>>1275193
If you are a spiritual person, only the wisdom of an enlightened sage-like holy person will do.

If you don't really care for world religion and spirituality someone like Nietzsche would probably make sense to you.

>>1275207
I'm asking about historical validity.

I dunno about Christianity, but we've learned a shit ton about the Greeks since Nietzsche wrote about Greek religion and morality. He simply shouldn't be used to analyze religions, anyway, because all he has to say is negative; a positive analysis of religion has no place for his shit.

>>1275214
His claim that Christianity started with the poor and it's early years were deeply involved in anti-Romanism were correct (by early years I'm talking 1st century and early 2nd century).

What's really interested is comparing the Gnostic Christianity to what the orthodox Christianity is. Because Gnostic Christianity in contrast was more of an upper class thing and it has less of criticisms nature throws at the religion, less "slave morality" no real concept of revenge in their eschatology.

One thing about Nietzsche is he sort of expects you to already know the history, his books were written for scholarly minded people. Because of this he references things only in passing, it allows him to cover a tremdenous amount of track but does leave a layman skeptical if his take on history is well-founded. He is actually what got me into studying early Christianity myself to see if his claims hold up, and I think it did.

>>1275193
its literally armchair history

he didn't do any real research

Foucault took up this tradition

> Nietzsche praises Islam
> Well, you see, he didn't really understand...
> Nietzsche criticizes Christianity
> Yes, it's factually correct

>>1276482
The thing is Nietzsche's praise of Islam consists of about 6 sentences and focuses entirely on one period of time, which is when Islam was at it's peak. It is safe to say he really didn't know anything about Islam beyond what it was like during the Golden Age.

He literally wrote an entire book criticism Christianity and there's stuff beyond that book, the criticism of Christianity encompasses it's entire history from the early Jews to what was going on in his day. In contrast he shows he is throughly versed in it's history.

Either way you shouldn't take his word on what is and isn't true. His criticisms assume you already know history and if you don't you should verse yourself in it to see if it holds up.

>>1275193
Yes, he's completely historically accurate when he characterises it as slave morality.