Nietzsche’s Coming God by Abir Taha

I have had the pleasure of reading Nietzsche’s Coming God – Or the Redemption of the Divine by Abir Taha. Below are some interesting insights found in the book.

Nietzsche & Nihilism

In the introduction, the author deals with one of the most common misconceptions about Nietzsche. Namely, the false belief that he was a proponent of nihilism. Rather, Nietzsche saw nihilism as but a transitory phase on the way to the creation of the Übermensch (the Overman or Superman).

The Death of God

Another common misconception about Nietzsche is that he was an atheist. The author notes the following:

‘Nietzsche considered that the death of God was not an end but merely the death of a god, the god of “monotono-theism,” as he liked to describe it/…/
I argue that, in the final analysis, Nietzsche’s spiritual atheism was merely a prelude to a spiritual rebirth, to the advent of the Superman as the incarnation of the new mode of divinity.
Thus, the death of God for Nietzsche is only a “moment” in evolution and in history, and not a fatal end, given that it is only the death of a god, not the divine.’

Abir Taha – Nietzsche’s Coming God. Page 9.

Thus, one could say that Nietzsche heralded the death of Yahweh – i.e. the Christian God – as opposed to the death of what Pagans mean by God. It was, as stated in the quote above, not the death of the divine. The emphasis in the quote is on “a” god. In a later passage the author says that Nietzsche’s refusal to believe in a transcendental God in no way denies that God does exist (God being immanent and accessible to man through inner mystical experience). She concludes that it is reasonable to call Nietzsche a Pagan – not an atheist.

Immanent God of Paganism

The author discusses the Immanent God of Paganism (i.e. the belief that God is here and now and in everything) and the Transcendent Christian God (i.e. God in Heaven, in a realm beyond this life). Reading this reminded me of a passage in Temple of the Cosmos by Jeremy Naydler – as I noted in my review of that book, the Egyptians never worshipped idols and idolatry was not an issue. The reason for this is that the concept of an idol was unconceivable for the Egyptian mind – the physical and metaphysical did not have the clear distinction as they would come to have in later centuries. The concept of an idol was introduced by the Israelites.

On a related note, I made a video titled How Connected to God Are You? on a similar matter a while back.

Christ vs Paul

According to Nietzsche, Jesus taught that God can be found within. The author shares the following insight:

‘Thus, Nietzsche believed that Christianity, which represents the degeneration of the vital values and virtues of Hindus and Greeks, was unworthy of its founder Jesus, whom he perceived as a free spirit preaching the mystical doctrine of the “Kingdom of Heaven in us.” Indeed, Nietzsche saw in Jesus a rebel against the Pharisees, against the Jewish priests’ dogmatic and narrow spirit, those same priests who, through Paul, have deformed Christ’s life-affirming doctrine which was destined for free and higher spirits.”

Abir Taha – Nietzsche’s Coming God. Page 16.

She goes on to note that Nietzsche blames Paul for distorting the original teaching of Jesus into a rigid, ritualistic, superstitious, and transcendental dogma. To summarise, Nietzsche approved of the mystical and life-affirming message of Jesus (i.e. that God can be found within us – here and now) and disapproved of Paul’s transformation of the message (i.e. making God transcendent – not available here and now, but in the after-life).

‘It was the Church’s distortion of Christ’s original message (in order to enslave the masses by imposing the “virtues” of submission and humility on them) which, by transforming this inner state of mind and experience into a “Kingdom of God in Heaven,” heralded the break between Christianity and Christ’s original teaching.’

Abir Taha – Nietzsche’s Coming God. Page 18.

On a personal note, I know too little about Christ and Paul to comment on it. I am sure there are knowledgeable Christians who have a different view of the matter than Nietzsche. I will seek further understanding regarding this.

Pictured below: Nietzsche’s Blond Beast. On a similar note, I made a video titled Nietzsche and the Gym: The Path to the Overman a while back.

My Disagreement With Nietzsche

The author notes that for Nietzsche, good is everything that proceeds from (and increases) power. What is bad, in his view, is what is weak. According to this morality, an action acquires its value by whether or not it increases power (and hence to spiritual progress and the self-overcoming of man) as opposed to whether the action is intrinsically good or evil.

I will return to this topic at a later time, as it deserves and requires greater elaboration. What I can say for now is that I do not necessarily agree with Nietzsche regarding this take on morality. Perhaps the child sacrifice of the Carthaginians lent them power? Thus rendering their action ‘good’ and not evil. I would say that their action was indeed evil – and that the Romans (bearers of the Aryan light and morality) were right in destroying Carthage utterly.

Nietzsche’s Zarathustra & the Historical Zarathustra

Since I recently reviewed Original Magic Magic Stephen Flowers, I thought it would be relevant to note that Nietzsche ‘corrected’ the duality of the historical Zarathustra. The new Zarathustra (i.e. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra) is the prophet of a new religion which transcends morality (as power is beyond morality). So, for the sake of clarity, it can be good to make the distinction between the historical Zarathustra (Zoroaster) and Nietzsche’s prophet.

Conclusion

Nietzsche’s Coming God has 103 pages, but every page is full of valuable knowledge. I thoroughly enjoyed it; I would even say that it is the best book I have read in quite a while. The author explains Nietzsche’s views in a good way. Upon reading her book, I felt an urge to re-read some of the Nietzsche books I have in my library. Great stuff. Onwards!