Sections 41–50
Original German
41 — Und von nun an tauchte ein absurdes Problem auf: »wie konnte Gott das zulassen!« Darauf fand die gestörte Vernunft der kleinen Gemeinschaft eine geradezu schrecklich absurde Antwort: Gott gab seinen Sohn zur Vergebung der Sünden, als Opfer. Wie war es mit einem Male zu Ende mit dem Evangelium! Das Schuldopfer, und zwar in seiner widerlichsten, barbarischsten Form, das Opfer des Unschuldigen für die Sünden der Schuldigen! Welches schauderhafte Heidentum! — Jesus hatte ja den Begriff »Schuld« selbst abgeschafft — er hat jede Kluft zwischen Gott und Mensch geleugnet, er lebte diese Einheit von Gott und Mensch als seine »frohe Botschaft« … Und nicht als Vorrecht! — Von nun an tritt schrittweise in den Typus des Erlösers hinein: die Lehre vom Gericht und von der Wiederkunft, die Lehre vom Tod als einem Opfertode, die Lehre von der Auferstehung, mit der der ganze Begriff »Seligkeit«, die ganze und einzige Realität des Evangeliums, eskamotiert ist — zugunsten eines Zustandes nach dem Tode!… Paulus hat diese Auffassung, diese Unzucht von Auffassung mit jener rabbinerhaften Frechheit, die ihn in allen Stücken auszeichnet, dahin logisiert: »wenn Christus nicht auferstanden ist von den Toten, so ist unser Glaube eitel«. — Und mit einem Male wurde aus dem Evangelium die verächtlichste aller unerfüllbaren Versprechungen, die unverschämte Lehre von der Personal-Unsterblichkeit … Paulus selbst lehrte sie noch als Lohn!…
42 Man sieht, was mit dem Tode am Kreuz zu Ende war: ein neuer, durchaus ursprünglicher Ansatz zu einer buddhistischen Friedensbewegung, zu einem tatsächlichen, nicht bloß verheißenden Glück auf Erden. Denn dies bleibt — ich hob es schon hervor — der Grundunterschied zwischen den beiden décadence-Religionen: der Buddhismus verspricht nicht, sondern hält, das Christentum verspricht alles, aber hält nichts. — Der »frohen Botschaft« folgte auf dem Fuß die allerschlimmste: die des Paulus. In Paulus verkörpert sich der Gegensatz-Typus zum »frohen Botschafter«, das Genie im Haß, in der Vision des Hasses, in der unerbittlichen Logik des Hasses. Was hat dieser Dysangelist alles dem Hasse zum Opfer gebracht! Vor allem den Erlöser: er schlug ihn an sein Kreuz. Das Leben, das Beispiel, die Lehre, der Tod, der Sinn und das Recht des ganzen Evangeliums — nichts war mehr vorhanden, als dieser Falschmünzer aus Haß begriff, was allein er brauchen konnte. Nicht die Realität, nicht die historische Wahrheit! … Und noch einmal verübte der Priester-Instinkt des Juden das gleiche große Verbrechen an der Historie — er strich das Gestern, das Vorgestern des Christentums einfach durch, er erfand sich eine Geschichte des ersten Christentums. Mehr noch: er fälschte die Geschichte Israels nochmals um, um als Vorgeschichte für seine Tat zu erscheinen: alle Propheten haben von seinem »Erlöser« geredet… Die Kirche fälschte später sogar die Geschichte der Menschheit zur Vorgeschichte des Christentums… Der Typus des Erlösers, die Lehre, die Praktik, der Tod, der Sinn des Todes, selbst das Nachher des Todes — nichts blieb unangetastet, nichts blieb auch nur ähnlich der Wirklichkeit. Paulus verlegte einfach das Schwergewicht jenes ganzen Daseins hinter dies Dasein — in die Lüge vom »wiederauferstandenen« Jesus. Er konnte im Grunde das Leben des Erlösers überhaupt nicht brauchen — er hatte den Tod am Kreuz nötig und etwas mehr noch… Einen Paulus, der seine Heimat an dem Hauptsitz der stoischen Aufklärung hatte, für ehrlich halten, wenn er sich aus einer Halluzination den Beweis vom Noch-Leben des Erlösers zurechtmacht, oder auch nur seiner Erzählung, daß er diese Halluzination gehabt hat, Glauben schenken, wäre eine wahre niaiserie seitens eines Psychologen: Paulus wollte den Zweck, folglich wollte er auch die Mittel… Was er selbst nicht glaubte, die Idioten, unter die er seine Lehre warf, glaubten es. — Sein Bedürfnis war die Macht; mit Paulus wollte nochmals der Priester zur Macht — er konnte nur Begriffe, Lehren, Symbole brauchen, mit denen man Massen tyrannisiert, Herden bildet. Was allein entlehnte später Mohammed dem Christentum? Die Erfindung des Paulus, sein Mittel zur Priester-Tyrannei, zur Herden-Bildung: den Unsterblichkeits-Glauben — das heißt die Lehre vom »Gericht« …
43 Wenn man das Schwergewicht des Lebens nicht ins Leben, sondern ins »Jenseits« verlegt — ins Nichts —, so hat man dem Leben überhaupt das Schwergewicht genommen. Die große Lüge von der Personal-Unsterblichkeit zerstört jede Vernunft, jede Natur im Instinkte — alles, was wohltätig, was lebenfördernd, was zukunftverbürgend in den Instinkten ist, erregt nunmehr Mißtrauen. So zu leben, daß es keinen Sinn mehr hat zu leben, das wird jetzt zum »Sinn« des Lebens… Wozu Gemeinsinn, wozu Dankbarkeit noch für Herkunft und Vorfahren, wozu mitarbeiten, zutrauen, irgendein Gesamtwohl fördern und im Auge haben?… Ebenso viele »Versuchungen«, ebenso viele Ablenkungen vom »rechten Weg« — »eins ist not«… Daß jeder als »unsterbliche Seele« mit jedem gleichen Rang hat, daß in der Gesamtheit aller Wesen das »Heil« jedes einzelnen eine ewige Wichtigkeit in Anspruch nehmen darf, daß kleine Mucker und Dreiviertels-Verrückte sich einbilden dürfen, daß um ihreswillen die Gesetze der Natur beständig durchbrochen werden — eine solche Steigerung jeder Art Selbstsucht ins Unendliche, ins Unverschämte kann man nicht mit genug Verachtung brandmarken. Und doch verdankt das Christentum dieser erbarmungswürdigen Schmeichelei vor der Personal-Eitelkeit seinen Sieg — gerade alles Mißratene, Aufständisch-Gesinnte, Schlecht-weg-gekommne, den ganzen Auswurf und Abhub der Menschheit hat es damit zu sich überredet. Das »Heil der Seele« — auf deutsch: »die Welt dreht sich um mich« … Das Gift der Lehre »gleiche Rechte für alle« — das Christentum hat es am grundsätzlichsten ausgesät; das Christentum hat jedem Ehrfurchts- und Distanz-Gefühl zwischen Mensch und Mensch, das heißt der Voraussetzung zu jeder Erhöhung, zu jedem Wachstum der Kultur einen Todkrieg aus den heimlichsten Winkeln schlechter Instinkte gemacht — es hat aus dem ressentiment der Massen sich seine Hauptwaffe geschmiedet gegen uns, gegen alles Vornehme, Frohe, Hochherzige auf Erden, gegen unser Glück auf Erden… Die »Unsterblichkeit« jedem Petrus und Paulus zugestanden, war bisher das größte, das bösartigste Attentat auf die vornehme Menschlichkeit. — Und unterschätzen wir das Verhängnis nicht, das vom Christentum aus sich bis in die Politik eingeschlichen hat! Niemand hat heute mehr den Mut zu Sonderrechten, zu Herrschaftsrechten, zu einem Ehrfurchtsgefühl vor sich und seinesgleichen — zu einem Pathos der Distanz … Unsre Politik ist krank an diesem Mangel an Mut! — Der Aristokratismus der Gesinnung wurde durch die Seelen-Gleichheits-Lüge am unterirdischsten untergraben; und wenn der Glaube an das »Vorrecht der Meisten« Revolutionen macht und machen wird — das Christentum ist es, man zweifle nicht daran, christliche Werturteile sind es, welche jede Revolution bloß in Blut und Verbrechen übersetzt! Das Christentum ist ein Aufstand alles Am-Boden-Kriechenden gegen das, was Höhe hat: das Evangelium der »Niedrigen« macht niedrig…
44 — Die Evangelien sind unschätzbar als Zeugnis für die bereits unaufhaltsame Korruption innerhalb der ersten Gemeinde. Was Paulus später mit dem Logiker-Zynismus eines Rabbiners zu Ende führte, war trotzdem bloß der Verfalls-Prozeß, der mit dem Tode des Erlösers begann. — Diese Evangelien kann man nicht behutsam genug lesen; sie haben ihre Schwierigkeiten hinter jedem Wort. Ich bekenne, man wird es mir zugute halten, daß sie ebendamit für einen Psychologen ein Vergnügen ersten Ranges sind — als Gegensatz aller naiven Verderbnis, als das Raffinement par excellence, als Künstlerschaft in der psychologischen Verderbnis. Die Evangelien stehn für sich. Die Bibel überhaupt verträgt keinen Vergleich. Man ist unter Juden: erster Gesichtspunkt, um hier nicht völlig den Faden zu verlieren. Die hier geradezu Genie werdende Selbstverstellung ins »Heilige«, unter Büchern und Menschen nie annähernd sonst erreicht, diese Wort- und Gebärden-Falschmünzerei als Kunst ist nicht der Zufall irgendwelcher Einzel-Begabung, irgendwelcher Ausnahme-Natur. Hierzu gehört Rasse. Im Christentum, als der Kunst, heilig zu lügen, kommt das ganze Judentum, eine mehrhundertjährige jüdische allerernsthafteste Vorübung und Technik zur letzten Meisterschaft. Der Christ, diese ultima ratio der Lüge, ist der Jude noch einmal — dreimal selbst… Der grundsätzliche Wille, nur Begriffe, Symbole, Attitüden anzuwenden, welche aus der Praxis des Priesters bewiesen sind, die Instinkt-Ablehnung jeder andren Praxis, jeder andren Art Wert- und Nützlichkeits-Perspektive — das ist nicht nur Tradition, das ist Erbschaft: nur als Erbschaft wirkt es wie Natur. Die ganze Menschheit, die besten Köpfe der besten Zeiten sogar (einen ausgenommen, der vielleicht bloß ein Unmensch ist —) haben sich täuschen lassen. Man hat das Evangelium als Buch der Unschuld gelesen… kein kleiner Fingerzeig dafür, mit welcher Meisterschaft hier geschauspielert worden ist. — Freilich bekämen wir sie zu sehen, auch nur im Vorübergehn, alle diese wunderlichen Mucker und Kunst-Heiligen, so wäre es am Ende — und genau deshalb, weil ich keine Worte lese, ohne Gebärden zu sehn, mache ich mit ihnen ein Ende… Ich halte eine gewisse Art, die Augen aufzuschlagen, an ihnen nicht aus. — Zum Glück sind Bücher für die allermeisten bloß Literatur — — Man muß sich nicht irreführen lassen: »Richtet nicht!« sagen sie, aber sie schicken alles in die Hölle, was ihnen im Wege steht. Indem sie Gott richten lassen, richten sie selber; indem sie Gott verherrlichen, verherrlichen sie sich selber; indem sie die Tugenden fordern, deren sie gerade fähig sind — mehr noch, die sie nötig haben, um überhaupt oben zu bleiben —, geben sie sich den großen Anschein eines Ringens um die Tugend, eines Kampfes um die Herrschaft der Tugend. »Wir leben, wir sterben, wir opfern uns für das Gute« (— »die Wahrheit«, »das Licht«, das »Reich Gottes«): in Wahrheit tun sie, was sie nicht lassen können. Indem sie nach Art von Duckmäusern sich durchdrücken, im Winkel sitzen, im Schatten schattenhaft dahinleben, machen sie sich eine Pflicht daraus: als Pflicht erscheint ihr Leben der Demut, als Demut ist es ein Beweis mehr für Frömmigkeit… Ah diese demütige, keusche, barmherzige Art von Verlogenheit! »Für uns soll die Tugend selbst Zeugnis ablegen« … Man lese die Evangelien als Bücher der Verführung mit Moral: die Moral wird von diesen kleinen Leuten mit Beschlag belegt — sie wissen, was es auf sich hat mit der Moral! Die Menschheit wird am besten genasführt mit der Moral! — Die Realität ist, daß hier der bewußteste Auserwählten-Dünkel die Bescheidenheit spielt: man hat sich, die »Gemeinde«, die »Guten und Gerechten« ein für allemal auf die eine Seite gestellt, auf die »der Wahrheit« — und den Rest, »die Welt«, auf die andre… Das war die verhängnisvollste Art Größenwahn, die bisher auf Erden dagewesen ist: kleine Mißgeburten von Muckern und Lügnern fingen an, die Begriffe »Gott«, »Wahrheit«, »Licht«, »Geist«, »Liebe«, »Weisheit«, »Leben« für sich in Anspruch zu nehmen, gleichsam als Synonyma von sich, um damit die »Welt« gegen sich abzugrenzen, kleine Superlativ-Juden, reif für jede Art Irrenhaus, drehten die Werte überhaupt nach sich um, wie als ob erst der »Christ« der Sinn, das Salz, das Maß, auch das letzte Gericht vom ganzen Rest wäre… Das ganze Verhängnis wurde dadurch allein ermöglicht, daß schon eine verwandte, rassenverwandte Art von Größenwahn in der Welt war, der jüdische: sobald einmal die Kluft zwischen Juden und Judenchristen sich aufriß, blieb letzteren gar keine Wahl, als dieselben Prozeduren der Selbsterhaltung, die der jüdische Instinkt anriet, gegen die Juden selber anzuwenden, während die Juden sie bisher bloß gegen alles Nicht-Jüdische angewendet hatten. Der Christ ist nur ein Jude »freieren« Bekenntnisses. —
45 — Ich gebe ein paar Proben von dem, was sich diese kleinen Leute in den Kopf gesetzt, was sie ihrem Meister in den Mund gelegt haben: lauter Bekenntnisse »schöner Seelen«. —
»Und welche euch nicht aufnehmen noch hören, da gehet von dannen hinaus und schüttelt den Staub ab von euren Füßen, zu einem Zeugnis über sie. Ich sage euch: Wahrlich, es wird Sodom und Gomorrha am Jüngsten Gericht erträglicher ergehn, denn solcher Stadt« (Markus 6, 11). — Wie evangelisch! …
»Und wer der Kleinen einen ärgert, die an mich glauben, dem wäre es besser, daß ihm ein Mühlstein an seinen Hals gehängt würde und er in das Meer geworfen würde« (Markus 9, 42). — Wie evangelisch! …
»Ärgert dich dein Auge, so wirf es von dir. Es ist dir besser, daß du einäugig in das Reich Gottes gehest, denn daß du zwei Augen habest und werdest in das höllische Feuer geworfen; da ihr Wurm nicht stirbt und ihr Feuer nicht erlischt« (Markus 9, 47). — Es ist nicht gerade das Auge gemeint…
»Wahrlich, ich sage euch, es stehen etliche hier, die werden den Tod nicht schmecken, bis daß sie sehen das Reich Gottes mit Kraft kommen« (Markus 9, 1). — Gut gelogen, Löwe…
»Wer mir will nachfolgen, der verleugne sich selbst und nehme sein Kreuz auf sich und folge mir nach. Denn…« (Anmerkung eines Psychologen. Die christliche Moral wird durch ihre Denns widerlegt: ihre »Gründe« widerlegen — so ist es christlich.) Markus 8, 34. —
»Richtet nicht, auf daß ihr nicht gerichtet werdet. Mit welcherlei Maß ihr messet, wird euch gemessen werden« (Matthäus 7, 1). — Welcher Begriff von Gerechtigkeit, von einem »gerechten« Richter!…
»Denn so ihr liebet, die euch lieben, was werdet ihr für Lohn haben? Tun nicht dasselbe auch die Zöllner? Und so ihr nur zu euren Brüdern freundlich tut, was tut ihr Sonderliches? Tun nicht die Zöllner auch also?« (Matthäus 5, 46.) — Prinzip der »christlichen Liebe«: sie will zuletzt gut bezahlt sein…
»Wo ihr aber den Menschen ihre Fehler nicht vergebet, so wird euch euer Vater eure Fehler auch nicht vergeben« (Matthäus 6, 15), — Sehr kompromittierend für den genannten »Vater« …
»Trachtet am ersten nach dem Reiche Gottes und nach seiner Gerechtigkeit, so wird euch solches alles zufallen« (Matthäus 6, 33). — Solches alles: nämlich Nahrung, Kleidung, die ganze Notdurft des Lebens. Ein Irrtum, bescheiden ausgedrückt … Kurz vorher erscheint Gott als Schneider, wenigstens in gewissen Fällen…
»Freuet euch alsdann und hüpfet: denn siehe, euer Lohn ist groß im Himmel. Desgleichen taten ihre Väter den Propheten auch« (Lukas 6, 23). — Unverschämtes Gesindel! Es vergleicht sich bereits mit den Propheten …
»Wisset ihr nicht, daß ihr Gottes Tempel seid und der Geist Gottes in euch wohnet? So jemand den Tempel Gottes verderbet, den wird Gott verderben: denn der Tempel Gottes ist heilig, der seid ihr« (Paulus I. Korinther 3, 16). — Dergleichen kann man nicht genug verachten …
»Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Heiligen die Welt richten werden? So denn nun die Welt soll von euch gerichtet werden: seid ihr denn nicht gut genug, geringere Sachen zu richten?« (Paulus I. Korinther 6, 2.) — Leider nicht bloß die Rede eines Irrenhäuslers … Dieser fürchterliche Betrüger fährt wörtlich fort: »Wisset ihr nicht, daß wir über die Engel richten werden? Wie viel mehr über die zeitlichen Güter!«…
»Hat nicht Gott die Weisheit dieser Welt zur Torheit gemacht? Denn dieweil die Welt durch ihre Weisheit Gott in seiner Weisheit nicht erkannte, gefiel es Gott wohl, durch törichte Predigt selig zu machen die, so daran glauben…; nicht viel Weise nach dem Fleisch, nicht viel Gewaltige, nicht viel Edle sind berufen. Sondern was töricht ist vor der Welt, das hat Gott erwählet, daß er die Weisen zuschanden mache; und was schwach ist vor der Welt, das hat Gott erwählet, daß er zuschanden mache, was stark ist; und das Unedle vor der Welt und das Verachtete hat Gott erwählet, und das da nichts ist, daß er zunichte mache, was etwas ist. Auf daß sich vor ihm kein Fleisch rühme« (Paulus I. Korinther 1, 20 ff.). — Um diese Stelle, ein Zeugnis allerersten Ranges für die Psychologie jeder Tschandala-Moral, zu verstehn, lese man die erste Abhandlung meiner Genealogie der Moral: in ihr wurde zum erstenmal der Gegensatz einer vornehmen und einer aus ressentiment und ohnmächtiger Rache gebornen Tschandala-Moral ans Licht gestellt. Paulus war der größte aller Apostel der Rache…
46 — Was folgt daraus? Daß man gut tut, Handschuhe anzuziehn, wenn man das Neue Testament liest. Die Nähe von so viel Unreinlichkeit zwingt beinahe dazu. Wir würden uns »erste Christen« so wenig wie polnische Juden zum Umgang wählen: nicht daß man gegen sie auch nur einen Einwand nötig hätte… Sie riechen beide nicht gut. — Ich habe vergebens im Neuen Testamente auch nur nach einem sympathischen Zuge ausgespäht; nichts ist darin, was frei, gütig, offenherzig, rechtschaffen wäre. Die Menschlichkeit hat hier noch nicht ihren ersten Anfang gemacht — die Instinkte der Reinlichkeit fehlen… Es gibt nur schlechte Instinkte im Neuen Testament, es gibt keinen Mut selbst zu diesen schlechten Instinkten. Alles ist Feigheit, alles ist Augenschließen und Selbstbetrug darin. Jedes Buch wird reinlich, wenn man eben das Neue Testament gelesen hat: ich las, um ein Beispiel zu geben, mit Entzücken unmittelbar nach Paulus jenen anmutigsten, übermütigsten Spötter Petronius, von dem man sagen könnte, was Domenico Boccaccio über Cesare Borgia an den Herzog von Parma schrieb: »è tutto festo« — unsterblich gesund, unsterblich heiter und wohlgeraten … Diese kleinen Mucker verrechnen sich nämlich in der Hauptsache. Sie greifen an, aber alles, was von ihnen angegriffen wird, ist damit ausgezeichnet. Wen ein »erster Christ« angreift, den besudelt er nicht… Umgekehrt: es ist eine Ehre, »erste Christen« gegen sich zu haben. Man liest das Neue Testament nicht ohne eine Vorliebe für das, was darin mißhandelt wird, — nicht zu reden von der »Weisheit dieser Welt«, welche ein frecher Windmacher »durch törichte Predigt« umsonst zuschanden zu machen sucht… Aber selbst die Pharisäer und Schriftgelehrten haben ihren Vorteil von einer solchen Gegnerschaft: sie müssen schon etwas wert gewesen sein, um auf eine so unanständige Weise gehaßt zu werden. Heuchelei — das wäre ein Vorwurf, den »erste Christen« machen dürften! — Zuletzt waren es die Privilegierten: dies genügt, der Tschandala-Haß braucht keine Gründe mehr. Der »erste Christ« — ich fürchte, auch der »letzte Christ«, den ich vielleicht noch erleben werde — ist Rebell gegen alles Privilegierte aus unterstem Instinkte — er lebt, er kämpft immer für »gleiche Rechte« … Genauer zugesehn, hat er keine Wahl. Will man, für seine Person, ein »Auserwählter Gottes« sein — oder ein »Tempel Gottes«, oder ein »Richter der Engel« —, so ist jedes andre Prinzip der Auswahl, zum Beispiel nach Rechtschaffenheit, nach Geist, nach Männlichkeit und Stolz, nach Schönheit und Freiheit des Herzens, einfach »Welt« — das Böse an sich… Moral: jedes Wort im Munde eines »ersten Christen« ist eine Lüge, jede Handlung, die er tut, eine Instinkt-Falschheit — alle seine Werte, alle seine Ziele sind schädlich, aber wen er haßt, was er haßt, das hat Wert… Der Christ, der Priester-Christ insonderheit, ist ein Kriterium für Werte — — Habe ich noch zu sagen, daß im ganzen Neuen Testament bloß eine einzige Figur vorkommt, die man ehren muß? Pilatus, der römische Statthalter. Einen Judenhandel ernst zu nehmen — dazu überredet er sich nicht. Ein Jude mehr oder weniger — was liegt daran?… Der vornehme Hohn eines Römers, vor dem ein unverschämter Mißbrauch mit dem Wort »Wahrheit« getrieben wird, hat das Neue Testament mit dem einzigen Wort bereichert, das Wert hat — das seine Kritik, seine Vernichtung selbst ist: »was ist Wahrheit!« …
47 — Das ist es nicht, was uns abscheidet, daß wir keinen Gott wiederfinden, weder in der Geschichte, noch in der Natur, noch hinter der Natur — sondern daß wir, was als Gott verehrt wurde, nicht als »göttlich«, sondern als erbarmungswürdig, als absurd, als schädlich empfinden, nicht nur als Irrtum, sondern als Verbrechen am Leben… Wir leugnen Gott als Gott… Wenn man uns diesen Gott der Christen bewiese, wir würden ihn noch weniger zu glauben wissen. — In Formel: deus, qualem Paulus creavit, dei negatio. — Eine Religion, wie das Christentum, die sich an keinem Punkte mit der Wirklichkeit berührt, die sofort dahinfällt, sobald die Wirklichkeit auch nur an einem Punkte zu Rechte kommt, muß billigerweise der »Weisheit der Welt«, will sagen der Wissenschaft, todfeind sein — sie wird alle Mittel gut heißen, mit denen die Zucht des Geistes, die Lauterkeit und Strenge in Gewissenssachen des Geistes, die vornehme Kühle und Freiheit des Geistes vergiftet, verleumdet, verrufen gemacht werden kann. Der »Glaube« als Imperativ ist das Veto gegen die Wissenschaft — in praxi die Lüge um jeden Preis… Paulus begriff, daß die Lüge — daß »der Glaube« nottat; die Kirche begriff später wieder Paulus. — Jener »Gott«, den Paulus sich erfand, ein Gott, der »die Weisheit der Welt« (im engern Sinn die beiden großen Gegnerinnen alles Aberglaubens, Philologie und Medizin) »zuschanden macht«, ist in Wahrheit nur der resolute Entschluß des Paulus selbst dazu: »Gott« seinen eignen Willen zu nennen, thora, das ist urjüdisch. Paulus will »die Weisheit der Welt« zuschanden machen: seine Feinde sind die guten Philologen und Ärzte alexandrinischer Schulung —, ihnen macht er den Krieg. In der Tat, man ist nicht Philolog und Arzt, ohne nicht zugleich auch Antichrist zu sein. Als Philolog schaut man nämlich hinter die »heiligen Bücher«, als Arzt hinter die physiologische Verkommenheit des typischen Christen. Der Arzt sagt »unheilbar«, der Philolog »Schwindel« …
48 — Hat man eigentlich die berühmte Geschichte verstanden, die am Anfang der Bibel steht — von der Höllenangst Gottes vor der Wissenschaft?… Man hat sie nicht verstanden. Dies Priesterbuch par excellence beginnt, wie billig, mit der großen inneren Schwierigkeit des Priester: er hat nur eine große Gefahr, folglich hat »Gott« nur eine große Gefahr. —
Der alte Gott, ganz »Geist«, ganz Hoherpriester, ganz Vollkommenheit, lustwandelt in seinen Gärten: nur daß er sich langweilt. Gegen die Langeweile kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. Was tut er? Er erfindet den Menschen — der Mensch ist unterhaltend…
Aber siehe da, auch der Mensch langweilt sich. Das Erbarmen Gottes mit der einzigen Not, die alle Paradiese an sich haben, kennt keine Grenzen: er schuf alsbald noch andre Tiere. Erster Fehlgriff Gottes: der Mensch fand die Tiere nicht unterhaltend — er herrschte über sie, er wollte nicht einmal »Tier« sein. — Folglich schuf Gott das Weib. Und in der Tat, mit der Langeweile hatte es nun ein Ende — aber auch mit anderem noch! Das Weib war der zweite Fehlgriff Gottes. — »Das Weib ist seinem Wesen nach Schlange, Heva« — das weiß jeder Priester; »vom Weib kommt jedes Unheil in der Welt« — das weiß ebenfalls jeder Priester. »Folglich kommt von ihm auch die Wissenschaft« … Erst durch das Weib lernte der Mensch vom Baume der Erkenntnis kosten. — Was war geschehn? Den alten Gott ergriff eine Höllenangst. Der Mensch selbst war sein größter Fehlgriff geworden, er hatte sich einen Rivalen geschaffen, die Wissenschaft macht gottgleich, — es ist mit Priestern und Göttern zu Ende, wenn der Mensch wissenschaftlich wird! — Moral: Die Wissenschaft ist das Verbotene an sich — sie allein ist verboten. Die Wissenschaft ist die erste Sünde, der Keim aller Sünde, die Erbsünde. Dies allein ist Moral. — »Du sollst nicht erkennen« — der Rest folgt daraus. — Die Höllenangst Gottes verhinderte ihn nicht, klug zu sein. Wie wehrt man sich gegen die Wissenschaft? das wurde für lange sein Hauptproblem. Antwort: fort mit dem Menschen aus dem Paradiese! Das Glück, der Müßiggang bringt auf Gedanken — alle Gedanken sind schlechte Gedanken … Der Mensch soll nicht denken. — Und der »Priester an sich« erfindet die Not, den Tod, die Lebensgefahr der Schwangerschaft, jede Art von Elend, Alter, Mühsal, die Krankheit vor allem — lauter Mittel im Kampfe mit der Wissenschaft! Die Not erlaubt dem Menschen nicht, zu denken… Und trotzdem! entsetzlich! Das Werk der Erkenntnis türmt sich auf, himmelstürmend, götter-andämmernd — was tun! — Der alte Gott erfindet den Krieg, er trennt die Völker, er macht, daß die Menschen sich gegenseitig vernichten (— die Priester haben immer den Krieg nötig gehabt…). Der Krieg — unter anderem ein großer Störenfried der Wissenschaft! — Unglaublich! Die Erkenntnis, die Emanzipation vom Priester, nimmt selbst trotz Kriegen zu. — Und ein letzter Entschluß kommt dem alten Gotte: »der Mensch ward wissenschaftlich — es hilft nichts, man muß ihn ersäufen!« …
49 — Man hat mich verstanden. Der Anfang der Bibel enthält die ganze Psychologie des Priesters. — Der Priester kennt nur eine große Gefahr: das ist die Wissenschaft — der gesunde Begriff von Ursache und Wirkung. Aber die Wissenschaft gedeiht im ganzen nur unter glücklichen Verhältnissen — man muß Zeit, man muß Geist überflüssig haben, um zu »erkennen«… »Folglich muß man den Menschen unglücklich machen« — dies war zu jeder Zeit die Logik des Priesters. — Man errät bereits, was, dieser Logik gemäß, damit erst in die Welt gekommen ist — die »Sünde«… Der Schuld- und Strafbegriff, die ganze »sittliche Weltordnung« ist erfunden gegen die Wissenschaft — gegen die Ablösung des Menschen vom Priester… Der Mensch soll nicht hinaus-, er soll in sich hineinsehn; er soll nicht klug und vorsichtig, als Lernender, in die Dinge sehn, er soll überhaupt gar nicht sehn: er soll leiden… Und er soll so leiden, daß er jederzeit den Priester nötig hat. — Weg mit den Ärzten! Man hat einen Heiland nötig. — Der Schuld- und Straf-Begriff, eingerechnet die Lehre von der »Gnade«, von der »Erlösung«, von der »Vergebung« — Lügen durch und durch und ohne jede psychologische Realität — sind erfunden, um den Ursachen-Sinn des Menschen zu zerstören: sie sind das Attentat gegen den Begriff Ursache und Wirkung! — Und nicht ein Attentat mit der Faust, mit dem Messer, mit der Ehrlichkeit in Haß und Liebe! Sondern aus den feigsten, listigsten, niedrigsten Instinkten heraus! Ein Priester-Attentat! Ein Parasiten-Attentat! Ein Vampyrismus bleicher unterirdischer Blutsauger!… Wenn die natürlichen Folgen einer Tat nicht mehr »natürlich« sind, sondern durch Begriffs-Gespenster des Aberglaubens, durch »Gott«, durch »Geister«, durch »Seelen« bewirkt gedacht werden, als bloß »moralische« Konsequenzen, als Lohn, Strafe, Wink, Erziehungsmittel, so ist die Voraussetzung zur Erkenntnis zerstört — so hat man das größte Verbrechen an der Menschheit begangen. — Die Sünde, nochmals gesagt, diese Selbstschändungs-Form des Menschen par excellence, ist erfunden, um Wissenschaft, um Kultur, um jede Erhöhung und Vornehmheit des Menschen unmöglich zu machen; der Priester herrscht durch die Erfindung der Sünde. —
50 — Ich erlasse mir an dieser Stelle eine Psychologie des »Glaubens«, der »Gläubigen« nicht, zum Nutzen, wie billig, gerade der »Gläubigen«. Wenn es heute noch an solchen nicht fehlt, die es nicht wissen, inwiefern es unanständig ist, »gläubig« zu sein — oder ein Abzeichen von décadence, von gebrochnem Willen zum Leben —, morgen schon werden sie es wissen. Meine Stimme erreicht auch die Harthörigen. — Es scheint, wenn anders ich mich nicht verhört habe, daß es unter Christen eine Art Kriterium der Wahrheit gibt, das man den »Beweis der Kraft« nennt. »Der Glaube macht selig: also ist er wahr.« — Man dürfte hier zunächst einwenden, daß gerade das Seligmachen nicht bewiesen, sondern nur versprochen ist: die Seligkeit an die Bedingung des »Glaubens« geknüpft — man soll selig werden, weil man glaubt… Aber daß tatsächlich eintritt, was der Priester dem Gläubigen für das jeder Kontrolle unzugängliche »Jenseits« verspricht, womit bewiese sich das? — Der angebliche »Beweis der Kraft« ist also im Grunde wieder nur ein Glaube daran, daß die Wirkung nicht ausbleibt, welche man sich vom Glauben verspricht. In Formel: »Ich glaube, daß der Glaube selig macht — folglich ist er wahr.« — Aber damit sind wir schon am Ende. Dies »folglich« wäre das absurdum selbst als Kriterium der Wahrheit. — Setzen wir aber, mit einiger Nachgiebigkeit, daß das Seligmachen durch den Glauben bewiesen sei ( — nicht nur gewünscht, nicht nur durch den etwas verdächtigen Mund eines Priesters versprochen): wäre Seligkeit — technischer geredet, Lust — jemals ein Beweis der Wahrheit? So wenig, daß es beinahe den Gegenbeweis, jedenfalls den höchsten Argwohn gegen »Wahrheit« abgibt, wenn Lustempfindungen über die Frage »was ist wahr?« mitreden. Der Beweis der »Lust« ist ein Beweis für »Lust« — nichts mehr; woher um alles in der Welt stünde es fest, daß gerade wahre Urteile mehr Vergnügen machten als falsche und, gemäß einer prästabilierten Harmonie, angenehme Gefühle mit Notwendigkeit hinter sich dreinzögen? — Die Erfahrung aller strengen, aller tief gearteten Geister lehrt das Umgekehrte. Man hat jeden Schrittbreit Wahrheit sich abringen müssen, man hat fast alles dagegen preisgeben müssen, woran sonst das Herz, woran unsre Liebe, unser Vertrauen zum Leben hängt. Es bedarf Größe der Seele dazu: der Dienst der Wahrheit ist der härteste Dienst. — Was heißt denn rechtschaffen sein in geistigen Dingen? Daß man streng gegen sein Herz ist, daß man die »schönen Gefühle« verachtet, daß man sich aus jedem Ja und Nein ein Gewissen macht! — — — Der Glaube macht selig: folglich lügt er…
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the German of the preface, all sixty-two sections and the seven-article Law Against Christianity, for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity. Nietzsche’s own emphasis is kept.
41 —And from now on an absurd problem arose: "How could God allow this!" To this the disordered reason of the little community found an answer downright appalling in its absurdity: God gave his son for the forgiveness of sins, as a sacrifice. How suddenly the gospel was at an end! The guilt offering, and in its most repulsive, most barbaric form at that: the sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty! What a ghastly paganism!—Jesus had, after all, abolished the very concept of "guilt"—he had denied every gulf between God and humanity; he lived this unity of God and humanity as his "glad tidings"… And not as a privilege!—From now on, step by step, there enters into the type of the redeemer the doctrine of judgment and the second coming, the doctrine of death as a sacrificial death, the doctrine of the resurrection, by which the whole concept of "blessedness," the entire and only reality of the gospel, is conjured away—in favor of a condition after death!… With that rabbinical effrontery that distinguishes him in every respect, Paul carried this interpretation, this obscenity of an interpretation, to the logical conclusion: "If Christ has not risen from the dead, then our faith is vain."—And all at once the gospel became the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality… Paul himself still taught it as a reward!…
42 We can see what came to an end with the death on the cross: a new, entirely original beginning of a Buddhist peace movement, of actual happiness on earth, not merely promised happiness. For this remains—as I have already emphasized—the fundamental difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism does not promise but delivers; Christianity promises everything but delivers nothing.—The "glad tidings" were followed at once by the very worst: those of Paul. In Paul is embodied the type opposed to the "bearer of glad tidings," the genius of hatred, of the vision of hatred, of the inexorable logic of hatred. What did this bearer of evil tidings not sacrifice to hatred! Above all, the redeemer: he nailed him to his cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death, the meaning and justification of the entire gospel—nothing was left once this counterfeiter out of hatred grasped what alone he could use. Not reality, not historical truth!… And once again the Jew's priestly instinct committed the same great crime against history—he simply struck out Christianity's yesterday and day before yesterday; he invented a history of early Christianity for himself. More still: he falsified the history of Israel once again, to make it appear as the prehistory of his deed: all the prophets had spoken of his "redeemer"… Later the Church even falsified the history of humanity into the prehistory of Christianity… The type of the redeemer, the teaching, the practice, the death, the meaning of the death, even what came after the death—nothing remained untouched, nothing retained even a likeness to reality. Paul simply shifted the center of gravity of that entire existence beyond this existence—into the lie of the "risen" Jesus. Fundamentally, he had no use at all for the redeemer's life—he needed the death on the cross and something more besides… To take a Paul whose home was in the chief seat of Stoic enlightenment as honest when he concocts from a hallucination the proof that the redeemer is still alive, or even to believe his story that he had this hallucination, would be truly simpleminded on a psychologist's part: Paul wanted the end; consequently he also wanted the means… What he himself did not believe, the idiots among whom he flung his teaching believed.—His need was power; with Paul the priest once again sought power—he could use only concepts, doctrines, symbols with which to tyrannize over masses and form herds. What alone did Muhammad later borrow from Christianity? Paul's invention, his means to priestly tyranny, to the formation of herds: belief in immortality—that is, the doctrine of "judgment"…
43 If we place life's center of gravity not in life but in the "beyond"—in nothingness—we have robbed life of its center of gravity altogether. The great lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all naturalness in instinct—everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that furthers life, that guarantees a future now arouses mistrust. To live in such a way that there is no longer any sense in living—that now becomes the "sense" of life… Why public spirit, why any further gratitude for one's origins and ancestors, why cooperate, trust, promote or keep in view any common good?… So many "temptations," so many diversions from the "right path"—"one thing is needed"… That everyone, as an "immortal soul," ranks equally with everyone else; that within the totality of all beings the "salvation" of each individual may claim eternal importance; that petty sanctimonious hypocrites and the three-quarters-mad may imagine the laws of nature are continually broken for their sake—one cannot brand with enough contempt such an escalation of every kind of selfishness into the infinite, into the shameless. And yet Christianity owes its victory to this pitiful flattery of personal vanity—with it, Christianity won over precisely everything ill-constituted, rebellious-minded, shortchanged, all the refuse and dregs of humanity. The "salvation of the soul"—in plain language: "The world revolves around me"… The poison of the doctrine of "equal rights for all"—Christianity has sown it more fundamentally than anything else; from the most secret corners of bad instincts, Christianity has waged a war to the death against every feeling of reverence and distance between one person and another, that is, against the precondition of every elevation, every growth of culture—it has forged from the resentment of the masses its chief weapon against us, against everything noble, joyful, greathearted on earth, against our happiness on earth… "Immortality" granted to every Peter and Paul has been the greatest, most malicious assault yet upon noble humanity.—And let us not underestimate the fatal influence that has crept from Christianity into politics! No one today has the courage for special rights, for rights of dominion, for a feeling of reverence toward himself and his equals—for a pathos of distance… Our politics is sick from this lack of courage!—The aristocratic cast of mind was undermined most insidiously by the lie of the equality of souls; and if belief in the "privilege of the majority" makes revolutions and will make them—it is Christianity, let there be no doubt, it is Christian value judgments that every revolution merely translates into blood and crime! Christianity is an uprising of everything that crawls on the ground against whatever has height: the gospel of the "lowly" makes people low…
44 —The Gospels are invaluable as testimony to the already unstoppable corruption within the first community. What Paul later brought to completion with a rabbi's logical cynicism was nevertheless merely the process of decay that began with the redeemer's death.—One cannot read these Gospels cautiously enough; their difficulties lie behind every word. I confess—and I trust I will be forgiven for it—that for precisely this reason they are a pleasure of the first order for a psychologist—as the opposite of all naive corruption, as the supreme refinement, as artistry in psychological corruption. The Gospels stand alone. The Bible as a whole is beyond comparison. We are among Jews: the first point to bear in mind if we are not to lose the thread entirely here. This dissimulation of oneself as "holy," which here becomes nothing less than genius and has never been remotely equaled elsewhere among books or people, this counterfeiting of words and gestures as an art, is not the accident of some individual talent, some exceptional nature. It takes race for this. In Christianity, as the art of lying in a holy manner, the whole of Judaism, several centuries of the most earnest Jewish preliminary training and technique, achieves its final mastery. The Christian, this last resort of the lie, is the Jew all over again—three times over, in fact… The fundamental will to employ only concepts, symbols, attitudes that have proved themselves in priestly practice, the instinctive rejection of every other practice, every other kind of perspective on value and usefulness—this is not merely tradition, it is inheritance: only as inheritance does it act like nature. The whole of humanity, even the finest minds of the finest ages (with one exception, who may be no more than an inhuman being—), has let itself be deceived. People have read the gospel as a book of innocence… no small indication of the mastery of the acting here.—Of course, if we could see them, even in passing, all these strange hypocrites and counterfeit saints, it would be all over—and precisely because I read no words without seeing gestures, I make an end of them… I cannot bear a certain way they have of raising their eyes.—Fortunately, for the great majority, books are merely literature——We must not let ourselves be misled: "Do not judge!" they say, but they send everything that stands in their way to hell. In letting God judge, they themselves judge; in glorifying God, they glorify themselves; in demanding the virtues of which they happen to be capable—more still, which they need in order to stay on top at all—they give themselves the grand appearance of striving for virtue, of fighting for the dominion of virtue. "We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good" (—"truth," "light," the "kingdom of God"): in reality they do what they cannot help doing. By forcing their way through like sneaks, sitting in corners, living shadowy lives in the shadows, they make a duty of it: their life of humility appears as duty; as humility it is one more proof of piety… Ah, this humble, chaste, merciful kind of mendacity! "Let virtue itself bear witness for us"… Read the Gospels as books of seduction by means of morality: these little people seize possession of morality—they know what morality can do! Morality is the best means of leading humanity by the nose!—The reality is that here the most conscious conceit of being chosen plays at modesty: they have placed themselves, the "community," the "good and righteous," once and for all on one side, the side of "truth"—and the rest, "the world," on the other… This was the most disastrous kind of megalomania that had yet existed on earth: little monstrosities of hypocrites and liars began to claim the concepts "God," "truth," "light," "spirit," "love," "wisdom," "life" for themselves, as though these were synonyms for themselves, in order to mark off the "world" against themselves; little superlative Jews, ripe for every kind of madhouse, revalued all values to suit themselves, as though only the "Christian" were the meaning, the salt, the measure, even the last judgment of all the rest… This entire calamity was made possible only because a related, racially related kind of megalomania was already in the world, the Jewish kind: once the gulf between Jews and Jewish Christians opened up, the latter had no choice but to turn against the Jews themselves those same procedures of self-preservation that the Jewish instinct recommended, whereas the Jews had previously used them only against everything non-Jewish. The Christian is merely a Jew of a "freer" confession of faith.—
45 —I offer a few samples of what these little people got into their heads, what they put into their master's mouth: nothing but confessions of "beautiful souls."—
"And wherever people do not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust from your feet as testimony against them. I tell you: truly, Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better at the Last Judgment than such a town" (Markus 6, 11).—How evangelical!…
"And whoever causes one of the little ones who believe in me to stumble would be better off if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea" (Markus 9, 42).—How evangelical!…
"If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it away. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hellfire, where their worm does not die and their fire does not go out" (Markus 9, 47).—It is not exactly the eye that is meant…
"Truly, I tell you, some standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God coming in power" (Markus 9, 1).—A fine lie, lion…
"Whoever wishes to follow me must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Because…" (A psychologist's note. Christian morality is refuted by its becauses: its "reasons" refute it—that is Christian.) Markus 8, 34.—
"Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. By whatever measure you measure, you will be measured" (Matthäus 7, 1).—What a concept of justice, of a "just" judge!…
"For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do the tax collectors not do the same? And if you are friendly only to your brothers, what is special about what you do? Do the tax collectors not do that too?" (Matthäus 5, 46.)—The principle of "Christian love": in the end it wants to be well paid…
"But if you do not forgive people their faults, your Father will not forgive you your faults either" (Matthäus 6, 15),—Very compromising for the "Father" in question…
"Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will come to you" (Matthäus 6, 33).—All these things: namely food, clothing, all life's necessities. An error, to put it mildly… Shortly before this, God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases…
"Rejoice then and leap: for look, your reward in heaven is great. Their fathers did the same to the prophets" (Lukas 6, 23).—Shameless rabble! Already it compares itself to the prophets…
"Do you not know that you are God's temple and that the spirit of God lives in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him: for God's temple is holy, and that is what you are" (Paulus I. Korinther 3, 16).—One cannot despise such things enough…
"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If, then, the world is to be judged by you, are you not good enough to judge lesser matters?" (Paulus I. Korinther 6, 2.)—Unfortunately, not merely the speech of a madhouse inmate… This terrible impostor continues in these very words: "Do you not know that we will judge the angels? How much more so temporal goods!"…
"Has God not made the wisdom of this world foolishness? For since the world through its wisdom did not recognize God in his wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe in it through foolish preaching…; not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble are called. Rather, what is foolish before the world, that God has chosen, to put the wise to shame; and what is weak before the world God has chosen to put what is strong to shame; and what is ignoble before the world and what is despised God has chosen, and what is nothing, to bring to nothing what is something. So that no flesh should boast before him" (Paulus I. Korinther 1, 20 ff.).—To understand this passage, testimony of the very first order to the psychology of every Chandala morality, read the first essay of my On the Genealogy of Morality: there, for the first time, the opposition between a noble morality and a Chandala morality born of resentment and powerless revenge was brought to light. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge…
46 —What follows from this? That one does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament. The proximity of so much filth almost demands it. We would no more choose "early Christians" as companions than Polish Jews: not that one would need even a single objection against them… Neither smells good.—I have searched the New Testament in vain for even one appealing trait; there is nothing in it that is free, kind, openhearted, honest. Humanity has not yet made its first beginning here—the instincts of cleanliness are missing… There are only bad instincts in the New Testament, and not even the courage for these bad instincts. Everything in it is cowardice, everything a shutting of the eyes and self-deception. Every book becomes clean when one has just read the New Testament: to give an example, immediately after Paul I read with delight that most graceful, most exuberant mocker Petronius, of whom one could say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote of Cesare Borgia to the Duke of Parma: "he is all festivity"—immortally healthy, immortally cheerful and well-constituted… These petty hypocrites, you see, miscalculate on the main point. They attack, but everything they attack is thereby distinguished. Whoever an "early Christian" attacks is not soiled by him… On the contrary: it is an honor to have "early Christians" against you. One does not read the New Testament without a preference for whatever is mistreated in it—not to mention the "wisdom of this world," which an impudent windbag tries in vain to put to shame "through foolish preaching"… But even the Pharisees and scribes benefit from such opposition: they must have been worth something to be hated in so indecent a manner. Hypocrisy—as though "early Christians" were entitled to make that accusation!—In the end, they were the privileged: that is enough; Chandala hatred needs no further reasons. The "early Christian"—I fear also the "last Christian," whom I may yet live to see—is a rebel against everything privileged out of his lowest instinct—he lives, he fights always for "equal rights"… On closer inspection, he has no choice. If one wishes, for one's own part, to be a "chosen one of God"—or a "temple of God," or a "judge of angels"—then every other principle of selection, for example by honesty, by intellect, by manliness and pride, by beauty and freedom of heart, is simply "the world"—evil in itself… Moral: every word in the mouth of an "early Christian" is a lie, every action he performs an instinctive falsity—all his values, all his aims are harmful, but whom he hates, what he hates, that has value… The Christian, the priestly Christian in particular, is a criterion of values——Need I still say that in the whole New Testament there is only one single figure whom one must honor? Pilate, the Roman governor. To take a Jewish affair seriously—he cannot persuade himself to do that. One Jew more or less—what does it matter?… The noble scorn of a Roman, in whose presence the word "truth" is being shamelessly abused, has enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has value—that is its criticism, its very annihilation: "What is truth!"…
47 —What sets us apart is not that we find no God, whether in history or in nature or behind nature—but that we feel what has been worshiped as God to be not "divine" but pitiful, absurd, harmful, not merely an error but a crime against life… We deny God as God… If this God of the Christians were proved to us, we would know even less how to believe in him.—In a formula: God, as Paul created him, is the negation of God.—A religion like Christianity, which has no point of contact with reality, which collapses the moment reality gains its rights at even a single point, must reasonably be a mortal enemy of the "wisdom of the world," meaning science—it will approve every means by which the discipline of the mind, its integrity and rigor in matters of intellectual conscience, its noble coolness and freedom can be poisoned, slandered, brought into disrepute. "Faith" as an imperative is the veto against science—in practice, the lie at any price… Paul grasped that the lie—that "faith"—was necessary; the Church later grasped Paul in turn.—That "God" Paul invented for himself, a God who "puts to shame" the "wisdom of the world" (in the narrower sense, the two great adversaries of all superstition, philology and medicine), is in truth nothing but Paul's own resolute decision to do so: to call one's own will "God," Torah—that is primordially Jewish. Paul wants to put the "wisdom of the world" to shame: his enemies are the good philologists and physicians trained in Alexandria—he makes war on them. In fact, one cannot be a philologist or physician without also being an Antichrist. For as a philologist one looks behind the "holy books," as a physician behind the physiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The physician says "incurable," the philologist "fraud"…
48 —Has anyone really understood the famous story at the beginning of the Bible—of God's hellish terror of science?… No one has understood it. This supreme priestly book begins, as is only fitting, with the priest's great inward difficulty: he has only one great danger, consequently "God" has only one great danger.—
The old God, all "spirit," all high priest, all perfection, strolls through his gardens: except that he is bored. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He invents man—man is entertaining…
But look, man is bored too. God's pity for the sole affliction common to all paradises knows no bounds: he promptly created other animals as well. God's first blunder: man did not find the animals entertaining—he ruled over them; he did not even want to be an "animal."—Consequently God created woman. And in fact, boredom was now at an end—but so were other things besides! Woman was God's second blunder.—"Woman is in her essence a serpent, Eve"—every priest knows that; "every calamity in the world comes from woman"—every priest knows that too. "Consequently, so does science"… Only through woman did man learn to taste of the tree of knowledge.—What had happened? A hellish terror seized the old God. Man himself had become his greatest blunder; he had created a rival for himself; science makes one godlike—it is all over for priests and gods when man becomes scientific!—Moral: Science is the forbidden thing in itself—it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, the seed of all sin, the inherited sin. This alone is morality.—"You shall not know"—the rest follows from that.—God's hellish terror did not prevent him from being clever. How does one defend oneself against science? That became his chief problem for a long time. Answer: out of paradise with man! Happiness, idleness give people ideas—all ideas are bad ideas… Man must not think.—And the "priest as such" invents distress, death, the mortal danger of pregnancy, every kind of misery, old age, toil, above all sickness—nothing but means of fighting science! Distress does not allow man to think… And yet! Horrors! The work of knowledge towers up, storming heaven, bringing twilight to the gods—what is to be done!—The old God invents war, he divides the peoples, he makes human beings destroy one another (—priests have always needed war…). War—among other things, a great disrupter of science!—Unbelievable! Knowledge, emancipation from the priest, increases even in spite of wars.—And a final decision comes to the old God: "Man has become scientific—there is no help for it, he must be drowned!"…
49 —You have understood me. The beginning of the Bible contains the entire psychology of the priest.—The priest knows only one great danger: science—the sound concept of cause and effect. But science thrives, on the whole, only under favorable conditions—one must have time, one must have intellect to spare, in order to "know"… "Consequently, man must be made unhappy"—this has been the priest's logic in every age.—One can already guess what, in keeping with this logic, first came into the world through it—"sin"… The concept of guilt and punishment, the entire "moral world order," was invented against science—against man's detachment from the priest… Man is not to look outward; he is to look into himself; he is not to look into things intelligently and cautiously, as a learner; he is not to look at all: he is to suffer… And he is to suffer in such a way that he needs the priest at all times.—Away with physicians! A savior is needed.—The concepts of guilt and punishment, including the doctrines of "grace," of "redemption," of "forgiveness"—lies through and through, without any psychological reality—were invented to destroy man's sense of causality: they are the assault upon the concept of cause and effect!—And not an assault with the fist, with the knife, with honesty in hatred and love! But out of the most cowardly, most cunning, lowest instincts! A priestly assault! A parasitic assault! A vampirism of pale subterranean bloodsuckers!… When the natural consequences of a deed are no longer "natural," but are conceived as brought about by the phantom concepts of superstition, by "God," by "spirits," by "souls," as merely "moral" consequences, as reward, punishment, hint, means of education, then the precondition of knowledge is destroyed—then the greatest crime against humanity has been committed.—Sin, to say it once more, this supreme form of human self-defilement, was invented to make science, culture, every elevation and nobility of humanity impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.—
50 —I will not spare myself a psychology of "faith," of the "faithful," at this point—for the benefit, as is only fitting, of the "faithful" themselves. If there is still no shortage today of those who do not know how indecent it is to be "faithful"—or how it is a mark of decadence, of a broken will to live—by tomorrow they will know. My voice reaches even the hard of hearing.—It seems, unless I have misheard, that among Christians there is a kind of criterion of truth called the "proof of power." "Faith brings blessedness: therefore it is true."—One might first object here that precisely this bringing of blessedness is not proved but merely promised: blessedness is tied to the condition of "faith"—one is to become blessed because one believes… But that what the priest promises the believer for the "beyond," inaccessible to any verification, actually comes to pass—what would prove that?—The supposed "proof of power" is thus fundamentally nothing more than another belief that the effect one expects from faith will not fail to occur. In a formula: "I believe that faith brings blessedness—consequently it is true."—But with that we are already at an end. This "consequently" would be absurdity itself as a criterion of truth.—But let us suppose, with some indulgence, that the bringing of blessedness through faith were proved (—not merely wished for, not merely promised by a priest's somewhat suspect mouth): would blessedness—more technically speaking, pleasure—ever be a proof of truth? So little so that it almost furnishes proof of the opposite, or at any rate grounds for the gravest suspicion of "truth," when sensations of pleasure have a say in the question "What is true?" The proof of "pleasure" is a proof of "pleasure"—nothing more; how in the world could it be established that true judgments in particular give more enjoyment than false ones and, in accordance with a preestablished harmony, necessarily draw pleasant feelings in their wake?—The experience of all rigorous minds, all minds of a deep nature, teaches the reverse. Every inch of truth has had to be wrested from oneself; in exchange one has had to surrender almost everything to which the heart otherwise clings, to which our love, our trust in life clings. It takes greatness of soul for this: the service of truth is the hardest service.—What, then, does it mean to be honest in intellectual matters? To be severe with one's heart, to despise "beautiful feelings," to make every yes and no a matter of conscience!———Faith brings blessedness: consequently it lies…
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the same German text of the preface, all sixty-two sections and the Law Against Christianity. Nietzsche’s own emphasis is kept.
41 —And from then on an absurd problem came up: “How could God allow this!” The little community’s disturbed reason found an answer that was downright horribly absurd: God gave his son as a sacrifice to forgive sins. How suddenly the gospel was over! The sacrifice to atone for guilt, and in its most disgusting, most barbaric form: the sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty! What horrifying paganism!—Jesus had abolished the very idea of “guilt”—he denied any gulf between God and humanity; he lived this unity of God and humanity as his “good news”… And not as a privilege!—From then on, new things gradually enter the figure of the redeemer: the teaching about judgment and the second coming, the teaching about death as a sacrificial death, the teaching about the resurrection, which makes the whole idea of “blessedness,” the gospel’s entire and only reality, disappear by a sleight of hand—in favor of a state after death!… With the rabbinical insolence that marks him in everything, Paul pushed this view, this obscene perversion of a view, to its logical conclusion: “If Christ has not risen from the dead, then our faith is empty.”—And suddenly the gospel became the most contemptible of all promises that cannot be fulfilled, the shameless teaching that the individual lives forever… Paul himself still taught it as a reward!…
42 We can see what ended with the death on the cross: a new, wholly original start toward a Buddhist peace movement, toward actual happiness on earth, not just a promise of it. For this remains—as I have already stressed—the basic difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism does not promise, but delivers; Christianity promises everything, but delivers nothing.—The “good news” was followed immediately by the worst news of all: Paul’s. Paul embodies the opposite type to the “bringer of good news”: a genius in hatred, in the vision of hatred, in the relentless logic of hatred. What didn’t this bringer of bad news sacrifice to hatred! Above all, the redeemer: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death, the meaning and justification of the entire gospel—nothing was left once this counterfeiter, driven by hatred, understood the only thing he could use. Not reality, not historical truth!… And once again the Jew’s priestly instinct committed the same great crime against history—he simply crossed out Christianity’s yesterday and day before yesterday; he invented a history of early Christianity for himself. More than that: he falsified Israel’s history once again, to make it appear as the prehistory of his deed: all the prophets had spoken of his “redeemer”… Later the church even falsified the history of humanity into the prehistory of Christianity… The figure of the redeemer, the teaching, the practice, the death, the meaning of the death, even what came after the death—nothing was left untouched, nothing was left even resembling reality. Paul simply shifted the center of gravity of that whole life to a point beyond that life—into the lie about the “risen” Jesus. At bottom, he had no use at all for the redeemer’s life—he needed the death on the cross and something more… To consider Paul honest—a man whose home was in the main center of Stoic enlightenment—when he turns a hallucination into proof that the redeemer is still alive, or even to believe his story that he had this hallucination, would be truly naive on a psychologist’s part: Paul wanted the end, so he also wanted the means… What he himself did not believe, the idiots he threw his teaching to did believe.—His need was for power; with Paul, the priest once again wanted power—he could only use ideas, teachings, symbols with which to tyrannize over masses and form herds. What was the one thing Muhammad later borrowed from Christianity? Paul’s invention, his means of establishing priestly tyranny and forming herds: belief in immortality—that is, the teaching about “judgment”…
43 If you place life’s center of gravity not in life but in the “beyond”—in nothingness—you have taken its center of gravity away altogether. The great lie that the individual lives forever destroys all reason, everything natural in instinct—everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that supports life, that guarantees a future now becomes suspect. To live in a way that leaves no point in living—that now becomes the “point” of life… Why have any public spirit, why still be grateful for your origins and ancestors, why work with others, trust others, promote or keep any common good in view?… All just “temptations,” all distractions from the “right path”—“one thing is needed”… The idea that everyone, as an “immortal soul,” ranks equally with everyone else; that among all beings the “salvation” of each individual may claim eternal importance; that petty religious hypocrites and people who are three-quarters crazy may imagine that the laws of nature are constantly being broken for their sake—such an increase of every kind of selfishness to infinity, to the point of shamelessness, cannot be condemned with enough contempt. And yet Christianity owes its victory to this pitiful flattery of personal vanity—with it Christianity won over precisely everything that was a failure, inclined to rebellion, or badly treated, all the refuse and scum of humanity. The “salvation of the soul”—in plain language: “the world revolves around me”… The poison of the teaching of “equal rights for all”—Christianity sowed it most systematically; from the most secret corners of bad instincts, Christianity has waged a war to the death against every feeling of respect and distance between one person and another, that is, against the precondition for any rise, any growth in culture—from the masses’ resentment it forged its main weapon against us, against everything noble, cheerful, generous on earth, against our happiness on earth… Granting “immortality” to every Peter and Paul has been the greatest, most malicious attack so far on noble humanity.—And let’s not underestimate the disaster that has crept from Christianity even into politics! Today no one has the courage for special rights, for the right to rule, for a feeling of respect toward themselves and their equals—for a deep sense of distance… Our politics is sick from this lack of courage!—The lie that souls are equal has undermined an aristocratic outlook in the most underhanded way; and if belief in the “privilege of the majority” makes revolutions and will make them—it is Christianity, make no mistake, it is Christian value judgments that every revolution simply translates into blood and crime! Christianity is a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground against whatever has height: the gospel of the “lowly” makes people low…
44 —The Gospels are priceless evidence of the corruption that was already unstoppable within the first community. Even so, what Paul later completed with a rabbi’s cynical logic was simply the process of decay that began with the redeemer’s death.—You cannot read these Gospels too carefully; difficulties hide behind every word. I admit—and I hope this will count in my favor—that this very thing makes them a first-rate pleasure for a psychologist—as the opposite of all naive corruption, as the ultimate in sophistication, as artistry in psychological corruption. The Gospels stand alone. The Bible as a whole is beyond comparison. We are among Jews: the first point to keep in mind if we are not to lose the thread completely here. The disguise of oneself as “holy,” which here reaches the level of genius and is never even approached elsewhere among books and people, this counterfeiting of words and gestures as an art, is not the accident of some individual talent, some exceptional nature. It takes race for this. In Christianity, as the art of lying in a holy way, the whole of Judaism reaches its final mastery, along with several hundred years of the most serious Jewish training and technique. The Christian, this last resort of the lie, is the Jew all over again—three times over, in fact… The fundamental will to use only ideas, symbols, attitudes that have proved themselves in the priest’s practice, the instinctive rejection of every other practice, every other way of looking at value and usefulness—this is not just tradition, it is inheritance: only as an inheritance does it act like nature. All humanity, even the best minds of the best ages (except one, who may simply be a monster—), has let itself be deceived. People have read the gospel as a book of innocence… no small indication of the masterful acting that has gone on here.—Of course, if we got to see them, even just in passing, all these strange religious hypocrites and manufactured saints, it would all be over—and precisely because I never read words without seeing gestures, I put an end to them… I cannot stand a certain way they have of lifting their eyes.—Luckily, for the vast majority, books are only literature——We must not be misled: “Do not judge!” they say, but they send everything that stands in their way to hell. By letting God judge, they themselves judge; by glorifying God, they glorify themselves; by demanding the very virtues they are capable of—more than that, the virtues they need to stay on top at all—they make an impressive show of struggling for virtue, of fighting for virtue’s rule. “We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good” (—“truth,” “light,” the “kingdom of God”): in reality they do what they cannot help doing. By pushing their way through like sneaking hypocrites, sitting in corners, living shadowy lives in the shadows, they make it a duty: their life of humility appears as a duty, and as humility it is one more proof of piety… Ah, this humble, chaste, merciful kind of dishonesty! “Let virtue itself testify for us”… Read the Gospels as books that seduce through morality: these little people take possession of morality—they know what morality can do! Morality is the best way to lead humanity by the nose!—The reality is that the most deliberate conceit of being chosen is playing modest here: they have placed themselves, the “community,” the “good and just,” once and for all on one side, the side of “truth”—and the rest, “the world,” on the other… That was the most disastrous kind of megalomania that has ever existed on earth: little deformed hypocrites and liars began claiming the ideas of “God,” “truth,” “light,” “spirit,” “love,” “wisdom,” “life” for themselves, almost as synonyms for themselves, to use them to draw a dividing line between themselves and the “world”; little superlative Jews, ready for any kind of madhouse, turned all values around to point toward themselves, as though only the “Christian” were the meaning, the salt, the measure, even the last judgment of all the rest… The whole disaster was made possible only because a related, racially related kind of megalomania already existed in the world: the Jewish kind. Once the gulf between Jews and Jewish Christians opened up, the latter had no choice but to use against the Jews themselves the same procedures for self-preservation that Jewish instinct advised, while until then the Jews had used them only against everything non-Jewish. The Christian is simply a Jew of a “freer” faith.—
45 —Here are a few samples of what these little people got into their heads, what they put into their master’s mouth: all confessions of “beautiful souls.”—
“And wherever people do not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust from your feet as testimony against them. I tell you: truly, Sodom and Gomorrah will have an easier time at the Last Judgment than that town” (Markus 6, 11).—How evangelical!…
“And whoever leads one of the little ones who believe in me into wrongdoing would be better off if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Markus 9, 42).—How evangelical!…
“If your eye leads you into wrongdoing, throw it away. You are better off going into the kingdom of God with one eye than having two eyes and being thrown into hellfire, where their worm does not die and their fire does not go out” (Markus 9, 47).—It is not exactly the eye that is meant…
“Truly, I tell you, some people standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God coming with power” (Markus 9, 1).—A fine lie, lion…
“Anyone who wants to follow me must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Because…” (A psychologist’s note. Christian morality is refuted by its becauses: its “reasons” refute it—that is the Christian way.) Markus 8, 34.—
“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. Whatever measure you use will be used to measure you” (Matthäus 7, 1).—What an idea of justice, of a “just” judge!…
“For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Don’t the tax collectors do the same? And if you are friendly only to your brothers, what are you doing that is special? Don’t the tax collectors do that too?” (Matthäus 5, 46.)—The principle of “Christian love”: in the end it wants to be well paid…
“But if you do not forgive people their faults, your father will not forgive your faults either” (Matthäus 6, 15),—Very compromising for the “father” in question…
“Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things will come to you” (Matthäus 6, 33).—All these things: namely food, clothing, everything needed for life. An error, to put it mildly… Shortly before this, God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases…
“Then be happy and jump for joy: for look, your reward in heaven is great. Their fathers treated the prophets the same way” (Lukas 6, 23).—Shameless rabble! They are already comparing themselves with the prophets…
“Don’t you know that you are God’s temple and that God’s spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him: for God’s temple is holy, and that is what you are” (Paulus I. Korinther 3, 16).—It is impossible to have enough contempt for such things…
“Don’t you know that the saints will judge the world? Now if the world is to be judged by you, aren’t you good enough to judge lesser matters?” (Paulus I. Korinther 6, 2.)—Unfortunately, this is not just the talk of a madhouse inmate… This terrible fraud goes on, word for word: “Don’t you know that we will judge the angels? How much more, then, earthly possessions!”…
“Hasn’t God turned this world’s wisdom into foolishness? For since the world, through its wisdom, did not recognize God in his wisdom, God was pleased to save, through foolish preaching, those who believe in it…; not many who are wise by worldly standards, not many powerful people, not many of noble birth are called. Instead, God chose what the world considers foolish, to put the wise to shame; and God chose what the world considers weak, to put what is strong to shame; and God chose what the world considers low-born and what it despises, and what is nothing, to reduce what is something to nothing. So that no flesh may boast before him” (Paulus I. Korinther 1, 20 ff.).—To understand this passage, a piece of first-rate evidence for the psychology of every Chandala morality, read the first essay of my On the Genealogy of Morality: there, for the first time, the opposition was brought to light between a noble morality and a Chandala morality born of resentment and powerless revenge. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge…
46 —What follows from this? That you do well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament. Being so close to so much filth almost forces you to. We would no more choose “early Christians” for company than Polish Jews: not that we would need even a single objection to them… Neither smells good.—I have looked in vain for even one likable trait in the New Testament; there is nothing in it that is free, kind, openhearted, honest. Humanity has not yet made its first beginning here—the instincts of cleanliness are missing… There are only bad instincts in the New Testament, and no courage even for these bad instincts. Everything in it is cowardice, closing one’s eyes, and self-deception. Every book becomes clean once you have just read the New Testament: to give an example, immediately after Paul I read with delight that most charming, most high-spirited mocker Petronius, of whom one could say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote about Cesare Borgia to the Duke of Parma: “he is full of festive cheer”—eternally healthy, eternally cheerful and sound… These little religious hypocrites miscalculate on the main point. They attack, but everything they attack is thereby honored. Anyone an “early Christian” attacks is not soiled by him… On the contrary: it is an honor to have “early Christians” against you. You cannot read the New Testament without a liking for what is mistreated in it—not to mention the “wisdom of this world,” which an insolent windbag tries in vain to put to shame “through foolish preaching”… But even the Pharisees and scribes benefit from such opposition: they must have been worth something to be hated in such an indecent way. Hypocrisy—now there is an accusation that “early Christians” would be entitled to make!—In the end, they were the privileged: that is enough; Chandala hatred needs no further reasons. The “early Christian”—I fear also the “last Christian,” whom I may yet live to see—is a rebel against everything privileged, from the lowest instinct—he always lives and fights for “equal rights”… Look more closely, and he has no choice. If you want to be one of “God’s chosen” yourself—or a “temple of God,” or a “judge of angels”—then every other principle of selection, for example by honesty, intellect, manliness and pride, by beauty and freedom of heart, is simply “world”—evil itself… The moral: every word in an “early Christian’s” mouth is a lie, every action he takes an instinctive falsehood—all his values, all his aims are harmful, but whom he hates, what he hates, that has value… The Christian, and especially the Christian priest, is a test of values——Do I still have to say that in the entire New Testament there is only one figure we have to respect? Pilate, the Roman governor. Taking a Jewish dispute seriously—he cannot talk himself into that. One Jew more or less—what does it matter?… The noble scorn of a Roman, in whose presence the word “truth” is shamelessly abused, has enriched the New Testament with the only saying in it that has value—which is its criticism, its very annihilation: “What is truth!”…
47 —What sets us apart is not that we find no God in history, or in nature, or behind nature—but that we feel what has been worshiped as God to be not “divine” but pitiful, absurd, harmful, not just an error but a crime against life… We deny God as God… If this God of the Christians were proved to us, we would be even less able to believe in him.—In a formula: God, as Paul created him, is the negation of God.—A religion like Christianity, which has no contact with reality at any point, which collapses as soon as reality is allowed its due at even one point, must reasonably be the mortal enemy of the “wisdom of the world,” that is, science—it will approve of every means by which the discipline of the mind, honesty and rigor in matters of intellectual conscience, the mind’s noble coolness and freedom can be poisoned, slandered, discredited. “Faith” as a command is the veto against science—in practice, the lie at any cost… Paul understood that the lie—that “faith”—was needed; later the church, in turn, understood Paul.—That “God” Paul invented for himself, a God who “puts to shame” the “wisdom of the world” (in the narrower sense, the two great opponents of all superstition, philology and medicine), is really just Paul’s own firm decision to do so: calling one’s own will “God,” Torah—that is Jewish to the core. Paul wants to put the “wisdom of the world” to shame: his enemies are the good philologists and doctors trained in Alexandria—he wages war on them. In fact, as a philologist or a doctor, you cannot help also being an Antichrist. For as a philologist you look behind the “holy books,” as a doctor behind the physiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The doctor says “incurable,” the philologist “fraud”…
48 —Has anyone really understood the famous story at the beginning of the Bible—about God’s hellish terror of science?… No one has understood it. This supreme priestly book begins, fittingly, with the priest’s great inner difficulty: he has only one great danger, so “God” has only one great danger.—
The old God, all “spirit,” all high priest, all perfection, strolls for pleasure in his gardens: except that he is bored. Even gods struggle in vain against boredom. What does he do? He invents the human being—human beings are entertaining…
But look, the human being is bored too. God’s pity for the only trouble that all paradises have knows no bounds: he promptly created other animals as well. God’s first mistake: the human being did not find the animals entertaining—he ruled over them; he did not even want to be an “animal.”—So God created woman. And in fact boredom now came to an end—but so did other things! Woman was God’s second mistake.—“Woman is by nature a serpent, Eve”—every priest knows that; “every disaster in the world comes from woman”—every priest knows that too. “So science comes from her too”… Only through woman did the human being learn to taste from the tree of knowledge.—What had happened? A hellish terror seized the old God. The human being himself had become his greatest mistake; he had created a rival for himself; science makes people equal to God—it is all over for priests and gods when human beings become scientific!—The moral: Science is the forbidden thing itself—it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, the seed of all sin, inherited sin. This alone is morality.—“You must not know”—the rest follows from that.—God’s hellish terror did not stop him from being clever. How do you defend yourself against science? That became his main problem for a long time. Answer: get the human being out of paradise! Happiness, idleness give people ideas—all ideas are bad ideas… The human being must not think.—And the “priest as such” invents hardship, death, the danger to life in pregnancy, every kind of misery, old age, toil, and above all sickness—all means of fighting science! Hardship does not allow people to think… And yet! Horrible! The work of knowledge keeps piling up, storming heaven, bringing on the twilight of the gods—what to do!—The old God invents war, he separates the peoples, he makes human beings destroy one another (—priests have always needed war…). War—among other things a great disruptor of science!—Unbelievable! Knowledge, emancipation from the priest, increases even despite wars.—And the old God reaches one last decision: “Human beings have become scientific—there’s no help for it, they must be drowned!”…
49 —You have understood me. The beginning of the Bible contains the whole psychology of the priest.—The priest knows only one great danger: science—the sound understanding of cause and effect. But on the whole, science thrives only under happy conditions—you must have time, you must have mental energy to spare, in order to “know”… “So people must be made unhappy”—this has always been the priest’s logic.—You can already guess what, according to this logic, first came into the world as a result—“sin”… The ideas of guilt and punishment, the whole “moral world order,” were invented against science—against the human being’s break with the priest… People must not look outward; they must look into themselves; they must not look at things intelligently and carefully, as learners; they must not look at all: they must suffer… And they must suffer in a way that makes them need the priest at all times.—Away with doctors! A savior is needed.—The ideas of guilt and punishment, including the teachings about “grace,” “redemption,” “forgiveness”—lies through and through, without any psychological reality—were invented to destroy the human sense of causation: they are the attack on the idea of cause and effect!—And not an attack with a fist, with a knife, with honesty in hatred and love! Instead, an attack coming from the most cowardly, cunning, low instincts! A priest’s attack! A parasite’s attack! The vampirism of pale, underground bloodsuckers!… When the natural consequences of an act are no longer considered “natural,” but brought about by the ghostly ideas of superstition, by “God,” by “spirits,” by “souls,” as merely “moral” consequences, as reward, punishment, sign, a means of education, then the precondition for knowledge is destroyed—then the greatest crime against humanity has been committed.—Sin, to say it again, this ultimate form of human self-defilement, was invented to make science, culture, any elevation or nobility of human beings impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.—
50 —I will not spare myself a psychology of “faith,” of “believers,” at this point—for the benefit, as is only right, of the “believers” themselves. If there are still people today who do not know in what sense it is indecent to be a “believer”—or a mark of decadence, of a broken will to live—by tomorrow they will know. My voice reaches even the hard of hearing.—It seems, unless I have misheard, that among Christians there is a kind of test of truth called the “proof of power.” “Faith brings blessedness: therefore it is true.”—The first objection might be that this very bringing of blessedness has not been proved, only promised: blessedness is tied to the condition of “faith”—you are supposed to become blessed because you believe… But does what the priest promises the believer for the “beyond,” which is beyond all checking, actually happen—and what could prove that?—At bottom, then, the supposed “proof of power” is once again just a belief that the effect expected from faith will not fail to happen. In a formula: “I believe that faith brings blessedness—therefore it is true.”—But that is already the end of it. This “therefore” would be absurdity itself as a test of truth.—But let us generously assume that faith has been proved to bring blessedness (—not just wished for, not just promised by the somewhat suspicious mouth of a priest): would blessedness—in technical terms, pleasure—ever be proof of truth? So far from it that when feelings of pleasure have a say in the question “what is true?” they almost provide proof of the opposite, and in any case the strongest grounds for suspicion against “truth.” The proof of “pleasure” is proof of “pleasure”—nothing more; how on earth could it be established that true judgments give more pleasure than false ones and necessarily bring pleasant feelings after them, in accordance with a harmony established in advance?—The experience of all rigorous minds, all minds with depth to their nature, teaches the opposite. We have had to fight ourselves for every inch of truth; in return we have had to give up almost everything our heart, our love, our trust in life otherwise depend on. That takes greatness of soul: serving truth is the hardest service.—What does being honest in intellectual matters mean? Being strict with your heart, despising “beautiful feelings,” making every yes and no a matter of conscience!———Faith brings blessedness: therefore it lies…
About this section
Sections 41–50 is part of The Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche. This page sets the German original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is section 6 of 8 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.