Posted by Ali Reda | Posted in | Posted on 9/28/2013
Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.
Nietzsche starts by defining the concepts of good, bad, and happiness in relation to the will to power.
What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? -- All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? -- The feeling that power increases -- that a resistance is overcome.Nietzsche's attacks pity and faith advocating skepticism and the will to power :
Faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this.
Pity persuades men to nothingness! Of course, one does not say 'nothingness.' One says 'the Beyond' or 'God' or ' true life' or 'Nirvana,' 'salvation,' 'redemption,' 'blessedness'. Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction;
Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them. A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view. The believer is not free to answer the question, “true” or “not true,” according to the dictates of his own conscience.
The weak and ill–constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy.
They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.
It has depraved the reason even of the intellectually strongest natures by teaching men to feel supreme values of intellectually as sinful, as misleading, as temptations. The most deplorable example: the depraving of Pascal, who believed his reason had been depraved by original sin while it had only been depraved by his Christianity!
Kant supported theological ideals by his discussions of the concepts of "true world" and "morality as the essence of the world." Kant's skeptical procedure was to show that these concepts could not be refuted, even though they could not be proved. Nietzsche was especially critical of Kant's Categorical imperative because its origin from concepts and logic was decadent because it was not a product of life, growth, self–preservation, and pleasure. Kant's practical reason was an attempt to give scientific legitimacy to his lack of intellectual conscience.
A backstairs leading to the old ideal stood open; the concept of the "true world," the concept of morality as the essence of the world (--the two most vicious errors that ever existed!), were once more, thanks to a subtle and wily skepticism, if not actually demonstrable, then at least no longer refutable... Reason, the prerogative of reason, does not go so far. . . Out of reality there had been made "appearance"; an absolutely false world, that of being, had been turned into reality.The Christian God reflects Christianity's decadence. If Christians were naturally strong and confident, they would have a God who is destructive as well as good.
Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude. A man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a god.—Such a god must be able to work both benefits and injuries; he must be able to play either friend or foe—he is wondered at for the good he does as well as for the evil he does. But the castration, against all nature, of such a god, making him a god of goodness alone, would be contrary to human.
Meta-physicians have eliminated the attributes of virile virtues, such as strength, bravery, and pride, from the concept of God. As a result, it deteriorated into an insubstantial ideal like Spinoza's God, pure spirit, Absolute, or thing in itself.
Nietzsche believed, Buddhism was the only positive religion because it struggles against actual suffering, Christianity, on the contrary, struggles against sin, while suffering can have a redemptive quality. Nietzsche claimed that Buddhism is "beyond good and evil" because "it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts behind it".
Concepts such as "God", "moral world–order", "sinner", "Redeemer", "free will", "beyond", "Last Judgment", and "immortal soul" are consciously employed in order to provide power to the church and its priests. Sinners are dependent on their priests for salvation, redemption, and forgiveness.
The priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be “sinning”.... Prime axiom: “God forgiveth him that repenteth”—in plain English, him that submitteth to the priest.Israel's Yahweh was the expression of the Jewish's consciousness of power, of their pride and their national will, but later due to the Assyrian, their concept of God was falsified into a form similar to the Christian god and the concept of morality was falsified. Morality is no longer an expression of life and growth.
The public notion of this god now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators, who interpret all happiness as a reward and all unhappiness as a punishment for obedience or disobedience to him, for “sin”: that most fraudulent of all imaginable interpretations, whereby a “moral order of the world” is set up.
For Nietzsche, Jesus was a peaceful rebel against the established order
Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: “Who put him to death? who was his natural enemy?”—this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one’s self in revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as in revolt against the established order.
Jesus did not want to redeem anyone. He wanted to show how to live. His legacy was his bearing and behavior. His legacy was his life not his death.
This “bearer of glad tidings” died as he lived and taught—not to “save mankind,” but to show mankind how to live. It was a way of life that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the officers, before his accusers—his demeanour on the cross. He does not resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off the most extreme penalty—more, he invites it.... And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in those, who do him evil.... Not to defend one’s self, not to show anger, not to lay blames.... On the contrary, to submit even to the Evil One—to love him....
Thereafter, the opposite kind of life was called Christian. Belief in redemption through Christ is not originally Christian. Genuine, original, primitive Christianity is not a faith. It is state of being".
There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross....Only Christian practice, a life such as he lived who died on the cross, is Christian...
Jesus' wanted his death on the cross to be an example of how a person can be free from resentment, revenge, and rebellion.
"And if someone goes through fire for his doctrine — what does that prove?"
The “kingdom of God” is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a “millennium”—it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....The disciples, however, wanted revenge against the Jewish ruling class and high priests who had delivered him to Pilate. They elevated Jesus into being the Messiah and Son of God and promised future judgment and punishment in the kingdom of God. This was in opposition to Jesus' doctrine that everyone could be a child of God and experience Heaven in their present lives by acting in a gentle, loving manner.
Paul made immortality the main point when he said "...If Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain!." Paul used the promise of life after death as a way to seize tyrannical power over the masses of lower-class people. This changed Christianity from a peace movement that achieves actual happiness into a religion whose final judgment offers possible resurrection and eternal life.
Hard upon the heels of the “glad tidings” came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the “bearer of glad tidings”; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels—nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth!
Paul falsified the history of Christianity, the history of Israel, and the history of mankind by making them all seem to be a preparation for the crucifixion. The meaning of the God on the Cross is that everything that suffers is divine.
The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of life, his death, the meaning of his death, even the consequences of his death—nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even remote contact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that whole life to a place behind this existence—in the lie of the “risen” Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the Saviour—what he needed was the death on the cross, and something more.
Again I remind you of Paul’s priceless saying: “And God hath chosen the weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and things which are despised”: this was the formula; in hoc signo the décadence triumphed.—God on the cross—is man always to miss the frightful inner significance of this symbol?—Everything that suffers, everything that hangs on the cross, is divine.... We all hang on the cross, consequently we are divine.... We alone are divine.... Christianity was thus a victory: a nobler attitude of mind was destroyed by it—Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of humanityThis sickness of Christianity came to halt during the church's reign in the renaissance but continued again due to the reformations by Luther which took the power from the pope and returned Christianity to its sickness
I see before me the possibility of a perfectly heavenly enchantment and spectacle:—it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of a fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so infernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years for another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter—Cæsar Borgia as pope!... Am I understood?... Well then, that would have been the sort of triumph that I alone am longing for today—: by it Christianity would have been swept away!
Luther saw only the depravity of the papacy at the very moment when the oppo site was becoming apparent: the old corruption, the peccatum originale, Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things!... And Luther restored the church: he attacked it.... The Renaissance—an event without meaning, a great futility!Unlike the Jewish/Christian Bible, the Hindu Law–Book of Manu lies for a good purpose. It accepts life and gives power to masters. For example it says "there is nothing purer than the light of the sun, the shadow cast by a cow, air, water, fire and the breath of a maiden." opposing the bible which says for example "to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; ... it is better to marry than to burn"
it differs fundamentally from every kind of Bible: by means of it the nobles, the philosophers and the warriors keep the whip-hand over the majority; it is full of noble valuations, it shows a feeling of perfection, an acceptance of life, and triumphant feeling toward self and life—the sun shines upon the whole book.—All the things on which Christianity vents its fathomless vulgarity—for example, procreation, women and marriage—are here handled earnestly, with reverence and with love and confidence.Why did Christianity trample down the culture of Islam? For Nietzsche Islam accepted life and showed the will to power, even although the Crusades was a demonstration of the will to power, it was an ill will for Nietzsche, it was a will of a thief.
Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, wastrampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more!
The church even ranges itself against cleanliness (—the first Christian order after the banishment of the Moors closed the public baths, of which there were 270 in Cordova alone).Nietzsche then attacks other ideologies that make all people "equal" so teaching them slave morality.
Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights
For Nietzsche, science is the replacement of god but both are wrong, because science worships truth and declares it to be objective and for Nietzsche nothing is objective because the only truth is the will to power and the will is subjective.
Science makes men godlike—it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific.In accordance with his revaluation of all values, Nietzsche suggested that time be calculated from the date of this book, instead of from the date of Christ's birth. Year One would begin, then, on September 30, 1888.
And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell—from the first day of Christianity!—Why not rather from its last?—From today?—The transvaluation of all values!...