Tweeking the Teacher

[Background: I'm enrolled in an on-line writing course entitled 'Writing the Philosophical Essay". 

For $600 I receive no instruction and lots of nonsense about the supposed superiority of Nietzsche (of 'God is dead' fame).  As a no-extra-charge bonus, we learn of the stupidity of Christians.  Thus far we have not studied any rhetorical techniques. Nor have we been given any guidelines on how to evaluate good writing from bad.  In the discussion forum, I had posted that I believe Nietzsche is overrated as both a thinker and a philosopher.  For some reason the response of the professor was to accuse Christians of bloodshed.  I guess it makes sense to him.  

In the response the reader will notice some very grandiose statements. No, I did not forget to take my meds before writing. I'm merely adopting Nietzsche's words for fun.

I proudly continue my 40 year tradition of tweeking teachers. It keeps life interesting.]

Professor:

I don't recall you asking the question about the people killed, tortured, and maimed in the name of Christ. However I will gladly respond.

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight” (John 18:36) There is no verse in the New Testament in which Christians are told to be violent. Nor is this idea ever implied.

The only possible exception is found in Matthew 10. There Jesus says, “Do not think I have come to bring peace to earth, but a sword”. But even with this, the surrounding verses demonstrate that Jesus is speaking metaphorically.

I know of no one who seriously contends that Jesus advocated violence of any kind toward others. But I suspect you know I am correct on this. I note the actual question you ask: “How many have been killed...*in the name of Christ*?” (emphasis added). This is a categorically different from a question which asks, “How many people died because Jesus couldn't think or speak clearly?”

To your credit, you have not insinuated that Jesus was a poor communicator. You have simply pointed out a historical reality: Evil things have been done by those who “claim” his name as justification for their actions. People claim all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean all claims are valid.

What I am doing is far more audacious than you. I assert that Nietzsche can be correctly understood to be advocating real violence against real people. Multiplying the magnitude of my offense, I argue that such a will to power is portrayed by Nietzsche to be a 'moral' act in a universe which has no God. To Nietzsche, life is survival of the fittest, and that's all. “Ecce Homo!”

Yet I must temper and qualify my claim. While brazen and audacious, I am not ignoring the testimony of experts. Because I am so wise, I accept the argument of expert after expert about how poor “Little Jesus” Nietzsche was simply misunderstood.

“Why, he wasn't actually intending for people to get hurt or die!” cry the experts.

“That's a gross misunderstanding by people who didn't read the whole thing!” bemoan the apologists.

And thus the magnanimity of my great soul! Being the fair and humble learner that I am, I genuinely accept their protests: Poor little Freddie is simply a tortured soul who just can't seem to catch a break. Thug after thug, despot after despot continue tofind inspiration, solace, and justification for the evil they unleash upon the world. And its all because our poor dear Frederich is simply misunderstood. The poor thing!

It is this understanding which brings me down from my lofty heights and removes my tongue from my cheek and lays it back down where it belongs. And now I ask one simple, innocent question:

“If Nietzsche is so widely misunderstood, then why would we want to emulate him as writers?”

Before saying 'good night', there is one more tasty little observation that is too good for me to keep to myself: I can't think of a great work of mercy, compassion, or love which has been performed in Nietzsche's memory or in the memory of his faithful disciples.

This observation leads to another: People who read and comprehend Jesus' words are motivated to heal the sick, help the weak, and love the unlovely. In doing so, they make the world a better place. In contrast, a fair reading of Nietzsche's words leads people to get rid of the sick, weak, and undesirable to make more room for the strong.

Again I ask: Some people love their neighbors, others kill them. Which do you prefer?