Was Nietzsche right about Christianity?

[SLD]

Nietzsche on Christianity - a paraphrase:

Christianity puts itself forward as a religion of love, but in fact it is rooted in weakness, fear and malice. It's dominant motive is ressentiment, the desire of the weak for revenge against the strong! Which disguises itself as a wish to punish the sinner. Christians pose as the executors of divine commands, but is only to cloak their own bad conscience. Christians exalt compassion as a virtue, but when they assist the afflicted it is commonly because they enjoy exercising power over them. Even when philanthropy is not hypocritical it does more harm than good, by humiliating the sufferer. Pity is a poison that infects a compassionate person with the sufferings of others. The success of Christianity has led to the degeneration of the human race. Systematic tenderness for the weak lowers the general health and strength of mankind. Modern man, as a result, is a mere dwarf, who has lost the will to be truly human. Vulgarity and mediocrity become the norm; only rarely there still flashes out an embodiment of the noble ideal.

Nietzsche was a bit tough on Christianity. But is his view valid? Or is he too harsh? Can an atheist be against both Christianity and Nietzsche?

SLD

 

[LordKiran]

Nietzsche on Christianity - a paraphrase:

Christianity puts itself forward as a religion of love, but in fact it is rooted in weakness, fear and malice. It's dominant motive is ressentiment, the desire of the weak for revenge against the strong! Which disguises itself as a wish to punish the sinner. Christians pose as the executors of divine commands, but is only to cloak their own bad conscience. Christians exalt compassion as a virtue, but when they assist the afflicted it is commonly because they enjoy exercising power over them. Even when philanthropy is not hypocritical it does more harm than good, by humiliating the sufferer. Pity is a poison that infects a compassionate person with the sufferings of others. The success of Christianity has led to the degeneration of the human race. Systematic tenderness for the weak lowers the general health and strength of mankind. Modern man, as a result, is a mere dwarf, who has lost the will to be truly human. Vulgarity and mediocrity become the norm; only rarely there still flashes out an embodiment of the noble ideal.

Nietzsche was a bit tough on Christianity. But is his view valid? Or is he too harsh? Can an atheist be against both Christianity and Nietzsche?

SLD

Nietzsche was a bit tough on humanity there, never-mind Christianity. When you read passages like that out loud it's no wonder the Nazis re-purposed his work to suit their 'might makes right' ideology.

I feel his insights are interesting and definitely speaks to the hidden (or not-so-hidden) rot beneath certain individual sects of Christendom, where I feel he drops the ball is his seeming insistence that charity comes from a place of conceit, and even more troubling: the notion that humility should be seen as a punishment for "the weak."

 

[sharon45]

Nietzsche on Christianity - a paraphrase:

Christianity puts itself forward as a religion of love, but in fact it is rooted in weakness, fear and malice. It's dominant motive is ressentiment, the desire of the weak for revenge against the strong! Which disguises itself as a wish to punish the sinner. Christians pose as the executors of divine commands, but is only to cloak their own bad conscience. Christians exalt compassion as a virtue, but when they assist the afflicted it is commonly because they enjoy exercising power over them. Even when philanthropy is not hypocritical it does more harm than good, by humiliating the sufferer. Pity is a poison that infects a compassionate person with the sufferings of others. The success of Christianity has led to the degeneration of the human race. Systematic tenderness for the weak lowers the general health and strength of mankind. Modern man, as a result, is a mere dwarf, who has lost the will to be truly human. Vulgarity and mediocrity become the norm; only rarely there still flashes out an embodiment of the noble ideal.

Nietzsche was a bit tough on Christianity. But is his view valid? Or is he too harsh? Can an atheist be against both Christianity and Nietzsche?

I don't have to agree on everything here until it is much more simply explained, but he is right that Christianity, and basically all religions, have serverely stunted humanity.

 

[sharon45]

where I feel he drops the ball is his seeming insistence that charity comes from a place of conceit, and even more troubling: the notion that humility should be seen as a punishment for "the weak."

Yes, he deeply generalizes again with this, yet a huge majority of charity is used to keep people as victims and controlled. I, for one, do not believe in charity, because I think we should all come to some real lasting solutions to many of our social problems, instead of largely making them worse. He also contradicts himself here, since he, like everyone else on this planet, eventually becomes one of the weak, and he is also part of that shrinkage of humanity, because he mainly talked far above people to demonstrate and improve on just how smart he was, instead of publicly conveying simply his great wisdom to as many as possible.

 

[Sarpedon]

By focusing his ire and vindicitiveness against christianity, he misses the bigger problem of cult thinking. He himself was a bit of a weakling who railed against those stronger than he (Christians).

 

[sharon45]

By focusing his ire and vindicitiveness against christianity, he misses the bigger problem of cult thinking.

Agreed.

He himself was a bit of a weakling who railed against those stronger than he (Christians).

Sure, as a supposed group on the whole, Christians are certainly mightier in brute strength, but they are like ants; and as ants, they also easily go to war against many of their own collective.

 

[Kharakov]

It appears to me that many well off Christians act more like silverbacks than they do like Nietzschean Christians. They appear to be quite aware of the falseness of their religion, and put on a big act to hold their position in the hierarchy, while investing in information technology and science so they can maintain their dominance.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ants go to war with other ant colonies. I've never heard of an ant civil war.

 

[sharon45]

Ants go to war with other ant colonies.

I did mean that. Collective, as in simply other fellow ants.

I've never heard of an ant civil war.

I haven't either, but it may happen.

 

[sharon45]

It appears to me that many well off Christians act more like silverbacks than they do like Nietzschean Christians. They appear to be quite aware of the falseness of their religion

I think nearly every Christian is aware of this; I certainly was, as only a dumb ol' kid of five years old, but I was also still powerless with fear at the time. I hadn't enough brains to realize that maybe this contradicting sick god didn't even exist.

 

[Tigers!]

As a Christian I would obviously disagree with Nietzsche.
He must have had a very bad run-in against Christians/church at some stage in his life. But the Christians/church at time have behaved appallingly badly. And that needs to be pointed out.
His view of charity would make it impossible to help anyone out for any reason if taken seriously and consistently.

 

[sharon45]

He must have had a very bad run-in against Christians/church at some stage in his life.

Why must he? I didn't, besides verbal experiences with the hateful religion itself, and that was just enough to know the very beginnings of why Christianity is dangerous.

But the Christians/church at time have behaved appallingly badly. And that needs to be pointed out.

Christians/church behave appallingly bad right now, and that needs to be pointed out.

His view of charity would make it impossible to help anyone out for any reason if taken seriously and consistently.

By a misconstrued version of charity, since simply helping someone isn't necessarily considered charity.

 

[DBT]

Condemnation and Torment is the antithesis of Love.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nietzsche on Christianity - a paraphrase:

Christianity puts itself forward as a religion of love, but in fact it is rooted in weakness, fear and malice. It's dominant motive is ressentiment, the desire of the weak for revenge against the strong! Which disguises itself as a wish to punish the sinner. Christians pose as the executors of divine commands, but is only to cloak their own bad conscience. Christians exalt compassion as a virtue, but when they assist the afflicted it is commonly because they enjoy exercising power over them. Even when philanthropy is not hypocritical it does more harm than good, by humiliating the sufferer. Pity is a poison that infects a compassionate person with the sufferings of others. The success of Christianity has led to the degeneration of the human race. Systematic tenderness for the weak lowers the general health and strength of mankind. Modern man, as a result, is a mere dwarf, who has lost the will to be truly human. Vulgarity and mediocrity become the norm; only rarely there still flashes out an embodiment of the noble ideal.

Nietzsche was a bit tough on Christianity. But is his view valid? Or is he too harsh? Can an atheist be against both Christianity and Nietzsche?

SLD

I don't think that's a very good translation.

He doesn't have a problem with mediocrity. It's not "overman" as in superior man, but as in man that has the ability to step back and look at himself and others a bit dispassionately and self critically.

His critique of Christianity, as I see it, is that the losers in society, instead of trying to raise themselves from their predicament, they instead claim they are really winners, and construct an elaborate story around it to justify why failure is in reality success. A failure to get laid = superior morals. Failure at work = humble before God. And so on.

He doesn't have a problem with people being losers. He objects to people trying hard to be losers. People should still aspire to succeed, even if they don't. He's also super subjective regarding what is success. We all decide for ourselves what is success. He sees it as a virtue to NOT try to do the same shit everybody else is. Which is why he loves art. While it doesn't generate much money, or anything useful, it does help with existential anxiety.

Not only does Christianity uphold failure as a virtue, but seeks to actively promote it and uses social pressures to force others to adapt.

Yes, pity is a poison. Your quote is accurate, but to explain it a bit, he argues that all people are inherently selfish and self interested. We only help others if doing so also serves our own interest. That's his starting position. I also agree. He then uses that assumption to explain Christian "generosity". The goal of Christian generosity isn't to help anyone, but partly to elevate oneself in the eyes of ones peers, but also intended to make sure the poor stay poor. Which explains why Christian missions have been such an utter and complete failure. And why people advertise that they've given to charity.

I think Nietzsche is right on the money. But it's not just Christianity. The same can be applied to every human cultural expression. These types of people are everywhere. The only organised movement to battle this stuff, I can think of, is the Gay Pride Parade movement. So... go go faggots. We need you.

 

[sharon45]

Condemnation and Torment is the antithesis of Love.

Aw, it is just tough love leveled by a tiger mother creator.

 

[J842P]

Nietzsche on Christianity - a paraphrase:

Christianity puts itself forward as a religion of love, but in fact it is rooted in weakness, fear and malice. It's dominant motive is ressentiment, the desire of the weak for revenge against the strong! Which disguises itself as a wish to punish the sinner. Christians pose as the executors of divine commands, but is only to cloak their own bad conscience. Christians exalt compassion as a virtue, but when they assist the afflicted it is commonly because they enjoy exercising power over them. Even when philanthropy is not hypocritical it does more harm than good, by humiliating the sufferer. Pity is a poison that infects a compassionate person with the sufferings of others. The success of Christianity has led to the degeneration of the human race. Systematic tenderness for the weak lowers the general health and strength of mankind. Modern man, as a result, is a mere dwarf, who has lost the will to be truly human. Vulgarity and mediocrity become the norm; only rarely there still flashes out an embodiment of the noble ideal.

Nietzsche was a bit tough on Christianity. But is his view valid? Or is he too harsh? Can an atheist be against both Christianity and Nietzsche?

SLD

I don't think that's a very good translation.

He doesn't have a problem with mediocrity. It's not "overman" as in superior man, but as in man that has the ability to step back and look at himself and others a bit dispassionately and self critically.

His critique of Christianity, as I see it, is that the losers in society, instead of trying to raise themselves from their predicament, they instead claim they are really winners, and construct an elaborate story around it to justify why failure is in reality success. A failure to get laid = superior morals. Failure at work = humble before God. And so on.

He doesn't have a problem with people being losers. He objects to people trying hard to be losers. People should still aspire to succeed, even if they don't. He's also super subjective regarding what is success. We all decide for ourselves what is success. He sees it as a virtue to NOT try to do the same shit everybody else is. Which is why he loves art. While it doesn't generate much money, or anything useful, it does help with existential anxiety.

Not only does Christianity uphold failure as a virtue, but seeks to actively promote it and uses social pressures to force others to adapt.

Yes, pity is a poison. Your quote is accurate, but to explain it a bit, he argues that all people are inherently selfish and self interested. We only help others if doing so also serves our own interest. That's his starting position. I also agree. He then uses that assumption to explain Christian "generosity". The goal of Christian generosity isn't to help anyone, but partly to elevate oneself in the eyes of ones peers, but also intended to make sure the poor stay poor. Which explains why Christian missions have been such an utter and complete failure. And why people advertise that they've given to charity.

I think Nietzsche is right on the money. But it's not just Christianity. The same can be applied to every human cultural expression. These types of people are everywhere. The only organised movement to battle this stuff, I can think of, is the Gay Pride Parade movement. So... go go faggots. We need you.

I agree with your interpretation of Nietzsche. Unfortunately, it is understandable that the Third Reich would co-opt his thought and make it their own, but Nietzsche was spoke out explicitly against the anti-semitism that was rife in Germany, and certainly was against the base-nationalism and pan-Germanism of the Nazi thought. Fundamentally, Nietzsche wanted people to question the value of their values: "Granted that we want truth: why not untruth?"

 

[Lion IRC]

As a Christian I would obviously disagree with Nietzsche.

Yes, but there's also a secular/atheistic meta-ethic which can be argued against his anti-theist positions - don't you think?

...He must have had a very bad run-in against Christians/church at some stage in his life.

That's pretty much going to be the case for anyone who thinks like Neitzsche.

...But the Christians/church at time have behaved appallingly badly. And that needs to be pointed out.

Ouch!
We're they True^TM Christians?

...His view of charity would make it impossible to help anyone out for any reason if taken seriously and consistently.

I thought he had a lot of support for his views on charity.

 

[sharon45]

Then there are dumb Christians trying to slay and promote their own devised straw dragon:

To go far beyond and above the crowd; to squeeze the life from oneself and others for the sake of producing a great political state, great art, great literature; to be as pitiless as Pharaoh in using human slaves to build one’s glorious tomb—that was life. If this demanded cruelty, then let it be magnificent cruelty. “Almost everything we call ‘higher culture'” declared Nietzsche, “is based on the spiritualization of cruelty, on its becoming more profound: this is my proposition.”

When Christians' contrived god is the ultimate in cruelty, while constantly pumping out new slaves for its cowardly service, worship, and punishment.

 

[ronburgundy]

Christians pose as the executors of divine commands, but is only to cloak their own bad conscience. Christians exalt compassion as a virtue, but when they assist the afflicted it is commonly because they enjoy exercising power over them.

I think both of the above two ideas, especially using God to cloak their own immorality are valid points about Christianity and monotheism more generally. As for the stuff about the weak getting revenge against the strong, I think he's wrong but in a way being too kind to Christianity. Jesus' emphasis on the virtues of the weak and oppressed was more about trying to pacify the oppressed and keep them from fighting for justice and a better life with promises of grander justice and rewards in a fictional afterlife. This core feature of Christianity is the main reason why Christianity went hand-in-hand with European Imperialism, being used to pacify the native people's being oppressed, from Native American's to African slaves.

IOW, Marx was more correct in saying that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

 

[Ramaraksha]

These are but simple ideas
Back then people lived under Kings - this was no democracy - the kings rewarded loyal followers, if you couldn't declare your loyalty to the king, out you went or worse
And people living back then created God using the life they say - a King-like God sitting on his throne, rewarding loyalty(believers get heaven) and of course unbelievers get hell
Very simple & primitive ideas that we still follow today

Nietzsche was right when he called it the religion of the weak - well, these were tough times - humans had few protections against disease and natural disasters - and then we have thieves, murderers and looters who with the state of law and order in those days could get away with a lot of crimes
It is natural for people to hope for better times after death and religions like Christianity took advantage - offering a sweet pie-in-the-sky
"Join us, get down on your knees to our King, he will be pleased and give you the easy good life"
Such ideas made a lot of sense back then

Just makes me sick to see such ideas in use today. Like saying you polish shoes and get ahead. Like in corrupt countries where what you did does not matter, who-you-know, how much money you have is all that matters
Neitzsche was way ahead of his times - no wonder he was so angry to see Communist and Corrupt religions dominate his land, people give in to weakness and think the best way to the easy life is to grovel to the "right" king