My belief is that all the values that humanity places in today, which are a collection of its hopes, are values of regression.

In modern society, we often see a pursuit of material wealth, power, and instant gratification. These values seem to overshadow the more fundamental and noble aspects of human nature such as kindness, compassion, and altruism.

We are constantly bombarded with messages that tell us to strive for more, to be better than others, and to accumulate as much as possible. This focus on individual gain and competition has led to a sense of isolation and disconnection among people.

Instead of working together towards the common good, we are divided by our differences and our desire to come out on top. It is time for us to reevaluate our values and consider what is truly important in life.

We need to return to the values that have sustained humanity throughout the ages and build a more just, equitable, and harmonious world.

We all concur that religion has been a significant aspect of human history and culture. It has offered solace and hope to numerous individuals when they found themselves with nothing else to believe in.

Nevertheless, Nietzsche's critique sheds light on certain limitations and flaws within organized religion. Although I recognize the value in his ideas, I also concur with his viewpoints regarding the herd mentality and how it can potentially suppress individualism and creativity. Asserting that Christianity and its central figure, Jesus, have been exploited as a tool of oppression and domination through its doctrine of "love thy neighbor," one might argue that, indeed, Christianity has perpetuated a slave mentality and hindered individuals from attaining true freedom.

Furthermore, Nietzsche contends that Christianity has been accountable for instilling a guilt-ridden mentality in people. I can perceive how this can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can lead to introspection and self-reflection, yet on the other hand, it can also be utilized as a means of control and manipulation. It is of utmost importance to discern when feelings of guilt and shame are beneficial and when they are harmful. Christianity's emphasis on sin, justice, and punishment weighs heavily on the psyche of believers, resulting in feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing. Nietzsche postulates that this guilt-ridden mentality serves as a mechanism of control, with the priestly class employing it to impose their beliefs and values upon the masses.

I believe that while Nietzsche's ideas may challenge traditional religious beliefs, they can also be regarded as an invitation to reflect upon what we believe and why. Although his emphasis on individual autonomy and self-actualization could potentially be misinterpreted as promoting narcissism or hedonism over the common good.

The Anti-Christ might be a severe critique, but ultimately, I am of the opinion that individuals should have the freedom to explore their spirituality and beliefs without being constricted by organized religion. We should be able to embrace our individuality while simultaneously recognizing the significance of living a life that is fulfilling and meaningful. Nietzsche's critique offers a highly valuable perspective on how we can achieve this. We can draw lessons from his ideas to discover our own path in life, regardless of whether it aligns with traditional religious beliefs. I wholeheartedly recommend this book, even though it is, here and there, rife with unfounded claims, hasty generalizations, and rhetorical devices that often detract from the core thesis. However, at the same time, it presents an appealing alternative to the murky waters of contemporary religious discourse.

The Nietzsche who holds the greatest interest for me is the Nietzsche of Beyond Good and Evil and, in particular, The Gay Science. The Antichrist (arguably better translated as The Anti-Christian) ranks rather low on my list of favorite Nietzsche books. However, as is always the case with his works, it contains some truly unforgettable passages.

Anyone who believes Nietzsche is straightforwardly "anti-religious" would do well to review this book, perhaps focusing specifically on sections 33 - 36. In these sections, he offers a surprisingly perceptive and incisive reading of the life of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.

Speaking of which, one of the many significant critical and historical issues with this book is that Nietzsche did not differentiate between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. Much of what he said about Paul could equally be applied to John. But as Walter Kaufmann has pointed out, this book is so full of historical errors that it would be overly fussy to list them all. This does not mean the book lacks important insights.

Antichrist also embodies a great deal of what I consider to be the "bad Nietzsche." He comes across as a polemicist who is more inclined to say "no" than "yes," at times sounding bitter and strident. His contrariness leads him to take positions that I find extremely problematic, such as his highly ahistorical defense of the Indian caste system as described in the Law Code of Manu, which he clearly only partially understood.

In his partial defense, it should be noted that this book was originally conceived as the first of four volumes in a Revaluation of all Values series. I believe that the negativity in this book was, to a large extent, intended as a means of clearing the way for what was to follow, a process of breaking free from old bonds and creating a space for new growth.

This book shows that Nietzsche carried something else other than hatred for historical Christ and the Christian Church, something I don't understand and I believe Nietzsche also didn't understand. There is much confusion and hidden love for Christ.

Often I find that Nietzsche, in this book, is searching for Christ in all his attacks against Christ.

Nietzsche was a hidden Christian. He wanted to know the way to Christ, but he got lost in the disasters of the Church and the despicable role played by the priest as described by Nietzsche.

"The most false and lying personality."

Nietzsche turned away from the Christian God because he didn't respect the goals of humanity that Nietzsche believed were created in him. Nietzsche hated the role of the Church in helping the weak. He would say, "We should help the weak, but let them perish quickly."

Nietzsche thought that "Buddhism" was better than Christianity because it respected suffering, unlike Christianity which fought for sin.

The morality of Christianity, the mystery of its God, the disasters of the Church in the past, and the most lying role of the Christian priest were the reasons for Nietzsche's confusion and his choice of a direct attack.

"Against the most pious and the great superstition against humanity" that is Christianity.

Nietzsche, the enemy of Christ, against Christianity, hating the Apostle Paul, not belonging to his country.

The shouts of a person sliding towards the abyss of madness

continue as he battles weakness and cowardice in his inherited beliefs, unaware of his rapid descent into the depths of that abyss

This individual finds himself in a turmoil, constantly grappling with the inner demons that threaten to consume him

The struggle is intense, as he tries to hold onto the remnants of his sanity while being pulled towards the unknown

With each passing moment, his grip on reality seems to loosen, and he is drawn closer and closer to the brink of insanity

Yet, there is a glimmer of hope within him, a spark that refuses to be extinguished

Will he be able to find the strength to break free from the clutches of his fears and beliefs, or will he succumb to the darkness that awaits him in the abyss of madness? Only time will tell.

Volim Ničea, ne mogu si pomoći, čak i kada ne mislim kao on. Nazad u danu, srednja škola, ovo mi je oduvalo mozak - knjižica koja je sadržavala iše pobune, besa, blasfemije nego sav blek metal ovog sveta.

Sada, Niče kao i mnogi upadaju u zamku omraze kulture u kojoj su rođeni, dok blagonaklono gledaju na ono "tuđe". Doduše, on je makar konstantan i logičan unutar svog pogleda na svet, za razliku od liberala, komunjara, humanista i ostalih koji osnove svoje ideologije i mišljenja vuku iz judeo-hrišćanske tradicije, a istovremeno je u potpunosti odbacuju, čak i mrze.

Glavno neslaganje jeste njegova odbrana kastinskog sistema, odnosno odbacivanje vrhunske hrišćanske emancipatorske vrednosti - jednaka prava za sve, svetost svakog života. Te su ideje u srži hrišćanstva, iako same organizovane hrišćanske crkve nisu uspevale da to sprovedu u praksi, pa čak ni da propovedaju to zaista, čak ni dan-danas. No te su se ideje duboko usadile u ljude zapada i ultimativno u pobuni protiv crkve odvela ih na put da ih i ostvare (što Niče ne bi sporio, samo bi msatrao kao negativnom pojavom).

Indija je moja duhovna majka, ali maglovite ideje jastva, sopstva ili potpuno budističko odbacivanje istih, nasuprot judeo-hrišćansko-grčke duše, nije uspeo da donese društvo veće pravde i makar neke šanse za sve. Već je i pored silnog duhovnog bogatsvta, užasni kastinski sistem ostao na snazi, a ako se nešto i menja to je isključivo pod pritiskom (pre svega pritiskom pozitivnog primera) upravo zapadnog sveta.

I had a liberal access to the internet only when I was already in college.

And I developed a very quick obsession for Wikipedia and Wikiquote surfing. When I stumbled upon Nietzsche's Wikiquote fan page, I became a fan myself. However, reading 'Beyond Good and Evil' was a disappointment. All the good parts of it I had already read on his Wikiquote experience. It is as if his best always comes in aphorisms - you read Wikiquote, and you can say you have read Nietzsche, well, the good parts at least. (I felt the same thing with Oscar Wilde's plays, but Wilde had non-aphorism beauty in his non-dramatic writing). There are lots of great quotes in it, but I had already read them. They might be more of a revelation to other readers.

Much of his criticism of Christianity makes sense, but he seems to want to correct it by forcing opposite values on society, which is where he fails. It is a popular adage that philosophers are better at asking questions than answering them, and this goes for Nietzsche too.

Moreover, he can often be inconsistent. At one point he says Christianity has taken away the vitality of life, while on the other hand, he likes Buddhism for Nirvana - which talks about freeing a person from life itself for the sake of freeing humanity from pain and suffering. Buddhism, like Christianity and other religions, is born of pessimism, of the idea that life is a curse because of the suffering that is attached to it. And moreover, Nietzsche himself is guilty of this view when he says the way to happiness is asceticism (which, by the way, is again contradicting his earlier idea that we should be fighting wars because peace is so pathetic). Asceticism preached by Indian religions has the same fault as the Christian church's preaching - it goes against humanity's basic instincts (which only wants to fill its time with sex, sleep, and food).

He hates Christian priests for fooling people, yet praises Manu for suggesting a society where a few clever and strong folks would fool the masses of lesser mortals. Manu and other Hindu priests were no different from Christian priests; they talked about 'sin' just as much as Christian priests. Of course, he accuses Christian priests of deceit and for holding power, and then turns around and says power is a good thing.

And there is again that bad taste that one gets from his antisemitism and misogyny. Calling Christians and priests 'Jews' and 'women' is his go-to insult.

I have a profound love for a powerful diatribe directed against Christianity. However, I firmly believe that Nietzsche could have achieved even more. This particular piece is significantly better than Zarathustra. The intense anger with which the author condemns Christians, especially Paul, truly warms my heart. Nevertheless, he could have ridiculed the doctrines of this so-called "faith" in a more lucid manner. It would have been truly wonderful to witness this cult of human sacrifice being skewered with a sharper point.

Long ago, I had a magnificent conception to pen a novel or a meticulously researched history. This work would vividly illustrate how religion, predominantly the monotheistic religions of the Middle East, plunged the world into the Dark Ages. It would show how the Greeks and Romans were, in most aspects, far ahead of the late 20th - early 21st century culture of Western civilization. What, more than anything else, brought an end to the world of the Romans? It was Christianity. Subsequently, it brought us the Crusades, burnings at the stake, witch hunts, and a plethora of other horrendous absurdities.

Nietzsche already had this very idea, and he places the blame squarely on the Christians for the descent of humanity from the high-minded Mediterranean of antiquity to the nihilism of Medieval Europe. The progress in science, the evolution of art and culture, and the overall improvement of humankind were severely hampered with the ascension of Christianity, particularly due to the writings of the liar, Paul.

And what about the Renaissance? This remarkable rebirth of art and culture was the result of the rediscovery and translation of the works of the Greeks and Romans. It served as a beautiful counterweight against the proliferation of the Christian sect.

The central idea here is that Christianity, and indeed any religion that holds out the promise of a glorious afterlife, devalues real life. If the primary objective is not within this world, then why strive to be great here? Everyone has the potential to be great in the afterlife. If all souls are considered equal and can reach heaven, then a great person is no better than a weak or foolish one. Faith is the adversary of reason. Salvation from without is the enemy of salvation from within.

Nietzsche's viewpoints are extremely radical and unclear. Reading this book is really tiring.

Because in order to correctly understand all his views on Christianity, one needs to understand the social background of that era, his previous works, the power of the Church, and the Manu Code (which is compared to be superior to Christianity). In addition, there is also the ethical foundation of Christianity.

I am a Catholic myself, but I don't feel convinced. If we eliminate the excessive excitement in his writing style and think about the points of attack, there are many things he wrote that are correct. Essentially, Christianity is oriented towards the afterlife and does not attempt to solve the internal problems of human beings like Buddhism or philosophy. The heritage of Christianity has more good points than bad. Especially when compared with the feudal cultural heritage of the East. Christianity has elevated women, while Confucianism looks down on women, and this still has an impact today. Christianity also laid the foundation for Western civilization, which Asia is still trying to catch up with.

It is not a fault not to embrace everything written in the book.

The author relies on your prior knowledge of some of those he testifies about.

He denies the Christian religion and considers those who believe in it as fools who do not use their minds or think.

And he rejects the idea that Christ is a redeemer for humanity and a purifier from Adam's sin.

And he attributes all of this to the Gospels, saying that they are the basis of these stories and they invented them.

For example, he claims that the story ended after the death of Christ, and thus someone invented the story of the resurrection after death to complete the myth.

As for me - as a Muslim - I first see that Christ did not die but was raised to heaven glorified and honored, and the crucified one was a resemblance to the Jews and he is not Christ.

Secondly, the way in which Nietzsche attacks the Christians is a very bad way that leads to repulsion, not persuasion.

Even if there was complete logic in it, the style is extremely bad.

Oh my God, the fanaticism and extremism present in this book, it is at least madness, and it is also perversion, extremism, distortion of the facts, and destruction of everything that his sick mind does not accept. I'm not saying that there is only no justification for him, but he is also a deviation from morality, values, principles of reason and humanity. His intention is to demolish the shrines and destroy Christianity. He casts his curses on Christianity and its history, which he calls shameful, starting from the apostles and ending with the papacy in Europe. In Nietzsche's view, Christianity died the day Christ died on the cross, and the Western mind has been unable to understand that until now. And what remains of Christianity is only that "decadent morality" (as he describes it) that the followers of Christ spread after his crucifixion. All the Christian values have been invalidated and trampled upon by Nietzsche in this book. Starting with the idea of "pure nothingness", and sowing the morality of slaves, compassion for the weak, mercy, forgiveness, and sin as Christianity has shown, all of this Nietzsche calls the morality of slaves and decadence. The matter goes so far as to demand the eradication not only of the Christian manifestations in Europe, but even the elimination of every manifestation that indicates that Christianity is still alive and bury it as the previous religions were buried... This is the most extreme fanaticism that can only come from an angry and vengeful person. He describes his German society as decadent and Christianity as the greatest disaster that has befallen humanity. He needs to be treated not with a counter-idea, but by revealing Nietzsche's mental and psychological state in that era when he wrote this research. Of course, it is not normal for a person to write in this way of extremism and call at the end of his book for the destruction of all the cities and countries that are the cradle of Christianity and level them to the ground!! And starve the clergy and throw them naked into the desert! Even distort the Gregorian calendar, considering it related to the birth of Christ and making it the beginning of the era of decadence...

This glorification and admiration of Greek and Roman civilization is exaggerated, and the author does not show any signs of evil and corruption as if they were holy republics that falsehood never reaches...

I do not disagree with everything Nietzsche has mentioned, and there are many points that were logical and stimulating for discussion and in-depth thinking, but this excitement in raising the issue makes you sympathize with Christianity rather than against it...

And it is strange that one of them would come to you and say that the Nazis were not influenced by Nietzsche's ideas. In fact, I would say that Nazism was a legitimate child of such ideas that make the world more extremist, crazy, a breeding ground for immoral values, and always a source of violence and oppression...

If the Christian said that 2 + 2 = 4, Nietzsche would say that 2 + 2 = 7...

In short, all he wants is to reverse the prevailing values, whether they are right or wrong. The important thing is to oppose the Christian in all cases and always be the opposite of Christ.

For the second time, I failed to complete Nietzsche's book due to his poetic style, his profound words, and his continuous quotations without a clear origin.

Nietzsche's writing is filled with beautiful and often complex language that requires a great deal of concentration and effort to understand. His ideas are not presented in a straightforward manner but rather through a series of metaphors, allegories, and allusions.

Additionally, his frequent use of quotations from other philosophers and thinkers can be both enlightening and confusing. While these quotations add depth and context to his arguments, they can also make it difficult to follow his train of thought.

Despite these challenges, I am determined to continue reading Nietzsche and to try to understand his unique perspective on life, morality, and the human condition. I believe that his ideas have the potential to change the way we think about ourselves and the world around us, and I am eager to explore this further.