Nietzsche's critique of Christianity is scathing, making Christopher Hitchens seem positively mild in comparison.

In his preface, Nietzsche anticipates a likely backlash, stating that only those of sound intellect, above the "wretched gabble of politics and national egotism," will understand his words. Plainly put, this publication won't be well-received by all.

Nietzsche argues that Christianity has sided with the weak and botched, corrupting even the strongest intellects. He defines "faith" as blind ignorance of truth and reason.

In Nietzsche's view, Christianity is completely detached from reality, its validity supported by imaginary effects, causes, beings, and psychology. Sin, salvation, and other such concepts are tools of a nefarious trade.

The keys to controlling Christian congregations, according to Nietzsche, are "guilt" and "sin." Without them, Christianity is impotent. It's not about actual sin, but the feeling of sin that keeps the priest employed and the flock in line.

Surprisingly, Nietzsche has a soft spot for Christ, calling him the "only true Christian" and comparing him favorably to Buddha. However, he blames St Paul for bastardizing the Christian identity, seeing him as the incarnation of hatred and a seeker of power.

Overall, Nietzsche's take on Christianity is a collection of valid points and questionable conjectures, cynical, eristic, and inflammatory. Five stars!

This is the sort of book you just know is going to get criticised before even opening the cover.

Nietzsche had an unwarranted hatred for Christianity. His worldview, which does not make for a peaceful world, was clearly formulated in a grumpy mood. In his world, the strong dominate and the weak are trampled upon and even destroyed. While he may have a point there, the philosopher who spoke of the death of God is certain to rattle a few cages.

However, he fails because he doesn't use logical reasoning and historical text in the right context to support his essential hatred of the darker institutional side of Christianity. Without Christian or Jewish texts to back a personal opinion shared by a range of enlightened thinkers, it offers no real philosophical guidance.

The reader is mostly left going through page after page of Nietzsche's rage against a monopoly of undefined truths. I don't have any beliefs and I'm not religious in any way, so to me this book meant nothing. It was interesting in parts, boring in others.

Perhaps Nietzsche's ideas would have been more impactful if he had presented them in a more rational and well-supported manner. As it stands, this book is likely to polarize readers, with some seeing it as a revolutionary work and others dismissing it as the rantings of a bitter man.

Nietzsche, the great German philosopher, presents a plethora of arguments against Christianity and its consequences with clear and forceful prose.

His ideas are truly remarkable.

He challenges the very foundation of Christian beliefs, dissecting them with precision and incisiveness.

His critique is not only thought-provoking but also has had a profound impact on subsequent philosophical and intellectual discussions.

By examining the implications of Christianity, Nietzsche forces us to question our own assumptions and beliefs.

His work serves as a reminder that we should not blindly accept the teachings of any religion or ideology but rather engage in critical thinking and self-reflection.

Overall, Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity are a testament to his intellectual prowess and his unwavering commitment to truth and knowledge.

Nietzsche claims that Christians are led by their hatred of the earth. They deny the "here and now" and renounce reality because they aspire to that ideal place called paradise, which they will access through their good works. The doctrine of "reward and punishment" that churches preach since they misinterpreted the death of Jesus as a "sacrifice" to cleanse our "sins" is a lie far from what Jesus professed (selfless love, the freedom of each one). With Jesus, on the cross, Christianity also died, and what came after was the most corrupt and shameful act of the church towards humanity, as Nietzsche says in "The Antichrist." With the same vehemence, he affirms that the superior man, the man worthy of admiration, the strong man is the one who finds happiness in surpassing himself every day. Everything that is born of conformism, submission, envy, and vengeance, like Christianity, is contemptible.

What a strange irony that his books have been as misinterpreted as the Bible.

"El Anticristo", written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1888, is a biting and provocative work that offers a radical critique of Christianity. In this short yet powerful treatise, Nietzsche attacks the central pillars of the Christian faith, arguing that this religion has been harmful to humanity.

Nietzsche begins his critique by examining the origins of Christianity, which he attributes to the rebellion of the weak against the strong. According to him, Christian morality, with its emphasis on compassion, humility, and piety, stems from the resentment of those who cannot achieve greatness through their own merits. This morality, Nietzsche argues, weakens and enslaves humanity, preventing it from reaching its maximum potential.

The author lashes out at the central figures of Christianity, including Jesus, whom he describes as a "sick man" and "weak", and Paul, whom he accuses of distorting the original message of Jesus and creating a dogmatic and oppressive religion. Nietzsche also severely criticizes the Bible, considering it a book full of myths and contradictions.

Instead of Christianity, Nietzsche proposes a new morality that celebrates strength, creativity, and the will to power. This "morality of the master", as he calls it, is embodied by the "superman", a superior individual who lives according to his own values and is not subject to the norms of traditional morality.

Personally, I think that before reading this treatise, it would be advisable (obviously for those interested in delving deeper into the topic) to approach Nietzsche's other works first, such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, or On the Genealogy of Morality... As well as familiarize oneself with the history of Western philosophy, especially with authors like Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer. All of this helps to contextualize Nietzsche's ideas and better understand his critiques.

In conclusion... Approaching "El Anticristo" with a philosophical attitude implies being willing to question, reflect, and reinterpret. It is not about uncritically accepting Nietzsche's ideas, but rather using them as tools to think for oneself and forge one's own vision of the world.

I'd give it zero stars if I could.

In the preface alone, it's clear that Nietzsche suffered from delusions of grandeur. He believed that understanding him required someone with "intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness." I don't doubt that it takes a hard heart toward God to accept his arguments, but claiming that only the most intellectual can understand him is the height of egotism.

I will quote many things from this work, not because they are worth repeating, but to respond to them. For example, Nietzsche said, "The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal..." But in atheism, there is no goal. Everything is arbitrary and meaningless. If he means we must invent a goal to be happy, fine, but why should we be happy? Why is that a good to be pursued?

The author must have had these questions in mind, as the next section addresses them. Nietzsche said, "What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man." But why is this "good"? Why should I accept his idea of what is good? He often makes an assertion and declares it to be right and obvious without any reason to accept it except his own claim that it's true. This is what I call Nietzsche's favorite anti-intellectual tendency: "makin' stuff up."

Nietzsche also said, "The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it." The opposite would be something like, "With great power comes great responsibility." Suggesting that we allow the weak to perish and even help them do so is a statement of weakness, not power. By his own logic, we should help him to perish. Instead, we pray that he would not perish but believe and have eternal life.

He also said, "what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life." But in actuality, no one is worthy of life, and certainly no one is more worthy than another. Therefore, we must love, accept, and give grace to everyone.

Nietzsche's ideas are often unfounded and lack the intellectual rigor he claims to possess. He seems to be more interested in promoting his own egotistical views than in seeking the truth. While he may have some valid criticisms of certain forms of Christianity, he fails to understand the true essence of the faith. We should approach his work with a critical eye and not be swayed by his grandiose claims.

I just remembered that I still had to add this book on Goodreads because The Anecdote keeps popping into my mind from time to time.

I was once reading The Anti-Christ on the train (I was probably even underage, which explains it). Then, a particularly devout and seemingly selectively blind man (I think he could really only read 'Christ' and it was an honest mistake) came up to me to talk about 'our faith'. It wasn't his best day. And it wasn't mine either.

Since then, I haven't read Nietzsche in public anymore. I have a small taser (for legal reasons, this is a joke) in my pocket and I bought a car to protect my introverted soul from repetition.

This anecdote shows how a simple encounter can have a lasting impact on our behavior and preferences. It also highlights the importance of being open-minded and respectful when engaging with others, especially when it comes to different beliefs and ideas.

Overall, it's a reminder that our experiences shape who we are and how we interact with the world around us.

Friedrich Nietzsche carried within him a Christ greater, better, and more precious than Jesus.

If Christ was crucified and died, Nietzsche was also crucified, but unlike Jesus, who was surrounded by sanctity and glorification, Nietzsche's crucifixion received nothing, despite the fact that he carried - alive - every day, the pains of the cross, and every day of his life buried his rights and his anger, until his illness and death.

Nietzsche, despite all he said, carried something - other than hatred, resentment, and oppression - for the crucified Christ Jesus. Something else other than envy, something he could not even understand, with his mind, by reading.

At the end of his life, Nietzsche sent several letters to the Pope, to his friends, and to the clergy, in which he called on them to torture him, under the name LA crucifié, that is, the crucified. Nietzsche carried within him enough pain to be remembered, perhaps pain that exceeded the pain of Christ on the cross, but despite that, he had lost his rights.

Nietzsche says in his precious book: "Thus spoke Zarathustra: - This mouth is not suitable for these ears." And he finally says: "They need someone to purify them, but who will purify them."

Nietzsche is wonderful, Nietzsche is crazy, Nietzsche has a delicate heart, Nietzsche, who has the most beautiful dictionary of insults and reasons I have ever seen in my life. But with all that, his criticism of Christianity, of Christ, and of Paul, that wretched one who, in his view, clothed existence with his abasement, I agree, without a doubt, with his criticism of the priesthood, and of the historical Christ, but his criticism of Christianity, as usual, is an emotional address, despite being dear to my heart.

If Nietzsche were a prophet, humanity would undoubtedly be better, for there would be no room for the weak and the poor among us, we who are the owners of thought and intellectual dignity.

I had made an appointment with this book about three months ago, right after I finished reading its predecessor, "The Twilight of the Idols." These two books are based on the fragments of "The Will to Power," a work that was not created by Nietzsche himself (there is a book attributed to Nietzsche titled "The Will to Power" published after his death by his heirs, which is nothing more than a collection of the man's marginal notes in his books). I say that I made an appointment with the book, and I couldn't find a more suitable time and atmosphere than the days of Christmas and its associated festivities to keep the appointment and read a book that I want to be a counterweight and a reversal of all the values that are celebrated on the occasion of its birth every year.

If someone were to ask me why I chose this particular time? What would I say? It is because of the contrast, and I have benefited from its curative power. Or perhaps, to distance myself a little, it is because my existence was in the depths of the desert, far from the joys and lights of Christmas (due to work circumstances). This is the reason behind choosing this particular time for the appointed meeting. You could say that the driving force is revenge against nothingness, or you could say that it is to distance myself not too much, it is because of the contrast, and I have benefited from its curative power.

When talking about revenge, Nietzsche considers it a central driving force for many Christian ideas in their origin and the morality that emerged at that origin. He描绘s a picture of the scene that the disciples experienced when they found themselves面对 the two provocative questions that formed the real riddle after the crucifixion: "Do you see who it was? Do you see what it was?" Nietzsche highlights that state in which the disciples found themselves, from the violent reaction and the sense of humiliation, and the certainty that this event would turn into a condemnation of their verdict. "But why did things happen in this particular way? Here, it is necessary that there be a cause for everything (a meaningful and reasonable cause), for the love of the disciples does not admit any accident."
Then Nietzsche continues to list the questions that he considers crucial to the whole situation: "Who killed him? Who was his natural enemy?" Like a lightning bolt, those questions emerged, and the answer was that it was the dominant and powerful Judaism, so that the following, and from that moment on, was in a position of rebellion against the existing system, as Jesus was according to their wrong understanding that Nietzsche extracted from the painted scene.
"It is obvious that the small sect did not understand the essential thing: the nature of the model in that way of dying, and freedom, and dignity in the face of every humiliation. That was a sign of how little they understood it in general. For the Christ did not want anything other than to put his teachings to the test in the most difficult of tests. But his disciples were the furthest from forgiving that death - an event that was supposed to lead to a Christian way of life in the highest sense of the word - or offering themselves to a similar death in the arms of a gentle and delicate spiritual peace... But the least evangelical feeling, the desire for revenge, is what prevailed again." Then this desire for revenge was the driving force behind all the conceptions that followed, so there must be a judgment, an accounting, and a punishment, etc.
I have presented the conception that Nietzsche描绘d for that scene to understand one of the rational criteria that he used in his ideas (psychological and physiological analysis), and then related that to the principle of cause and effect, leading to the formation of the ideas on which the Antichrist was built.
Nietzsche's liberated mind is not to be despised, and his ability to rationalize everything must be respected and admired. But isn't the suppression of emotions one of the most important requirements of a balanced and sound rational education? So why, with the right of a free conscience, does one hear in Nietzsche's words the echo of another desire for revenge?
It seems that revenge is the key word to understanding the construction and its opposite. Nietzsche considers Christianity (the temple of the god that Paul invented according to him) a declaration of war on reason and science. From here, it is necessary for him to be on the other side. "A person cannot be a philologist or a physician without being the Antichrist." This is a specific statement of Nietzsche's, and it is with this that the first cracks begin to appear in the construction of the opposite.
And in another context, it is impossible to understand the two verses that Nietzsche dedicated to Islam except as a weapon in this war. I cannot appreciate a praise for a message from a negative god according to the rational bases that Nietzsche hides behind, except in the context of the declared war between him and Christianity. And I don't know if it is correct to consider this praise for Islam for the purposes of retaliation!!, and hail!!, where does the rational curve descend from the northern peaks to this perception?
Nietzsche sets conditions for the reader who can understand him and his ideas. He must have complete impartiality, be ready to face the question of the results of the search, whether it returns with profit or with losses, have a strong aversion to asking questions that no one has the courage to ask, have the courage to violate the prohibited, a nature predisposed to contempt, and new eyes for the most distant things.
The book is a declaration of war, with no friendship in it, and an article of curse, hatred, and revenge, and a reversal of all values, starting with destruction and then following with the construction of a new one, which is the opposite. And it is in vain to say that destruction is much easier than construction, and that the opposite is on a razor's edge.
"This call against Christianity, I will write it on every wall, and I have letters that will make the blind also see... I call Christianity the great curse, the greatest inner corruption, and the greatest thirst for revenge... I call it the eternal stigma on the page of humanity... And when I think that people measure time and date from the moment of the shame that began with it, starting from the first day of the history of Christianity! - Why don't we date from the last day? Starting from today? A reversal of all values." - This is how Nietzsche speaks.
In "The Antichrist," Nietzsche is still sprinkled with the same harshness that he used in "The Twilight of the Idols," and there is no doubt that he has shaken the foundations of Christianity in the field of reason (origin, model, spread, virtues, heritage). This is not surprising for someone who preceded him in denying God in the same field according to the time of the fall of the idols.
Nietzsche's powerful harshness, and if he achieved what he wanted as a result of his destruction, he left behind small seeds that remained a rod for him. For more than a century ago, Nietzsche wrote, "After tomorrow is my time, for there are people who are not born until after death." He predicted the book for a few people, and none of them had been born yet.
And now, after tomorrow has come, I read this book in a desolate desert, far from the expectations of thousands of people, where millions of people celebrate the birth of Christ, and I don't know anyone who celebrates its opposite at this moment except me, and for the reason that I have already clarified.
They are the seeds that have grown and flourished before Nietzsche and after him, for there are people who are not born until after death or the crucifixion or whatever happened at that moment... and praise be to God and peace be upon His servants whom He has chosen.

Green vomit can be a rather concerning and unpleasant symptom. It may occur due to various reasons. One possible cause could be an issue with the digestive system, such as an upset stomach or food poisoning. When the body tries to rid itself of harmful substances, it may result in vomiting, and the presence of green color might indicate the presence of bile.

Bile is produced by the liver and stored in the gallbladder. It helps in the digestion of fats. If there is a problem with the normal flow of bile or if the stomach contents are forcefully expelled, bile can mix with the vomit, giving it a greenish hue.

Another reason for green vomit could be related to certain medications or supplements. Some drugs may have side effects that can cause nausea and vomiting, and in some cases, the vomit may appear green.

In addition, certain medical conditions like gastroenteritis, pancreatitis, or intestinal blockages can also lead to green vomit. It is important to pay attention to other symptoms that may accompany green vomit, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever, or weakness.

If green vomit persists or is accompanied by severe symptoms, it is advisable to seek medical attention promptly. A healthcare provider can perform a physical examination, order appropriate tests, and provide a diagnosis and treatment plan based on the underlying cause.

Early diagnosis and treatment can help relieve symptoms, prevent complications, and promote a faster recovery. It is always better to be safe than sorry when it comes to our health.

I am Catholic and I found this book interesting. There are aspects, or rather ideas, with which I do not agree, as well as ideas that I do support. The author is a bit extreme in his hatred, which is never good. One must find a balance. I recommend it.

The book presents a variety of viewpoints that make it a thought-provoking read. While some of the ideas may challenge my own beliefs, it is important to engage with different perspectives. The extremism shown by the author in his hatred can be concerning, as it may lead to a lack of objectivity and understanding. However, despite this flaw, the book still has its merits. It offers valuable insights and can stimulate discussions that can help us grow and learn. I believe that by reading this book, we can gain a better understanding of different ideas and find a more balanced approach to various issues.

Overall, I would recommend this book to others who are interested in exploring different perspectives and engaging in meaningful discussions. It may not be a perfect book, but it does have the potential to make us think and reflect on our own beliefs and values.

Non fa una piega, eppure mi turba.

It seems so simple on the surface, yet it manages to disturb me.

This situation that shows no sign of change or flexibility is causing a turmoil within me.

I find myself constantly thinking about it, unable to let it go.

Maybe it's because it challenges my expectations or goes against what I believe should be.

But no matter the reason, its presence lingers in my mind, creating a sense of unease.

I wonder if there's any way to break free from this feeling and find a resolution.

Or if I'll have to learn to live with this disturbance and find a way to cope.

Only time will tell, but for now, it continues to be a source of discomfort.