I was wondering whether Jesus Christ would qualify for an Ubermensch?

The people who follow him, Christians, are disqualified from being an Ubermensch because they follow the established tradition and morality of the institution of Christianity. But Jesus on the other hand was a trailblazer, and he certainly fits the mold of rejecting the established Judaism at the time in favor of establishing new moral values.

"The Übermensch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Übermensch shall be the meaning of the earth..." Sounds like Jesus to me; he was the bridge of Christianity.

A Christian might argue that he isn't an Ubermensch because he is the Son of God. But to an Atheist like me, he fits the role.

Also: bare in mind that an Ubermensch does not have to be an Atheist; they can be an Agnostic, or believe in some divine being or force. They just don't follow a pre-established religion.

What do you think?

edited 26th Dec '11 1:57:11 PM by CrazyDawg

Didn't Nietzsche himself state that Jesus came rather close?

I believe he did.

Jesus followed the laws of the Bible, no? Sure, he offered different interpretations than the conventional wisdom of the time would suggest, but ultimately his moral code was coming from somewhere other than his own decisions, at least in part. I'm not hugely familiar with the Ubermensch concept, but wouldn't that disqualify Jesus...?

But that moral code was totally new to the world, and not at all a part of the establishment, so although he followed his own laws, jesus was a rulebreaker. Additionally, if you're an atheist, like Neitzche, then the law Jesus followed was totally his own, not god's, because god doesn't exist.

Well then that reduces the answer to this question to "it depends, " which is essentially useless.

Not really, like I said, the moral code was totally new to the world, so Jesus still was very radical by preaching it.

It was a new spin on old ideas, and even if you don't believe in God the Bible itself is a real thing created by real people. Ultimately, he didn't just come up with his shit purely out of his head.

If I understand it correctly, the Ubermensch concept is very strict, and such is why it has never existed in reality. Such is probably why Jesus is qualified as "almost" an Ubermensch. There's probably countless "almost" Ubermensch... es... but none are the real thing.

edited 26th Dec '11 4:45:23 PM by USAF713

^Ubermenschen.

edited 26th Dec '11 5:31:07 PM by Aondeug

Nietzsche is dead!!!

edited 26th Dec '11 6:14:05 PM by Baff

I still don't get it. What is the Ubermensch? Does it have something to do with worldly vs otherworldly?

Basically someone who's not bound by traditional laws/morality/etc. but makes their own way according to their own will.

The whole concept of Ubermensch is silly anyway, as is >90% of Nietzche's philosophy, but either way, Jesus wouldn't qualify.

His philosophy was nowhere near "totally new". He offered relatively minor reforms (nothing compared to what we've seen several times in Christianity's history) to an established religion. Sure, he said that wanting to "know" a woman is the same, sin-wise, as "knowing" her, but that doesn't mean he thought it was OK to "know" her. Really, Jesus wasn't even that much of a radical. Luther or Tyndale would beat him by a longshot, in that regard.

Hold on - are you seriously saying that Christ's philosophy was a minor influence on Christianity?

edited 27th Dec '11 2:24:29 AM by Iaculus

^^Well he apparently brought the "Love and caring about people close to you" into the religion about really jerk god, so I'd say he did do something radical ;P

edited 27th Dec '11 2:33:12 AM by SpookyMask

I suppose one could argue that Jesus only had influence during his lifetime in the immediate area where he lived and taught, but it's ridiculous to suggest that Reformation era Christian philosophers were more radical than him.

One might argue (if one is in such a way inclined) that Luther and Tyndale's radicalism derived from their belief that the Catholic Church had strayed too far from what Jesus taught, and Christians had to go back to that.

edited 27th Dec '11 2:45:51 AM by TheGloomer

While I can't claim to know a great deal about Nietzsche, I will certainly say that the philosophies he pronounced (forsake wealth, live for others, love all and so on) were deeply impacting.

If Master Inferno's summary is accurate, then he certainly would be an Ubermensch.

No, that's not what the Earth Sheep said, but it would be true. Christianity as we know it was essentially founded by Paul - de-judaified, and based more on Hellenic philosophy.

Of course, this is all assuming Christ even existed, and I'm pretty sure existing is one of the qualifiers for being an ubermensch.

I don't think he was the "Christ", but we have just as much historical proof for a guy named (latinized) Jesus existing as for many other historical figures whose existence we take for granted.

I don't really get why folks argue that Jesus didn't exist. I can see how people would say Jesus wasn't the Son of God even if I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I don't see why anybody would argue that somebody named Jesus didn't exist.

Then again, maybe I'm just being a bit short-sighted about it. I guess I've never gone out of my way to find out.

edited 27th Dec '11 8:21:04 AM by TheGloomer

I'm not saying he did or din't, just that there's a debate about it, and the discussion of whether or not he's an ubermensch is moot if he didn't exist.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the guy was real or not.

You realize this is discussing whether Jesus Christ should be added to our frequently locked Übermensch page?

Concerning the various outcry regarding my last post: Being perfectly honest, if you don't accept Jesus as the Christ, then he had relatively little impact on the actual Church bit. As was mentioned, it was his successors, especially Paul, that made Catholicism as we know it. Seriously, look at the teachings of Christ and then look at the traditions of the Catholic church. They're not mutually exclusive, but its clear that there is a large gap of intermediary doctrine that has to fit in between.

If you were to look at modern Protestantism, yes you would find a great deal more of Christ in there *

^{Neither a good nor bad thing}

than in Catholicism.

And Christ was not a revolutionary, almost at all. He was only seeking reform within the Judaic church *

^{historically speaking, that is, if you're Christian you obviously might have some different opinions, which is totally cool and stuff}

, much more like Thomas More or Erasmus than Tyndale or Luther.

The works of the latter inspired actual revolutions. There was essentially perpetual war and mutual persecution between the two new factions after the split, and while Luther claimed that he didn't do it on purpose, there is a lot of evidence to suggest he only said that for the funding from the upper class.

What did Jesus do? Walked around for a bit, telling a bunch of people to stop taking certain books so damn literally. One of the greatest philosophers ever? Of course. But revolutionary, not so much.

But this is off-topic.

Luther based basically his entire theology on the Paul epistles. I won't comment if there is more or less Christ in protestantism, but the point is Protestantism has obviously the same roots as Catholicism and hence it, too, is more rooted in Paul's Greek philosophy than in Jesus' Judaic teachings.

So, no you can't just narrow it down to Catholicism. Paul founded Christianity as we know it, and has a larger influence on it than Jesus himself. All forms of it.