Nietzsche Failed To Understand Christianity

Develop your skills. Free 1-1 coaching call:

Newsletter:

Instagram:

Jesus Christ surpassed the critiques of behavioural morality that Nietzsche observed in society.

If anything, Jesus Christ is beyond Good and Evil and thus definitely not a representation of “slave morality” within the message Christianity.

Jesus Christ represents neither slave nor master morality as Nietzsche identifies in worldly behaviours of man but transcends the dialectical trap of dualistic categories that lead us to nothing but fallen conflicts.

He represents the ever redeeming mirror of righteousness to his foes and followers that are in His presence, the essence of what signifies Truth by never stepping into the chaos of earthy arrogance that leads to everlasting conflict.

In alignment with God through mass non-compliance; He offers his hand to all who judge Him but to they who judge Him are only slaves to the game of dialectics and of their own God complexes.

Only those who are possessed by the desire to prove themselves as being the ultimate truth of this world by obsessively trying to conquer the earth through whatever means necessary is thus trapped in an unending symptom of disbelief towards the higher power and truth of God and anything higher then I. This arrogance of the Will to Warp reality is presented through the antichrist as trying to bend reality without the understanding of karmic consequence which is the Logos of God.

For "What is truth" said Pilate the Roman. With Jesus remaining silent and Pilate failing to see the Truth beyond himself.

Nietzsche in his critique of Christianity never truly hated Christianity in-of-itself but hated the corporatism of its message through Catholicism and the other denominational movements that would develop teachings to purposefully misguide and misrepresent the life of Jesus Christ with the intent to gain power over its people.

[ThoughtsonThinking]

Develop your skills. Free 1-1 coaching call:

[filipradic]

I think that in Orthodoxy there is a huge emphasis on inner freedom (true freedom), while the West has gone in the direction of external freedoms.

[edwartvonfectonia]

I think, although Orthodoxy is not as dogmatic as Catholicism, it was and still used for gaining power and building nations. People from East Europe would understand. But yes, it's not necessary to be in the cast to follow Jesus's scriptures. Thanks for the video!

[ManNamedBrUce]

While you made a good observation, that a lot of Nietzsche’s critique was of contemporaneous religious institutions, practices, and beliefs (dogmatism) as opposed to actual Christianity or Jesus, I do not agree that Nietzsche did NOT understand Christianity. Please let’s not pretend he didn’t understand Christianity—read any biography to see his credentials. You made no mention of his “psychological” insights or interpretations of Christianity which, to me, are some of the most profound and damning examples.

[engineeredtruths]

Awesome to see the path you are taking. It reminds me of Fr. Seraphim Rose who was walking a similar path to yours. If you hadn't heard of him yet I recommend you checking out his books and also most importantly his statement regarding how he came to the faith. He goes over it in one of his more famous books, Orthodoxy and the religion of the future.

[ratiofides]

I am an agnostic so feel free to take everything I'm about to say with a giant grain of salt, but I was (and still am) very interested in Christianity and its history so I'd like to offer some criticism.

I'd like to start with the points I agree with. I do think Nietzsche might've misunderstood Christianity fundamentally as well as confused it with its misuses and perversions. One should judge Christianity from the example of those who lived up to its ideals (which only Christ fully did) and not from those who clearly failed. With that said, it is important to criticize the misuses and perversions as well.
You are right to point out that Christianity is hardly related to slave morality; one shouldn't mistake kindness for weakness. Christian morality has throughout history been expressed through the ideals of chivalry, through the image of the perfect knight, which was itself inspired by the example of Christ being both a lamb and a lion - not half lamb, half lion, but in a sense fully encompassing both the lamb and the lion archetype. As C.S.Lewis put it:
“The knight is a man of blood and iron, a man familiar with the sight of smashed faces and the ragged stumps of lopped-off limbs; he is also a demure, almost a maidenlike, guest in hall, a gentle, modest, unobtrusive man. He is not a compromise or happy mean between ferocity and meekness; he is fierce to the nth and meek to the nth.”


Now, onto the criticism. Firstly, I'd suggest being careful with phrases like "true Christianity" without having some firm historical and theological backing. Anyone can claim to follow the "true Christianity", but if that version of Christianity isn't supported by what we know from history, especially the history of the early Church, then one should question what makes them so confident that their interpretation is true and everyone else got it entirely wrong for hundreds or even thousands of years. Same as with any book, the Bible can be interpreted in nearly infinite number of ways, it doesn't interpret itself, which becomes obvious once one considers the number of disagreeing denominations who all apparently follow Scripture alone.

"Why would you accept the denomination of Christianity from the Roman Empire which crucified Jesus?"
This sentence seems to indicate a lack of historical, but also theological understanding. First of all, the church of Rome had very little to do with the Roman Empire, sharing only the name and the location. It was the church "founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul", the church with which "all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world", as Irenaeus put it, writing in the 2nd century. You also say that the Catholic Church was used to gain power by Constantine when he himself in fact leaned towards Arianism later in his reign, and his son and successor was openly Arian, therefore opposed to the Catholic Church.
The Roman church was often persecuted, but in the end it prevailed. It shouldn't be surprising that Christians accepted the Church originating from the same city as that of its oppressors; they did the same with the cross, they took a symbol of torture and despair and transformed it into a symbol of healing and hope.

It is interesting that you find the Catholic Church to be the perfect example of Christianity done wrong, but then you find the Orthodox Church to be an example of Christianity done right. The two Churches were one Church for the first thousand years of Christian history, they agree on pretty much everything and they came close to uniting back multiple times. The biggest difference is that of the authority the Pope should possess, and even then the Orthodox Church does recognize the primacy of the Pope; they just disagree on exactly how much authority he should have. Which also brings me to your view of the idea of the Papacy being "nonsense". You state it as one of the reasons you like Orthodoxy, but as I said even the Orthodox Church recognizes the primacy of the Pope. It also has the same "man made rituals", priests and bishops, which you claimed were not a part of Christianity but only Catholicism. It also has most of the same "additions" you seem to dislike.

I'm not saying Catholicism is true, that it's without problems or anything like that, as I said I'm agnostic, but I do think you might lack the historical knowledge to understand these things on a deeper level at the moment.

[johnobryan]

Nietzsche also said "True Christianity is still possible without the dogma". From, The Will to Power.

[johnobryan]

By the way this was in my recommended feed. I listened to you and you have a new subscriber.

[NealWhitmania]

Thanks for the take, Spencer. I agree entirely with your take on true Christianity being discipleship and that Nietzsche failed utterly to critique the Christianity that is presented in Christian scriptures. I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that Orthodox Christianity has remained free of dogma as a whole, being experienced in Orthodox Christianity as it has become inculcated in cultures, but I would agree that it has not since Symeon's Reforms been as constrained by worldly ideology as the western tradition was. Certainly there are few Orthodox Saints I have read who have failed to express the core ideologies of biblical Christianity in the exertions towards holiness.

Good stuff. I think that Protestantism has been hurt by denominationalism, but the reformation has also brought out a lot of true Christianity in spite of the western idealism that has so often perverted it. Its never as one-sided as we think when we look closely, because, as you acknowledge, Jesus is truth and he may actually be found by anyone who genuinely seeks Him, regardless of tradition.

(Also I would suggest that Jesus is not precisely beyond good and evil. He is what good is. Evil is what he is not. Its a bit of a different cast on the matter than you seem to have understood.)

[dansal]

The Roman Empire was the center of the world at that time. The fact that Christianity centered itself in Rome meant that it centered the world around itself. That’s why one would accept the faith that originates in Rome.

[svenz.]

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."
Ayn Rand

[kimfreeborn]

I would say that Nietzsche is critiquing Christian Morality. This quite clear in his critique of Christianity as a life denying and other worldly religion that promises immortality to its believers. To Nietzsche this is nihilism once the edifice of God is removed. Judaism is more in line with Nietzsche it has no promise of immortality. Ecclesiastes 3:19

For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.

All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.

Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?

I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?

[bryansmith]

Christianity needs to be simple so everyone gets it. Listen to the Holy Spirit.

[JMBBrasil]

Jesus is not beyond good and evil. He is Good. Evil is what he is not. Love the video. Keep going! Beijos from Brazil !

[madguruJ]

Totally agree about Orthodoxy, vs the corrupt Catholicism and Protestantism, check out Father Spyridon

[timforester]

blessings to you!
keep pursuing the truth.
I recommend attending a ROCOR liturgy

[Nonprophetelias]

To reply to your initial point about the truths of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ, I would ask you ‘where do you get these teachings from?’ Many of these “additions” that you bring up are part of the church that Christ established at Pentecost. Perhaps I am misrepresenting you, but I am partial to the eastern orthodox position. Eastern orthodox also venerate Mary, have a priesthood, the episcopacy, and church tradition alongside scripture.

Also, christ is not beyond good and evil, like some universal platonic good. Christ is good. God is good. Christ is God. I am glad that you are moving away from the occult and into Christian thought and hopefully into the church.

The idea that one can just come across the right interpretation without a body of authority to help them interpret thousands of years of theology, leads to the endless schism present in the protestant and neo protestant churches. I respect the fact that you are going after Nas‘s take on Christianity, but a lot of the things he had issues with are core aspects to Christianity. Submission to authority is a main one, and his present in the eastern north Orthodox Church..

[nuetrino]

Thanks for uploading this.
As someone who's walked a similar path and have come to some similar conclusions. I would like to share some struggles. I'm not stating what differences I have, therefore I'm also not saying this applies to anyone. Just my 2 sats.
It kinda feels bad when somebody says your views on Jesus are wrong. Especially when your (most likely) more educated on "early church history". My Ego has a desire to go "shitpost mode" and crudely explain to them they are wrong and I am right. These conversations tend be over almost immediately and I realize that I'm a bit of an asshole. No amount of "informed righteousness" seems to make people think my asshole smells nice. I'm trying to find that happy in-between where I feel like I'm standing up for what I believe in without forcing my views on others the way some others do. A different perspective forms a sword that cuts both ways I guess. I'm looking forward to more stories of you Journey. May that which resides in you bring you blessings.

[lhlilli]

This video demonstrates what you fail to understand about Christianity. Catholicism isnt a denominations its the Church, its all there was until Martin Luther invented the doctrines that caused the denominations which are illegitimate. Even the Othordox Church teaches almost the same as Catholicism and they both came from the Apostles, they schismed over polo

[ericvulgate]

You don't need a deep understanding of a thing to know whether it's false.
Not that I agree with this premise.
He understood heard mentality, and that is the primary effect of religion, whatever it's origin.