Question about Nietzsche, the Anti Christ

so i just read this, and nietzche spends a lot of time pointing out the faults of christianity but never goes into why the church woud want to make people weak and do horrible things like he says. does he ever go into this in any of his other essays?

who cares you have body-

nietzche

he’s got stop with the necrophelia-church

you’ll see nietzhe-eric

wow man thanks for the help…

dick

they want your money and nothing else

your weak and powerless-thanks for the money

people thanks for the help

i’ll go kill someone for the missing money

nietzche-“this is (my) body”-you can’t have it

kind of counter-intuitive don’t you think

go to church just don’t give them your money

look theres no church

thats the truth-god

His theory ressentiment may explain why.

It is implied in section 17:

“The same instinct that prompts the subjugated to reduce their god to the “good-in- itself” also prompts them to eliminate all the good qualities from the god of their conquerors; they take revenge on their masters by turning their god into the devil.—”

And made explicit in section 22:

“Christianity would become master over beasts of prey: its method is to make them sick; enfeeblement is the Christian recipe for taming, for “civilizing.””

Then, in section 24, it says:

“the priestly type […] has a life interest in making mankind sick; and in so twisting the concepts of “good” and “evil,” “true” and “false,” as to imperil life and slander the world.—”

Why this is so is explained in On the Genealogy of Morals:

“One will have divined already how easily the priestly mode of valuation can branch off from the knightly-aristocratic and then develop into its opposite; this is particularly likely when the priestly caste and the warrior caste are in jealous opposition to one another and are unwilling to come to terms. The knightly-aristocratic value judgments presupposed a powerful physicality, a flourishing, abundant, even overflowing health, together with that which serves to preserve it: war, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and in general all that involves vigorous, free, joyful activity. The priestly-noble mode of valuation presupposes, as we have seen, other things: it is disadvantageous for when it comes to war! As is well known, the priests are the most evil enemies—but why? Because they are the most impotent. It is because of their impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions, to the most spiritual and poisonous kind of hatred. The truly great haters in world history have always been priests; likewise the most ingenious [Geistreich] haters: other kinds of spirit [Geist] hardly come into consideration when compared with the spirit of priestly vengefulness.”
[GM 7.]

See also section 11. Indeed, I suggest you read the whole first essay, if not the whole book.

When you file away all the uneccesary polemic metaphor and poetic writing, what you have left is a very simply premise: God is not scientifically verifiable, and because historical materialism is, anything which hinders an analysis of, an understanding of such, can be dangerous and degenerating in civilization.

You must first move backward, beyond Nietzsche, to have an understanding of what he was talking about. Nietzsche did not start the “anti-christ” campaign. Not by a long shot. What he did do, however, is utilize a writing style that made the ideas more accessible to amatuer “philosophers” and the general public, as did Kierkegaard. Years of technical anti-metaphysical ideas propounded by the empiricists merely reappeared in Nietzsche’s ideas. He said nothing new, but perhaps confused the issue even more.

The greatest thing about Nietzsche was that he helped to incite a form of social anarchy, expressed as a break away from ruling class ideas (religion), and in doing so he empowered a revolution within the masses.

If I may say, with another touch of irony, it was a good thing that Nietzsche created so much confusion. He is an expediency. Nothing more.

Read “Twilight of the Idols” first. It complements “AntiChrist”. The same thoughts appear in “Zarathustra”, “Beyond Good and Evil” and elsewhere. Nietzsche “philosophied with a hammer” because he was objecting to reifications anywhere–in religion or in philosophy.

I think it’s because religion was a device devised by the weak to give (divine) authority to their slave morality which arose from resentment (which arose from the weak’s inability to act on impulse and therefore spent time in thought (which initially was therefore a wonderful thing). Over time these initial motives of calling upon the divine were forgotten and established as truth. For this reason the priest truly believes in what he is saying. He too is a victim, but is also the spreader (or ‘drug dealer’) of his aceticism of which he is the supreme example. The beauty of it is that the priest does not know that he is detrimental to mankind. I hope that resembles your question.

Very close!

Religion was created by a class that was weak in stature but clever and cunning in intellect. This was not a kind of resentment, because this new class didn’t resent the other class, but instead admired it and sought to control it. The religious were not a “slave morality” at all. It is quite the opposite. The slave morality was the cultural norms prtacticed by subordinate workers who were controled, via religious propaganda, by the new ruling class

All this bullshit about “lacking creative impulse” and “the will to fight and war” as a prerequisite for the “strong type” is a bunch of bologna. Fritz is basing his analysis on historical demographic circumstances. Indeed, the first primitive forms of society and civilizations were founded by and through immense battles, but he is described a phase of developement, not an end. There is just as much “willpower” in creating diplomacy and seeking peace among men as there is in attacking a people.

What Nietzsche lacked in his analysis was a historical perspective which is neccesary to view progress and development as a wholistic process, rather than as undirected and random bouts of “war” of particular interests and without any consolation or end.

Perhaps a return to healthy ruling ideas is the best way to describe it.
Nietzsche wanted those with the exalted right to rule to be the ones in charge. Not so much a revolution in the traditional sense but rather more like a coup.

God was dead before Nietzsche came on the scene. The Church was doomed long before he wrote The Antichrist. Modern man denies God- it was a revolution headed by modern ideas, not Nietzschean ones, that overthrew the Church. And the result wasn’t a Nietzschean utopia, but rather the popularisation of modernity.

The Nietzschean coup has yet to take place. We are yet to see a Dionysian nation explode out of the modern world.

Amongst other things, the idea is laziness.

I remember looking at my garden recently, in poor shape due to the water restrictions here. I was reflecting on the work it needed and thought that, if only I could call the weeds “plants” and the plants “weeds”, I’d be sorted and nothing would have to be done - my garden would be perfect.

I think Nietzsche’s take on Christianity is like that. They made virtues of all their shortcomings… a lazy way to take the moral high ground.

My problem with Nietzsche’s poetic tirades about Christianity is his mistaking effeminant weakness for the feminine principle. Christianity adopted the Hebrew reaction to current matriachal theologies. Earth Mother as fertility was seen in the new tradition as part of earthly corruption as brought about by the Fall. N. rightly rails against ideas of the only world we have as some grand, cosmic practical joke that leaves us defiled and in need of spiritual cleansing. In opting for human value in the known world, he actually adopts the best ideas of the old feminine order.