ave done
anything superfluous? Man _could_ not find out for himself what was good
and what was evil, so God taught him His will.... Moral: the priest does
_not_ lie--the question, "true" or "untrue," has nothing to do with such
things as the priest discusses; it is impossible to lie about these
things. In order to lie here it would be necessary to know _what_ is
true. But this is more than man _can_ know; therefore, the priest is
simply the mouthpiece of God.--Such a priestly syllogism
is by no means merely Jewish and Christian; the right to lie and the
_shrewd dodge_ of "revelation" belong to the general priestly type--to
the priest of the _decadence_ as well as to the priest of pagan times
(--Pagans are all those who say yes to life, and to whom "God" is a word
signifying acquiescence in all things).--The "law," the "will of God,"
the "holy book," and "inspiration"--all these things are merely words
for the conditions _under_ which the priest comes to power and _with_
which he maintains his power,--these concepts are to be found at the
bottom of all priestly organizations, and of all priestly or
priestly-philosophical schemes of governments. The "holy lie"--common
alike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the
Christian church--is not even wanting in Plato. "Truth is here": this
means, no matter where it is heard, _the priest lies_....

[27] The aphorism, which is headed "The Enemies of Truth," makes the
direct statement: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than
lies."

[28] A reference, of course, to Kant's "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft"
(Critique of Practical Reason).

56.

--In the last analysis it comes to this: what is the _end_ of lying? The
fact that, in Christianity, "holy" ends are not visible is _my_
objection to the means it employs. Only _bad_ ends appear: the
poisoning, the calumniation, the denial of life, the despising of the
body, the degradation and self-contamination of man by the concept of
sin--_therefore_, its means are also bad.--I have a contrary feeling
when I read the Code of Manu, an incomparably more intellectual and
superior work, which it would be a sin against the _intelligence_ to so
much as _name_ in the same breath with the Bible. It is easy to see why:
there is a genuine philosophy behind it, _in_ it, not merely an
evil-smelling mess of Jewish rabbinism and superstition,--it gives even
the most fastidious psychologist something to sink his teeth