I mean, I have a certain degree of contempt for Christianity as well.

However, what I'm seeing here is just a jumble of rants. There are so many contradictions within these statements. The inaccuracies are blatant, and the false analogies only serve to muddle the message further.

Moreover, the tone is extremely arrogant and hateful. It seems that the person making these statements has no intention of engaging in a rational discussion or presenting a well-thought-out argument.

In the end, these statements come across as completely meaningless. They do nothing to further the understanding of Christianity or any related topic. It's just a waste of words and energy.

Rather than simply spouting off such rants, it would be much more beneficial to approach the subject with an open mind and a willingness to listen and learn. Only then can we hope to have a meaningful dialogue and gain a deeper understanding of different beliefs and perspectives.

Christians, but mainly the priests, serve as a criterion for the evaluation of things. I would even say that throughout the entire New Testament, only one person is worthy of evaluation, and that is none other than the Roman Governor Pilate who cannot take the disputes seriously. Surely, it is concluded that "one Jew more or less". We see the supreme sarcasm of the Roman in front of whom there was a shameless abuse of the word "truth", and who doubted the New Testament with the syllogism "What is truth?".

Pilate's actions and words reveal a certain detachment and perhaps a lack of understanding of the significance of the events unfolding before him. His dismissal of the religious and ideological conflicts as something unimportant shows a certain arrogance and a failure to recognize the profound impact that these matters could have. The way he questions the concept of truth also highlights his own confusion and perhaps a desire to avoid taking a firm stance.

Overall, the portrayal of Pilate in the New Testament serves as a contrast to the beliefs and values of the Christians. His actions and attitudes are used to emphasize the importance of truth and the need for a deeper understanding of religious and moral issues. By presenting Pilate in this way, the New Testament authors aim to challenge the readers to reflect on their own beliefs and to consider the significance of truth in their lives.

"The fanatics are attractive, and humanity prefers demonstrative actions over listening to proofs.. If the fanatic were always the most dangerous of monsters that hinder knowledge."




"There is no other option for the deity; either it represents the will of power, and then it will remain a deity for the people as it is - or it will be an image of powerlessness - and then it must necessarily become a choice..."

|| Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

***

Frankly, I have read this sentence more than twenty times. I am trying in every way to find a critique that makes my mind silent. It's no use. Many of Nietzsche's expressions, my mind was able to find a "counter" for them, except for this expression. Unfortunately, he is right. Either a powerful god, worshiped by a certain sect that thinks it is the one that will enter heaven, or a good god worshiped by all, and all enter heaven, and thus he has no existence for any kind of justice or vengeance or power.

***

Thank you, Nietzsche.

There are pages as heavy as stones, but there are also pages as moving as this: "The practice of life is what he has left as an inheritance to men: his bearing before judges, before ruffians, before accusers and every kind of slander and scorn - his bearing on the cross. He does not resist, he does not defend his right, he does not take a step to keep the extreme point away from himself, but rather does something more, he provokes it... And he prays, suffers, loves with them, in those who do evil to him... The words addressed to the thief on the cross contain the entire Gospel. 'Truly, this man was a divine man, a'son of God'" - says the thief. "If you feel it" - answers the Redeemer - "you are in paradise, you too are a son of God..." Not to defend oneself, not to be indignant, not to attribute responsibility... But also not to resist the evildoer - to love him..." (F. Nietzsche, The Antichrist, p.46)
Jesus Christ is a sign of division on earth; also of inner division within the same person.

Jesus Christ's actions and teachings, as described in this passage, present a profound and often challenging message. His refusal to defend himself or resist evil, but instead to love those who harm him, goes against our natural instincts. This radical approach to life and relationships has been a source of inspiration and controversy throughout history. It forces us to question our own values and behaviors, and challenges us to consider whether we are truly capable of following in his footsteps. The idea of not attributing responsibility and yet still loving the evildoer is a difficult concept to grasp, but it is one that lies at the heart of Jesus' teachings. It calls for a level of forgiveness and compassion that is truly divine.

Furthermore, the statement that Jesus Christ is a sign of division highlights the polarizing effect he has had on individuals and society. Some see him as the Son of God, a source of salvation and hope, while others reject his teachings and view him as a threat. This division exists not only between different religious groups but also within the hearts and minds of individuals. We may find ourselves torn between our own desires and the demands of Jesus' teachings, between our natural inclination to defend ourselves and the call to love our enemies. The inner struggle that this division creates can be a source of great spiritual growth and transformation, as we are forced to confront our own limitations and strive for a higher level of moral and ethical living.

Friedrich Nietzsche, immersed in a state of madness, left a legacy of writings rescued by the Basel theologian Franz Overbeck. Among them, one of the works that reflects Nietzsche's most intimate thought was found. This work was written in a time when the influence of his family and his religious inclination had repercussions on its publication.

In 1888, Nietzsche wrote "The Antichrist", a work in which he criticizes Christianity, that movement he accuses of having corrupted man, distancing him from all that is naturally good and from his capacity and will to power.

Within this criticism, one of his postulates emphasizes setting aside all that is taught by Christianity through the "transvaluation of all values", which means that man should overthrow the old values and allow for the liberation of his spirit. It should be noted that this same criticism attacks the figure of Christ and the concept of God taken from man, highlighting the priestly figure that has spread a distorted message, guilty of causing the baseness of man, and which Nietzsche has designated as "decadence".

Nietzsche's narrative style is direct and in the first person, and takes into account archetypes that are used in other of his works. One of them is the idea of the "superman", and this work serves as a form of allegory to achieve the ideal of man's emancipation.

On the other hand, I found interesting the mention he makes regarding the dichotomy between science and religion. And how his inclination towards science and his rejection of Christianity lead to considering the forging of a critical and skeptical spirit that confronts blind faith, submission, and conviction.

In addition, it is remarkable to note the influence that figures such as Aristotle, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Renan had, from whom he extracted ideas that are formed - and opposed - in different parts of this work.

Finally, it is none other than Nietzsche himself, that same "Antichrist" who rises up and demolishes that which he considers to have been one of the greatest evils that have befallen humanity, and who concludes by establishing a "law against Christianity".

Lúc đọc không hiểu, đọc xong cũng ếch hiểu._. (Xin cảm ơn anh Milan Kundera đã dắt mình tới gặp Ni Ét và cho mình nâng cao tầm ếch hỉu của mình...)

However, it doesn't really matter much, does it?

What remains is only the excitement when thinking that that year, perhaps Cậu Bảy lent me the book because he wanted me to understand more about him. But how could there be silent emotions when not a word was said, just stuffing the book into a messy pile :D. It's really a pity that after 3 years, I was also too lazy to read the book at all =))) and returned the whole pile to him...

And then one August morning, in the car wash shop, with the cool wind and the clear sky, when reading the sentence that all the promises about the afterlife have destroyed life, suddenly remembering, yes, that year he had lent me this book. Could it be that in his heart he wanted to remind me that when I read the book, I should remember him? :D The high probability is probably self-fabrication =))) but you, I have read the book and thought of you a lot. Look, in this bustling world, there is still me sometimes remembering you like this :D. So it's also happy, right?

A fascinating work indeed!

It presents a captivating anti-Christian narrative that is almost entirely built upon half truths or falsehoods.

Yet, despite this, it holds a certain power that draws the reader in.

It manages to take what is essentially complete nonsense and transform it into something that appears almost convincing.

The author has skillfully crafted a story that, while lacking in authenticity, has the ability to engage and persuade the unsuspecting reader.

It is a testament to the power of storytelling, even when the facts are distorted.

However, it is important for the reader to approach such works with a critical eye and not be swayed by the false narrative.

By being aware of the potential for misinformation, we can make more informed decisions and not be misled by such captivating yet false accounts.

Phew!

Nietzsche is truly unrelenting! He shows no mercy and takes no prisoners. He charges forward with a cutthroat mentality, guns blazing and shrapnel flying, in a badass assault against Christianity and the Christian God. Nietzsche is the epitome of what modern-day junior-level atheists like Dawkins and others aspire to be but clearly can't, as they lack the "madness" that Nietzsche possessed! Oh, when you really think about it, it gives you shudders.

Religion indeed requires reformers from time to time. The world needs people like Nietzsche to bring things into order. His anxiety stemmed from the fact that with "God has died", people would lose their will to live and consequently their "will to power", and would sink into nothingness and nihilism. Therefore, the world demands a paradigm shift where we move from the low and petty to form our own morals, becoming the Ubermensch that we are meant to be! His philosophical system, being as eccentric and revolutionary as it is, poses numerous questions to theologians. I am quite confident in surmising that Iqbal's Reconstruction's impetus has deep and profound roots in Nietzsche's criticism of religion and theology. Yes, the way he goes about his business is abhorrent, but it indeed reveals how he had been wronged by Christianity. You can sense his pain and see through him. It is obvious that Nietzsche's Over-Man cannot be nurtured in a Christian culture, which is why he destroys Christianity and the Christian God. Christianity says NO to life and everything that is high and full of life, thereby reducing human beings to a herd of mere passive, servile idiots. It is very interesting to discover his opinions about Islam. ("war on Rome, peace with Islam"). This puts into perspective Iqbal's quotes about him, such as "There are very few who have understood Nietzsche's madness" and "while his mind rejected God, his heart believed".

It is extraordinary how Nietzsche's Ubermensch is so strikingly similar to Iqbal's "Mard e momin" and yet utterly different at the same time. This study has been a personal revelation to me. It is only when you look beyond his apparent rancor and resentment that you begin to "see" what he actually means. He was an eccentric (both in his philosophy and his uber-bad-ass mustache), but he was what the world needs every now and then. People like Nietzsche are a blessing in disguise. One just has to view things a little differently. But only "few" will discover that.

Nietzsche's "free souls", "his readers", and his "over-men" are just like Iqbal's people from his "Halqa e sukhan", his "Banda e hur", his "mard e momin", and his "sahib e khudi". I understand more how "musalman ko musalman kerdia toofane maghrib ne"!

“This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.”

-Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not sure if I have the ability to write a review, but I liked it. Its arguments are very, very interesting. Although there are some things it says that don't convince me, from everything it writes, it can be understood that everything it thinks is very carefully thought out.

The content presented seems to have a certain depth and complexity. It makes me think about various aspects. Even though I may not fully agree with every point, it still manages to capture my attention and engage my mind.

Perhaps with further exploration and analysis, I could gain a better understanding of the ideas expressed. Overall, it has left a positive impression on me and has piqued my curiosity.

I couldn't handle this.

The book is filled with a truly intense hatred towards the Catholic religion. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is the hatred the author has towards God and the teachings of Christ.

I'm not Catholic, but I believe in a single law: Do not do the harm that I wouldn't like to be done to me.

This book is充斥着 ideas of power, tyranny, of the one who is stronger and has more power rules, of egoism, "of eliminating people who are not useful," and so on.

I don't recommend it.

Well, perhaps that's why it's called Antichrist. Because it's an offensive book to the utmost power.

As I said again, I'm not Catholic, but people should respect the beliefs of others and not call them idiots because of that.

It seems to me a complete lack of respect.

Moreover, such views expressed in the book can have a negative impact on society. They may lead to division and conflict among people with different beliefs. We should strive to understand and accept each other's beliefs, rather than promoting hatred and disrespect.

In conclusion, this book is not only disrespectful but also potentially harmful. We should be cautious when choosing what to read and be aware of the messages and ideas that are being presented.

"El Anticristo" by Friedrich Nietzsche is a highly controversial essay that undertakes a severe critique of Christianity and the morality that stems from it. Nietzsche views Christianity as corrupt and decadent.

Written in an aphoristic style with a provocative and incisive tone, it attacks Christianity, particularly focusing on the figure of Paul of Tarsus, or Saint Paul. Nietzsche believes that this doctrine has distorted the figure of Jesus and inverted the natural instincts and values of humans.

It promotes a morality based on weakness, submission, and suffering, which Nietzsche argues weakens and suppresses people. In this way, it promotes what the author calls a slave morality that poisons life. Nietzsche considers Christianity not only a historical error but also the root of all the evils in Western society.

His scathing criticism challenges the very foundation of a widely held religious and moral belief system, sparking intense debate and discussion among scholars and thinkers ever since its publication.

The ideas presented in "El Anticristo" continue to have a significant impact on our understanding of religion, morality, and the human condition.

**The Mob and Its Conceits**

This is the H. L. Mencken translation. It's hard to say precisely how well it captures Nietzsche's native style, but it surely does justice to Mencken's. I firmly believe that Mencken's introduction alone is truly valuable. While it distorts Nietzsche as much as any "outraged Mississippi Methodist," it neatly summarizes Mencken's genius and his utter derangement. Profound insights are intermingled with trivial absurdities in almost equal measure. The former encompasses his astute observations about democracy, while the latter includes his unjust hatred of Judaism as a culture.

Mencken's understanding of democracy is intrinsically linked to his perception of revolution, spanning from the American and French to the Russian. These revolutions are instigated by mobs. Mobs are incapable of learning. They reinforce their own delusions and pursue them with greater ruthlessness and guiltlessness than any tyrant. The mob has leaders who emerge spontaneously from within, being regarded as "one of us." The mob adheres to no rules of behavior other than maintaining loyalty to itself. It has no conscience as it deems itself sovereign, responsible only to itself as long as it exists. When the mob disperses, its history effectively vanishes, leaving survivors with a chaotic mess to be cleaned up by those who would never join a mob.
Mencken was essentially correct about democracy. It indeed creates the worst political environment for human survival. The distinction between a mob and a democratic electorate is extremely tenuous. Recent political events in numerous countries, such as the United States, Russia, the Philippines, India, and Brazil, suggest that the mob has become the electorate. Just like any mob, each relevant electorate is driven by some common but diffuse fear. As is customary in mob activity, each is promoted and defended by religious practice and authority as a form of social cleansing. And, of course, the mob does not compromise; it either gets what it wants or destroys its opposition, and has no qualms about fomenting revolution in the process.
According to Mencken, the sole advantage of democracy is that popular anti-semitism will prevent Jews from ever attaining the ruling plutocracy. I'm unsure where in his background this anti-semitism stems from. Attributing it, in 1918, to a prevailing cultural norm would imply that Mencken was as influenced by popular nonsense as the mob. Suggesting that he had some particularly disappointing experience with individual Jews would imply that he had a rather significant logical flaw in his generalizations. In any case, his anti-semitism severely undermines his intellectual snobbery and his conclusions about the mob.
The most disturbing aspect of Mencken's anti-semitism is that it was neither casual nor superficial. Despite his reported remarks in the late 1930s about the shame of the dehumanization of Jews in Germany, the basis for his hatred was identical to that of Hitler: Jews had invented the unnatural and irrational concept of caring for the less able and less well-off in the community. They had infected the Western world with this social ailment. And this is something Nietzsche failed to fully consider. The problem that both Mencken and Nietzsche (and Hitler) had with Christianity was, at its core, a problem of Judaism. Judaism perverted the course of human evolution and thus needed to be eradicated.
Both Nietzsche and Mencken wrote in a style intended to shock. Each exaggerated and overstated for effect. However, Nietzsche was a philosopher, while Mencken was a precursor to America's AM radio hosts. Nietzsche never desired or anticipated widespread acceptance; Mencken lived for it in his books and editorials. Nietzsche analyzed; Mencken sensationalized. Ultimately, Nietzsche prompts reflection; Mencken merely elicits revulsion at his own self-promotion. Nietzsche refused to join a mob; Mencken was a closet mobster of the highest order.