ITT: Dumb Things Smart People Said

I'll start:
"...there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist (1895)

Umm, no pumpkin. Christianity began with the advent of the Holy Spirit 50 days AFTER the Resurrection (Acts 2:1-13).

>pumpkin
NEETche BTFO

He's talking about St. Peter, everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew.

You see, Jesus belonged to the Old Testament period and preached 100% pure Judaism. He did so to remind the hypocritical Jews that they could never satisfy God by their works. God demanded perfection of the Jews after they bound themselves to the laws of Moses in Exodus. They had boasted to God that they could do all God could require of them. Bad idea. They got the 10 Commandments and 600 additional laws - and would now be punished if they failed. 1400 years of failure followed until God incarnate in Christ fulfilled the law and died on the cross to make salvation BY GRACE, NOT WORKS (Ephesians 2:8-9).

>THE cross

I chuckled.

Nietzsche's interpretation of Jesus is as preaching a similar mindset to Buddha. I believe he even directly says this in the aphorism you're quoting from, if not within an aphorism close by. He sees heaven not as a physical place, but as a state of mind akin to Nirvana. Jesus did not just preach faith, he preached action by urging people to follow his example. Jesus was offering the poor and oppressed a way of avoiding their pain and suffering by way of detachment. Care for nothing, love everything, and your pain and suffering will disappear just like Jesus'. This claim is solidified in his final act, where Jesus makes the ultimate sacrifice as a martyr by willingly going to the cross.

It's admirable in a way that not even Nietzsche can deny, but to him it's ultimately life-denying. Just like Socrates before him, to willingly choose your own death as a martyr is to posit a value-system that elevates death over life. And just like Buddha before him, to preach detachment and unceasing love is to remove yourself from the life that you are very much a part of. And of course, this quote implies that Nietzsche did not believe that Jesus' preachings carried over to his followers. He has a lot to say about St. Paul, who he claims mutilated Jesus' gospel with his inherent rabbinicism. Rather than preaching the Buddhistic state of mind that Jesus did, St. Paul turned it into something entirely different, a religion of faith and sin and whatnot.

If you wait a few hours I can come back with citations supporting these claims, if anyone is interested.

>to willingly choose your own death as a martyr is to posit a value-system that elevates death over life.

could you elaborate?

>It is so little true that martyrs offer any support to the truth of a cause that I am inclined to deny that any martyr has ever had anything to do with the truth at all. In the very tone in which a martyr flings what he fancies to be true at the head of the world there appears so low a grade of intellectual honesty and such insensibility to the problem of “truth,” that it is never necessary to refute him. Truth is not something that one man has and another man has not: at best, only peasants, or peasant-apostles like Luther, can think of truth in any such way. One may rest assured that the greater the degree of a man’s intellectual conscience the greater will be his modesty, his discretion, on this point. To know in five cases, and to refuse, with delicacy, to know anything further.... “Truth,” as the word is understood by every prophet, every sectarian, every free-thinker, every Socialist and every churchman, is simply a complete proof that not even a beginning has been made in the intellectual discipline and self-control that are necessary to the unearthing of even the smallest truth.—The deaths of the martyrs, it may be said in passing, have been misfortunes of history: they have misled.... The conclusion that all idiots, women and plebeians come to, that there must be something in a cause for which any one goes to his death (or which, as under primitive Christianity, sets off epidemics of death-seeking)—this conclusion has been an unspeakable drag upon the testing of facts, upon the whole spirit of inquiry and investigation. The martyrs have damaged the truth.... Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to give an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism.—But why? Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid down his life for it?—An error that becomes honourable is simply an error that has acquired one seductive charm the more: do you suppose, Messrs. Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred for your lies?—One best disposes of a cause by respectfully putting it on ice—that is also the best way to dispose of theologians.... This was precisely the world-historical stupidity of all the persecutors: that they gave the appearance of honour to the cause they opposed—that they made it a present of the fascination of martyrdom.... Women are still on their knees before an error because they have been told that some one died on the cross for it. Is the cross, then, an argument?—But about all these things there is one, and one only, who has said what has been needed for thousands of years—Zarathustra.
-Aphorism 53, The Antichrist
1/2

Truth is obviously an important part of philosophy. A huge part of Nietzsche's problem with martyrdom is that it is done with the assumption that one has found the ultimate truth, otherwise why would you be laying down your life for it? This becomes problematic when you are a philosopher, ie someone who's job it is to explicitly find the truth (someone always chimes in that philosophy is not the study of truth, but the study of wisdom. But is false wisdom really wisdom? Truth is necessary for wisdom). Nietzsche sees this view, the view that you have somehow found the ultimate truth, as lowly and plebeian. He points out Luther as a plebeian here, and in Twilight of the Idles he calls Socrates a plebeian.

Within The Antichrist, Nietzsche says that the best form of government he can imagine is the one posited in the Hindu Vedas, a caste system with plebeians on the bottom and scholars and thinkers on the top. If you're familiar with Nietzsche, this isn't really surprising. He hated mass movements and saw life-denying ideologies such as Christianity as catering to the slave morality of those who are on the bottom of the caste. People like Socrates and Jesus (both martyrs) are merely thinkers he sees as having copped-out to the masses. They killed the master morality and toppled the entire caste system. ushering in the age of the Last Men.

>Umm, no pumpkin
but nietzche isn't a pumpkin haha
he's a human person haha

>He did so to remind the hypocritical Jews that they could never satisfy God by their works. God demanded perfection of the Jews after they bound themselves to the laws of Moses in Exodus. They had boasted to God that they could do all God could require of them. Bad idea. They got the 10 Commandments and 600 additional laws - and would now be punished if they failed.
Would they unironically have been better off in Egypt? It seems like they just traded one master for another, harsher one.

>Peter
>not a Jew
>t. brainlet

Dude I have no clue what you're talking about but I figured this thread was as good as any to ask this. I just skeeted to "Facial Cum Sluts 6" which I was jerking to while taking a break from Gravity's Rainbow. Sadly the text was open and my spooge got on a few pages. Do any of you know a good way to clean up this mess without ruining the book? I borrowed it from a friend of mine

cum on the rest of it so your friend won't notice

Arguably it would add to the book

Dude you gotta lick it up.
And before you ask if water is a better choice, it isn't. Your saliva is less destructive on paper fibers and ink than plain water. This is because of the small amount of electrolytes that help keep the ink "stuck" to the pages as well as the fact that the paper fibers don't absorb it as readily as water. Added to all this, your tongue is a natural "sponge" for absorbing many of the chemicals in semen, and cohesion between saliva and semen is very strong.

Jesus certainly did not represent the orthodox Judaism. If it was he would have no quarel's with the Rabbis. The rest of your post sounds like something like some sort of propaganda out of a fucking pamphlet. Complete with some bible quote that had nothing to do with Judaism or the Christianity of Jesus (the New testament is ultimately how they buried the teachings of Christ and inverted them)

That'd be gay though

A million thanks, anons.
I believe in God 100%, but your Nietzsche discussion is wonderful.

You can retroactively say someone was a christian even if they existed prior to christianity. It isn't as though squares which existed prior to the the definition of a square being stipulated weren't squares; the definition is backwards-reaching. He's being hyperbolic, not stupid.

how can I up vote this

>Can't you idiots see that I should be ruling over you?
t. every philosopher ever

Jesus preached a will which transcended his own life - the will of the logos, which transcends the blind dogma of any time. It is precisely in giving up on life that he affirmed this will to power.
"For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."

too bad Jesus followers threw all of that over board in favor of 'Jesus is a literal transcendental entity and if you don't do what the bible says you'll burn in hell.', 'Don't hurt anyone dude, just turn the other cheek." and 'btw, don't read the bible, just let us (((experts))) do that for you.'

Why are histories great men always so tragically misunderstood?

>just turn the other cheek
But jesus actually said that you petty autodidact.

You know what I mean faggot. Jesus intellectually crushed the Pharisees every time he ran into them. He was advocating for non-violence, but not for (((tolerance))), which is actually pure slave-morality, intellectual cowardice, one of the most common ways in which you might betrayal God.
"Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn 'A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

>betrayal
Just pretend I proofread my post and corrected that.

O.k. but having said all that he offered himself up to be crucified. So i am unsure what he means. I know he also said love your enemies and do good to those that harm you. Tolerance in that sense does transcend the confines of an ego, and attachment to the needs and desires which you might value more than your enemies, for example the desire to preserve your own mortal existence. I think in a sense you are right that many Christians utterly fail to understand the import of saying that faith can literally destroy a mountain; but trying to coopt Christ's message for your own ideas is the same hypocrisy. One thing that is unclear in scripture and i think this is the issue Nietzsche was alluding to was the succession of authority; like who gets to say which interpretation is correct.

Again, if you're using "love thy enemies" as a counter to you're totally projecting our modern, kitschy conception of love onto scripture.

To love means to "live in the truth", compassionately, according to the best of your ability. If you are wrongly persecuted, defend yourself - out of love - , not to escape punishment, but to save your enemies from losing themselves in sin, in a way which does not stain you with sin either. In the same way, "Be good to those that harm you" doesn't mean "give them your money and pretend that you don't know that they're going to use it for evil". That's simply irresponsible, sinful in every way. What Jesus is advocating is clearly not tolerance in the way we understand it, but mindfulness, honesty and compassion.

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. "
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."

I think you should really consider what the word Agape means.

Nigga, if you disagree with what I'm saying, why don't you make the effort to formulate your thoughts?

>It is precisely in giving up on life that he affirmed this will to power.
Virtually every human action is an expression of will-to-power. Slave morality itself is the triumph of the weak's will-to-power over the strong.

He affirmed 'this' will to power, that is to say, a will to power which is neither bound by the self nor selfless in the sense of being self-denying, which, in being a will allied with the divine, is both a personal and a universal will (to a certain extent). The point being that Christian morality as preached by Jesus is neither slave morality nor master morality

Christ's love for mankind took the form of utter self sacrifice. Agape in Homer means affection. In a Christian sense it is the love that is God. Early Christians celebrated love feasts where they shared meals together not as blood relatives but as children of God. To love one's enemies goes beyond tolerance, it is to hold them in esteem, to offer them charity and affection and even one's life. Christ sought to end the cycle of emnity, radically rejecting it. This is something which is not easy to accept or practice, so it has often been rationalized away.

>this is your brain on Idealism
Concerning human behavior, there is nothing which is selfless, nor anything which isn't bound by the self. The divine is a constructed ideal which represents a moral axiom, morality being a human invention, humanity being made up of individuals who only ever act in favor of self-preservation. The very epistemological claim that there is an existence beyond empirical perception is borne out of an instrumental necessity to justify a morality, which itself exists only to serve the interests of select individuals.

>there is nothing beyond observed reality i just know it because it is the very definition of confirmation bias

>empiricist

congrats 350 years ago dumbasses like you wouldn't have believed in radiowaves or infra-red light but surely NOW we know everything that does exist jesus holy fuck

>To love one's enemies goes beyond tolerance, it is to hold them in esteem, to offer them charity and affection and even one's life.
If you love your enemies you aren't going to encourage them to walk the path toward their own destruction. To give someone affection when they are merely using it to fuel their own narcissism is to enable them. To give a truly spiteful individual power over others is to tempt them. If you love your children it is your duty to scold them when they are doing something wrong.

Take it up with Nietzsche, bozos.

>it is the very definition of confirmation bias
It's sustained by a skeptical reading of Plato and others. I'm not gonna write a master thesis on Veeky Forums, but Nietzsche justified all of this through a consistent, albeit mythical, genealogy and philology that encompasses all of his major works.

>congrats 350 years ago dumbasses like you wouldn't have believed in radiowaves or infra-red light
We have a faculty called abstraction which allows us to derive universals from the observation of particulars. It's why mathematical knowledge is possible, and truly any knowledge beyond perception is possible. All epistemic principles have its origins in empirical observation, and from them we develop scientific systems, which then allows us to have knowledge emancipated from perception. So you could prove the existence of a material reality before being able to observe it.
>but surely NOW we know everything that does exist jesus holy fuck
My friend, we know fuck all. Truth itself is a contract, a mean to an end. Every scientific or philosophical endeavor implicitly or explicitly is subordinated to a postulate, an interest. The agreement that there can be ethical knowledge is a compromise, motivated by self-preservation. The same goes, albeit to different extents, for every kind of knowledge, and most of it traces back to morality if you go far enough. Nietzsche was explicit in that his whole philosophy was subordinated to his moral ideal, which was that of amor fati, the affirmation of life and rejection of anything opposed to life. That is the only principle worth living under, and therefore the only one worth believing in.

I disagree; when Jesus healed the sick he did not first demand they do good but only gave in accordance with their faith. Grace is by nature undeserved. To have faith in God totally is to give up moral agency in the lives of others. How can you even help your brother with the speck in his eye when you haven't removed the plank in your own? If you break Christ's own commandment to love God and neighbor, even in the pursuit of righteousness you have lost it all. The pursuit of righteousness is vanity. And you are putting a load of footnotes to Christ's words; why do you find them necessary? Are you afraid that Agape might harm your ego? Besides when the disciples were hungry, Christ bade them to break the sabbath. Christ fulfilled the law in his self sacrifice so that we would know it was not in our power to fulfill it. In a way you are confining yourself to the letter of the law..for the sake of something.

I don't know about Nietzsche's idea of Jesus, though I guess what you say makes sense from what I can tell. Though we always have to remember that him and others of his time and prior like Schopenhauer and etc, didn't know much about Buddhism to begin with. They had some notion of it, but it was in the 20th century that more serious (more conventional and rigorous academically speaking) translations of Buddhists and Chinese texts began to appear in the west. When they talk of Buddhism it's just a very unsophisticated outer layer about samsara, nirvana, karma, buddha etc

>Nietzsche
>consistent
I'm pretty sure even Nietzsche didn't believe that

Precisely. He healed those who had faith - he could not heal those who would deny him. Grace is undeserved, but there are still conditions which need to be met for forgiveness to be a possibility. You have to acknowledge that you need to be forgiven, to repent, to truly wish to become a better person. Of course, whether or not someone is in earnest in this is not something which can be known, so there is always an element of faith to charity. But, like Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them". If your "charity" consists of funneling money to some terrorist organization you probably aren't a good Christian.

As for Jesus' treatment of Sabbath, because it wasn't an end in itself, but a ritual which served a purpose, had a more abstract, philosophical meaning, when it was in opposition to that meaning ("sorry guys, I can't heal the sick cause it's the holy day right now") it was not just permitted, but a moral imperative to break with the tradition.

>All epistemic principles have its origins in empirical observation, and from them we develop scientific systems, which then allows us to have knowledge emancipated from perception.
laughing-hegelians.png

>he could not
Wrong in principal and fact. He cast out demons from people who could not make a genuine repentance any more than a child.

I think you're stuck because you don't understand that demonic possession isn't an "action" but a state of insanity, not a corruption of the self but loss of the freedom to act as oneself.

If you were to murder someone because you're 'possessed' by paranoid delusions that would not be a sin. It's something you have no control over, and hence it isn't something you need to be forgiven for.

We have no control at all over our sinful nature. In God's sight no man living is justified. You are putting extreme inhibitions on God's power and love and it is only harming you.

I could be mean and tell you to attempt a dark ritual. The world isn't as simple as that. We do not understand reality. Science hasn't mapped "what can be", and neither have our minds.

Much of the filling that integrates Nietzsche's books are in the realm of doxa, of opinion and polemics. Those are up in the air, they're not consistent because the nature of the claims don't require and don't allow for consistence. But the underlying narrative he outlines, his core theory, is very consistent and even more systematic than people realize.

Of course there's stuff he changes his mind about, but he makes sure to point it out specifically.

The point is that there's 'sin', which you are capable of repenting for, which is to say, something which could change if you simply understood your own actions more clearly, and 'possession', which lies well beyond the point where that kind of self-transformation is possible.
If you got rid of the first concept you would deny people the ability to understand themselves and one another, and the whole concept of 'spirit of the community with Christ' would fall apart, if you got rid of the second you would end up in a situation where you would need to call people in general 'irrideemably' sinful/demonic, and want to control them to make them conform to the 'right' way of life.

No but our sinful nature is every bit as out of our power to change as possession. Idk man your legalistic interpretation just seems wrong to me. But i am merely speaking as a Christian who is often disturbed by Christ's words; I feel they are outside of human comprehension in many cases. All i know is to love God entirely and to love my neighbor as myself. This first thing directs the others.

Right, I get you. We can't truly understand god. We never quite know what we can ask of each other, and at what point we are dealing with something which lies outside of that which is in our respective ability to change.
But I think you should now understand my reasoning as to why Jesus healed those who sinned and repented on one hand, and those who were possessed and could not on the other. And why it's important that you don't get rid of that idea and just forgive anyone for anything indiscriminately. The god of the old testament was a wrathful god for a reason.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

I think the narrow gate is the gate of selfless love that everyone tries to squirm around. Love is simply the most difficult thing in Christ's ministry; i see what you are saying but i feel like it was legalistic. Anyway i would continue arguing but i think I should read the bible in stead. Talking about it feels petty. Happy Christmas user.

>forgive anyone for anything indiscriminately.
I misworded that. What I mean is more along the lines of 'treating them in the same way regardless of the nature of their actions.' To love your enemies means to discriminate against that in them which is destructive to themselves and. If they are trying to do something terrible and ask you to help them with it, remember that you often have to chose a side, and that the pharisees did not follow Jesus "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." Indiscriminate tolerance is denial of the logos.

>Talking about it feels petty.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope that you'll think back on our conversation if you ever run into a situation where selflessness in the way you think about it doesn't seem to be the answer.
Merry Christmas.

because they're dead and the people do love to project

Dass man sich heute noch nicht schämt Christ zu sein!

How postmodern of you.

>Umm, no pumpkin
I am so weak just seeing this made me start fuming.

Nietzsche also believed in God.

Christianity is fake gay and jewish.