>rekt all values of his time
>creates new values on their ashes, that dominate the world to this day
>the birth pangs of these new values is immense bloodshed, starting with him
Maximum Ubermensch. Prove me wrong.
Jesus didn't "create" any new value, he is the Value himself who made flesh.
prove what wrong?
we all know jesus, fact or fiction, changed the world's morals/ideas, that still last today and caused the bloody crusades.
>>824245
Crusades were geopolitics desu
>>824243
>beings can be abstract concepts t. christfag
> changed the world's morals/ideas
Any example of it not being just the new label? It doesn't matter if you are killed under the name of Zeus or under the name of Odin. Why would there be difference to be killed under the name of Jesus?
>>824245
>Muslims conquer Christian lands for 500 years
>Christianity caused the crusades
>shig
he wanted to change judaism
paul changed the world
>>824278
He said to baptize all nations.
>>824278
I'll also add that Judaism was not "closed" then like it is now, it actively sought to convert people (the word "proselytize" literally comes from "proselytite", which means someone who converted to Judaism), and even forced them to convert on several occasions.
>>824284
>Think you got that switched around.
No, I don't think so. All abstract beings must be conceptualized abstractly, but not all abstract concepts must be conceptualized as beings.
>>824284
> Did people do that?
I don't know. It was figuratively speaking. How can we be sure that Jesus changed the morality and it wasn't changed with time just by itself and in what way Christianity was unique? Something like that.
Pretty sure Nietzsche would agree with you, and he's the one who invented the theory of the Ubermensch.
>>824231
Ubermench is not a synonymoun for a revolutionary.
The Ubermench has come to destroy the values of good and evil. Nietzsche makes this explicit in Ecce Homo when he says the reason Zarathustra is the herald of the Ubermecnch is because Zarathustra created the first philosoph which divide all things into good and evil. Now he has come to correct his mistake and destroy both of them.
>>825568
So an unbermensch just means a return to master morality?
>>825527
Nietzche does say Christianity changed values, but it did not create new values. Christianity is slave values, which are just master values but turned up side down.
When the Christian says it is good to be meek, good to humble, and good to be oppressed (see the Sermon on the mount) all he is doing is taking the Roman/Greek values that is is good to be strong, to be proud, and bad to be oppressed and turning them upside down.
>>825579
He trasnciends all morality, but if you had to say whether he is more a master or more a slave he's closer to a master.
An early example of this type of thinking Nietzsche says the Ubermench will bring is Machiavillia's thinking who says that you should learn to be both good and evil and that each have their place. So he combines both 'good' and 'evil' and affirms them both...and in doing so he ends up destroying both.
This is why Nietzsche says his Ubermench will be mistaken for Satan because he will knowingly do and promote 'evil' just as much as 'good'.
>>825600
>He trasnciends all morality
Can you clarify what you mean by "morality"?
>>825600
>is Machiavillia's thinking
This, by the way, is pretty much the definition of modernist politics. Machiavelli is considered the inauguration of modernist political theory.
>>825604
For Nietzsche morality is a type of tradition about what proper conduct is. This conduct is 'above' the individual and could very well be called a spook.
The Ubermench is radically individualistic so he is not a slave to tradition or morality, the ultimate authority is himself. But he is not an anarchist either because he knows that culture and tradition can serve as means of enhancing himself and allowing part of himself to live beyond his physical death.
>>825610
Imagine our modern politics with no political correctness and the idea that war and conquest isn't 'evil' but noble. That's closer to his ideal politics.
Although on the other hand Nietzche would hate to see that we have come to see the state as God (he predicted this saying the state will become 'the new idol') this is because he expects his disciples to carve their own path, not to accept dogma of anykind but to be a skeptic. He even said you are not truely one of his disciples unless you are a skeptic about his own writing and ideas "Perhaps Zarathustra has deceived you" he writes.
>>825644
So ubermensch just means a moral nihilist?
>That's closer to his ideal politics.
That's ancient politics. Machiavellian politics is is using political correctness to control people, without personally subscribing to it.
>>825679
>So ubermensch just means a moral nihilist
There are two ways to describe the moral approach a follower of Nietzche's philosophy is.
One is to say that his morality is self-defined. The other is to say he is amoral (after all a self-defined morality is going to appear amoral to everyone else).
It's incorrect to say he would be a nihilist, he would believe that actions have value but that he thinks beyond good and evil.
The type of thinking that good and evil are the ultimate realm of morality is what he wants to see destroyed.
>>825697
So a return to master morality? Good vs. bad?
>>825679
>Machiavellian politics is is using political correctness to control people
No it isn't. I've read the Prince and I can't see how you would reach this conclusion.
>>824231
He didn't cause any bloodshed; the idiocy of the masses did. He taught altruism and service to mankind inspired by love, as did all of the world's greatest teachers. Even now, people mistakenly blame and ridicule him for the weaknesses of others. This is exceedingly obvious.
>>825725
He came to bring a sword, and by that he meant dissent which he knew would lead to bloodshed. He didn't directly cause bloodshed, but he assured his followers that it would come with his values.
>>825725
Who do you consider the greatest teachers? Also, ahem, Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Guy killed a kid for bumping into him.
>>825724
>Machiavelli says a public religion is vital, but for the ruler to believe in it is irrelevant. Certainly, social justice is a new public religion
This doesn't mean he is in favor of social justice
It's like saying he is in favor of Scientology because scientology is also a religion. Machavili gives the blueprint for how to run a proper state but he acknowledges that the details are going to vary from state to state, so not literally any religion will do.
And to your second part. Beyond good and evil is the name of one of his books, which is the type of thinking he wants to promote.
>>825732
No.
His aim was never violence or death. He had the wisdom however, to know that his followers would be murdered for what they believed in, just as he was. He was killed because he brought dissent against the corruption in his time.
>>825794
He told his followers they would face death if they followed him. That doesn't mean his aim was death, but it's pretty significant that the prince of peace said, "I do not come to bring peace."
>>825756
If Scientology were the dominance religion, Machiavelli would certainly favor it. He didn't care if it was paganism of Christianity, or whatever else.
Nietzsche makes a strong distinction between good-bad and good-evil, so please re-read my post.
>>825807
Because he came to bring dissent against the corruption in his time. He saw it as abhorrent.
>>824231
>all values of his time
Not Buddhist values.
>>825817
Christ came to bring a brand new covenant, he wasn't there just to reform.
>>825828
t. Christfag
>>825834
If we're going to discuss Christ, might we not as well discuss the version presented? You don't see people discussing Socrates and saying, "Socrates said this," with someone else rebutting "t. Platonist".
We literally only have Christian accounts of Christ.
>>825849
We don't even have original accounts. Not one book in the Bible is written by people who actually met him. Because the dozen guys who followed him and actually listened to what he said were illiterate. The text in the original Greek says "agrammatos", without letters, which is the term they used for illiterate. We only have accounts from Greek speakers who wrote the texts long after he died.
And even the ones you want to discuss VASTLY differ. Look at Mark (as far as the scholarly community can tell, is the original) vs. Matthew and Luke. Then you have the pile of shit that is John.
>>825849
Don't reply to those kinds of posts next time. It's a waste.
>>825872
>Not one book in the Bible is written by people who actually met him.
Can you explain why you reject the account given by Papias of their authorship?
>Because the dozen guys who followed him and actually listened to what he said were illiterate.
Peter certainly was, probably most, that doesn't mean they all were.
>And even the ones you want to discuss VASTLY differ
See, this is what really, really, really irritates. Where the Gospels agree, it is used against them as le Q source, where they differ, that is also used against them. It's a lose-lose. If four thorough accounts were given of the Peloponesian War (Thucydides being one), and they contradicted each other in a few spots, historians would not say, "well, then they are all completely unreliable."
> John.
John is very different from the other Gospels because it was not for uninitiated Christians. The first five verses were probably the first Christian creed (for the initiated), which eventually developed into the Nicene Creed. Before saying this Creed, all Christians who were not initiated had to leave the service (they still do in some Orthodox parishes), and the priest shouted, "The doors!" meaning someone watch the doors to keep an eye out to make sure no one was listening. This great secret for the initiated Christians, was that Christ was literally God. It is extensively hinted at throughout other Gospels, but John says it very directly because John isn't read in front of the uninitiated.
>>825900
The deacon or priest still says, "The doors!" to this day, by the way, right before the Creed, in Orthodox Liturgy, you can see for yourself: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy
> The doors! The doors! In wisdom, let us be attentive!
>>825900
Papias said they were written by a secretary of Peter, from memory. Not over the course of time.
>Peter certain was, probably most, that doesn't mean they all were.
They almost certainly were all illiterate. 97% of Palestine was illiterate. Galilee was a backwater. It is amazing we have as much information as we do about this obscure apocalyptic preacher.
>See, this is what really, really, really irritates. Where the Gospels agree, it is used against them as le Q source, where they differ, that is also used against them. It's a lose-lose. If four thorough accounts were given of the Peloponesian War (Thucydides being one), and they contradicted each other in a few spots, historians would not say, "well, then they are all completely unreliable."
Matthew and Luke completely copy some parts of Mark word for word. Literally word for word.
>John is very different from the other Gospels because it was not for uninitiated Christians. The first five verses were probably the first Christian creed (for the initiated), which eventually developed into the Nicene Creed. Before saying this Creed, all Christians who were not initiated had to leave the service (they still do in some Orthodox parishes), and the priest shouted, "The doors!" meaning someone watch the doors to keep an eye out to make sure no one was listening. This great secret for the initiated Christians, was that Christ was literally God. It is extensively hinted at throughout other Gospels, but John says it very directly because John isn't read in front of the uninitiated.
John was written much later. You can tell because the Christology is much more developed and that it is eager to absolve the Romans where it can and blame everything on the Jews.
>>825926
>Papias said they were written by a secretary of Peter
He said Matthew was written by Matthew, with Peter dictating, and Matthew adding a few things along the way.
>97% of Palestine was illiterate.
I highly doubt that. I think the estimate of the illiteracy of antiquity is highly exaggerated. Saint John Chrysostom constantly tells people to read Scripture, and he responds to excuses all the time,and the excuses are generally I cannot afford Scripture or something in that vein, very rarely, "I can't read" (to which Chrysostom says, have someone in your family read it to you), which itself is generally do to blindness or something of that nature, rather than illiteracy. Literacy was a lot lower than today, but 3% literacy is completely nonsense, especially for Jews whose religion revolved around reading in a way others did not, and commands them to meditates on the Law perpetually (Joshua 1:8).
>Matthew and Luke completely copy some parts of Mark word for word. Literally word for word.
Very rarely are there word for word replicas, except in speech, or in a formula. They appear that because of English because about 90% of textual variation is untranslatable (syntax, grammar cases we can't express, etc.)
>You can tell because the Christology is much more developed
It's much more blatant, because if a Pharisee stepped into a Christian gathering and heard it, it would be grounds to put everyone to death. But just saying Christ is the Messiah and did miracles, is not (people were sometimes put to death for it, but that was wrong, the death of James the Just, for instance, as mentioned in Josephus, is brought about by a kangaroo court). Every Gospel but John was intended to be read and shared generally, whereas John was reserved for Christians.
> it is eager to absolve the Romans where it can and blame everything on the Jews
None of the other Gospels paint the Romans as wicked, and all of them paint the Pharisees (literally the antecedent to Rabbinic Judaism).
>>825961
paint the Pharisees as wicked*
