What do you think about Nietzsche's critique on Judeo-Christian moral values??

[TheReturnofLive]

Title y'all.

[Sin of Adam]

Title y'all.

There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values as Rabbinic Judaism & Pauline Christianity have very different and irreconcilable values.

As for Nietzsche's critiques of religion his arguments come across as contradictory & illogical. Just read the materialistic mad ramblings in his infamous book "The Anti-Christ."

"I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.... For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The "equality of souls before God"—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order —this is Christian dynamite.... The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anæmic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself....

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see.... I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race....

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!..."

[Mono no aware]

There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values as Rabbinic Judaism & Pauline Christianity have very different and irreconcilable values.

And Nietzsche would have conceded your point.  Yet Christianity is simply not possible without the Jewish soil from which it sprang.  In terms of "Judaeo-Christian morality," he was referring to morals as believed to be the diktats of a divine lawgiver, and a priestly caste which arrogated for itself the sole right to steward and interpret his revelation.  This is common to both forms.  The most salient aspect of his critique of Judaeo-Christian values is its ugly tendency to a slave-&-master relationship, which was realized most fully in Paul.  Nietzsche saw no nobility in this.  He was concerned with noble (Aryan) instincts, set against the common instincts toward the small, the petty, the obsequious, the self-aggrandizing (in his view, the Christian).  If you have read more than just the last page of The Antichrist, you will know this.

[Heinrich]

Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?

[Mono no aware]

Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?

Not that I know of.  But I enjoy reading Nietzsche and consider him singularly wise.  There was once an Origenist on this forum who said of Nietzsche: "his is one of the most beautiful pens to have ever written, without a doubt ... and this is only really appreciated in German, which is, I believe firmly, the most beautiful of all languages for too many reasons to describe."  Sadly I have no German.  He also called Nietzsche "corrosive," which at first I took in the negative sense.  But now I believe it to be a positive.  There is much dross in philosophy that deserves to be scorched.  One thing that Christians can appreciate about Nietzsche is that he scorched Christianity's modern competitor, secular humanism.  He was courageous enough to admit that if you reject God, you must necessarily reject objective morality.  There are many atheist secular humanists who do not have such cojones.

[dellery]

Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?

Not that I know of.  But I enjoy reading Nietzsche and consider him singularly wise.  There was once an Origenist on this forum who said of Nietzsche: "his is one of the most beautiful pens to have ever written, without a doubt ... and this is only really appreciated in German, which is, I believe firmly, the most beautiful of all languages for too many reasons to describe."  Sadly I have no German.  He also called Nietzsche "corrosive," which at first I took in the negative sense.  But now I believe it to be a positive.  There is much dross in philosophy that deserves to be scorched.  One thing that Christians can appreciate about Nietzsche is that he scorched Christianity's modern competitor, secular humanism.  He was courageous enough to admit that if you reject God, you must necessarily reject objective morality.  There are many atheist secular humanists who do not have such cojones.

I never thought much of Nietzsche. Sure he was a talented writer, but he's always given me the impression that if he was born in contemporary times he would be preoccupied with cruising truck-stops and public bathrooms for gay sex instead of writing. 

[Mono no aware]

I never thought much of Nietzsche. Sure he was a talented writer, but he's always given me the impression that if he was born in contemporary times he would be preoccupied with cruising truck-stops and public bathrooms for gay sex instead of writing.

He was not homosexual.  That's a calumny.  Plato, on the other hand, was some kind of flit.  "Platonic," but nevertheless.

[Daniel]

Re: What do you think about Nietzsche's critique on Judeo-Christian moral values??

What do I think? Well I've never read Nietzsche's writings nor am I familiar with his critique. But if you want to know what I think, I think Nietzsche is completely wrong and has no idea what he's talking about. Because I don't need to know much about Nietzsche to know that. It's simply the way philosophy works: if you start off with presuppositions/worldview opposed to Christianity, all you're going to end up with is well-argued falsehoods. (Particularly deceptive ones too, satanic in inspiration.) There's only one way to be right but one million ways to be wrong; anybody claiming to be doing "philosophy", who is hostile towards Christianity, is either a fool or a liar, not even worth listening to.

[Mono no aware]

It's simply the way philosophy works: if you start off with presuppositions/worldview opposed to Christianity, all you're going to end up with is well-argued falsehoods.

Doesn't that presuppose Christianity, though?  Tertullian would be proud.

Perhaps I have you confused with someone else, Daniel, but I thought you had studied philosophy in college.  Did you not read a lick of Nietzsche?  I suppose you might've gone to a conservative Catholic college, of course.  Zarathustra, anyway, is valuable for its rarefied prose style if nothing else.

[Sin of Adam]

There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values as Rabbinic Judaism & Pauline Christianity have very different and irreconcilable values.

And Nietzsche would have conceded your point.  Yet Christianity is simply not possible without the Jewish soil from which it sprang.  In terms of "Judaeo-Christian morality," he was referring to morals as believed to be the diktats of a divine lawgiver, and a priestly caste which arrogated for itself the sole right to steward and interpret his revelation.  This is common to both forms.  The most salient aspect of his critique of Judaeo-Christian values is its ugly tendency to a slave-&-master relationship, which was realized most fully in Paul.  Nietzsche saw no nobility in this.  He was concerned with noble (Aryan) instincts, set against the common instincts toward the small, the petty, the obsequious, the self-aggrandizing (in his view, the Christian).  If you have read more than just the last page of The Antichrist, you will know this.

I have read many of the works of Nietzsche, including some of his less known works such as Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Nonetheless, I disagree with his assessments. Judaism & Christianity are intrinsically and fundamentally different in most major theological points regardless of Christian origins. In fact even Rabbinic Judaism and First/Second Temple Judaism are worlds apart (and no, not in the way that Nietzsche believed). Furthermore, as a Catholic Christian, I do not take seriously the metaphysical views on religion of a filthy, degenerate, semi-hedonistic, Godless, materialistic, blasphemous, fool who lost his mind due to his concupiscentious lifestyle, died an Atheist, and is presumably burning in hell. As a note of irony, and as the Talmudists say, "May his name be blotted out from memory."

[Graham]

Nietzsche's message really was against smallness of soul, which he associated with Christianity due to historical accident. But we are going to make Christianity great again. Nietzsche is going to be tired of winning.

[Sin of Adam]

Nietzsche's message really was against smallness of soul, which he associated with Christianity due to historical accident. But we are going to make Christianity great again. Nietzsche is going to be tired of winning.

Christianity never stopped being great. It is the one true religion of God. Self proclaimed Christians, who are in reality heretics such as Protestants and modernists, are the ones who have smallness of soul and mind.

[Mono no aware]

I have read many of the works of Nietzsche, including some of his less known works such as Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Nonetheless, I disagree with his assessments. Judaism & Christianity are intrinsically and fundamentally different in most major theological points regardless of Christian origins. In fact even Rabbinic Judaism and First/Second Temple Judaism are worlds apart (and no, not in the way that Nietzsche believed). Furthermore, as a Catholic Christian, I do not take seriously the metaphysical views on religion of a filthy, degenerate, semi-hedonistic, Godless, materialistic, blasphemous, fool who lost his mind due to his concupiscentious lifestyle, died an Atheist, and is presumably burning in hell. As a note of irony, and as the Talmudists say, "May his name be blotted out from memory."

As for me, I would prefer to take a phrase from the Mohammedans and say, "peace be upon him."  I appreciate that you have read much of Nietzsche.  Possibly we are talking past each other.  Nietzsche would have wholly granted the particular distinctions between Christianity and Judaism.  However, his concern was for what they carry in common.  Certainly he was in agreement with the Church that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.  Jesus and Paul, he said, were "superlative Jews."

[Graham]

Relax, I'm just fishing for coveted PDR upvotes.

[Daniel]

Perhaps I have you confused with someone else, Daniel, but I thought you had studied philosophy in college.  Did you not read a lick of Nietzsche?  I suppose you might've gone to a conservative Catholic college, of course.

Yeah, I did major in Philosophy, and I'm a little surprised too. It was a secular university, and Nietzsche just never came up. Probably mostly because of his time period. (My required history classes ended with Kant, and my required non-history classes were mostly topical. So apart from John Stuart Mill (in ethics class), we pretty much skipped the entire nineteenth century as well as much of the twentieth century. I'm sure some of the electives probably covered Nietzsche, but none that I took. Coincidentally, there was a similar gap spanning the length of the middle ages. So many important Catholic philosophers also didn't show up much.)