teaches.

Christ you're such an insufferable boomer. He's seen more of war than you ever have or will
>inb4 I've conducted over 300 raids on Al Qaeda etc. etc.

>NOO NIETZSCHE YOU CAN'T WRITE THAT

Attached: 1566629945102.png (261x215, 19K)

Honestly no one cares it’s just easy bully

SInce Neenee doesn't have an argument here, We don't need to present one either.

seething teenagers.

Weaktzche didn't see combat, was a weak ass pussy, unhealthy, fragile , incel , no-gf faggot, that never get away from his mother , and his philosopy is nothing but homo-erotic fantasies about "blonde beasts", and "islamic warriors" raping each other.

Kek okay grandpa

>didn't deny that he hasn't seen combat himself
Pussy ass bitch lol

I've seen more combat watching full metal jacket, than Virgintzche in his whole life lol.

Your posts really are the epitome of slave morality. Untermensch confirmed.

Weak.

Attached: sloterdijk.jpg (440x228, 17K)

Yes

Reading this quote I get the impression that he had a poor knowledge of Christian theology. For example, he appeals to life and the world as it is, but the Christian denies that this is the natural state of the world, which is fallen. The evil that exists in the world is a foreign, unnatural element. He's not actually addressing the Christian position at all, but strawmanning it.

>he grasps that when good is the supreme value it condemns life—Therewith he ought to consider his ideology of good and evil as refuted.

So THIS is the power of NEETzsche? Conceding to "life" inasmuch as it is shown to you for no reason other than it being shown to you, like an Anglo?

It reads like a reddit post, honestly.

Go back.

The entire argument seems to be built on basic misunderstanding of Christian theology. I kind of feel sorry for whoever wrote this.

Not really, the world being fallen and corrupted is just the Christian view of evil, that view is also to deny and destroy evil. Many different religions have ways of explaining and condemning evil, when really it's a part of being alive.

>when really it's a part of being alive.
Prove that evil is a natural part of the universe. "It's here currently" does not prove anything and is consonant with the Christian position.

It's there present in nature and humans. I don't see why the burden of proof is with me and not the deniers willing to destroy living aspects of everything.
You can't really exist without having an aspect of evil, especially not as a living organism, unless you just hand wave away all killing and anger in the world as just lol

Christians really killed this thread, huh?

I mean, just for example, this bit:
>The good man who has renounced evil, afflicted, as seems to him desirable, with that hemiplegia of virtue, in no way ceases to wage war, have enemies, say No and act No. The Christian, for example, hates "sin"! Precisely because of his faith in a moral antithesis of good and evil the world has become for him overfull of things that must be hated and eternally combated.
It’s like he’s never even read the Bible or anything. He seems to believe that Christianity teaches not to “hate” in general, when in fact Christianity explicitly teaches that you should hate sin (and in fact hate everything God hates) and doesn’t teach that hate is bad at all. Similarly Christianity does not teach that war is bad in general. It’s almost like he’s got Buddhism in mind when he draws this picture of “Christianity.”

isn't choosing to do harm for a reason what Neetch said Christians are unable to do?
Anyway he died of syphillis lol.

Isn't all this talk of hating evil things at odds with Jesus' own teachings? To me, hating something is against any kind of moral or christian ideal. Why hate something for its nature? You must destroy something, so be it. The hating in itself is contradictory, and really feels like a weak, resentful morality.

>when in fact Christianity explicitly teaches that you should hate sin (and in fact hate everything God hates) and doesn’t teach that hate is bad at all
Nietzsche is addressing the real existing Christianity of his time not that of edgy alt right neo-Christians. Also the point he is making in that paragraph, which you have missed, is that the person who rejects evil is driven by that very rejection to perpetuate the very behaviours which make man a fallen species--violence, hatred, etc.

Right, he's condemning sentimental puritanism and calling it Christianity. There were legit Christians when Neetch was alive.

>Isn't all this talk of hating evil things at odds with Jesus' own teachings?
No? Jesus literally chased people out of a temple with a whip and destroyed their property. He hated plenty of things.
>To me, hating something is against any kind of moral or christian ideal
Well you’re simply wrong. Psalm 139: “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

>Why hate something for its nature? You must destroy something, so be it. The hating in itself is contradictory, and really feels like a weak, resentful morality.
Well obviously you are free to hold whatever opinions you like, but you should acknowledge that it’s not Christianity.

Well, it is a sect of Christianity, and really it seems like a logical direction within the ideology. If evil is to be destroyed one should not have any leniency for carousing or w/e, God doesn't listen to excuses.
The biggest point to take away is that Christianity is fundamentally anti-life ideologically, but not always in practice.

Did hatred exist before the fall? Did it exist in the perfect Earth and in the Garden? Did God hate things even then?

you only like the big N because you think he was a nazi. in reality, his sister was the nazi. his works are actually incredibly empathetic and utterly opposes the grand cruelty of ideologies such as nazi.

Yes because the nature of God does not change.

Cringe!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine being a follower of a dogmatic ideology and also claim to like Nietzsche. Cognitive dissonance.

>Christianity
>.—Perhaps there has never before been a more dangerous ideology.

Attached: most powerful image online.jpg (800x960, 93K)

Such bait. Much wow.

who said I like him? I'm a fascist who sees him for what he is: weak.

I bet he was, angry at himself for creating life in the first place! Life as we know it cannot live in an environment of all good, humans like to be transgressive. You may argue that we are fallen humans and that is why, but I reply that this is the evidence that Christianity is opposed to life! Beings in heaven aren't alive, neither are those that forgo any luxury for the sake of an angry holy ghost.

ianon you are so retarded you can't even bait. go read some comics.

master slave morality is probably the biggest revelation in philosophy so far

*biggest mistake

not an argument

No. You should just tell him the only reason morality exists is because God "writ it on all mens hearts".

Yeah it's almost like he knew nothing about Islam and he's actually a fraud

Beyond Good and Evil is about love.

You don't understand what he's saying. The Christian MAKES the world seem as if it is no longer in its natural state, by upholding his definition of "the good." He CONVINCES himself of an afterlife by believing what he does. He is retroactively responsible for demonizing the world around him. His condition is a psychological one, and Nietzsche views it as fundamentally nihilistic, because it denies the world as it is and seeks utopia. The Greeks, and even Jesus, saw this world as paradise already, and did not agree with Christians.

You make no sense and have no argument. See , your idea of what thriving in danger means, and what being dangerous means, is retarded. The philosopher is way more dangerous than the brute criminal, for example, because he shapes the entire world for centuries to come, and this makes Nietzsche's project an undertaking of such weight that it would absolutely crush you into oblivion should you ever try to undertake it yourself. And the type of men Nietzsche idolized were also far more dangerous than your sense of it—Borgia and Napoleon for example, men who manipulated civilization towards their own goals rather than served it like a slave or resisted it like a big baby anarchist or Christian having a tantrum that the upper echelons aren't being "fair."

>Prove that evil is a natural part of the universe.
For starters, "evil" is an interpretation. Anything can be interpreted as "evil" as long as there is something which stands to be harmed by it, which there always is (Newton's third law). The root of the word satan is Hebrew Śāṭān, which means adversary.

Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics demands that all systems be entropic, and face resistance.

Thirdly, Newton's third law also makes clear that the reaction is a part of the action. Acts of "evil" are part of acts of "good."

I'd like you to point to a state of being in the universe in which there is nothing adversarial to its goal; a state of being in the universe in which an act of "good" does not have an act of "evil" associated with it. I know you can't, which means that "evil" can't logically be considered to not be a natural part of the universe. And it is this reason that Nietzsche ends up championing evil in his later works and referring to it as more important than good, because during his time he saw how suppressed evil was and how the glorification of good was ruining life on earth.

like when Christianity exploited the resources and institutions of pagan Rome

> The Christian MAKES the world seem as if it is no longer in its natural state, by upholding his definition of "the good."
because there's something wrong with the world.

>He is retroactively responsible for demonizing the world around him. His condition is a psychological one, and Nietzsche views it as fundamentally nihilistic, because it denies the world as it is and seeks utopia.
How is seeing an ultimate meaning to everything nihilistic?
Christians don't try to make utopia on this plane, it comes in the other-world.

> The Greeks, and even Jesus, saw this world as paradise already, and did not agree with Christians.
>Jesus saw this world as paradise
lmao

Attached: 1556952960389.jpg (750x851, 402K)

>he didn't read the Gospel of Thomas
>he thinks the Bible isn't a warped mix of Judaism and paganism created by Paul the Marketer and accurately represents Jesus's glad tidings at all

Attached: dsf.png (1229x1160, 148K)

Philosophy, when just escaping from its golden pupa-skin, mythology, proclaimed the great evolutionary agency of the universe to be Love. Or, since this pirate-lingo, English, is poor in such-like words, let us say Eros, the exuberance-love. Afterwards, Empedocles set up passionate love and hate as the two coordinate powers of the universe. In some passages, kindness is the word. But certainly, in any sense in which it has an opposite, to be senior partner of that opposite, is the highest position that love can attain. Nevertheless, the ontological gospeller, in whose days those views were familiar topics, made the One Supreme Being, by whom all things have been made out of nothing, to be cherishing-love. What, then, can he say to hate? Never mind, at this time, what the scribe of the Apocalypse, if he were John, stung at length by persecution into a rage, unable to distinguish suggestions of evil from visions of heaven, and so become the Slanderer of God to men, may have dreamed. The question is rather what the sane John thought, or ought to have thought, in order to carry out his idea consistently. His statement that God is love seems aimed at that saying of Ecclesiastes that we cannot tell whether God bears us love or hatred. "Nay," says John, "we can tell, and very simply! We know and have trusted the love which God hath in us. God is love." There is no logic in this, unless it means that God loves all men. In the preceding paragraph, he had said, "God is light and in him is no darkness at all." We are to understand, then, that as darkness is merely the defect of light, so hatred and evil are mere imperfect stages of agapê and agathon, love and loveliness. This concords with that utterance reported in John's Gospel: "God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should through him be saved. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already. . . . And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and that men loved darkness rather than the light." That is to say, God visits no punishment on them; they punish themselves, by their natural affinity for the defective. Thus, the love that God is, is not a love of which hatred is the contrary; otherwise Satan would be a coordinate power; but it is a love which embraces hatred as an imperfect stage of it, an Anteros -- yea, even needs hatred and hatefulness as its object. For self-love is no love; so if God's self is love, that which he loves must be defect of love; just as a luminary can light up only that which otherwise would be dark. Henry James, the Swedenborgian, says: "It is no doubt very tolerable finite or creaturely love to love one's own in another, to love another for his conformity to one's self: but nothing can be in more flagrant contrast with the creative Love, all whose tenderness ex vi termini must be reserved only for what intrinsically is most bitterly hostile and negative to itself."

>you ought to be
but we actually WILL light you on fire

imagine replying to a post like this

what the fuck this place is swamped with bots, or else zoomers who only think in half-sentences

LALALALA SKIPPING THROUGH MY DELUSIONS CHERRYPICKING THE FINEST STRAWMEN LALALLALALA

But that post was all true.

. >Much labor has been expended in all ages, and especially in the Christian ages, to reduce mankind to this half-sided efficiency, to the "good" even today there is no lack of those deformed and weakened by the church for whom this object coincides with "humanization" in general, or with the "will of God," or with "salvation of the soul."

Nietzsche makes absolutely no sense here; Christianity is weakening man? On the contrary, Christianity instilled a strong work ethic and discipline in those living in the past (monks, Protestant settlers, etc). Technology is weakening man because it ensures his comfort and convenience. Egalitarianism and "progress" weakens man because it puts the weak in positions of power, something that Christianity does not necessitate.

>The essential demand here is that mankind should do nothing evil, that it should under no circumstances do harm or desire to do harm. The way to achieve this is: the castration of all possibility of enmity, the unhinging of all the instincts of ressentiment, "peace of soul" as a chronic disease.

Nothing disagreeable here aside from Nietzsche attaching bad words to things he dislikes.

>This mode of thought, with which a definite type of man is bred, starts from an absurd presupposition: it takes good and evil for realities that contradict one another (not as complementary value concepts, which would be the truth), it advises taking the side of the good, it desires that the good should renounce and oppose the evil down to its ultimate roots—it therewith actually denies life, which has in all its instincts both Yes and No.

I'm not even sure where Nietzsche is extracting these "presuppositions" of his. Good and evil contradict one another? That is simply incorrect; good and evil coexist in a state of conflict. To deny life is nothing bad, for Christianity is preoccupied with the life after this life and seeks to denies the "wisdom" of this world and carnal pleasures and so on.

>Not that it grasps this: it dreams, on the contrary, that it is getting back to wholeness, to unity, to strength of life: it thinks it will be a state of redemption when the inner anarchy, the unrest between those opposing value drives, is at last put an end to.—Perhaps there has never before been a more dangerous ideology. [...] And even here, life is still in the right—life, which does not know how to separate Yes from No—: what good is it to hold with all one's strength that war is evil, not to do harm, not to desire to negate!

It's quite difficult to unravel Nietzsche's philosophical psychobabble when I'm not acquainted with his writings and have no idea how to interpret terms such as "value drives" or "right-life."

Attached: HAHAHAhah.gif (480x319, 1.75M)

>One wages war nonetheless! One cannot do otherwise! The good man who has renounced evil, afflicted, as seems to him desirable, with that hemiplegia of virtue, in no way ceases to wage war, have enemies, say No and act No. The Christian, for example, hates "sin"! Precisely because of his faith in a moral antithesis of good and evil the world has become for him overfull of things that must be hated and eternally combated.

This is no problem; war is not wholly evil and war must be waged against sin, not the sinner. It is true that the world is full of sin but not that it is "overfull of things that must be hated and eternally combated." Nietzsche fails to differentiate between that which is made by man and man's sin and that which is made by God. The world God made is not to be hated and combated, but rather restored through a negation of and opposition to sin.

>"The good man" sees himself as if surrounded by evil, and under the continual onslaught of evil his eye grows keener, he discovers evil in all his dreams and desires; and so he ends, quite reasonably, by considering nature evil, mankind corrupt, goodness an act of grace (that is, as impossible for man). In summa: he denies life, he grasps that when good is the supreme value it condemns life—Therewith he ought to consider his ideology of good and evil as refuted. But one cannot refute an illness. And so he conceives another life!

The "good man" sees himself surrounded by evil because he is surrounded by evil, we have just become desensitized to it. Half-naked women, attractive food, wealth, flashy products and so on in every advertisement (and this is just a facet of the evil around us).

Nietzsche basically creates a strawman or something of the sort and carries out this strawman to the conclusion he has in mind for it. The "good man" that discovers "evil in all his dreams and desires," if he truly is a "good man," would seek to purge his mind of that evil through prayer and fasting (or other means). The "good man" does not actually consider nature evil, for it is made by God and perverted by man and man's sin. The "good man" does not see mankind as corrupt but as corrupted; he does not turn his back on mankind but does what he can to improve it. Goodness is not impossible for man.

>he denies life-Therewith he ought to consider his ideology of good and evil as refuted
Because it denies life? Because Nietzsche's fabricated and fantastical "good strawman" denies life, a dichotomy between good and evil is refuted. Bravo!

>But one cannot refute an illness. And so he conceives another life!
Another instance of "something I disagree with is bad because I attached a bad word to it." Furthermore, and even worse, Nietzsche assumes that this "good strawman" of his will actually reproduce.

Attached: AAAAAHAHAha.gif (400x300, 1.5M)

>Christianity instilled a strong work ethic and discipline in those living in the past (monks, Protestant settlers, etc)
>Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, etc. didn't have a strong work ethic
Also, that isn't what Nietzsche is talking about there. He's referring to how Christianity, over time, glorified "the good" and condemned "evil" to such an extent that it created a society that was not beyond good and evil, but far below it, only avoiding "evil" and doing "good" out of fear and desire for what measly security there was left to obtain, and lacking the capacity to create anything new compared to older societies—because it lacked the capacity to destroy compared to older societies.

>Technology is weakening man because it ensures his comfort and convenience.
Such use of technology by the weak man does not weaken, because he is already weak. Technology is just being used to sustain weakness in that case. The strong man doesn't use technology the same way; he uses it to create and, more importantly, destroy.

>Egalitarianism and "progress" weakens man because it puts the weak in positions of power, something that Christianity does not necessitate.
Those things emerged more brightly from Christian society than anywhere else. Monotheism homogenizes thought, which breeds egalitarian ideals and sentiments.

>Good and evil contradict one another? That is simply incorrect; good and evil coexist in a state of conflict.
Christians isolate good and evil; they don't consider them as mutual extensions of one another, as two sides of the same coin, but as having separate sources (God and the devil). God and the devil are not contradictory or isolated, but the same being, the same force; every act of "good" has an act of "evil" associated with it. See >I'm not acquainted with his writings and have no idea how to interpret terms such as "value drives" or "right-life."
That isn't "right-life", the dash is separating parts of the sentence. Nietzsche sees the individual spirit as a culmination of conflicting drives seeking to override one another, different values manifesting and emerging from each one.

>This is no problem; war is not wholly evil and war must be waged against sin, not the sinner.
But it is a problem, because that means the Christian must "sin" to remain holy. He must destroy in order to create the universe he wants, like everyone else.

>The "good man" sees himself surrounded by evil because he is surrounded by evil, we have just become desensitized to it.
Good and evil are interpretations. The "good man" is "evil" from the eyes of his "evil man." Nietzsche's point is that Christians make things "evil" and do not discover it, like all other life does, though they are fine-tuned by their dogma to argue as if the opposite is occurring; as if their hands are clean.

>Because it denies life?
Correct, because life is important above all else. And the Christian denies it in favor of another one.

Attached: theKurgan_400x400.jpg (400x400, 17K)

Yea man he is a pussy, let woman taka care of the injured, that what god intended when he made them soft in body and soft in soul, has a complement of the harsh man, that goes to fight, LIKE A MAN.

Funny how nacho here liked to talk shit about my boi socrates, in spite that socrates actually did fought in the war against one of the most pretigius armies in history.

he didnt have sex

Attached: atheism.jpg (640x636, 62K)

I can smell you Gnostic heathens a mile away. Did you know the Gospel of Thomas was dated to have been written around 200 AD? Whereas the New Testament Gospels are all dated from within the first century.
The fact of the matter is that it was a forgery, used to justify the Gnostic cult at the time. It does not hold truth.

Nietzsche presentation of Christianity here is the equivalent of perpetual self improvement. How is that so wrong?

Can we all agree that murder is not preferable? That if you have any empathy at all, you would choose to avoid murder where not completely justified?
I'd say yes- in which case, we have just discerned our first "good".
Religion or not, it is good to not kill.
The Christian continues this path of discernment, not because he has a "deluded sense of reality" from being a Christian, quite the opposite.
He recognizes that it is the duty of humanity to continually strive for the Ideal. To not become complacent in reality, which is by logical discernment fundamentally painful, cruel.

What in that is against nature?
We would not have the ability to sense pain or cruelties if it were against our nature to reject them.
Unfortunately for Nietzsche, we are not animals incapable of morality.

>Can we all agree that murder is not preferable?
Only if it works better in my favor to do something else.

>We would not have the ability to sense pain or cruelties if it were against our nature to reject them.
We would not want to cause pain or cruelties if it were within our nature to reject them. But we do, and often.

Aw, lol at the Nietzschefags defending the honor of their precious hero.

Attached: 1490322191816.jpg (954x742, 159K)

>Only if it works better in my favor to do something else.
>We would not want to cause pain or cruelties if it were within our nature to reject them. But we do, and often.
Aye, people can be evil too, not just "concepts".

In which case, murder would be more justified for such an individual, as I stipulated [].
Those who would seek the destruction of others for the benefit of themselves, and are beyond repentance, deserve only the sword.

In this way too is the Christian striving for the continual improvement of humanity.

Attached: IMG_20190531_181842_100.jpg (1181x843, 208K)

people do tend to defend their favourite authors and actors and even fictional characters

like jesus, who wasn't real and in order to have discussions about ethics with christbabies, you have to start the discussion with "jesus was probably real I just don't believe he was (the son of) god" because they're so mentally delayed that if you say "nope not a real guy, probably made up by some rabbi out in the forest as a narrative tool" they lose their shit because their entire bizarre, twisted, gruesome extended metaphor for redemption was actually just some old fuck telling stories to his grandkids to keep them out of trouble.

Attached: somebody ate those cookies.jpg (460x412, 41K)

>In this way too is the Christian striving for the continual improvement of humanity.
Or the castration of all possibility of enmity, as Nietzsche says. Which would leave civilization left with nothing but the last men.

Does Nietzsche take for granted Schopenhauer-Mainländer framework but instead of condemning the world and preaching renounce in order to find solace, he praises our bleak situation as something beatiful and full of posibilities?

No wonder why that guy went insane then. The average pedestrian couldn't care less about these delusions of grandeur while trying to merely survive.

that´s why Schoppy won at the end

Attached: strange bedfellows.jpg (600x338, 38K)

>No wonder the guy wrote some of the most uplifting and beautiful stuff out there
ftfy

>our bleak situation
lol, did you skip over all the parts where he psychoanalyzes the shit out of the pessimists? They are no closer to truth than the optimists. Nietzsche praises neither.