"Gott mit uns" was a Prussian military tradition going back to the 1800s. The Nazis simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it. — Apollodorus

I am aware of this argument. My point is that if Nazi's were ostentatiously godless, as is often argued, they would have deliberately chosen something more pagan or secular, perhaps 'Adolf Wants Me For A Sunbeam'.

Perhaps Nietzsche's ferocious attack on Christianity was his reaction against the puritanical Victorian Church of his time which was anti semitic, misogynistic, anti gays, authoritarian and conservative. This is as Kierkegaard said a warped hypocritical version of Christianity, not the true message of Christ. I personally think Nietzsche had an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, he was hostile to democracy and modern science also which he claimed strangely were products of a Christian culture which seems absurd.

@Ross Campbell

One reason for Nietzsche's contempt for Christianity is its positing of the meaning of this life in a beyond (a crude form of Platonism), in an idealized afterworld, thereby slandering this world, the only world, in all its richness, strangeness, creativity, beauty, terror, etc. Moreover, that idealized world is designed to rob our normal drives of their innocence and to invert the supposedly "natural" hierarchy among human beings, privileging the weak, the resentful, the numerically superior mediocrities over the ascending, joyful, yes-saying creators.

His criticisms definitely seem to rely on caricatures and straw men. I do however think there's quite a bit that's compelling in his analyses, not only of Christianity, but of the modern, secularized Western world which has rejected Christian metaphysics while clinging to its (in Nietzsche's opinion decadent) values and assumptions.

He did distinguish between Jesus the man and teacher (sharing many of the positive views of Jesus that you highlighted earlier), whom he grudgingly admired even while remaining critical of his ultimate vision, and the organized system of Christianity which came to dominate Europe not only politically, but mentally and spiritually. He seems a bit similar to Kierkegaard in that regard although I'm not too familiar with the latter's work so I can't speak with confidence.

I think he interpreted the uniformity of modern science and the egalitarianism of modern democracy to be symptomatic of that lingering Christian influence: The result is a world composed of an indistinct mass of petty human beings consuming mass-created products while boasting of their "progress" and "freedom" and "individuality" etc. He saw the extreme, presumably Christian-inspired leveling coming and tried to formulate the rudiments of a counter-movement. He's a dangerous thinker for sure.

Not sure if that adds anything; it's a pretty standard take. Basically, Christianity does a number on what Nietzsche's takes to be "life" and this is not due to later perversions of a corrupt institutional church - it's right there in the words and deeds of Jesus. (I think this is an interesting debate and I'd like to see it addressed by competent scholars.)

My point is that if Nazi's were ostentatiously godless, as is often argued, they would have deliberately chosen something more pagan or secular, — Tom Storm

Correct. Steigmann-Gall makes some valid points in The Holy Reich. Obviously, some Nazi leaders, perhaps including Hitler himself, were atheists. But on the whole, Germans were Christians and the Nazis intended to use a sanitized form of “positive Christianity” for their own purposes.

Richard Steigmann-Gall – Wikipedia

Nietzsche characterizes slave morality as one which emphasized obedience, pity, conformity and following the herd. — Ross Campbell

Non serviam

The original Hebrew phrase is לֹא אֶעֱבֹד (Lô´ ´e`ĕvôd), where it appears in a jeremiad against Israel, accusing them of refusing to serve God. Some English language Bibles may translate "non serviam" as "I will not transgress"; this seems to be an alternative reading of certain manuscripts. This is most likely a scribal error because the difference between "serve" (עבד) and "transgress" (עבר) in late Hebrew characters is so minute that it would be easy to mistake one for the other when hand-copying a manuscript. Most modern literal translations (such as the Revised Standard Version) choose "serve" over "transgress" as the proper reading because the context calls for a statement of disobedience, not of obedience.

Some heavy interpretation in there. Could the so-called "God" of the Bible have been Satan who'd demonsrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was lord, master and ruler of the universe, demanded people do the exact opposite of the decalog injunctions and the people, "revolted" by these commands to commit evil, well...er...revolted en masse, declaring in unison, "Non serviam"? Makes sense doesn't it, considering the call to conduct horrific genocide in "the good book."

Thanks Erik for your reply. Some very good points there. But I still think there's a huge gulf between the teachings of Jesus and the kind of misogynistic, anti semitic, homophobic, authoritarian, puritanical Christianity that emerged when the Catholic church became very powerful in the middle ages. Now of course you need to distinguish it from the Protestant church which goes back directly to the teachings in the gospels and rejects the authoritarianism of the Catholic church and all the puritanical theological ideas that were added to it throughout the ages , eg misogony , which actually comes from Thomas Aquinas via Aristotle who thought women were inferior. And as we know Jesus condemned those who were about to stone a woman for adultery. So the issue is not that straightforward . As for democracy , that began in ancient Greece before Christianity. And furthermore Christianity was heavily influenced by ancient Greek thought . I think Nietzsche would like to overlook these aspects.

Not sure if that adds anything; it's a pretty standard take. Basically, Christianity does a number on what Nietzsche's takes to be "life" and this is not due to later perversions of a corrupt institutional church - it's right there in the words and deeds of Jesus. — Erik

It is not clear what Jesus meant by "Kingdom of God is at hand". Some take it to mean a geopolitical change, but others interpreted it as a change in the person. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear. The world was at any moment going to undergo a fundamental change with only the saved remaining as "spirit bodies" (I think he gets this from Plato's Phaedo). It, of course, did not happen.

Paul taught that we are born in sin and must be saved. The physical body is a slave to sin. Hence the saved will be "spirit bodies". The Earth will be transformed to Heaven on Earth.

It is not clear what Jesus meant by "Kingdom of God is at hand". Some take it to mean a geopolitical change, but others interpreted it as a change in the person. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear. The world was at any moment going to undergo a fundamental change with only the saved remaining as "spirit bodies" (I think he gets this from Plato's Phaedo). It, of course, did not happen.

Paul taught that we are born in sin and must be saved. The physical body is a slave to sin. Hence the saved will be "spirit bodies". The Earth will be transformed to Heaven on Earth. — Fooloso4

The kingdom of God is psychological state according to Nietzsche... a state beyond suffering, completely peaceful... by denying the world. In the symbology he often uses, it's at end of the apollonian spectrum, the dream... hence dionysus VS the crucified. The Antichrist is where he gets into this I think.

Perhaps Nietzsche's ferocious attack on Christianity was his reaction against the puritanical Victorian Church of his time which was anti semitic, misogynistic, anti gays, authoritarian and conservative. This is as Kierkegaard said a warped hypocritical version of Christianity, not the true message of Christ. I personally think Nietzsche had an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, he was hostile to democracy and modern science also which he claimed strangely were products of a Christian culture which seems absurd. — Ross Campbell

Christian culture had truth as on of it's core values...

Anyway the thing I think you need to understand about his philosophy is that he evaluated things on the axis of life-affirmation - life-denial.... that was his method. It's right there from the start, in his first book, the Apollonian VS the Dionysian. Science too is Apollonian because it tempts to measure the world and make it predictable... ultimately to reduce suffering. It's essentially the same optimism of Socrates whereby one hopes to make the world better by learning/wisdom/conceptualising the world. What keeps one going is the hope for a better world, an ideal or dreamed-up world.

The Dionysian by contrast doesn't hope for a better world, but seeks to affirm this world by valuing it in aesthetic terms, the tragic.

sometimes I wonder why Nietzsche is so popular, so influential , is it because he's so provocative, radical, and easily misinterpreted. He seems to be unique among philosophers in that he attacks every tradition and thinker in the history of western thought. Some thinkers especially in Anglo American tradition don't even regard him as a philosopher, but just a writer. There doesn't seem to be any coherent social, ethical or political set of values or structures in his thinking . I think his philosophy is only of relevance to the life of an individual, it couldn't be applied to society. A Nietszean worldview would be anarchy, devoid of ethics, and of science, religion or political systems. He tries to psychologize everything , but how can we trust his conclusions if they're not based on empirical evidence, data and hard facts. Just dreamt up from his own head . His genealogy of morals , explaining ideas in terms of their historical development to explain morality is probably flawed.

He tries to psychologize everything , but how can we trust his conclusions if they're not based on empirical evidence, data and hard facts. Just dreamt up from his own head . His genealogy of morals , explaining ideas in terms of their historical development to explain morality is probably flawed. — Ross Campbell

Maybe, I would like to see his ideas being really tested empirically... but do keep in mind he didn't see himself as the arbiter of truth, but rather as a 'tempter', he tried something, later to be picked up by future philosophers.... And ultimately what matters to him most was not necessarily that it was true, though I do think he was aiming for that too, but whether it was life-affirming.

sometimes I wonder why Nietzsche is so popular, so influential , is it because he's so provocative, radical, and easily misinterpreted. He seems to be unique among philosophers in that he attacks every tradition and thinker in the history of western thought. — Ross Campbell

First he writes good, and I mean really good, to the point that he spoils the taste. And yes his provocative style appeals to a certain demographic, which is maybe a bit unfortunate... because I think, 'technically' he is a really good philosopher too. Because of his style this maybe goes a bit unnoticed.

Most importantly, I think it's because he talks about something that really concerns people... namely how to live your life. People no doubt will disagree, but that's what I think philosophy is about, since the beginning, since Socrates, i.e. "what is the good life".

There doesn't seem to be any coherent social, ethical or political set of values or structures in his thinking . I think his philosophy is only of relevance to the life of an individual, it couldn't be applied to society. A Nietszean worldview would be anarchy, devoid of ethics, and of science, religion or political systems. — Ross Campbell

Yeah true, "a book for all and none"... he didn't intent to speak to everybody, or society at large, but to the individual. But that is essentially the philosophers way isn't it? What do you do when you find yourself as a thinking individual in this maelstrom of seemingly blind societal forces of tradition. Re-evaluation of values...

And maybe this is also the way to redeem his philosophy from this apparent lack of application to the political and the societal. What he was doing was at the same time more humble and more general. Maybe it's simply not feasible, and a bit of a conceit, to make widesweeping and general statements about society and politics that transcend the particular context of an author. In that case, helping posterior individuals think straight, would also be the best way to (indirectly) influence later societies and politics.

I know that in Hebrew (and possibly Aramaic) the word for slave and servant is the same, but Christianity is 1000% servant morality: Jesus tells his followers "the greatest among you will be your servant" and he washes the feet of his disciples. The Pope does the same.

Jesus is the very encapsulation, the very essence, of servant/slave morality. IMHO the gospels usher in a moral revolution.

The Nazis used Christianity opportunistically but their inner circle were not Christian.