Nietzsche despises a particular manifestation of Christianity. This manifestation is one that renounces life, as seen in the idea of "once saved, always saved," which leads to a certain life-sickness. He hates the deification of the lowly as the best, the "tolerance" that accepts every attack on you, your family, and your nation. It also involves the shunning of intellect, Renaissance-type beauty, and the joy of mastering life. The inability to judge, derived from the equal value of all creatures, is another aspect he detests. For example, a Protestant once told him that a murderer was equal in value in the sight of God as Kant, Plato, or any true philosopher. The degeneration of the word "equality" into a physical, intellectual, and even moral concept, and its distortion into "liberation theology," which liberates the worst and hypertrophies resentment against the best, is also a target of his criticism.

Societies can function well under proper Christianity. The religion of acceptance, tolerance, and loving every man as your neighbor, when properly manifested as life-affirming, evolution-supporting, and morality-raising, is a K-selected strategy that breeds charity within the group and a proper reaction against the out-group. It encourages individuals to restrain themselves sexually for their own good and the good of the nation, as shown by Weininger and Carle Zimmerman, by imposing a metaphysical judgment on deviant and reckless promiscuity.

However, when all judgment is suspended, it becomes problematic. One should not marry the ugly, the poor, and the dumb simply because of an overemphasis on equality. There must also be worldly selection for one's own genetic interests and future progeny. A certain degree of discrimination is essential for survival and life in this world. Our culture has unfortunately fallen into the trap of mass acceptance of all, which Nietzsche calls "the complete suicide of the mind." We have been infected by the muckiest muck of degenerated, mind-destroying postmodern Christianity. Postmodern Puritans are running amok, rioting and looting stores, in a cancerous crusade to manifest the virtue of equality on earth and bring the true Millennium. They deify the new "oppressed" and hate the founders, creators, and the best of the West who brought forth Beauty, Truth, and Knowledge. Everything is stomped into the dust in favor of the new "slaves" with their postmodern slave morality.
The weakening of the instincts of Western Man is our fatal disease. Strong men have strong religions, and strong religions create confident, inspired, and achieving peoples who make world-historical contributions to humanity. Religion is the life-spirit of a people, providing a shared framework for the creation of music, painting, poetry, literature, and philosophy. The creations of a strong group affirm itself, rejoicing in its achievements, not being self-castigatory or complaining of its woes. It holds its head high. This is what Christianity once was, the divine spirit that propelled Western Man to greatness. However, with the rise of genetic mutations and the hold of debased Christianity on intellectuals, any aspirant spirit left over from the Spring and Summer of our Culture has been further debased. The demagogues of this debased dirt-religion, which has been corrupted from its once high spirits, hammer into the masses' heads that they cannot justify their own existence. They tell them to accept anything that comes and be tolerant, which they claim is a virtue. But in reality, it is just another form of corruption. The only hope for Christianity today is for its weak, "liberal," "tolerant," and ever-changing sects to fizzle out in their self-contradictions and self-hatred. Then the bearers of ancient strength, such as the Church Fathers and Orthodoxy, can come out of their ancient refuge and show us moderns how far we have fallen.

Let us agree that Nietzsche loved Christ more than his followers, even if he did not realize it!

This book is no less important than Zarathustra's words. We read them twice and understand them in order to better understand Nietzsche. It is a complement and explanation to him.
From the subtitle of the book, we can infer what lies behind it: An Essay on the Curse of Christianity..
And in the subtitle, there is more importance than the main title; because by saying "the curse of Christianity," his anger at the church system and its contempt for religion is announced, at the hypocrites whom he cursed many times in his books, at Paul and Pauline Christianity, at the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but not at Christ Himself!
Also, this book shows another side, which is that in Nietzsche's deification of God, he was even more angry at the God portrayed by Christianity. He saw some other religious laws as better than Christianity, as he did with Buddhism, and his admiration for Frederick II's war without mercy against Rome, and his friendship with Islam.
This does not necessarily mean that if another origin were presented to him, he would have believed in God.

Nietzsche in this book is angrier than usual about everything. He says about Christianity that it is the most disastrous thing in human history, and about women that they are the second mistake of the Lord, and he continues his great contempt for contemporary and previous Germans.

I read from a certain period a large part of another translation with the title: The Enemy of Christ.. I stopped before reaching the middle because of the bad translation. As usual, Ali Moussa Ba's translation is better in stages. And this makes me finally say that Ali Moussa Ba better understands Nietzsche and translates him.

Tbh, the book written by the autistic child with scribbles and blots is more than the constructive criticism of Christianity.

The entire text leads to one conclusion, that Christianity is a sterile religion in its ideology - if we break it down in one sentence, it's the other way around. Since life and progress are the victory of strength over weakness. Christianity is a religion of doubts and superstitions. This religion binds everything, both national and universal, and only gives in the afterlife.

Christianity is a struggle between the divine and the earthly. Christianity is the desire for good, love, motherhood, freedom. It is generally the desire for happiness. The casuistry of knowledge, self-criticism and the inquisition of the mind are here invested as a matter. Here, constantly with the help of prayer, the path is preserved for the powerful being, which is called God. The highest is here presented as a giver, as a father, as a spring.

“In a society organized by God, the existence of “knowledge” is superfluous. It is precisely the knowledge that creates the real mechanism of power. God lives on knowledge.”

“Essentially, there was only one Christian and he was crucified. A Christian can only be a Christian practice, that is, a life like the one lived by the one who was crucified. Even to the point of being “marked” as a Christian in “faith”, although this may be the faith opened by Jesus. Not faith, but action. First of all, the refutation of many things, a different existence.”

A virtue must be our own idea, our own personal defense and need. Any other definition of virtue validates risks. What does not constitute a condition of our life, harms it…
Everyone should find their own virtue.

Virtue is not something that can be imposed on us from the outside. It is an essential part of who we are and how we live our lives. We must each take the time to reflect on what virtues are important to us and make a conscious effort to cultivate them.
When we define virtue for ourselves, we are better able to defend it and uphold it in the face of challenges. We are also more likely to live a life that is true to our values and beliefs.
On the other hand, if we rely on someone else's definition of virtue, we may be at risk of following a path that is not right for us. We may also be more vulnerable to being influenced by others and losing sight of our own moral compass.
Therefore, it is essential that we each find our own virtue and make it an integral part of our lives.

I think the second title is more powerful: This book is a philosophical curse on Christianity. All this hatred is really astonishing. And I can't understand it unless I get to know the dominant social pattern in Germany in the 19th century. But generally speaking, Nietzschean philosophy of appropriation was not the only victim of Christianity, and it was the worst.

Nietzsche surprises me in this book as an immoral atheist who doesn't completely oppose religions. And despite the series of curses he throws at Christianity in this book, he also acknowledges the importance of the God presented by some other cultures. What is important for Nietzsche is the respect of man for his goals and the respect of God for the goals of man that he has set for himself.

Also, Nietzsche seems more logical in his destruction this time. There are no major contradictions, unlike in his earlier works. I don't want to get into theological issues because there are many issues that the priest can take on, such as the interpretation of the prophecies mentioned. It should be noted that some prophecies have undergone some changes.

In the end, Nietzsche tried to offer an alternative, a lonely page, trying to win the necessary holy state to build an alternative to Christ, but in the end it was destruction rather than construction. The curses on Christianity continued. The anti-Christ he presented in the end was just a hatred of Christianity. And I don't know why. It seemed to me that things were going too fast, and it was possible to cook the anti-Christ in a more profound way, especially since he had prepared for himself throughout the book - cursing Christianity, enough elements to cook.

Yes, the values of good and evil must be reexamined, measured by life itself as the first criterion. The basic goals, the preservation of the species, the first natural values.

Yes, nature imposes a hierarchical system, and mere equality is just a delusion.

Being equanimous, very little is needed to convince us that the church and religion itself have been two of the elements that have most harmed humanity throughout history. Taking this into account and considering all the logical examples at our disposal, a great deal is required for a clearly expressed reason not to be credible per se. However, in some way, Nietzsche manages to err in the vehemence of the idea he tries to convey in this book.

To tell the truth, it sounds more like a fit worthy of an adolescent than the culmination of the development of the ideas of someone who was at one time one of the most important thinkers on the planet. It is not that the book is not interesting, nor that some ideas are not quite attractive, but I think it invalidates itself due to the evident fury put forward before the coldness of logic in the presentation of its arguments.

In conclusion, as a curiosity, it is worth it, but that's all.

After reading these daydreams, it's not difficult to understand why this guy ended up crazy in life, but I understand him. He knows shit.

Maybe he has experienced a lot of things that we don't know, which have made him feel so desperate and crazy.

But still, setting fire to the Vatican is an extremely radical and illegal act.

We should respect the law and the rights and interests of others, and not take such extreme actions.

Instead, we should try to communicate and solve problems through peaceful and rational means.

Although life may be full of challenges and difficulties, we should always maintain a positive and optimistic attitude and look for solutions to problems.

In this remarkable book, Nietzsche undertakes a meticulous scrutiny of the Christian religion. He deploys his well-known arsenal - his incisive logic, sharp wit, and audacious satire - to present a compelling case to the reader for outgrowing this age-old belief system. There is no question that Nietzsche aims to provoke those with sympathies for Christianity, and some readers might at times find his rhetoric overbearing. Indeed, I would be quite astonished if a fundamentalist Christian managed to make it through the first few pages. However, this work is not simply a series of malicious potshots at Christianity or a mere outpouring of raw emotional venom that only angry, bitter ex-Christians would relish.

Rather, this work is intended to analyze the psyche of both the average believer and the religion as a whole, in a spirit similar to Carl Jung's Answer To Job. Nietzsche contends that the image we have of God tends to evolve over time, adapting to suit the needs and values of the era in which we live. He is intimately acquainted with the Bible's Old and New Testaments and compares the people of those time periods with those of his own late 19th-century society to demonstrate how the perception of God's character and interests appears suspiciously well-suited to the requirements and values of the people in each of those societies during each of those time periods.

The nuanced point that can easily elude both an offended Christian reading with gritted teeth and an excited anti-Christian cheering Nietzsche on through his critique is the favorable view of Christ himself, which is discussed in a brief few pages towards the middle of the book. The beautifully simple concept is that Christ was not introducing a new system to believe in but, in his own psyche, chose to be and live as if the old way did not exist. That sin-conscious, fear-driven state of mind that pervaded social and religious systems before and after him would assert that either you are separated from God or, more simply, that you cannot find joy and freedom in this existence, with life on earth being nothing but a vale of tears. Nietzsche argues that for Christ, sin was no longer an obstacle because it no longer existed, and the current existence was not squandered because liberation was occurring in the present moment, here and now. This was his liberation, his kingdom of heaven, which Nietzsche compares to the Buddhist view of enlightenment. When comparing Christianity to Buddhism, he points out that the Buddhist practitioner finds fulfillment and liberation in the here and now, while the Christian places all their hope for freedom in the life beyond this miserable current existence.

In past and present societies where the powerful dominate and the weak are oppressed, Christianity has oddly been both the cry of the downtrodden and the means of keeping them suppressed. The hope "beyond this life" for the downtrodden and the system of dos and don'ts that the powerful impose upon them. This cycle of what Nietzsche refers to as "vengeance" is the primitive worldview that he challenges his readers to break free from. He believes that the development of a belief that all fulfillment or punishment occurs in the unknown state beyond death introduced a level of fear and superstition that decimated everything that was beautiful in the high cultures of Greece, Rome, and the European Renaissance (destroyed, Nietzsche argues, by Martin Luther).

He is not advocating for amoralism or anarchy (in fact, he devotes significant time to arguing against both in this and other of his works and letters) but for liberating oneself from the view that you can't know, that you can't find joy in this life, or that this life and this body are terrible things. To the modern Christian, this may simply come across as humanism, but readers familiar with Nietzsche would tell you that the perception of him as a proponent of consequence-free pleasure seeking is inaccurate. He challenges readers to let go of fear, stop creating God in the image they desire or believe they deserve, and instead want to know the truth rather than restricting themselves to the limitations imposed by a system of faith.

This reading might have seemed strange to those who know my religious convictions; those who know me well should not have felt any strangeness, as they know my curious nature.

This was my first experience with Nietzsche and I must say that it was... well, I think the word I'm looking for is "interesting", but not an "interesting" in the sense of "I'm saying this because I don't have anything nicer to say". It was interesting because it gave me the opportunity to peek through a window so different from my way of thinking and awakened my curiosity to read more of his works.

Sincerely, if the objective of this work was really to "undermine" the Christian belief, I'm sorry to inform that it did not achieve its objective, at least not with me. I found several inconsistencies in the reasoning used. However, contrary to what many say, I don't think this work was the result of a "stupid madness" as many claim. Although I did not agree with most of what was written, I even liked the book and I know that it will be one of those that I will reread several times.

My evaluation is not based on the quality of the arguments defended by Nietzsche nor on their coherence, much less on my sympathy for his way of thinking (which is almost 100% contrary to mine), but rather on the pleasure I felt when reading this work, how much I enjoyed reading it and how interesting it was.

The book is bold and severe in its criticism of Christianity.

I think the book gained significance upon its publication in Europe in the early 20th century. There is no doubt that it was bold in its presentation and the questions it raised.

The book seems like thoughts lacking verification and documentation. It is fair to Islam and critical of the Inquisition.

Here are some passages that I found striking and thought-provoking.

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

\\n  \\n

Nietzsche's most incisive criticism is that Judeo-Christian morals invert the truly noble human virtues (honor, pride, beauty, and power), replacing them with diminutive human qualities such as pity, humility, meekness, and submissiveness. In Nietzsche's opinion, only a slave class would extol the virtues of humility and submissiveness and pity. Only a slave class would resent strength and power and beauty. Nietzsche believes that the values of meekness, humility, and pity constitute a resentment on the part of the Israelites--a resentment aimed at turning slave virtues into a morality for all people.

I disagree with Nietzsche while remaining an admirer of his analysis. Nietzsche's ideal is the courageous, powerful and persuasive "ubermensch" (the Superman), but Judeo-Christian virtues serve a broader purpose--to create a Super People.

Judeo Christian virtues, from the ten commandments to the sermon on the mount, serve to transform and tame selfish impulses which, if unchecked, threaten to sever relationships, create division, and disband the greater whole. While Nietzsche is concerned with "the individual," Judeo-Christian morality expresses a collective vision of balancing self-interest in the context of the greater whole. Accordingly, Judeo-Christian values increase cohesion among individuals, enabling humans to scale in numbers and become a super-people, from small families to tribes and from tribes to civilizations and eventually to the modern political state. The power of numbers is the advantage of Christian morality. Increasing the number and the efficacy of connections between people leads to a critical human advantage--the power of scale--which ultimately is a greater social advantage than Nietzsche's Ubermensch.

Early in human history, and not peculiarly to Israel, humans discovered the power of scale; the power of increasing our social unions in number to achieve critical advantages such as a stronger collective defense against enemies, more effective hunting, the division of labor, agriculture and farming, trade, commerce, skilled labor and specialization, education and learning, and the political state.

As effective as Nietzsche is, his critique fails not only in vision and insight, but also in its persuasive power to capture the human heart. Nietzsche never created a compelling mythology to captivate our imagination and Nietzsche's Zarathustra fails as a literary hero in many respects. As a contrast, in Milton's Paradise Lost, Christianity gains a superior model for Nietzsche's Superman archetype, the powerful among us. Milton's Paradise Lost gives Christianity a powerful mythos of two opposing archetypes--Christ and Satan. Christ is the hero who lives for us, lives and dies for our collective advantage and descends below all things to lift us heavenward. Counterpoising Christ is Satan, the antihero, the powerful among us, bellicose and spiteful, who would gain personal advantage at our expense; who would destroy the greater whole to gain personal ascendancy. The Christ archetype shows us a morality that leads to unity and to scale while the Satan archetype creates division.

While incomplete early on, the Judeo-Christian morality articulated the will of a people to unite and to increase the number and power of human connections--the power of scale. That tradition articulates the morality of a super people: What unites us is good; what divides us is evil. Perhaps more importantly, it gives us Christ and Satan--two archetypes that embody those two forces.

In conclusion, Nietzsche's criticism of Judeo-Christian morality has its merits, but it fails to fully appreciate the broader social and collective benefits that these virtues bring. The power of scale and the unity that Judeo-Christian morality promotes have been essential in the development of human civilization. Moreover, the archetypes of Christ and Satan provide a powerful moral framework that continues to resonate with people today. While Nietzsche's Ubermensch may be an appealing individualistic ideal, it does not have the same capacity to inspire and unite people on a large scale. Therefore, we should not simply dismiss Judeo-Christian morality but rather strive to understand and appreciate its complex and multifaceted nature.

Those who understand Zarathustra are those born later... The thought of good is in strength and power, while evil is in weakness... Free thought... One must offer help to the weak so that they may perish! Strong ideas against those who represent Christianity... He sees their leaning towards the weak as weakness and failure... When obedience, patience, poverty, and holiness cause harms that exceed confinement and are more than any fear and disgrace... A very strong orientation against general ideas, his orientation towards the self and individuality... Does he have a strong inclination towards Buddhism? There are those who wear the guise of sins and live with them and hold onto them to survive... Tales of saints are clothed and misled... There is a painful falsehood... There is domination over the necks of the masses and organization for the sect titled with sin and so that all those who hinder them go to hell... The inversion of values and meanings and the deception of the self... Is there a call to atheism to be cured of his ideas... And a return to sin, this is the privileged form of self-abasement of man... He invents to make science impossible and civilization unachievable... The priest extends his power through the invention of sin... As for faith, it is the lack of desire to know the truth... For those who have visible letters even to those whose eyes are blind... For those who desire their own dogma, flowing and believing in their own self-flames... For those who assert that beliefs are nothing but prisons or illusions we imprison ourselves with... To those who are affected by doubt on certainty because the soul longing for great things and wanting to have the means to hold onto them is necessarily skeptical... The believer does not belong to himself... He can be an instrument and must be used and needs the other to use him.... Every form of faith is in itself an expression of individuality and a renunciation of the self... A free thinker, free, free, free.