Nietzsche + Jesus + Values

Nietzsche + Jesus + Values

All quotations below are from From “The Antichrist” by F. W. Nietsche Translated by H. L. Mencken. References are to sections. I have bolded each direct quotation.

+

This page will seek to build over time a general thesis regarding Nietzsche, Jesus and values. These three words belong together. Let me say why.

1. Nietzsche clearly and unequivocally placed Christianity at the center of the things that had to be criticized if we were to have, if I may intrude an ironical phrase, change we can believe in.

2. Nietzsche correctly understood that the center of the change involved what he called the revaluation of values. His last work prior to his final years of withdrawal was the first of four efforts to move toward this revaluation.

My thesis is that Nietzsche’s madness relates to some extent to the contradiction that exists between his understanding of the “decadent” Jesus in “The Antichrist” and his bias toward values are hardly redolent of a change that he, or anyone else, might see as a real revaluation. See also. And also.

I think Nietzsche saw in the values he attributed to Jesus a truth that went against his own instincts. But they were values he might have embraced in a genuine revaluation. But he could not bring himself to this leap. Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s beloved amor fati may not be that far from the state of mind he finds in his declension of the Redeemer. Nietzsche’s life work makes him, I suggest, the actual father of religionless Christianity.

If there is any text for this within “The Antichrist”, it’s the following

This “bearer of glad tidings” died as he lived and _taught_–_not_ to “save mankind,” but to show mankind how to live. It was a _way of life_ that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the officers, before his accusers–his demeanour on the _cross_. He does not resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off the most extreme penalty–more, _he invites it_…. And he prays, suffers and loves _with_ those, _in_ those, who do him evil…. _Not_ to defend one’s self, _not_ to show anger, _not_ to lay blames…. On the contrary, to submit even to the Evil One–to _love_ him…. [Section 35]

Nietzsche goes on:

–We free spirits–we are the first to have the necessary prerequisite to understanding what nineteen centuries have misunderstood–that instinct and passion for integrity which makes war upon the “holy lie” even more than upon all other lies…. Mankind was unspeakably far from our benevolent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the spirit which alone makes possible the solution of such strange and subtle things: what men always sought, with shameless egoism, was their _own_ advantage therein; they created the _church_ out of denial of the Gospels….

Whoever sought for signs of an ironical divinity’s hand in the great drama of existence would find no small indication thereof in the _stupendous question-mark_ that is called Christianity. That mankind should be on its knees before the very antithesis of what was the origin, the meaning and the _law_ of the Gospels–that in the concept of the “church” the very things should be pronounced holy that the “bearer of glad tidings” regards as _beneath_ him and _behind_ him–it would be impossible to surpass this as a grand example of _world-historical irony_– [Section 37]

Nietszche tends to make the “Gospels” synonymous with his sense of Jesus or the Redeemer who is antithetical to what the churches have generally made of him. Here he suggests that the very heart of the gospels is precisely what the churches have avoided for 2000 years. Perhaps that can change?

What the Gospels make instinctive is precisely the reverse of all heroic struggle, of all taste for conflict: the very incapacity for resistance is here converted into something moral: (“resist not evil!”–the most profound sentence in the Gospels, perhaps the true key to them), to wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the _inability_ to be an enemy. [section 29]

APPENDIX (The following raw quotations from “The Antichrist” will be integrated into this thesis as time permits.):

Here are other quotations from “The Antichrist” relevant to the subject:

29.

What is the meaning of “glad tidings”?–The true life, the life eternal has been found–it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in _you_; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions, from all keeping of distances. Every one is the child of God–Jesus claims nothing for himself alone–as the child of God each man is the equal of every other man….

a flight into the “intangible,” into the “incomprehensible”; a distaste for all formulae, for all conceptions of time and space, for everything established–customs, institutions, the church–; a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of reality survives, a merely “inner” world, a “true” world, an “eternal” world…. “The Kingdom of God is within _you_”….

32.

With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]–he cares nothing for what is established: the word _killeth_,[10] whatever is established _killeth_. The idea of “life” as an _experience_, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost–in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.–Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather _ecclesiastical_ prejudices: such a symbolism _par excellence_ stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art–his “wisdom” is precisely a _pure ignorance_[11] of all such things. He has never heard of _culture_; he doesn’t have to make war on it–he doesn’t even deny it…. The same thing may be said of the _state_, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war–he has no ground for denying “the world,” for he knows nothing of the ecclesiastical concept of “the world”…. _Denial_ is precisely the thing that is impossible to him.–In the same way he lacks argumentative capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a “truth,” may be established by proofs (–_his_ proofs are inner “lights,” subjective sensations of happiness and self-approval, simple “proofs of power”–). Such a doctrine _cannot_ contradict: it doesn’t know that other doctrines exist, or _can_ exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining anything opposed to it…. If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy–for it alone has “light”–but it does not offer objections….

40.

On the other hand, the savage veneration of these completely unbalanced souls could no longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the equal right of all men to be children of God:

Obviously, the little community had _not_ understood what was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by this way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of _ressentiment_–a plain indication of how little he was understood at all!

41.

Jesus himself had done away with the very concept of “guilt,” he denied that there was any gulf fixed between God and man; he _lived_ this unity between God and man, and that was precisely _his_ “glad tidings”…. And _not_ as a mere privilege!–From this time forward the type of the Saviour was corrupted, bit by bit, by the doctrine of judgment and of the second coming, the doctrine of death as a sacrifice, the doctrine of the _resurrection_, by means of which the entire concept of “blessedness,” the whole and only reality of the gospels, is juggled away–in favour of a state of existence _after_ death!… St. Paul, with that rabbinical impudence which shows itself in all his doings, gave a logical quality to that conception, that _indecent_ conception, in this way: “_If_ Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain!”–And at once there sprang from the Gospels the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the _shameless_ doctrine of personal immortality…. Paul even preached it as a _reward_….

Why Prayer is Such A Political Football — The Lord’s Prayer Got Lost In The Mix

Time to dust off my Union Theological Seminary creds and weigh in on prayer.

The founder of the religion, some of whose representatives are emoting onerous and hateful prayers, was one Jesus of Nazareth.

And, try as you might. you will only find one prayer that he taught.

It uses the familiar Aramaic term for father (Abba) to address the Deity. It says Abba’s realm is heaven and that earth would do well to emulate heaven’s way, which we may infer is peaceful, sharing and humble.

This should be enough to stop the tongue of a clergy person who wants to rain down terror on some enemy or other. It’s not that Jesus was not political. It’s that his politics were aimed at transforming the world in ways children might better understand than adults.

Now I am sure I could elicit agreement from a hateful preacher if we sat down and talked eye to eye. Either that, or he would have to confess that he is not a very good fundamentalist.

Nothing more fundamental than the only prayer Jesus ever taught. Sadly it has become rote. Few think about it.

This is partly because religion is never content to let well enough alone. It wants an institution, a creed and then a whole lot of language, including prayers galore. We are in fact inundated with all too many pompous, interminable and presumptuous prayers of intercession, invocation, benediction, adoration and so forth and so on. Jesus suggested we should not do “as others do” when it comes to religious observances. But temptation abounds.

When his rag-tag followers asked Jesus how to pray, he just gave them the Lord’s Prayer.

I wonder if the prayer wasn’t meant to be sung. A while back, I turned Jesus’s words into a song. Simple words that say the same thing the spoken prayer does, maybe a bit more directly.

Here is the lyric:

Lord’s Prayer Song

Should Abused Hang In or Shake Dust from Their Feet?

Panflick 3/2 http://bit.ly/3FJmTg That a family would function better seemed a stretch indeed. Contents: http://bit.ly/4POmR

Families seem to function on a spectrum between primitive and violent and destructive and blessed, giving and loving. I have always been a partisan of shaking dust from feet. In this, I differ from Dostoevsky, who seems to have delighted in situations in which one endured the worst and came through the suffering redeemed if on the brink of death.

It is odd that both positions derive from a reading of the New Testament. Mine is a free reading of the remark attributed to Jesus, Shake the dust from your feet. It is what he tells the disciples to do if they are not received in a household. It is also what many tell victims of abuse.

The Dostoevsky position derives from St. Paul’s hymn to love in 1 Cor. 13 — in which love (agape) is deemed to be long suffering, enduring all things.

Jesus is not a big agape person, despite what theologians may say. He inegotiates, willing to bargain for a proximate result and he will not alter his conduct to please someone he does not respect. I even attribute to the crucifixion the desire of the deity to vindicate what Jesus was up to, not to transform it into a passivity that is ineffective against abuse.

Can The Web Survive Michael Jackson Memorial?

Tuesday MJ Memorial Will Test Web Infrastructure http://bit.ly/I6V2s

One statement that was most probably uttered by Jesus is the terse and disturbing sentence — Let the dead bury the dead. It’s right there in Luke and Matthew. Scholars include it in the Quelle (Q) Document, a hypothetical recapitulation of the text from which Matthew and Luke derived their very similar versions.

The statement is a rejoinder to the excuse given to Jesus that one has to go to bury someone. A perfect excuse. But Jesus has none of it. I mention this simply because our society is necrocentric. We are much more likely to lavish emotion on the dead than the living.

On Tuesday we will see this played out in unprecedented profusion. The stability of the Internet may even be at risk, though I would be inclined to put that fear in the year 2K category. Still, Jesus had the right solution.

How Much Respect Is Due Religion? More Than Dawkins or Hitchens Have.

How Much Respect Is Due Religion? More Than Dawkins or Hitchens Have.

We live in an environment where the dominant voices (Hitchens, Dawkins) are right and wrong at the same time. Hitchens and Dawkins take the simple and reductionist position that religion is harmful, wrong and to be scorned. This one-sided viewpoint fails in two respects.

1. It offers no way of dealing with the continuing presence and influence of religion. It simply excoriates it. And the media bookers love such simplicity.

2. It is false theologically. There is every reason to affirm that we cannot know what is beyond our cognition and experience, but many can and do know that their lives are not complete without accessing and being in contact with what psychosynthesis calls the higher self.

I argue that we are in fact moving from religion to spirituality. I argue further that this is exactly what Jesus had in mind when he went just as far as Hitchens and Dawkins have gone in skewering the pretensions and hypocrisies of religion.

Religion is due our respect when we understand that all life is a spectrum and that there is within all religions a prophetic core, by which I do not mean the capacity to see the future, but rather the ability to criticize hypocrisy and idolatry where it exists.

Theologically, I argue that if G-d exists at all, the best guide to understanding G-d is to remember the story in which this being tells Moses I am who I am and I will be who I will be. Theologically, I argue that what Jesus was up to was explaining, to the horror of his religious enemies, that there is no binary reality (God versus Satan). Instead, all the decent and good things we associate with G-d (healing, sharing, celebrating life) are accessible to us.

So heal on the Sabbath.

Avoid religious hypocrisy.

And cleave to a way of living that is built, dare I say it, on an empathy I find dominant in neither Hitchens nor Dawkins. (Jesus is also the author of the damning story of the soul whose happiness lies in the utterance, Thank God I am not as other men!”)

The respect due religion is expressed simply and directly as follows. This is a gloss of the prophet Amos I wrote some years ago:

I hate, I despise your feast days
I take no delight in your solemn assemblies
I hate your sacrifices
I take no delight in the burning of your offerings
You can take away the noise of your songs
But let justice roll down as waters
Righteousness as an ever flowing stream

The three Abrahamic faiths have, by their relative silence and temporizing, failed to be front and center as the world reels from their fundamentalist expressions, from Kansas to Kabul.

So the bearer of the reasonable message I advocate and champion is now the lay person who happens also to be the President of the United States.

I know from a lifetime of experience how difficult it is to bear this prophetic message. It satisfies neither the nay-sayers nor the yea-sayers who fill the slots in the media circus.

It removes from us the defensive glosses of certainty. It embraces humility. It has a healthy suspicion of celebrity. It rejects the immaturity of religious orthodoxy. It opens the door to a recondite and salient spirituality.

« Older entries