Are Protestants more nihilistic than Catholics?

Is it true that protestants are more nihilistic than catholics?

Source: “The Antichrist”, 1889, p. 252 (Appendix).

Now? I mean the quote date is 132 years ago given the number - “Source: “The Antichrist”, 1889, p. 252 (Appendix).”. A lot has changed since then. I fear we lean too much on old philosophy and text instead of learning from it for what it was for the time it was written. At least one thing in life is certain: CHANGE.

It would seem that it is not just protestants - it is everyone(well not everyone). An increasing number of people are deserting their belief in god.

I once crossed a dangerous threshold into nothingness - on the other side of this nothingness was something special…a story for another time.

More specifically: It is likely that protestants are more nihilistic than Catholics - the question is: how much more?

Encode wrote:

“I once crossed a dangerous threshold into nothingness - on the other side of this nothingness was something special…a story for another time.”

Encode_Decode wrote:

“I once crossed a dangerous threshold into nothingness - on the other side of this nothingness was something special…a story for another time.”

I went there once, as well, found going back literally impossible without treating it dialectically. Appropriating some synthetic unity leads to various contradictions, the only possible solution for me became a methodological overlay, thus avoiding inner conflict by sustaining a credible tension.

That brings it to the question, can God be excluded from nihilism, or is He part and parcel in it, thereby He feeling and experiencing that tension as well?

If so, Protestanism can be looked at as more a product of an intent participation than denial of said exclusion.( of loss of faith)

But these are simply effected symptoms, rather then actual changes in a sense of real dynamic interrelation. Evaluation becomes so nebulous, that the answer may be more of conjecture than a real solution.

It’s not like Nietzsche proved that Christianity was fundamentally nihilistic in the first place.

N prefers honesty of form, so if you are going to be religious in such an emotional, feminine way as Christianity offers, then do it properly, with undivided admiration of the religion, giving everything to it - then at least it can sustain some honest natures within the fabric, such as have so much existed within catholicism - there I snow shortage of wit and rebellion, irony and realism inside a full fledged ideology about good and evil. You will find a similar thing in Islam. Within Protestantism, religion became something not celebrating even itself, it was merely a punishment and therefore, the most criminal minds felt compelled to it.

Or consider this angle;

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … e#p2691914

The Ancient Greeks and Romans themselves, because they had long since become nihilistic, became Christians.

Though they weren’t all that ancient anymore then. Society had already been urbanized, in the sense of Cosmopolis. I.e. gossip-culture.

Rome’s significant culture all happened before Constantine, and certainly Greece had long faded when Christ took the scene.

Though indeed it is true that, with the advent of Sokrates, nihilistic ideology became possible.

“At different times, the Romans persecuted the Christians because of their beliefs, which were popular among the poor. … Finally, by this time, Romans considered their emperor a god. But the Christian belief in one god — who was not the emperor — weakened the authority and credibility of the emperor.”

The clue is in there. It was the fact that rome was already a rigid class based system with wealth disparity (like we ain’t never seen) so bad that the lower peasant and slave class was quite ready and willing to weaponize the idea that not only was the emperor not god, but an evil greedy bastard.

Now the fact that Christianity was the tool used for this is incidental to the fact that it originated in the peasantry class. It’s that possibility of a broke ass class in the first place that such a morbid religion as xtianity is able to evolve.

But an analysis of whatever elements might be present which make xtianity ‘nihilistic’, the important part is to recognize it as a cry of revolt from an incredibly, incredibly oppressed people. But arguing about what is ‘nihilistic’ or not’ll end up becoming a futile exercise in semantics.

When examining the Christian, ask first what it is that makes him most miserable and proceed from there.

I’d not take what Nietzsche says too seriously. What he believed in and had predicted had turned out to be a grave miscalculation, whatever the swaths of autistic bootlicker fanboys might say and twist around to find the 58th bottom to his sentences; he believed in a more civilized and more sensitive and more determined human to emerge after the collapse of Christianity and what we got instead was a reversion to savagery and superstition as the trenches of WW1 and Concentration Camps of WW2 showed. He is not a charlatan like Heidegger but he was simply wrong. After the collapse of Christianity, a reversion to barbarism and pre-Christian superstitions occurred and the European man was massacred and stripped of any dignity, engaged in wars that exhausted Europe and permanently wiped its global dominance off planet Earth whilst during the Middle Ages, Europeans were unified under one faith and Church and a European respected a European.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with science. A human must believe and must know. Science and faith are simply two distinct and non-interchangeable domains of human cognitive activity. The changes to Christianity which Luther and Protestants pushed were positive and reasonable, unlike the anti-Darwinistic movement of the Yank Protestant churches in the South which reacted with the Darwinistic revolution with a reversion to a cult and fanaticism which was bound up to die-out and turn into a shithole it is nowadays because it, obviously, could never hope to synchronize itself with the general society and adjust to the monumental historical changes. Of course…Protestantism has died out because it did not keep a definite line between itself and politics and became too radically fractured in too many opposing directions, under no central authority to monitor the level of charlatanism and quackery and to inject the faith with a sense of general direction and purpose. This same reversion to primitivism is occurring now in the Roman Catholic church; they are moving out of Europe into less advanced Africas and Latin Americas; John Paul 2 was the first non-German/Italian to be elected, the current Pope the first non-European.


ALSO: there is no magical ‘nihilism’…nihilism is simple: seeing no value or objective beyond satisfying ones own selfish needs. All these tirades and convoluted rants the kooks like SATIRE or others go about…is pure quackery. Nihilism is everything and nothing, a nihilist is a man whom I dont like. It’s like an autistic cult code-word to discredit somebody automatically…like a Capitalist in Soviet Russia or racist in Modern America…a trigger kind of thing, half-sane autistic dim-wits use to warn themselves of a stranger and a kind of emotional trigger to gather the hens around to attack.

Heidegger was a brilliant phenomenologist who illuminates the experience of being in the world for me. So I suppose you don’t understand him. That he made mistakes makes him human not a charlatan.

Elaborate being in being, da-sein. Just few sentences with the bear basics. And I mean the charlatan quacks da-sein, not the original from the great Karl Jasper whom every intelligent member here should read. Yes; Heidegger fabricated the terms themselves too, not just stole from the medical eclasstic texts and various other sources. He was the modern day zizek; a cretins smart man. Much like my 40 year old asperg faggot kvasir…big words, bizzare sentences, grandiose propositions and an endless stream of pretentious implications which are kept coated in mysticism and passive-agressivness and never reach any clear and articulated conclusions…just much saner and smarter.

Charlatans prey on ignorance and weakness. For example: I used to take what satyr(and kvasir and all the other time wasting kooks on shitthyself) wrote seriously, I even wrote him a small poem for his birthday…then I red Heidegger, I red experts texts on Heidegger, I verified and analysed fors and againsts, I seemed out his enthusiasts and critics and eventually I was able to see that satyr is talking about Heidegger like an expert but never even red Heidegger…because Heidegger was a quasi-christian existentialist. So I could easily see that anybody who talks negatively about Christianity and simultaneously praises Heidegger is either a fool or a neo-nazi fool who likes hedegger because the title of the nazi is floating above his head and anybody Nazi to a neo-nazi must be good and noble…fuck quacks and time wasting kooks

Husserl, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponti, and Sartre in “being and nothingness”, were all doing phenomenology. Anybody who gets phenomenology should be able to get Heidegger with some work. Once that is accomplished Heidegger won’t seem like a charlatan anymore. Any philosophy that hopes to escape from the nihilism of modernity or post-modernity or what Friedrich Nietzsche identified as the nihilism of Christianity, must get phenomenology.

Phenemonology is a quackery like psychoanalysis and you, like practically every balloon-head mumbling innanities about Heidegger, can’t even say what he is about because you don’t even know because it is nonsense. And Karl jaspers was ridiculed by quacks like Heidegger a d that whole Parisian brain-shitter with adornos and the pervert weirdo queers like the faggot bald Frenchmen fucolt so you are simply talking nonsense and outrightly and disrespectful lying to people you kook. Jaspers was not a phenemonologist.

You know… The Roman Catholic Heidegger with his favour for Aristotelianism and the works of Christian theologists are very close to my heart…does not change the fact that he was a manipulative and dishonest quack who polluted the heads of young Europeans with idiocies and bullshit to gain privately fame and wealth and appraisal and loads of young student pussy. Anybody like that should have his tongue cut out, youth must be guarded against quacks and charlatans.

Clearly, Jaspers was a phenomenologist.

Yes. Jaspers was a phenomenologist and existential philosopher. Heidegger too. It is said in Heidegger’s main work that ontology is only possible as phenomenology (cf. § 7, C, p. 35), that ontology and phenomenology are not two different disciplines beside others belonging to philosophy, that his investigations have only become possible on the ground laid by E. Husserl, with whose “Logische Untersuchungen” (1900) phenomenology came to its breakthrough (cf. § 7, C, p. 38).

Psychiatry is not philosophy. Read this plato.stanford.edu/entries/jaspers/
And stop wasting my fucking time you autistic kooks