Christianity, became a philosophy of the "weak" because it emphasized humility, charity. It was a sort of philosophy of the slave, and not of the aristocrat which he championed. — schopenhauer1

But then this doesn't take into account, well, to put it in gross terms, the value of "keeping up appearances."

It seems to me that in many religions, there are 1. the things that you're supposed to say, 2. things that you're actually supposed to believe, 3. things you're actually supposed to do, and all three are different. There is an art to reading between the lines.

It's not clear that, for example, the Christian emphasis on humility is supposed to be taken beyond verbal affirmation. Yes, humility should be talked about, it should be preached, but not actually done.

It seems naive to take religious doctrines simply at face value. It often seems they are intended as sand thrown in the eyes of the enemy, or a means to cull the weak (who actually believe the doctrines and try to behave accordingly).

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want").

metaphorically that mental aspect which protects you from living life to the fullest, from taking those risks, breaking out of our comfort zones — Vaskane

This sounds like something from a self-help book.
I have trouble believing that what you're saying is really what Nietzsche meant. It sounds just so plebeian. Do aristocrats really think of themselves in such terms? Do they think of themselves as "living life to the fullest" and "breaking out of one's comfort zone"?

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want"). — baker

Indeed. Self-righteousness becomes its own smug example of non-humility. If you are humble, you simply ARE humble, you don't have to say it. It is not a slogan, "WE are the humble ones". That already negates it. But I think you are speaking more about using it as a tool to make sure people are compliant, as in "Shut up and be humble!". It is commanding to be docile and therefore allows people to be controlled more easily. I think that is true, however, the value of humility is infinitely better to get along. For example, in the San Bushmen society, there is an element of downplaying one's kill in the hunt which got meat for the community. Why? Because that person might get a big head and then get ideas that he is better and there goes the social structure. Egalitarian societies die when certain people (families/coalitions) start thinking they deserve more.

You could try reading him for yourself, boiling down the content of a few aphorisms for posts on a philosophy forum -- which my posts actually source material I discuss -- rather than going through the mountain of thousands of Aphorisms of Nietzsche's philosophy in a post ... I figure squeeze out some nectar, to attract some bees that are familiar and point them in a direction. If you'd prefer me write up essays on the subject -- because it's obviously gotten your attention -- to either say "No" to me or perhaps to say "Yes" to yourself because you singled me out in this discussion, perhaps even a combination of both cravings -- but back to the point, if you wish me to write essays for your consumption then entice me to do so.

Otherwise I suggest contemplating why you questioned me (not that it's not allowed, hell I encourage it to the fullest, because I always seek to affirm my own abilities by a good challenge) to say "no," to me, or to challenge yourself, or perhaps even both? Perhaps then you'll understand the part of the aphorism I boiled down, which is still just a few bits from a few aphorisms of Nietzsche's thousands.

Here's what I mean by stepping out of your comfort zone:

"To Seydlitz - February, 1888

Nice, Pension de Geneve.
February 12, 1888.

DEAR FRIEND:
It has not been a "proud silence" that has sealed my lips to everyone all this time, but rather the humble silence of a sufferer who was ashamed of betraying the extent of his pain. When an animal is ill it crawls into its cave—so does la bete philosophe. So seldom does a friendly voice come my way. I am now alone, absurdly alone, and in my unrelenting subterranean war against all that mankind has hitherto honoured and loved (—my formula for this is "the Transvaluation of all Values") I myself seem unwittingly to have become something of a cave, something concealed that can no longer be found even when it is a definite object of search. But no one goes in search of it. Between us three, it is not beyond the limits of possibility that I am the leading philosopher of the age—aye, maybe a little more than that, something decisive and fateful that stands between two epochs. But a man is constantly paying for holding such an isolated position by an isolation which becomes every day more complete, more icy, and more cutting. And look at our dear Germans! . . . " Nietzsche.

This is stepping out of your comfort zone -- to hold your position to the point of isolation -- knowing full well you're an epoch between ages and the leading philosopher of your time.


To Nietzsche, God is merely a Psychological Supreme Guiding Principle. To Nietzsche the replacement for God is the Ubermensch, an ideal beyond yourself to aim at . . . Higher Humans emulate the Ubermensch. The reason Nietzsche felt God was actually good for Humanity was because it gave the weaker people, who fall into nihilism when not directed, a purpose beyond themselves to aim at.

Here's Nietzsche talking about the Psychology behind Birth of Tragedy:

"Indeed, the entire book recognises only an artist-thought and artist-after-thought behind all occurrences,—a "God," if you will, but certainly only an altogether thoughtless and unmoral artist-God, who, in construction as in destruction, in good as in evil, desires to become conscious of his own equable joy and sovereign glory; who, in creating worlds, frees himself from the anguish of fullness and overfullness, from the suffering of the contradictions[Pg 9] concentrated within him."

Rule number 1: if you want to understand a philosopher -- you need to remove your lens and put theirs on. Otherwise your preconceived notions leave no room for learning. First lesson from Zen Flesh Zen Bones, Nan-in's "A Cup of Tea."

So Let's go over the Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit within

ZARATHUSTRA’S DISCOURSES.

I. THE THREE METAMORPHOSES.

"Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden. "
-----
What's your burden in life (rhetorical)? In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche mentions his from Aphorism 45 Section The Religious Nature:

"But who would perform this service for me? And who would have time to wait for such servants?- It's clear they arise too rarely. In all ages they are so unlikely! In the end, a person must do everything himself in order to know a few things himself: that means that one has much to do!- But at all events a curiosity of the sort I have remains the most pleasant of all burdens.- Forgive me. I wanted to say this: the love of the truth has its reward in heaven and even on earth."

-----
Back to the Three Metamorphoses: Nietzsche goes through various things which could give a person a purpose, it's your job to figure out wtf that is though and cultivate that will into something more. To take that burden to places that others don't want to follow because it's too hard to learn that math, or too challenging to learn how to program, or how to decipher philosophy even ...


"What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one’s pride? To exhibit one’s folly in order to mock at one’s wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one’s hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.

Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? “Thou shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”

“Thou shalt,” lieth in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, “Thou shalt!”

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: “All the values of things—glitter on me.

All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more.” Thus speaketh the dragon.

My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?

-----

When you will to do something, you wake up in the morning craving it, pass out exhausted at night from thinking about it and working that will. It's not oh maybe I'll go work out today, and eat subway and pretend I'm healthy ... in fact for athletes it's infectious, imagine your body producing 6,000 calories of energy for you because it expects to burn that much or more in a day due to the daily cycle and routine you've built up. Michael Phelps ate 12,0000 calories a day in his prime. *Insert Mindblown Emoji* . Even when I burned 7/8k a day in the military I couldn't even eat 5,000 calories worth. Because my body and digestive system wasn't ready for that much.

-----

The child learns to affirm their life through the triumphant affirmation of their own demands and like all children, they grow ... Hence why you have to Cultivate your own will to power. Now onto more of the Three Metamorphoses:

"To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do.

To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.

To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved “Thou shalt”: now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: ITS OWN will, willeth now the spirit; HIS OWN world winneth the world’s outcast.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.—"

Thus spake Zarathustra. And at that time he abode in the town which is called The Pied Cow.

-----

And that is just 1 aphorism out of thousands, so you can see why I reduce Nietzsche -- because he's long winded af.

Otherwise I suggest contemplating why you questioned me (not that it's not allowed, hell I encourage it to the fullest, because I always seek to affirm my own abilities by a good challenge) to say "no," to me, or to challenge yourself, or perhaps even both? — Vaskane

Here is a thread that has to do with Jewish people. As an analysis of them and some phenomena related to them, you have been offering the arguments of someone who flat-out denies or ignores what is central to Jewish people, namely, the existence of God and God's revelation to the Jewish people. And who instead, basically, implies that the Jews merely invented their morality and religious doctrine as a reaction to certain challenges.

Does this seem fair to you?

With his analysis of the Jews, Nietzsche is imposing his own atheism on them, taking for granted that atheism is the only correct way to see things.

If anything, this discussion leads me to conclude that the origin of antisemitism is atheism.

Rule number 1: if you want to understand a philosopher -- you need to remove your lens and put theirs on. Otherwise your preconceived notions leave no room for learning. — Vaskane

I don't seek to understand Nietzsche per se. I am skeptical about how relevant his input is to understanding the origin of antisemitism, given that as an atheist, he dismisses the possibility of divine revelation -- all the while proposing to analyze people who believe to have received divine revelation.

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want").
— baker

Indeed. Self-righteousness becomes its own smug example of non-humility. — schopenhauer1

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the importance of _t_talking the _t_alk.

There are many things in life that one is supposed to understand on one's own, without anyone explaining them to one. There is a whole art to saying things for the sake of saying them, and all involved know one doesn't mean them and isn't even supposed to mean them. And it's taboo to point this out.

A common example is to always answer "Fine, thank you" when someone asks you "How are you?" Because that "How are you?" is not actually a question. It's a cue sentence, meant to show that the person saying it is playing by the rules, and testing the other person whether they do so too, a test they pass if they reply "Fine, thank you".

My contention is that this phenomenon goes far further than that, that it extends to many ideological claims.

God said it was okay for me to ignore their revelations, see how that works? God also told me where to go to find unicorns. God also told me Israel belongs to me, and me alone cause I'm the chosen one? See how that works? Basically any argument that asserts God gave me X is dumb af as it can't be proven. And that's correct Not only does Nietzsche make that assertion but many prominent Jewish psychoanalyst agree with him, hence Modern Zionism appropriating Nietzsche philosophy and psychology to self determine away from traditional Juadiac orthodox beliefs.

You could read Theodor Lessings Der Jüdische Selbsthass, or Jacob Golomb's Nietzsche and Zion. You may actually come into a more informed opinion rather than just basing your opinion on emotional reactions.

God said it was okay for me to ignore their revelations, see how that works? — Vaskane

This is disgracefully facile. It goes to show you have no respect for those you presume to analyze.

Basically any argument that asserts God gave me X is dumb af as it can't be proven.

Irrelevant. What Nietzsche is doing (and now you, along with him) is plain old authoritarianism, a kind of cultural imperialism.

You could read Theodor Lessings Der Jüdische Selbsthass, or Jacob Golomb's Nietzsche and Zion. You may actually come into a more informed opinion rather than just basing your opinion on emotional reactions.

It's not an "emotional reaction". It's about fairness.

I'm not a theist, nor do I particularly like theists in general. So I'm not defending them on this count. But to go so far as to presume to analyze someone, and yet dismiss as irrelevant that which they consider important to them?? I would not do that. Perhaps this disqualifies me from being an Übermensch such as yourself.


So here's an Übermensch for you:

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want"). — baker

Yes it helps people successfully operate in the world. Jesus says all who humble themselves will be exalted and all who exalt themselves will be humbled. As humans we could behave in any number of ways: Don't go around exalting yourself... for numerous reasons. Jesus provides helpful social advice and helps one be well liked/attractive. Similar ideas can be found in Jewish thinking but Jesus puts in stronger terms. Jesus teaches you be attractive.




Yes forgiveness is very important, but there's a not-so-subtle reason for it. "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:14).

Here an upload from Jewish Philosopher Jacob Golomb:

Now go on and read mate, it wont hurt you to pick up a copy, pirate it even, I did.

And if hate and resentment are important to them, then they can hold on to it and expect the same formula to be applied to them.

Here's more from N and Z

I'll post more when to seal the deal in a bit, going through and snipping them now.

But you see, I took the Jewish perspective in mind when analyzing them, I took their own damn words and their own damn research.

And if hate and resentment are important to them, then they can hold on to it and expect the same formula to be applied to them. — Vaskane

To what end?
Can you tell?

Now go on and read mate — Vaskane

It's not about merely reading it, is it. It's about liking it, agreeing with it.

Yes forgiveness is very important, but there's a not-so-subtle reason for it. "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:14). — BitconnectCarlos

Jesus has a pretty bad temper in Mark. He's cool as a cucumber in John. Some scholars speculate that he's a composite of a number of preachers who came out of the desert to rant about the status quo. You can make up any Jesus you want and start your own religion!

I mean if you only accept what you like then damn man, that's some straight prejudice right there. And tells me you're pretty much only down to see the world through your own perspective, fuck everyone else, fuck the fundamental condition of all life.

But here's a quick summary of Nietzsche's views on the Jews from The Antichrist. Which Highlights the value of resentment within Judaism -- to say Nay to every former valuation that represented an ascending evolution of life.



If you want to understand how Judaism is merely a passive denial of the former life affirming moral system:



You don't have to agree with him, or the other Jewish psychoanalyst that agree with him. You're free to believe what ever you want mate, I'm just supplying factual philosophy that's accepted as common knowledge. But still only a theory. A theory with etymology and philology on its side. Where as your argument is "you're not accepting their God argument and that's not fair! Which makes me feel atheism is the cause of anti-semitism." I mean okay, then explain Christian anti-Semitism. Oh wait, it follows the same formula as Judaism ... Just like Anti-Semitism follows the same formula, which is highly Ironic that an anti-semite is what he hates.

In short, Judaism popularized hate and resentment as the equation for birthing values with the ancient slave revolt in morals. AntiSemitism is just another form of slave morality following the Judaic formula. — Vaskane

Judaism popularized a book where the oppressed are uplifted and mighty kings are humbled. it is not about hating the aristocratic. much of the old testament attests to the regal glory of the mighty king david. it is jesus who says "blessed be the poor and meek" and "it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." it is the jesus of the gospels who most adequately encaptures what jesus refers to as "jewish slave morality."

Judaism popularized a book where the oppressed are uplifted and mighty kings are humbled. it is not about hating the aristocratic. much of the old testament attests to the regal glory of the mighty king david. it is jesus who says "blessed be the poor and meek" and "it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." it is the jesus of the gospels who most adequately encaptures what jesus refers to as "jewish slave morality." — BitconnectCarlos

The idea is that there's a brand of morality that idealizes the underdog. History is a cloud out of which you can pull whatever narrative you like. I can easily support Nietzsche's assessment with certain facts about Judaism. I can easily show that Christianity didn't inherit a pacifist spirit at all. It's all a matter of what axe you want to grind or what chip you have on your shoulder.

History is a cloud out of which you can pull whatever narrative you like. — frank

And the Old Testament displays a certain narrative where the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled. I never said Nietzsche was wrong; only that his "slave morality" is typified in the Jesus of the gospels. Some people think Jesus epitomizes Judaism. I never said that Christians were or ought to be pacifists. Some narratives are good and needed, others are immature and lacking.

And the Old Testament displays a certain narrative where the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled. I never said Nietzsche was wrong; only that his "slave morality" is typified in the Jesus of the gospels. — BitconnectCarlos

You're right. If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. And yes, Jesus' message is definitely slave morality as well.

If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. And yes, Jesus' message is definitely slave morality as well. — frank

But only if they are slaves to God. Not to just anyone. That's the point, and the difference between being slave to man and being slave to God.

That's the point, and the difference between being slave to man and being slave to God. — baker

Nietzsche's point was that slaves want something that's directly opposed to what warlords want.

So?

I mean if you only accept what you like then damn man, that's some straight prejudice right there. And tells me you're pretty much only down to see the world through your own perspective, fuck everyone else, fuck the fundamental condition of all life. — Vaskane

Which is so ironic, coming from someone with a position like yours.

But here's a quick summary of Nietzsche's views on the Jews from The Antichrist. Which Highlights the value of resentment within Judaism -- to say Nay to every former valuation that represented an ascending evolution of life.

All this says something about Nietzsche, but not necessarily about anyone or anything else.

Where as your argument is "you're not accepting their God argument and that's not fair! Which makes me feel atheism is the cause of anti-semitism."

That's not my argument. You won't even correctly capture what I'm saying.

You, Nietzsche, and much of mankind are doing this same thing, acting by the formula:

"You are whatever I say that you are.
You think whatever I say that you think.
You feel whatever I say that you feel.
Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.
You actions mean whatever I say that your actions mean.
You words mean whatever I say that your words mean.
I am the boss of you."

Pretty much every parent, kindergarden nurse, teacher, psychiatrist, social worker, boss, police officer, IRS agent, anyone with any bit of power over the other person does this.

I suppose that's "master morality": imposing one's own image of others upon those others, holding others responsible to this image, and punishing them if they don't.

I mean okay, then explain Christian anti-Semitism.

They are competing religions. Just like Christians are opposed to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion that isn't Christianity. Competing religions cannot peacefully coexist (other than in the sense of negative peace, where the parties involved simply don't have the material means for warfare). There is no profound reason for religions being intolerant of eachother. It simply comes from being different religions (regardless of what they actually propose to teach; for example, they can teach "non-violence" or "love thy enemy" but given the opportunity, they go on killing sprees just like everyone else, as long as material circumstances permit).

If you don't hear much about, say, Christian anti-islamism, anti-buddhism, or anti-hinduism, etc. that has to do with those not being in such close geographic proximity to Christianity as Judaism. On the other hand, go to Asia and look at the arguments Christian missionaries have against the native religions there, and there's full-blown Christian anti-islamism, anti-buddhism, or anti-hinduism, etc. We just don't hear much about that here in the West, ti doesn't exactly make it to the news.

For comparison, you could also try to look into various Asian supremacisms and the negative view they have of Christianity, European history, being white, being "Western" etc. It's tempting to ascribe that to the bad colonial history, of course. But Asian supremacisms are older than that, and go deeper.

If you look at the bigger picture, it offers a very different perspective on the matter.

Oh wait, it follows the same formula as Judaism ... Just like Anti-Semitism follows the same formula, which is highly Ironic that an anti-semite is what he hates.

So the Jews that favorably received Nietzschean theories about Judaism and anti-semitism were actually originally interested in finding ways to undermine anti-semites? As in, "Look at them, they hate us for nothing!" This actually makes sense.

There is a popular theory that people who hate others do so out of their own insecurity, weakness, because they feel threatened by them.

But, and this isn't mentioned very often, it's also possible that they hate (or more like, despise) others because they feel entitled to do so, because they feel entitled to what those others have.

Of course, it's more ego-friendly to think that those who hate one do so because of their own insecurity, weakness.
It's far less friendly to one's ego to think that one is being hated or despised because the haters feel entitled to do so.

fuck the fundamental condition of all life.

Given what Nietzsche seems to have meant by "affirmation of life", I simply think that he was wrong, operating out of some romantic ideal, failing to account for the existential boredom that results from hedonic pursuits.

It's obvious you've never read Nietzsche, and you're actually projecting:

"You are whatever I say that you are.
You think whatever I say that you think.
You feel whatever I say that you feel.
Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.
You actions mean whatever I say that your actions mean.
You words mean whatever I say that your words mean.
I am the boss of you."

Because you're such a stubborn ass that you don't read much of anything. You'd know -- if you actually read Nietzsche -- that he absolutely despised Nihilistic Hedonism --

188. In contrast to laisser-aller, every system of morals is a sort of tyranny against "nature" and also against "reason", that is, however, no objection, unless one should again decree by some system of morals, that all kinds of tyranny and unreasonableness are unlawful What is essential and invaluable in every system of morals, is that it is a long constraint. In order to understand Stoicism, or Port Royal, or Puritanism, one should remember the constraint under which every language has attained to strength and freedom—the metrical constraint, the tyranny of rhyme and rhythm. How much trouble have the poets and orators of every nation given themselves!—not excepting some of the prose writers of today, in whose ear dwells an inexorable conscientiousness—"for the sake of a folly," as utilitarian bunglers say, and thereby deem themselves wise—"from submission to arbitrary laws," as the anarchists say, and thereby fancy themselves "free," even free-spirited. The singular fact remains, however, that everything of the nature of freedom, elegance, boldness, dance, and masterly certainty, which exists or has existed, whether it be in thought itself, or in administration, or in speaking and persuading, in art just as in conduct, has only developed by means of the tyranny of such arbitrary law, and in all seriousness, it is not at all improbable that precisely this is "nature" and "natural"—and not laisser-aller! Every artist knows how different from the state of letting himself go, is his "most natural" condition, the free arranging, locating, disposing, and constructing in the moments of "inspiration"—and how strictly and delicately he then obeys a thousand laws, which, by their very rigidness and precision, defy all formulation by means of ideas (even the most stable idea has, in comparison therewith, something floating, manifold, and ambiguous in it).The essential thing "in heaven and in earth" is, apparently (to repeat it once more), that there should be long OBEDIENCE in the same direction, there thereby results, and has always resulted in the long run, something which has made life worth living; for instance, virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, spirituality—anything whatever that is transfiguring, refined, foolish, or divine.

You're just uneducated and angry. ( I say this shit to enflame you I don't know if my taunts are true nor do I care, enflaming people just makes them more stubborn towards red rags, like a head strong bull who can't self overcome). It's call data collection and yeah I objectify people like that. My b, but I also don't really give a damn, my values after all, crude but effective profiling techniques. Notice though that my morals don't detail you as going to hell and being anathema that deserves to burn because I don't believe like you.

You see, Nietzsche, like my self, isn't some Black and White mutually exclusive thinker that only finds faults of praise in something, Nietzsche finds the faults and the praise in all things and makes observations about them. He doesn't proselytize or tell anyone how to self determine, his whole philosophy is about helping people find a purpose away from HEDONISTIC NIHILISM. Away from Dogma that tells you how you should be.

For the third time in this discussion : What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? “Thou shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”

My b if that sounds like something out of a self help book ... coming from a philosopher focused on helping people self overcome and become something greater ...

"I/It will" is the single most sacred thing to Nietzsche and it's the ONE thing he is unequivocally democratic about. Everyone, Men and Women have the right to Self Determine in Nietzsche's eyes. Any Morality that dictates how a person should determine is a morality of resentment that shuns that which is different from itself, and not itself.

I'm curious why you're even on the philosophy forums at all since you don't read philosophy, even the philosophy posted directly in front of you on the philosophy forum? Obviously you're looking for something ... Answers? Well, DIG outside of an echo chamber and open up some books. Might be helpful when you're trying to pass judgement upon someone to actually know wtf you're talking about.

If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. — frank

Yeah, that's the 30,000 foot view. Big picture. But the OT isn't 100% like that. You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. Israelite strength is portrayed positively. Be strong. Be wealthy. Be knowledgeable. Be righteous. It's really Jesus who imho truly encapsulates and preaches servant morality. The themes are still present in the OT though.

To your point about Jesus, Nietzsche feels Jesus was the only true Christian:

From Nietzsche's The Antichrist:

33.
In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.

The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”).[12] He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.—And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.—

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life—and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God—not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith”—the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.”

The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is “in heaven” and is “immortal,” despite many reasons for feeling that he is not “in heaven”: this is the only psychological reality in “salvation.”—A new way of life, not a new faith....

34. If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as “truths” —that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the “kingdom of God,” and of the “sonship of God.” Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a “kingdom of God” that is to come, of a “kingdom of heaven” beyond, and of a “son of God” as the second person of the Trinity. All this—if I may be forgiven the phrase—is like thrusting one’s fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to world-historical cynicism.... But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols “Father” and “Son”—not, of course, to every one—: the word “Son” expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude), and “Father” expresses that feeling itself—the sensation of eternity and of perfection.—I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story[13] at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And a dogma of “immaculate conception” for good measure?... And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness—

[13] Amphitryon was the son of Alcaeus, King of Tiryns. His wife was Alcmene. During his absence she was visited by Zeus, and bore Heracles.

The “kingdom of heaven” is a state of the heart—not something to come “beyond the world” or “after death.” The whole idea of natural death is absent from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The “hour of death” is not a Christian idea—“hours,” time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of “glad tidings.”... 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....

35. 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....

Yeah, that's the 30,000 foot view. Big picture. But the OT isn't 100% like that. You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. Israelite strength is portrayed positively. Be strong. Be wealthy. Be knowledgeable. Be righteous. It's really Jesus who imho truly encapsulates and preaches servant morality. The themes are still present in the OT though. — BitconnectCarlos

You keep comparing the whole OT to the message of Jesus. There's much more to Christianity than the sayings of Jesus as depicted in the gospels.

Did you know some historians believe it's possible that both Homer's epic and the book of Exodus are memories of something that happened around 1170 BC?

You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. — BitconnectCarlos

David was a piece of shit. He impregnated another guy's wife and then sent him to the front line in battle to have him killed.

He excused his son when his son raped his sister.

Among many other things.

I never read him in overly positive light. I mean, he was a good king I suppose, but I'd agree with you. He was not a Jesus like figure. Although Jesus was supposedly from his paternal line, because he Bible says the messiah must be, but Jesus had no paternal lineage, being the son of God and all. I never understood that

Remembrance day is a thing in the UK, stemming from WW1 and folk like to stand still and quiet for 2 minutes, to 'remember the dead'. This year there were also scheduled marches calling for a cease fire in Gaza. The Home secretary, Suella Braverman, a non-white person, who has oversight of the police amongst other political duties, was calling these demonstrators 'hate marchers' and demanding that the police ban the march as it would conflict with the remembrance day observances. The police declined to do so, and her displeasure was publicly displayed.

So today, we have the edifying spectacle of Right-wing Nationalists on a "counter-demonstration" turning up to the remembrance cenotaphs, getting drunk, and chucking stuff at the police in supposed protection of the sacred remembers of the fallen and against the pro-Palestinian marchers, (who were elsewhere, a mile or so away), and therefore in favour of Israel, all while giving a modified (with a pointy finger) Nazi salute, because such gestures can get you arrested.

Thus is the doctrine that my enemies' enemy is my friend played out in all its manifold hypocrisy, based on the contrivance that those who mourn the dead are the enemies of those who protest the dying.

It all fits neatly together with the observation made somewhere very quietly, that Palestinians are also Semites.