IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY
I heard recently that many atheists enthusiastically embrace the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and they especially praise his arguments against Christianity & the Bible. Now, I realize that neither God or Christianity really need me to defend them − they've done quite alright for centuries without my help. I also realize there are more intelligent people out there than me, and I'm sure someone at some point has already at least touched upon some of the counter-arguments I'll present in the following paragraphs. But still, it would seem a shame to leave some of those sordid accusations against my faith unanswered. As you'll see, many of Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity are rife with the most glaring flaws & obvious bias, and a number of his assumptions are so way off that they need to be addressed & corrected.
(Note that the following piece of mine is still nearing completion, with a few sections unfinished and other paragraphs mostly in sparse, almost note-taking form. I hope you'll still find the main concepts present and understandable until I can complete this. Thank you!)
• Quotes by Friedrich Nietzsche or Charles Darwin are italicized in a sans-serif font.
• Bible verses are highlighted in orange in the same serif font as the main text.
• All other quotes are italicized in a deep purple serif font.
1) Despite Nietzsche's false accusations, Christians are encouraged to discern between right & wrong and true & false.
Nietzsche believed that true intellectual strength resided within skeptics, as opposed to people of faith. He wrote, "Christianity also stands in opposition to all intellectual well-being, −sick reasoning is the only sort that it can use…it takes the side of everything that is idiotic…'Faith' means the will to avoid knowing what is true. (The Antichrist 52) …great intellects are sceptical…The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as sceptics…Men of conviction are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them" (The Antichrist 54),
It's true, there have been (and there continue to exist I'm sure) spiritual leaders throughout the history of Christianity who have preferred a docile, unquestioning flock who would give them carte blanche in doing whatever they pleased or coerced or demanded, as long as it was all supposedly done in the name of Christ. However, such corruption on the part of spiritual leadership or naïveté on the part of spiritual followers doesn't reflect the Biblical standard. Countless time in the Old Testament, prophets confronted leaders or rulers for wrongs committed, often doing so often at the risk of their own lives. Nathan the prophet exposed King David's act of adultery & murder in II Samuel 12:1-12. John the Baptist, as a link between the Testaments, had the gall to condemn King Herod of his evils in Luke 3:19-20. Paul rebuked Peter for being ashamed to hang out with a certain group of people, as he related in Galatians .. Peter called out, in a most severe measure, fellow believers Ananias and Sapphira for their greed and attempts to deceive God in Acts 5:1-11. Regarding the importance of the spiritual flock's involvement in religious matters, Zelophehad's daughters gave a prime example of those who spoke out for a change in their community's current system of inheritance, for example, in Numbers 27:1-7.
As for Nietzsche and others implying that Christians don't really evaluate or test the validity of anything, I take it he never read Acts 17:11: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV). Here, the Bereans were commended for fact-checking Paul's preaching against the history & scriptures in the Old Testament. They obviously wanted to make sure this roaming preacher wasn't just spewing fluff and falsehoods when it came to their spiritual well-being. And Scripture repeatedly admonishes believers to have a discerning heart in regards to both the messages they receive and the people who claim to represent Christ: "'Watch out for false prophets.…By their fruit you will recognize them.'" (NIV) Matthew 7:15-16 "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (NIV) I Thessalonians 5:21. And I could provide further Scriptures, but it should be clear that Nietzsche's faulty argument is just one of his many unfounded & slanderous attempts at discrediting Christianity.
Before moving on, let me touch on a related topic briefly. It's implied in many of the arguments of Nietzsche and other atheists that the Christian faith can't or won't stand up to rigorous examination or questioning. However, as many former "sceptics" have found throughout history, a deep study of the available evidence for what Christians believe has often led even the most die-hard critics to faith. I wonder, do people really believe the God of the universe is afraid of the deepest and most difficult questions? Do you think he winces and shudders in nervousness whenever someone tosses up the most complex challenges? As if the Almighty would have a panic attack if even all the world's intellectuals would rally against him!
2) Faith gives the present life meaning and offers hope for "the beyond".
Nietzsche wrote, "When the centre of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in 'the beyond'− in nothingness − then one has taken away its centre of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct…that fosters life and that safeguards the future" (The Antichrist 43) As you may have already noticed and as you'll continue to observe, I often use Scripture to refute the points that Nietzsche made against Christianity, which seems more than appropriate. And at some point, I have to wonder if our German philosopher in question ever actually read the Bible, because despite the fact he was the son of a pastor, his understanding of Christianity and its basic concepts is incredibly misguided, to say the least! Unless, of course, his misinterpretations, omissions, & false accusations were deliberate and twistedly intentional (…more on this later).
Returning to the argument in question, of course the promise of eternity in heaven gives Christians solace & comfort in a fallen world with so much heartache, loss, and destruction. It's an integral part of Christian belief. In I Corinthians 15:18 the apostle Paul described the precarious state of believers if there truly was no afterlife: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (NIV). Indeed, as he goes on to partially explain in that chapter, why would anyone commit to a life of self-control, why would Christians endure endless persecutions & difficult times if this meager lifetime was all there was and the afterlife didn't exist? Yet for those of us who've made that choice of faith, we trust that there's so much more than just what we experience here on earth. Stephen Curtis Chapman sang incredibly poignant words in his 1994 song "Heaven in the Real World", addressing the hope we have as believers : "To stand in the pouring rain and believe the sun will shine again. To know that the grave is not the end. To feel the embrace of grace and cross the line to where real life begins…"
With all that being said, in the Bible we aren't admonished to completely abandon living here on earth while we wait for a new life in heaven. (But unfortunately some Christian sects and unhinged people have repeatedly distorted the standards found in the Bible, tarnishing God's original intent for believers.) The relatively short New Testament letter of II Thessalonians deals almost exclusively with the subject of Christ's second return and warns against idleness in the closing chapter (3:6-15), for apparently certain believers in that city were convinced Jesus' second coming was imminent and they incorrectly assumed it would be pointless to do anything besides simply wait for it. However, Paul wrote divinely inspired words to the Thessalonians that demanded an end to the idleness & unproductive Christian living. And sure, Jesus said, "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven.." (NIV) in Matthew 6:20, but he also advised the savvy use of earthly finances in Luke 16:1-13 and good stewardship of what's been entrusted to us in the parable in Matthew 25:14-29. Jesus paid the temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27 and he astutely responded to those who were eager to trap him into denying the validity of paying government taxes, declaring in Luke 20:25, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (NIV). He lambasted the religious leaders of the day for Corban in Matthew 15:3-6, which prioritized giving a temple offering over caring for earthly parents, and he himself ensured the care of his mother when he was dying on the cross (see John 19:25-27). This incorrect concept Nietzsche held that Christianity & hope for the afterlife absolves individuals of future planning or responsible living here on earth is another decidedly false assumption and an erroneous view of how believers are called to live their lives in the here and now.
3) Jesus' death and resurrection was foretold in the OT, and the subsequent dissemination of the gospel wasn't a revolt against Judaism or its ruling class.
Friedrich Nietzsche apparently insisted on depicting the birth of Christianity as almost a kind of power struggle between the disciples of Jesus and the Jewish leaders: "The fate of the Gospels was decided by death−it hung on the 'cross'…'Who put him to death? who was his natural enemy?' − this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one's self in revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as in revolt against the established order." (The Antichrist 40)
Yet such a false claim profoundly ignores the truth behind the origins of Christianity. Jesus himself made it clear in John 18:36 that his kingdom was not a political one: "Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place" (NIV). (Yes, in the spur of the moment at Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter pulled out a sword that superficially harmed the servant of the high priest. Yet Jesus immediately rebuked Peter for his misguided adrenaline-fueled action and turned his attention to healing the servant. See John 18:8-11 and Luke 22:49-51.) In fact, in what's known as the Great Commission, Jesus' directive for his current and future disciples, Jesus plainly states .. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (NIV) Matthew 28:19-20a. Interesting. There's absolutely no mention there of any revolt against the Jewish ruling class. Jesus didn't vehemently urge any call to arms against the Sadducees or Pharisees (…nor did any of his disciples in their letters or sermons). As you can see, the focus of Jesus' work and kingdom was spiritual. Apparently, this was so obvious that even pagan Roman Governor Pontius Pilate declared Jesus was no threat to the empire when he was brought to trial before him (and King Herod, as well): "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death." (NIV) Luke 23:14-15. And look at the closing call to action of the apostle Peter's first public message after the death of Jesus in Acts 2:38a (NIV): "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.". Again, his sermon reflects a purely spiritual focus, not a violent tirade masking a political agenda or a will to power.
Of course Jesus' life, death, and resurrection changed the spiritual landscape, but many aspects of the Christ had already been foretold in the Old Testament. Jesus' birth had been foretold in Isaiah 9 and the city where he would be born was predicted in Micah 5:2.
..
(…Jesus' death and suffering (Psalm.. Isaiah 53), Jesus' resurrection (Psalm.. Isaiah 53), the new covenant where God would write his laws (Jeremiah 31: ), the spread of the gospel throughout the world, welcoming Jews & Gentiles alike. Isaiah 49:6 paints a beautiful picture of God expanding his grace to all peoples: " 'It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.' " (NIV). (See also Isaiah 42:6). …It didn't suddenly become some kind of revolt against the established order… God never intended the original covenant (...of attempting to keep the law..) to be a permanent.. Over and over again, He pointed his people to a new covenant, symbolized by.. And in the New Testament in Galatians .. describes it as…)
4) Grace from a loving God results in Christians who aren't "miserable".
Friedrich Nietzsche stated, "If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation… If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure…" (Human, All Too Human 116) Interestingly, some atheists praise this argument of Nietzsche as masterful and brilliant, lauding it as an almost undeniable put-down of the Christian faith. According to them, being bound by a supposedly pessimistic view that we're sinners and that God is basically just a vindictive deity eager to punish us, would result in joyless corresponding people of faith whose only prospect in life would be to simply expect God's hounding wrath.
But such arguments entirely miss the central theme of Christianity: Grace. Yes, God is a righteous God who punishes sin and one day He promises to vanquish evil & right every wrong. However, his overarching characteristic is love (I John 4:16b), and when he saw our desperate condition apart from him, he stepped in to give of himself, accepting the death penalty for our wrongdoings even though he had never broken a single law himself. Such grace and self-sacrifice even when we're completely undeserving of kindness would motivate even the most calloused heart, for who wouldn't jump at a fresh start and a second chance..? People will run the race of life without tiring for a God like that. They'll gladly do the impossible for a forgiving Savior who takes such deep interest in their lives.
And how could a supposedly "miserable" Christian break out in song even after being unfairly beaten & imprisoned as Paul and Silas did in Acts 16:22-25? ..
Horatio Spafford, the writer of the classic hymn…
5) Accusing Christianity of being full of "ignoramuses" ignores the facts and the Biblical story of redemption.
He wrote, "Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength", while making the claim that "the need of faith…is a need of weakness" (The Antichrist 54). Others have stubbornly clung to the falsehood that the entire cadre of Christians is marked by so-called "ignoramuses" and ..
Quite an interesting point of view. And I'm not sure if I want to argue against this or flow with it. If so-called slaves really came up with the Bible of their own accord, they did a pretty good job ensuring a great deal of consistency spanning the thousands of years in which the various books of the Bible were written..
..
..
I'll admit that people of faith may not be the most culturally fashionable, and often it seems we've had more than our share of ups and downs. The Christian band Switchfoot astutely recognized this in their song "The Beautiful Letdown", penning these words: "What a beautiful letdown, painfully uncool. The church of the drop outs, the losers, the sinners, the failures, and the fools. …are we salt in the wound? Let us sing one true tune."
Some say Nietzsche was an ardent opponent of all things metaphysical, instead clearly placing all his stock in the physical and the material aspects of life. However, even as he himself found out in his final years, all the superficial possessions we prize won't last and our physical bodies will eventually break down. If you're so highly invested in temporary things, what will you do when that market, so to speak, dries up? At some point, we'll all find ourselves in a position of weakness and need, with some facing immense challenges earlier in life than others. I hope you realize there's a God out there ever present to receive you in whatever condition you're in or whatever circumstance you may find yourself dealing with.
As for all that talk about strength & mental prowess, should the question at the core of the conversation really be a matter of intellect? Or perhaps more importantly, it's a matter of the heart. God makes it clear that he doesn't emphasize the superficial, or even how smart you may or may not be. In I Samuel 16:7 we read, "The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (NIV).
6) On the subject of "imaginary" terms in faith
Nietzsche makes the following claim in The Antichrist 15: "Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God," "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"-*or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin," "salvation," "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins")"
While many religious or faith terms have made their way into the common vernacular, there are a few phrases within Christianity which may be unfamiliar to those who don't believe, and some of those concepts may not necessarily be easily understandable at first glance. (Interestingly, I don't recall the words "ego" or "free will" being anywhere in the Bible, but I could be mistaken…) However, is faith-based language simply a matter of "imaginary" and fictitious concepts? If I were so inclined, I suppose I could make this same accusation against many of the concepts in both philosophy and psychology: a jumbled concoction of made-up ideas and terms, often coined by those with hidden agendas & an intent to unduly influence current or subsequent paradigms.
And we could likely debate all day about whether Christianity actually employs "imaginary" terms and phrases. But perhaps this serves as the perfect lead-in to my next point…
7) Nietzsche's word games regarding the validity of convictions
In another of his texts, Nietzsche wrote, "is there any actual difference between a lie and a conviction?…Every conviction has its history, its primitive forms…it becomes a conviction only after having been, for a long time, not one…What if falsehood be also one of these embryonic forms of conviction?" (The Antichrist 55). In a typical turnaround argument, Nietzsche contends that a person's dearest held convictions could actually have started out as lie. But if you believe that then you're falsely assuming the convictions Christians derive from the Bible are man-made..
I Timothy 3:16 directly contradicts Nietzsche, stating, "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (NIV). Don't you just love the simplicity of certain Bible verses? That really couldn't be clearer in pointing to God as the origin of Biblical truth and the source of Christian convictions. And the Old Testament also provides us with another confirmation of this, albeit slightly more grandiose, in Exodus 31:18 - "When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God." (NIV). But this really all boils down to whether or not you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. You could take it at face value that God worked through imperfect people across centuries to pen his message to the world. Or you could insist on playing made-up word & language games to convince yourself that truth and right & wrong don't exist. Perhaps Nietzsche himself said it best when he wrote, "Our whole science is still… a dupe of the tricks of language" (The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, 13).
8) Faith versus Science?
" 'Faith', as an imperative, vetoes science−in praxi, lying at any price." (The Antichrist 47)
"Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible−of God's mortal terror of science?" (The Antichrist 48)
If you read the entirety of those two aphorisms above in Nietzsche's original work, you'll find that he (weakly) argues that faith is essentially anti-scientific in nature, painting a figurative picture of God himself feeling threatened by human pursuits of science, knowledge, or discoveries in the same. (Funny, I wouldn't think that the Maker of heaven and earth would be intimidated by the very principles and scientific laws that He himself set into place when creating the world and, indeed, the entire universe. But maybe that's just the kind of reasoning that I adhere to…) Granted, throughout history religion has often been afraid to challenge head-on the behemoth of the scientific establishment, preferring denial or outright refusal to engage intelligently. And some of the practices associated with those who claimed to represent religion in centuries past (self-torture, unreasonable tests for witchcraft) best belong in the dark ages of history…
Years ago in another forum, I critiqued the eagerness with which certain modern-day scientists embrace even the most unlikeliest anti-God theory in support of ..
I'm just starting to read Stephen C. Meyer's book "The Return of the God Hypothesis", which covers this subject almost extensively. He explains the concept of scientific materialism, a long-standing and widely-held belief among intellectuals that all the matter & energy required for life and the origins of life somehow existed eternally, with no beginning or end. (Somehow, that seems to me..)
But it's apparent Mr. Meyer has done his homework, contending that there are numerous characteristics of our universe and our own biological makeup that simply can't be explained apart from the presence and intervention of an intelligent Designer. (…A few of the examples he provides include the ideal ratios between electromagnetic force and gravity, the ratios between weak nuclear force constant and strong nuclear force constant (I won't pretend to know what those signify!) − all of which ensure the stars in our universe can exist and won't burn out within a few weeks. That's just a little bit crucial for life here on earth that's dependent on the sun! Both Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Don Batten on creation.com also point out facts such as the precise coding found within DNA, a characteristic that couldn't originate by random chance. There had to be ..
..
9) Briefly addressing Darwin's theory of evolution
Since Frederic Nietzsche mentions Darwin as well as the theory of natural selection & survival of the fittest throughout his works, allow me to take a moment to briefly address this topic.
In school, Darwin's theory of evolution was often presented as gospel truth, with few questions asked. However, I took time to read part of his work the other day, and surprise of surprises, look at Darwin's own admission in his Introduction: "This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors may have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. " (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1872 Sixth Edition)
By Darwin's own admission, he cannot give "references and authorities" for his statements, and he could only provide "a few facts" for the issues in question! (Many note that the illustrious naturalist in question didn't proceed to publish "a future work" with "all the facts, with references" as he implied would be necessary here in his introduction. Robert F. Shedinger even dedicated a 2022 book in large part to this, titled "Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished". I wonder why Darwin abstained from doing so if the evidence was supposedly so irrefutable…) His final statement in the snippet above is perhaps most telling: Darwin recognizes that almost all of his conclusions in his definitive work could easily be argued to the contrary (…and obviously so, if there's such little evidence to prove his points)! Every single class or textbook that covers Darwin should lead with this forthcoming admission of his.
To his credit, Darwin's text is a much lighter read than the hate-filled writings of Nietzsche. And his honesty on certain points is appreciated (…he himself stated that contending that an organ as complex as an eye developed through natural selection "seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree". (On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6)). Yet it's clear that Darwin had an obvious intent in putting his theory on paper. Now I'm not a naturalist or a biologist, so it would be just a bit foolhardy to attempt to present myself as an expert in that regard and try to provide a counterpoint to each and every argument of evolution. And of course, nature has been endowed with the ability to adapt to various conditions, often in amazing ways. But it's quite an unbelievable stretch for anyone to conjecture that humans evolved from a different species or from single-celled organisms. Yet so-called intellectuals and academia have eagerly rushed to embrace an unproven theory that conveniently brushes aside the concept of intelligent design or, more specifically, an intelligent Creator. Truly, the majority of the establishment has done quite a disservice to the world by refusing to ask the difficult and relevant questions. In an article on creation.com, Dr. Don Batten quotes the philosopher of science Karl Popper in regards to Darwin's theory: "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme."
10) Jesus' Sermon on the Mount reinforces, and doesn't contradict, God's judgment as revealed in the final book of Revelation.
11)
12) Proponents of Nietzsche should familiarize themselves with what he really believed.
It's obvious that Nietzsche has a deep-seated disdain and hatred for Christians, calling them derogatory names and often raising slanderous accusations against their contributions to society or their interactions with the flock. Here's just a brief sampling of his clear animosity towards believers as displayed in his writings: "the every day Christian is a pitiable figure, a man who really cannot count as far as three" (Human, All Too Human 116); "One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top…Between ourselves, they are not even men." (The Antichrist 59); "one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable. One would little choose 'early Christians' for companions as Polish Jews…" (The Antichrist 46); "The priest is the first form of the more delicate animal that scorns more easily than it hates…before he can play the physician he must first wound; so, while he soothes the pain which the wound makes, he at the same time poisons the wound." (The Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, 15); "Christianity arose to lighten the heart, but now it must first make the heart heavy in order to be able to lighten it afterwards. Christianity will consequently go down." (Human, All Too Human 119). In aphorism 61 of The Antichrist, he lambasts Martin Luther for reviving Christianity with the Reformation and, without any qualms whatsoever, Nietzsche again reveals his true desire: "Well then, that would have been the sort of triumph that I alone am longing for today−: by it Christianity would have been swept away!" As you've already seen, his animosity also apparently extended towards Jews: "The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies…" (The Antichrist 44). And later, Nietzsche continues with equating his accusation that both the Christian and Jewish faiths indulge in lies and falsehoods: "The Christian, that ultima ratio of lying, is the Jew all over again−he is threefold the Jew…" (The Antichrist 44).
(Allow me to pause for a quick aside here. I'll admit that those involved in religion haven't always upheld the high standards that they're supposed to embody. Debacles such as the Crusades or the Inquisition in centuries past, or in present-day times, those who intentionally insert themselves into leadership positions in religious settings simply to make the most money or otherwise carry out dark agendas without close scrutiny − all that can leave a sour & bitter taste in anyone's palate. But it's quite intriguing how an individual such as Friedrich Nietzsche can hold such backward beliefs, yet still be celebrated by society in general, and it's very enlightening that an intellectual like Nietzsche would offer such weak arguments against Christianity, often resorting instead to the use of low-brow insults and demeaning rhetoric.)
And it's just slightly concerning that Nietzsche seems to oppose the concept of "equal rights for all", calling it at one point, a "poisonous doctrine" (The Antichrist 43). In fact, if you read between the lines, it seems that our German philosopher in question more often than not seems to embrace a more "aristocratic attitude of mind", as quoted from aphorism 43 of The Antichrist. (Let them eat cake, anyone?) And let's not forget his misogynistic tendencies as evidenced partly by this quote of his in The Genealogy of Morals (Third Essay, 18) where he writes, "women, who for the most part are a compound of labour-slave and prisoner", and in his quote in The Antichrist 48: "Woman was the second mistake of God" (…I truly feel bad for a guy who feels that way! And wait a minute. I thought Nietzsche didn't believe in the Biblical account of creation, preferring evolution over an intelligent Designer…) Perhaps we should also look at how Nietzsche describes Africans (which he used another term for), writing "these are taken as representative of the prehistoric man" (The Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, 7). I wonder how many atheists realize they're embracing the words of a guy who likely believed that Africans are Neanderthals. That's quite revealing. Do people who love to quote Nietzsche or who cling so fondly to his writings really know what he actually believed?…
And let's look at the implications of another of the backward concepts he espoused. Nietzsche writes, "Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities." (The Antichrist 7) Quite a concerning point of view. Nietzsche feels that "pity" or compassion for each other is a weakness that basically robs an individual of strength and life! But wait, there's even more to his twisted mentality: "Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life…" (The Antichrist 7); "What is more harmful than any vice?−Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak−Christianity." (The Antichrist 2). In case you haven't noticed, humans are different from the creatures in the animal kingdom, and we're more than just brute beasts trying to wildly carve out our own little niches in the jungle of life. For all of Nietzsche's talk of "the Superman" and "higher men", it's appalling that he seems to have left out basic empathy for our fellow humans. Compassion makes us stronger, not weaker, as a human race.
Conclusions
While at first I didn't want to provide the references to the aphorisms, etc. for the Nietzsche quotes throughout this piece, I subsequently changed my mind and listed the corresponding credits next to every quote of his I've mentioned. The reason for my hesitation being that, in my very brief dive into some of his works, I found out he advocated for the arrests of Christian Priests, and also what would basically amount to a call to violence against them. It's quite intriguing how so many so-called intellectuals and scholars praise Nietzsche, yet many are silent regarding that "Law Against Christianity" addendum to his "The Antichrist" work, a section that's noticeably missing from many modern day English translations. In fact, you actually have to do some digging to find what that short addendum contains. Now, it goes without saying that I'm adamantly opposed to calls to violence (and obviously being a Christian myself, I clearly wouldn't support such threats against fellow believers), even if Nietzsche's hate-filled outro pales in comparison to the vilification & toxic rhetoric we see almost anywhere on social media today. Yet it's incredibly revealing how the establishment has quietly omitted Nietzsche's "Law Against Christianity" from many versions of his work, secretively attempting to present a cleaned-up version of what he truly believed and stood for. And I continue to come across academia who repeatedly do their best to mislead people about his apparent intent and obvious hostility towards faith & Christianity. It's so true that many people seek out and espouse belief systems that echo their own biases, often without regard for the facts or the truth. Nietzsche wasn't the first to hate Christians, and he most definitely won't be the last. And I'm mindful that some question the ability to make long-range prophecies, but everything the Bible warns about the increase of hatred towards people of faith will come true, and many governments & authorities around the world have already been fulfilling it unaware. Such interesting times we live in.
Years ago, a pastor friend of the family wisely stated that you don't spend all your time studying counterfeit theories; instead, you focus on what's authentic, and I wholeheartedly agree. While I aim to complete the unfinished gaps in this article, I've wasted too much time already examining even just a portion of Nietzsche's works. It's beyond belief how people could willingly embrace his flawed and often backward tenets, and even more mind-boggling to me how some branches of psychology could use his writings as any type of foundation, for practical or for theoretical purposes. To be sure, Nietzsche had a knack for writing. And some of his observations about the historical undercurrents of his day weren't too far from actuality. However, it's a shame that he wasted so much of his intellect spewing hatred and loathing towards any group of people, and in this case specifically, towards people of faith. And even though Nietzsche apparently had a profound distaste for "pity" and feelings of compassion for others, I do feel pity for Nietzsche and the hate-filled shell of a man that he devolved into. With his gifts and writing ability, I wonder what he could have become if he had chosen a different path.
Friedrich Nietzsche infamously said, "God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!" (Joyful Wisdom 125). Well, actually, he was mistaken on just a few counts. God was dead (in the form of Jesus on the cross…). And humans did literally kill him (together with all the weight of each of our sins that he bore…). However, God didn't stay in the grave. Perhaps that's a stretch for you to believe, but it's the crux of the Christian faith…