Is there a person who BTFO'd Christians harder than Nietzsche did?

>The most embarassing thing and the thing no Christian would ever met is he understood the teachings of Christ better than any other Christian ever did. In fact until Nietzsche showed up the Christians had largely been learning from Paul, a guy who usurped and perverted Christ's teachings. I can't imagine how embarrassing that would be.

What a shitty, retard-tier meme.

He didn't "invert Christian" philosophy. He took the entire cannon of medevil works. The christians, the muslims, even other Jews. Oh he fucked with other Jews so badly that he had a death curse put on him by the rabbis.

He fucking nuked them and their entire philophical history from orbit. Everyone died except him. He is THE reason that medevil philosophy isn't studied anymore. He and him alone.

Than he gathered up the remains and built his own philosophy out of them. One of his titles was "the first modern man" because every single Enlightentment idea starts with him: from politics, the rise of democracy, to science, to ethics, and of course religion. We're still living in his world. Hegel said you can't even be considered a philosopher if you aren't a Spinozian. That's how badly he BTFO'ed the other guys.

Ah, so HE'S the source of the cancer. I always thought it was Luther.

So is studying Medieval philosophy pointless after him?

What did he do exactly?

If a healthy skepticism and honesty towards the limits of your own knowledge, which is enough to serve as the foundation for the crippling of Christian philosophy, is cancerous to you, then I've got news for you: you're projecting big time.

The cancer of which I speak is Modernity itself, the full rot of which we are seeing in our own time. I don't think it's a coincidence that there's been a corresponding revival of interest in Medieval thought in the last few decades.

Is Guide For The Perplexed still worth a read, in your opinion? (I'll still read it, I got the softcover as a gift from a dear friend in addition to a Spinoza anthology, but I'm curious about your thoughts.)

>there's been a corresponding revival of interest in Medieval thought in the last few decades
Has there? Where?

Cancer of what?

He's the reason the study of the natural started proggressing so much faster. He's the reason that we do not have religious wars that have 1/3 of the population being killed off in petty religious deputes. He'll he's the reason the religious texts are analyzed according to historical context rather than just shoving your own interpretation in there.

He invented the concept of "right to free speech".

In a way he also moved philosophy away from hot air metaphysical arguements to discussing how government and people should live.

Have you SEEN medevil philosophy? It's the most unprodctive period in philosophy's history. In a way Spinoza rescued the entire disciple.

>he doesn't know

Probably on some Dark Enlightenment Discord channel where they argue over whether it should be Musk or Trump who shpuld be appointed king between sealing themselves off from daylight.

A lot of medevil philosophy was about finding compromise between Greek philosophy and religious teachings. The general middling point was that the Old and New Testament actually contained Aristotlian and Platonic ideas. In fact some historians at the time would say the Greek philosophers learned their wisdom from the Old Testament.

Spinoza basically invented biblical critisism and declared that the philophical readings were just the Rabbis and Priests reading what they wanted and it was actually a book that was partially history and partially "creative imagination". He also argued that the origenal writers did not intend for the superstitious parts to be metaphors. He beleives the stories were made up to teach people morality because they couldn't learn any other way. Moses and Jesus were wise moral teachers but morality doesn't come from prophecy or divine revaluation but the need to have a functioning community and empathy.

This might sound something you would say "but of course" but Spinoza was the first guy to come up with this stuff and he had threats on his life for it.

So in a sense he kicked religion out of philosophy. Basically all that's left of medevil thinking that can even be called philosophy is a few language and logic advancements.

He also created the early arguements for democracy and unconditional free speech and religious rights.

He also created the last, most elborate, and in a way final metaphysics system. Which closed off the possibility of a god "outside the universe" and declared everything in the universe was connected by a single universal cosmic force called "Nature" aka "God". No miracles or magic either, no free will either, everything is done according to unbreakable laws of "Nature" and I do mean everything, no excpetions.

Only if you're a practicing Jew or deeply interested in Jewish history. Maimonides was one of Spinoza's biggest influences, but he does rip his own arm off and beat him to death with it.

This all sounds pretty ridiculous if you're not an atheist.

Christianity, Judaism, and a lot of religion sounds ridiculous if you are an atheist.

Well, then, we're doomed to disagree, aren't we?

>Which closed off the possibility of a god "outside the universe" and declared everything in the universe was connected by a single universal cosmic force called "Nature" aka "God".
Could you elucidate?

Not really. Maybe if you classify anyone who isn't from an Abrahamic religion an atheist.

He wasn't an atheist. He was a pantheist.

Think of Einstein. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.

Doesn't matter really since Spinoza was the guy that won. That's why we don't have theocracies anymore and we don't lose 1/3 of our population in a war over minor religious deputes....unless you are in the middle-east LOL

>We don't have theocracies anymore.
Not overtly, but the church is the bedrock of countless communities, and the voice of religion carries heavy weight in politics, especially amongst conservatives — but also amongst progressives.
Religion isn't gone, God isn't dead in the lives and minds of people, not yet, probably not ever.

Nietzsche was Christian you absolute tool. He attacks Paulines.

Neitzsche was a cuck that praised muslims

>criticize everything BUT SCIENCE IF YOU DO THAT YOU ARE RETARD
>SCIENCE IS GOOD BTW AND GOD IS JUST NATURE
>HISTORY MATTERS TO RELIGIOUS TEXTS FOR SOME REASON AND HISTORY IS OBJECTIVE AND IF YOU CRITICIZE THAT YOUR ALSO RETARD
so this is the power of spinozians...

Like I said above, it's all just the most ridiculous bullshit. "Paul corrupted Christ's teachings" is one of the dumbest memes in all of anti-Christian criticism. Especially because, thanks to study, we now know that Paul's epistles are the oldest things in the New Testament. They were written in the 30s and 40s AD, more than two decades before the earliest date of Mark, the earliest Gospel. How on earth is it possible, then, to say that Paul corrupted Christ's teachings? One could far more easily go the other way and claim that Paul, in fact, has the more accurate picture of Christ's teachings, and the Gospels are corruptions of that. It's just a shitty fiction Nietzsche made up.

>Could you elucidate?

Basically every single aspect of reality is connected to another point. Imagine reality as a big quilt. Individual people or places can be thought of as various points in the quilt. However they are not really isolated because the threads all connect at one point.

He wrote a proof for it in the style that medevil philosophers did their proofs: a monsterous web filled with foreign technical terms. Think stuff like stuff like the first mover argument. Only because Spinoza is a smug bastard and an asshole his proof makes the first mover argument look like a connect the dots puzzle made for 6 year olds. Also get this. The original text was written in Latin so unless you were an extremely educate man you couldn't even read his proof, you aren't good enough for it. Spinoza is probably the biggest bully in the history of the philosophy. Just look at his smug face.

Check it out LOL earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/spinoza1665.pdf

>This might sound something you would say "but of course" but Spinoza was the first guy to come up with this stuff and he had threats on his life for it.
>threats
Because he was a fucking moronic reductionist like every other fedoralord today.

You do realize you're only allowed to have your religion and vote in politics because of this smug, ass-hole Jew?

Any university worth it's salt will have a history program that teaches that Paul's Christianity was fundmentally different than Jesus's. They won't use the word "corrupt" because it hurts people's feelings. Like I said no Christian will ever admit how badly Nietzsche won, it's too humilating. Better to say all the history departments are run by evil Jews than to say Nietzsche was right.

Because atheists are braindead children.
Those in the right aren't always those that win.

History is on my side, user, not yours.

It's totally irrelevant if Paul's writings were the earliest, you tool. You do realize somebody can pervert events, before they are ever recorded, right? You're a fucking tool and a heretic too.
Nietzsche was Christian you tool, just not Pauline.
History departments are wrong, though. Glorified fictionalists pretending historicism is at all valid.
Goodness, you're a tool too.

History is irrelevant mythologizing.

>Nietzsche was Christian you tool
How do you reach this insane conclusion? This is some next level mental gymnastics.

>ANYBODY WHO DOESNT FIT MUH CONSENSUS IS LE CRAZY
Letzter Mensch

when he says he was a "christian" he just means he wasn't part of "the tribe" if you know what i mean

this, i don't get the impression from nietzche that he's a christian at all. christianity is the prime example of the slave morality

No, that isn't what I mean, you fucking tool.

Can you state your argument instead of beating around the bush?

>christianity is the prime example of the slave morality
Paul's Christianity. When he talks about Jesus in the Antichrist he's like "yeah that dude was a weirdo but he was one of Us".

what makes you think nietzche was a christian? i am genuinely curious here

he says some pro-catholic shit in that too, or maybe it was twilight of the idols, seems to me like nietzsche just hated protestants and ultimately maybe just hated his dad, maybe he was stuck in some weird oedipal phase which is why he was forever alone

But where's the evidence of it, then, if we don't have anything earlier than Paul's epistles?

Everything he actually believed in was Christian. Furthermore, he was extremely religious as a boy. He was resentful of Christian culture and rejected that, not Christianity itself.

He called him and idiot and praised the Pharisee and Pilate. He didn't hate Jesus but he found his thinking small and shallow.

I think in Ecce Homo, the only time he talks about his dad, he says he respected him. He attacks Catholic stuff like like when he shit on Aquinas. In Antichrist he calls Christianity mankind's one mistake. He didn't say Protestantism, he said Christianity.

As for his loneliness. All philosophers are alone. It's their nature.

Sanchuniathon

>evidence
Atheists are so fucking stupid, holy shit.

In Ecce Homo he said he never felt strongly about sin or salvation in all his life and that Zarathustra was his childhood idol.

I honestly think you just making shit up with no more thought than it takes you to type. The guy made it clear on many occassions he is not a Christian and he thinks their thinking is anti-life.

what? he was an egoist, he believed christianity distorted the nature of humanity and inhibited the ego. nothing he believed was christian

when i saw pro catholic i don't mean any of the philosophy or ideology, he just liked that it was a big ass hierarchy with one dude at the top with all the power, maybe i
ll try to find that part later, those are short volumes

You read like a woman.
Wrong. You don't understand him or Christianity. Denouncing Christian culture is not equivalent to denouncing Christianity.

Oh I see what you mean. He did say that Catholics were better than Protestants and the man loves hierarchy.

I also recall him saying that the one thing he liked about Christianity were it's holy wars because it gave people something to fight over even if it was just petty theological differences.

Didn't he call him a free spirit or something like that?

so that leads you to believe he was a christian? because he liked hierarchies...

i'm not the poster saying he was a christian

His view of Jesus was that he lived completely in his mind and was completely at peace with the world. So in that regard he was respectable and spiritual. Yet he was still a shallow person.

His New Testament analysis isn't just good guys vs bad guys. Almost every character except Paul he has something both good and bad to say. Paul is the only guy that really is a complete fuck up in his mind. In general he doesn't want you to think of people as "good guy" or "bad guy".

It's all complicated because he is trying to arrange them in an order of rank (with himself at the top). Plus he takes Jesus as seperate from the whole Christian movement.

the mental gymnastics are too real, you're right man he was a pious, god fearing christian through and through

Goodness you are illiterate, and you put words into my mouth. Disgusting tool.

sorry i must have misread what you were saying. for a second there i thought you said nietzche was a christian

I did because that is correct. Everything else, you do not understand.

out of any atheist, nietzsche BTFO'd christians the most - because he understood them! instead of merely hating or resenting them or speaking in the name of science, as most (great) atheists (and i myself used to) do

so when he says that christianity has been the most fatal kind of self-presumption ever you put words in his mouth and say to yourself he's talking about the culture of christianity and not christianity itself? i'm not entirely sure but i think you might have misunderstood him just a little

reminder that nietszche was a profoundly sad, sickly, slight man,

poor guy.

how can one person be so fucking illiterate?

Christianity includes the necessity to cut out harmful trees from the garden. The fruits tell the good trees from the bad ones.

t. butthurt theist

You know, like game of thrones and stuff.

Finally, to show the downside of these religions as well and throw light
on their uncanny dangers: there is a high and horrible price to pay when
religions do not serve as means for breeding and education in the hands of
a philosopher, but instead serve themselves and become sovereign, when
they want to be the ultimate goal instead of a means alongside other means.
With humans as with every other type of animal, there is a surplus of failures
and degenerates, of the diseased and infirm, of those who necessarily
suffer. Even with humans, successful cases are always the exception and,

Beyond Good and Evil
since humans are the still undetermined animals, the infrequent exception.
But it gets worse: people who represent more nobly bred types are less
likely to turn out well. Chance, that law of nonsense in the overall economy
of mankind, is most terribly apparent in its destructive effect on the higher
men, whose conditions of life are subtle, multiple, and difficult to calculate.
So how is this surplus of failures treated by the two greatest religions,
those mentioned above? They try to preserve, to keep everything living
that can be kept in any way alive. In fact, they take sides with the failures
as a matter of principle, as religions of the suffering. They give rights to
all those who suffer life like a disease, and they want to make every other
feeling for life seem wrong and become impossible. Whatever merit we
might find in this indulgent, preserving care, which was and is meant for
the highest types of people (since these are the ones that, historically, have
almost always suffered the most), along with everyone else – nevertheless,
in the final analysis, the religions that have existed so far (which have all
been sovereign) have played a principal role in keeping the type “man” on
a lower level. They have preserved too much of what should be destroyed.
They have done invaluable service, these religions, and who is so richly
endowed with gratitude not to grow poor in the face of everything that, for
instance, the “spiritual men” of Christianity have done for Europe so far!
And yet, after they gave comfort to the suffering, courage to the oppressed
and despairing, a staff and support to the dependent, after they found people
who were inwardly destroyed or had grown wild and lured them away
from society, into cloisters and spiritual prisons: what else did they have
to do, to work in good conscience and conviction for the preservation
of all the sick and suffering, which really means working in word and
in deed for the deterioration of the European race?

Stand all valuations on
their head – that is what they had to do! And crush the strong, strike down
the great hopes, throw suspicion on the delight in beauty, skew everything
self-satisfied, manly, conquering, domineering, every instinct that
belongs to the highest and best-turned-out type of “human,” twist them
into uncertainty, crisis of conscience, self-destruction; at the limit, invert
the whole love of the earth and of earthly dominion into hatred against
earth and the earthly – that is the task the church set and needed to set
for itself until, in its estimation, “unworldly,” “unsensuous,” and “higher
man” finally melted together into a single feeling. If you could survey the
strangely painful, crude yet subtle comedy of European Christianity with
the mocking and disinterested eye of an Epicurean god, I think you would find it to be a constant source of amazement and laughter. Doesn’t it seem
as if, for eighteen centuries, Europe was dominated by the single will to
turn humanity into a sublime abortion? But if somebody with opposite
needs were to approach the almost willful degeneration and atrophy of
humanity that the Christian European (Pascal for instance) has become,
somebody whose manner is no longer Epicurean, but has instead some
divine hammer in hand; wouldn’t he have to yell out in rage, in pity, in
horror: “Oh you fools, you presumptuous, pitying fools, what have you
done here!Was that work meant for your hands! Look how you’ve wrecked
and ruined my most beautiful stone! Who gave you the right to do such
a thing!” – What I mean is: Christianity has been the most disastrous
form of arrogance so far. People who were not high and hard enough to
give human beings artistic form; people who were not strong or far-sighted
enough, who lacked the sublime self-discipline to give free reign to the
foreground law of ruin and failure by the thousands; people who were not
noble enough to see the abysmally different orders of rank and chasms
in rank between different people. People like this, with their “equality
before God” have prevailed over the fate of Europe so far, until a stunted,
almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something well-meaning, sickly,
and mediocre has finally been bred: the European of today .

Could I get a TL:DR?

He doesn't understand Nietzsche and still falls for the 'he's easy to read' meme.

he is saying christianity is the religion of the Übermensch and that it does a great job of getting rid of things that ought to be discarded

>Believing everything you see without doubt
Theists are so fucking stupid, holy shit.

It is well written and has several points that struck a nerve in the right way. Though it ignores Christian art and seems too bound to the contemporary. It ignores the Christian monarchies, the operas, the cathedrals.

>belief and doubt are the opposite
They are the same circle. One rules at a time, but they are both there.

>be Christian
>announce the human murder of God
>publish a book and call it The Antichrist
>call Christianity a nihilistic religion
>study the psychology of the savior and label him immature, and say if he lived longer he would have adopted Nietzschean philosophy
>call pity the bane of humanity
>encourage slapping back instead of turning the other cheek because the latter is an insult
>propose a moral metaphysics completely at odds with Christian moral metaphysics

Hmm. Well you could say he started somewhat Christian, young Nietzsche can talk like a man who had deeply religious experiences. But from Zarathustra on he is as anti-Christian as someone can possibly get. And he knew it, because he signed himself as The Antichrist in letters.

how has no one mentioned forehead man in this thread

>He is THE reason that medevil philosophy isn't studied anymore.
Medieval philosophy is studied, now much more so than a century ago and it wasn't related to Spinoza being a good critic of it- he had very little knowledge of actual Christian phlosphy.

You have a number of aristotelians in the mainstream. MacIntyre (political philosophy and ethics), Anscombe (one of the most important analytics of the 20th century), Philipa Foot, Peter Geach, Edward Feser, David Oderberg, Garrigou-Larrange, Jaques Maritain, E. Gilson, V. Schall and probably a dozen more. Currently you have more aristotelian-thomist sources than ever before and you have more contemporary material than the source one.

You say that, but his actions do not reflect this. He didn't sacrifice children to Baal, rape them or lead a life of a pharisee, nor did he love lies. As such, he cannot be antichrist enough to justify his claim. Certainly an act of distancing himself from the contemporary and perhaps even Christianity.
This does not make him a Christian but perhaps a 'honorary Aryan', like the Chinese religions.

no he is a christian

Massive Cranium is all about rebellion though, I like him but he's super easy to paint as an edgy "fuck you dad" type.

Yeah cuz the post-Nietzsche world is soooo good now. Fuck Christianity with its white people and societies brimming with morality and industriousness.

>You say that, but his actions do not reflect this. He didn't sacrifice children to Baal, rape them or lead a life of a pharisee, nor did he love lies. As such, he cannot be antichrist enough to justify his claim.
Well that was some of the funniest shit I've ever read. Sorry, but being anti-Christian is more than just being a violent warmonger. We're talking a metaphysical antithesis to Christian morality. Nietzsche didn't have to be a savage, violent tyrant to be the Antichrist. He just needed a philosophy that was at TOTAL ODDS with it, which he did.

And he did NOT agree with Christ in the latter half of his life. He called him immature, underdeveloped. He may have understood the real Christ better than Paul or any priest ever did, but that does not mean he is a Christian.

Nietzsche didn't miraculously end Christianity or white people or white societies.

WE

youtube.com/watch?v=scTew_MRGYQ

>the world is so bad

Read Rorty you shit bird

>he calls himself the black ponderer
why are black people so obsessed with being black that they include it in their usernames?

>Sorry, but being anti-Christian is more than just being a violent warmonger
You forgot the pharisee portion.
The letter kills.

Because we live in a culture where the only canonical elements of identity are race, gender, and sexuality.

Why do you people want to say this man is a Christian? Is there some youtube dude going around telling you this?

This is what happens when a retarded /pol/ ideologue tries to discuss the merits and influence of Spinoza.

Nietzsche does the discuss the Pharisee. They are heroes that defended their people with honor and virtue against he corrupting forces of the Christian religion.

You're fucking hilarious.

Most thinking people BTFO Christians, so it's a long long list.
Epicurus did it retroactively.
Stirner, Darwin, Ingersoll, Russell. There's nothing new about atheism laying theists flat on their back.