Was he really right about Christianity?

And how it's a creed for the weak?

To a degree it is:

>Charity, pity and power to the poor and disenfranchised: The Religion

On the other hand the strong have used its creed for various purposes and I do not necessarily agree with the syphilitic sperglords rambling on nobility.

He was right about it being for the, weak. Christianity exalts hunger, self-denial, celibacy, forgiveness, nonresistance, obedience, poverty and humility. But his idea that Christianity is driven by resentment, doesn't apply to Orthodoxy, only Western Christianity.

>But his idea that Christianity is driven by resentment

Wasnt that more based on Paul the Apostle than any particular denomination?

Not, it was based on Aquinas and Tertullian. Paul was the one who said as I'd love is more important than faith or hope, and that even if give away everything to the poor and can move mountains with your faith, you are nothing without love. Paul loved so much he said he wished he could trade places with the damned. Whom would Paul resent?

Not that familiar with Paul but it sounds like self resentment.

Then that has nothing to do with Nietzsche's use of the term

Im not the other user isnt Tertullian accepted and influential in both churches?

He popularized the term "Trinity," but otherwise, Orthodox consider him a heretic, and he is not regarded as a Father. On the other hand, we regard John Cassian as a saint and father, whereas Catholics don't even though he wrote in Latin.

Im the user from
Could it be that I mistook slave morality for resentment?

Nietzsche respected Christ though and thought he was the only "true" Christian.

I think it had more to do with the fact that Christ acted the way he did because of his internal moral convictions, while Christians are meek because a genuine lack of positive aggression. Christ laid the intellectual smack down on people whom he had issue with, he was very brave.

Depends. Is saying slaves should obey, master morality, or slave morality?

Nietzsche respected his personal version of Christ, not the ancient Christian version.

To say early Christians didn't lay moral smackdowns or were willing to die for their convictions is a bit silly. Saint John Chrysostom is an example of both.

It can come from both ends I would say (although I an far from well versed or wise in these matters) depending on who the obey is directed at (ie whether it means for humans or God).

The slave morality has more to do with the exaltation of the values in and claims of their involuntariness + the degredation of the opposites

Both humans and God

Then Orthodox Christianity is slave morality, but definitely not driven by resentment. Christ said if you wish to be first, be a slave to others

>*tips fedora* dude you totally should rebel against your parents for forcing you to go to the church!
what was his fucking problem

>Christ said if you wish to be first, be a slave to others

That sounds exactly like slave morality though, taking the moral standing of the weak who cant afford to be gluttonous, have nothing to deny themselves and are too weak or cowardly to resist or shame ect and making these values the superior ones to those who forced those previous conditions on them.

>forcing you
If you have to force a child to go to church you have failed as a parent.

Except Pharisees were the champions of the underclass (they were like the pppulares of the Sanhedrin, whereas Saduccees were like the optimates); notice in Christ'so story of the Publican and the Pharisee, the Publican is exalted (Publicans then were Jew's who bought tax bills from the Romans at cut rate, then paid extortionists to collect). Why? Because the Pharisee exist as late himself in his pride over his asceticism and poverty.

That is, Christ placed contrition over all other qualities, and as the ascetic fathers noted, deep, tearful contrition cannot coexist with pride or resentment

>Except Pharisees were the champions of the underclass

That doesnt really address Ns point though. His whole slave morality argument is based on it exalting hunger, self-denial, celibacy, forgiveness, nonresistance, obedience, poverty and humility. If Orthodoxy exalts these then they are covered by his analysis.

>That is, Christ placed contrition over all other qualities, and as the ascetic fathers noted, deep, tearful contrition cannot coexist with pride or resentment

The idea is more about the exhalation of these as practices being based in it rather than those practice individually being based on it.

Also something you might find interesting but N linked slave morality to the development of democratic and socialist movements - movements that found very fertile ground in Orthodox and Catholic countries.

Not really, since there have been countless ascetic saints who opted for this lifestyle and weren't born into it. Radical Orthodoxy is stuff like standing up all night in prayer and doing foolish things intentionally to make yourself look stupid to the world in order to humble yourself; radical Orthodoxy is extreme fasting coupled with leaving trash and dirty dishes around so others think you're a glutton. I doubt Nietzsche knew the first thing about Orthodox Christianity.

I think you might try Dostoevsky instead of Nietzsche if you want to examine that subject. "Demons" especially. Also try "Nihilism" by Father Seraphim Rose

Like China and Vietnam and Korea and ancient Greece and Rome?

>I doubt Nietzsche knew the first thing about Orthodox Christianity.

I think you are missing the point here see its the source.

>I doubt Nietzsche knew the first thing about Orthodox Christianity.

Given the knowledge and his craking on Buddhism you might be suprsied regarding his knowledge on the habits of ascetics and those with fervor. Whether it was the flagellants who would whip themseleves as penance or people like Saint Rose who despite being an extreemly beautiful woman cut all her hair off and rubbed pepper over her face till it blistered and swelled so men wouldnt bother her and she could spend 20 hours a day in prayer.

Orthodoxy isnt unique here

>ancient Greece and Rome?
Aristocratic and nothing in common with the one man one vote ideals popping up which is the democracy of his and our times.

>China and Vietnam and Korea
Slave morality is not a synonym for Christianity it applies to other thought systems and religions.

Orthodox ascetism isn't about those sorts of practices, becasuse inflicting intense carnal pain is seen as exciting the flesh, not mortifying it. Also we see Christ as saving us from the Devil's captivity rather than being punished by God in our place, so somewhat different outlook there; the point of ascetism for us isn't self punishment, it is about disciplining the body and mind into stoic serenity

Athens literally paid you to vote so the lower working class could take time off from work in order to do it, see Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. And don't tell ne Roman plebs are "aristocratic"

>Orthodox ascetism isn't about those sorts of practices,

Did you read the example of Saint Rose I posted?

How is

"cut all her hair off and rubbed pepper over her face till it blistered and swelled so men wouldnt bother her and she could spend 20 hours a day in prayer."

not "disciplining the body and mind into stoic serenity"

And do you sincerely believe that Buddhist ascetics are about punishing themselves?

Its like you just read the flagellants part and skipped the rest

>Athens literally paid you to vote

If you were part of the rather exclusive citizen cast and not part of the huge percentage of the population that were slaves or female.

>And don't tell ne Roman plebs are "aristocratic"

Once again ignoring the whole slavery issue.

Aristotle was hostile to Democracy.

imo he was wrong and wasn't in a place or time to pass proper judgment. Like many people of his era they bemoaned (even without relazing it) the generally laxed nature of the church during his era. Like many Germans though he selfishly conflated the theologically lacking Protestantism to the whole. For example, the Wahhabi revival happened because of the same perceived failings viewed in Islam: a general apathy. Do I think secular humanism is Christianity without spirit? No. Secular humanism is the result of a composite of many things. Including German common law.

>Christianity is driven by resentment, doesn't apply...
when promise that you will get your way in the future, either after death or in the actual future, it is revenge psychology/resentment
>I'm suffering now but just you wait

t.christian apologist

No, Niche was just taking advantage of a fallen nation. It is easy to say "Ugh all this is pointless and stupid let me just strip away europes safety net without giving an alternative."

The strong can afford to strive for things greater than themselves. to wholly give themselves to a cause worth fighting for - the weak are only concerned with themselves and the advancement of thier own power for the sake of power.

> europes safety net

We Wuz Safety Nets N Shieet