How is Christianity more life-affirming than what this guy had to say?

But anarchy is the way of the future, just as Ubermensch are the future of mankind.

Unless capitalism drives us to extinction, in which case I suppose the last man was the future of mankind.

>Being this spooked

You sure that evolutionary predispositions are always going to end up drastically opposed?

the ubermensch doesn't have to be a law-violating sociopath.

>If everyone was a ubermensch then there would be anarchy
there would be better public transport?

Christianity is insane. The fact that the new testament has been the primary religious text underlying western moral thought for centuries is perplexing, because Christianity seems designed to destroy great civilizations.

If any government started to take Christian values seriously, they'd behave like modern day Sweden or Germany. Basically cucking themselves to death all while exalting themselves for their virtue in the process.

but being self sacrificing has its just rewards :-)

>if society took Christian values seriously, they'd be like majority atheist countries
are you fucking retarded?

Sweden is majority Christian.

>According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[6]
>18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
Stop being dishonest. Church membership in a state-run church =/= religiousness.

1. The Lutheran Church of Sweden is not a state run church anymore
2. Yes, they are in fact Christian

gutenberg.us/articles/Religion_in_Sweden#Religion_in_Sweden_today

>Only 1 in 10 Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life.
>About 5 out of 10 (45.5%) children are christened in the Church of Sweden.
>Just over 3 out of 10 (33.3%) weddings take place in church.
>The percentage of Swedes belonging to the Church of Sweden is decreasing yearly by more than one percent.
>The Church of Sweden services are sparsely attended (hovering in the single digit percentages of the population).[15]
>In 2000, 82.9%[9] of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden. By the end of 2015, this figure had fallen to 63.2%.[1]
This is a dead-end argument. I'm not even sure why you are bothering. Scandinavia is admired throughout the world by liberal atheists for this reason.

>liberal
Key point
Liberals love scandinavia, there's atheists out there who would heap more praise onto the very atheist societs of East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Because fundamentally, they still believe themselves to be Christian. Even if they're fluffy liberals that identify god as some kind of life-force over a tangible being.

And what exactly would you praise those places for?

nietzsche isn't for forgiveness or revenge, rather forgetfulness

Being safe, comfy and not eating from the garbage can of ideology.

Sweden is full of pious atheists, as stirner identified them

Christianity is equally life-affirming because Christianity defines life in a way that is completely opposite to how Nietzsche defines it. This makes neither of them right or wrong, but simply philosophical opposites.

Nietzsche was a beta male cuck and so are you.

You can identify as an atheist and still place a high emphasis on collective guilt merely because you are alive, and treat suffering as a virtue, and martyrdom as the ultimate act of righteousness.

A lot of modern 'atheist' countries have managed to adopt all of the most grotesque moral aspects of Christianity but just dropped the God who advocated for them. In a way, that might be even worse than not believing in Jesus, because now these people genuinely believe their masochism is rational and not a matter of faith.

>Czechoslovakia

no such place exists

but czechs are endemicaly atheist, and the fun part is it isnt a result of liberalism, or even former 'state atheism', since in most former soviet republics religion rose rapidly in the 90is, in their case its just a question of local culture and popular opinion, it just makes sense to people, no one even sees it as a thing

at the same time they are sort of proud catholics, or at least proud of catholic heritage

this happens a lot in east europe generaly, people identifying with a religious culture or denomination while realy maintaining no belief in god or afterlife or such, or even goin to church except for weddings and the like, its just a question of group identity

so you have to take that into account when looking at self report statistics, 80% of any given nation will declare themselves catholic/orthodox, but realy its like asking what football club they root for (which is often equaly if not more important to many)

>no such place exists
I know.

I was referring to the old communist regimes of Czechoslovakia and East Germany.

As both the Czech republic and what was once East Germany are majority explicit atheists.

yes, but strangely slovakia isnt realy all that atheist for some reason

czechs and slovaks never realy got along much either

stoicism had elements of this too

operatively self flagelation is life affirming, kind of

its a source of perverted joy and masochistic self agrandisement, but also a spiritual practice, and generaly invigorating and engendering self discipline

if were gonna talk about willpower, giving oneself 40 lashes with a knotted cord each morning is a great way to train the will and develop all kinds of mental tollerance and character

>“However, it often happens that God shows more clearly his manner of working in the distribution of good and bad fortune. For if punishment were obviously inflicted on every wrongdoing in this life, it would be supposed that nothing was reserved for the last judgement; on the other hand, if God's power never openly punished any sin in this world, there would be an end to belief in providence. Similarly in respect of good fortune: if God did not grant it to some petitioners with manifest generosity, we should not suppose that these temporal blessings were his concern, while if he bestowed prosperity on all just for the asking we might think that God was to be served merely for the sake of those rewards, and any service of him would prove us not godly but rather greedy and covetous.”

Embracing suffering so that you may endure for the sake of emerging better is a good thing.

Embracing suffering by making a virtue out of suffering itself is the exact opposite of life-affirming, it is simply exalting the suffering of life whilst forsaking the pleasure of it. It is nothing short of suffering for suffering's sake.

>“This being so, when the good and the wicked suffer alike, the identity of their sufferings does not mean that there is no difference between them. Though the sufferings are the same, the sufferers remain different. Virtue and vice are not the same, even if they undergo the same torment. The fire which makes gold shine makes chaff smoke; the same flail breaks up the straw and clears the grain; and oil is not mistaken for lees because both are forced out by the same press. In the same way, the violence which assails good men to test them, to cleanse and purify them, effects in the wicked their condemnation, ruin and annihilation. Thus the wicked, under pressure of affliction, execrate God and blaspheme; the good, in the same affliction, offer up prayers and praises. This shows that what matters is the nature of the sufferer, not the nature of the sufferings. Stir a cesspit, and a foul stench arises; stir a perfume, and a delightful fragrance ascends. But the movement is identical.”

>“But”, they will say, ‘many Christians also have been killed, and many carried off by hideous diseases of all kinds. If one must grieve at this, it is certainly the common lot of all who have been brought into this life. I am certain of this, that no-one has died who was not going to die at some time, and the end of life reduces the longest life to the same condition as the shortest. When something has ceased to exist, there is no more question of better or worse, longer or shorter. What does it matter by what kind of death life is brought to an end? When man’s life is ended he does not have to die again. Among the daily chances of this life every man on earth is threatened in the same way by innumerable deaths, and it is uncertain which of them will come to him. And so the question is whether it is better to suffer one in dying or to fear them all in living.”

...

Pretty sure Heracles was the epitome of the ubermensch, and he was consumed and driven by guilt and that is what forged him into a hero.

Original sin as something inherited isn't Orthodox.

Literally every culture in every time has had rules about what you can't do. You think any of the empires Nietzsche waxes about would have been possible without rules? People like Napoleon could accomplish more because they applied MORE rules to themselves.

Vote

strawpoll.me/10407759/

How many times do I have to tell you to fuck off and stop trying to talk about Nietzsche? Nothing you have said is a point to anything anyone else has said, take your irrelevant and erroneous rantings the fuck away from here.

Also nobody cares about your meme Christian beliefs. Nobody cares that you wake up and tip your fedora about your superior hipster Christianity. We're talking about what's salient to our lives, and don't give a fuck about yours.

Pretty sure Heracles was the epitome of the ubermensch, and he was consumed and driven by guilt and that is what forged him into a hero.

Original sin as something inherited isn't Orthodox.

Literally every culture in every time has had rules about what you can't do. You think any of the empires Nietzsche waxes about would have been possible without rules? People like Napoleon could accomplish more because they applied MORE rules to themselves.

"character"

Read Nietzsche like a good reader of the Epicureans.

literally wrong on every point

You've told us Orthodox basically belive that humans became fallen after eating an apple and it applies to every human accept the goddess and her son.

This is basically original sin with a different name.

It applies to all of creation, every rock, every animal. It's a contamination. However, that has nothing to do with guilt, and it doesn't *force* you to sin, it just makes your capacity to resist temptation greatly impaired. The Theotokos was sinless, but she still suffered from the contamination of the original sin (we don't subscribe the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception).

>Made post
>Came back 10 minutes later and made the exact same post

That's it, I'm convinced that Constantine is an elaborate troll.

>It applies to all of creation, every rock, every animal. It's a contamination.

How utterly life-denying The perspective is that everythin on the planet is diseased and sickly. To think just a few thousand years ago religion had the inverse position, that everything is sacred: animism.

Overall the concept of sin has to rank as the worst idea in the history of religion.

So god literally fugged her?

Everything IS diseased, because everything perishes. Everything is dying.

The immaculate conception means Mary's parents conceived her without transmitting original sin. It's Mary's conception which is being referred to as "immaculate" here.

It still says you're fundamentally flawed in some way. That's anti-human.

Everything is dying because everything lives.

Life is no disease.

this isn't a thread about your meme christian beliefs

No, being flawed is, not pointing it out

Scripture makes it clear that she wasn't a "random jewish girl".

>Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luke 1:28

She was preserved from the stain of original sin because:

>...the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35

She is literally the New Eve and was the perfect vessel for the Incarnate Word. Why can't you accept the truth of this doctrine?

If she were free from original sin, they she wouldn't die, would she?

I'm all for generalizations for the sake of time...but only if you can remain accurate, other wise it just looks like a lazy effort bro.

But God's word, if we're going to generalize, shows the peace and coherency that comes from not rocking the boat. And how it's impossible to please the flesh and not rock the boat. Thus, the importance of forgiveness and why both God and Jesus command that we forgive. The whole boat is the focal point here though.

Now all self gratification has the potential to lead to morbid selfishness. Only a complete arrogant and ignorant person would actually think if the virus of self gratification was set loose...it would or could, effect every one the same.

That means, just because one person who lives a life of pleasing themselves can with hold from reaching even further into self gratification, like to the point of enslaving the world so you can not only have yourself pleasing yourself, but now you can force others to pursue your pleasures...that doesn't mean, that if that virus is set loose, that another man if not a group of men, will also be able to refuse to lose all self control and refuse to contribute to the death and destruction that stems from being power hungry which leads to the exploitation of the weak and poor.

God's word, essentially is willing to cut the limb off...if it's threatening the whole. But he'll offer remedy by way of forgiveness before it gets that far 100% of the time. That's why people are willing to suffer, willing to combat their flesh in an attempt to remain disciplined. No ones perfect though, that goes without saying. But that's generally why believers are willing to fight and experience the suffering of that conflict.

But yeah, I mean from a broader context, God takes the route that any medicine would against a destroying virus.

>being an apologetic toward the virus
>implying that would help

^I just don't understand that logic.

Good well educated (tranny) theologian

Stupid Tripfag kys tier Protestant

These are eerily similar to the tenants of modern leftism...

Why would God allow this to happen to the New Eve who was prophetically alluded to in Genesis 3:15? Furthermore, she is clearly the Woman of the Apocalypse from Revelation 12 which Saint John wrote and in which he too describes her using the word "woman", in John 2:4 also.

Read Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus:
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

Besides, keep in mind that although early Christians quickly seeked out and preserved various relics of martyrs and saints, there are none of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

>Protestant
Huh? Do you call yourself Catholic? This is embarrassing.

There are none of Mary because she was assumed into heaven, but that was after her dormition, not before.

It sounds eerily similar to any feasible political ideology. But this thread isn't about politics.

You accept her Assumption yet reject her Immaculate Conception...this is illogical because they go hand in hand.

>The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".
CCC 492

You should read Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus:
ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm

>she wouldn't die, would she?
She did not.

Orthodox theology is garbage

That's because modern leftism is secular Christianity in all but name.

That's outright horseshit. Any ideology that promotes strength, or that promotes the pursuit of worldly pleasures is wholly incompatible with fundamentalist Christianity.

How to pester humans when you are an abomination against the true god.

1. Put your name in the bible in the place of god.
2. Write whatever the fuck you like in the bible as if you weren't a full retard, which is what defines abominations who rise against god.
3. Give the title of god in capitals (God) as if this were a way to refer to him, then add more titles that aren't of god and make more claims, these along with your abominable name.
4. Devise human-hating commandments (remember that man is made in the image and semblance of god, so your nature is similar, anti human commandments are abominations).
5. Do not forget to mention mankind an god have enemies.
6. But do make sure to place the name of god in what would be the word used to determine your foe.

Example:

Title of god: god.
Name of god: Satan.

Prove me wrong by showing me a church of Satan, preaching Satan and starting wars and other bullshit left and right.

>two christfag tripniggers

And no, I don't mean fake churches of Satan, I mean an actual church of Satan that preachs Satan is god and was never an angel or some shit like that, but the one true original god. And that he is good and benevolent and loving and all that. Obviously laveyan and other fake churches don't do this. In fact they go ahead and reject Satan, claiming he doesn't exist.

*tips*

>1242118
Its not about the commands. Its about the pragmatic results.
A high civilization with order and healthy north rates.
Organized religion is about group success and morality leading to legitimate births. The commandments only apply to your own people. Theyre rules for living together collecitvely .
Guilt is a good way to control people without force. As long as the rules apply to everyone equally i see no issue.

Aelian's shitposting level is lightyears beyond Constantine's.

I have never seen Aelian post something that wasn't a pure unadultered shitpost, whereas while Constantine is a retard it's no more retarded than how I imagine the majority of Veeky Forums would look like if we all used trips.

This pretty much. I can tolerate Constantine because at least they come off as a genuine poster, but Aelian is pure cancer.

Aelian is best tripfag
Sorry he gets your fedora in a bundle

Guilt =/= Bad Conscience

Yet again, you fail to understand even the most basic of Nietzsche's ideas. Stop posting any day now.

"Nietzsche ends the Treatise with a positive suggestion for a counter-movement to the "conscience-vivisection and cruelty to the animal-self" imposed by the bad conscience: this is to "wed to bad conscience the unnatural inclinations", i.e. to use the self-destructive tendency encapsulated in bad conscience to attack the symptoms of sickness themselves."

"He further has a number of strategies which are guilty in the sense that they have the effect of making the sick sicker (although the priest applies them with a good conscience); they work by inducing an "orgy of feeling" (Gefühls-Ausschweifung). He does this by "altering the direction of ressentiment," i.e. telling the weak to look for the causes of their unhappiness in themselves (in "sin"), not in others."

Society doesn't need guilt to run, it needs bad conscience. Again you've demonstrated yourself to be a shitty, poor reader of Nietzsche who grabbed shallow, surface level readings and ran with them to their shitty, poor conclusions.

Constantine isn't bad in being too annoying in their posts, they just constantly post wrong fucking things and aren't willing to discuss it.

Nietzsche distinguishes guilt in German etymology, from the contemporary use of "bad conscience". "Guilt" means deserving punishment, and bad conscience being the feeling of remorse. Heracles suffered from both blood guilt (which he must be cleansed from) and a bad conscience. These terms are also distinct in Greek, guilt being what Nietzsche said, and to feel remorseful is a phrase which means literally "to change concern" (both terms are in the new testament, the former is generally translated as guilt, the other as to repent), which can apply to broadly but generally means to feel anguish over actions committed with a different mind; concern here is synonymous with "bother", as in to be concerned or bothered.

>If one good deed in all my life I did,
>I do repent it from my very soul.
-Aaron, "Titus Andronicus"

You never say anything that isn't pedantry.

You pointed out that Nietzsche made a distinction between guilt and bad conscience, I pointed out that they both apply to Heracles regardless.

Your example has no bearing on the discussion, you're just throwing out shit that nobody wants to read.

I don't see how whether or not you want to read it is relevant to its truth or bearing.

Nietzsche didn't see morality as binary, dogmatic and static. What he advocated was a rejection of social values and a creation of an individual set of ideals and values.

Man-made values are never created ex nihilo, they're always cobbled together from prior values.

What you are is what you are. If you happen to be a co-operative type then you might be willing to compromise with your fellow humans

You won't last long if you don't unless you're a newborn or something.

I think what we must ask here is, why should social values be rejected just because their social? This sort of thinking that something (in this case, morality) isn't good if it's "mainstream", and is only good if it's "avant garde" was applied to art, and it hasn't really had good results. Art is no longer valued as art, but by how "avant garde" it is, and Nietzsche applies this attitude toward morality without much justification. Social values are social values because they were perfected by countless people over a long, long period and on wisdom much greater than readily apparent.

*they're social

As Hobbes said, the realisation that life in this anarchic world would be 'nasty, brutish and short' will compel people to form civil societies, with laws that govern behaviour and enforced by the state by popular consent. The rules prohibiting murder, theft and a million other things are there not because they're intrinsically good, as ethical rules embedded in the universe by some deity, but because they are USEFUL and NECESSARY, without which civilisations cannot function.

They are the results of empirical observation and evolution, not dead gods

Hobbes was a liberal, but certainly not a republican.

can't be forgiven for things that aren't wrong

Saying wrong and right are just opinions is a step toward everything being just an opinion (which Nietzsche believed). Now that applies to things like gender because of this terrible road.

It's relevant to whether you post in the thread you fuck.

It's impossible to have a Nietzsche thread without you derailing it. Fuck you.

How on earth is this derailing it? The OP overtly demands a defense of Christianity contra Nietzsche on certain points, and we're talking about one of those points.

>an ancient myth has guilt
>therefore christian guilt is justified

You do realize this line of reasoning is unconvincing, right? Nobody replies to it seriously because it's hardly an argument, it's just a super pedantic point with no substance.

You're like Socrates but worse, you think finding one potentially contradictory detail lets you "win" the argument or something. Either put in effort and lay out a series of arguments or shut the fuck up. Don't just make one pedantic point and defend it.

You're the worst poster on this board, I swear to fuck I don't know why I bother replying.

>I have never seen Aelian post something that wasn't a pure unadultered shitpost
Because you have no eyes to see. Constantine always runs away when defeated.