Why I disagree with Nietzsche (partly)

I recently started reading "Beyond Good and Evil" by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and came to a conclusion that I don't quite agree with him.

Friedrich Nietzsche in 1882.GUSTAV-ADOLF SCHULTZE VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Yes, of course, one cannot but agree with Nietzsche on some things, and his idea of ​​Amor Fati (love for fate) is not bad at all, but there is one nuance that repels me in him and his philosophy. On the one hand, Friedrich speaks of the wrong attitude towards life on the part of Schopenhauer and the church. He explains this by saying that they devalue life on earth and turn it into a nightmare (Schopenhauer) or into preparation for something more important than life on earth (heaven and hell - the church). And here you can understand his point of view, but he has similar thoughts about the ancient Greek / ancient Roman philosophy of stoicism. Nietzsche talks about the mistake of the Stoics in devaluing nature and “good and bad” (The Stoics believe that there is neither good nor bad, and everything needs to be looked at neutrally, paying attention only to what we can change, and getting rid of misfortune means uttering it from oneself, and not to avoid it as something external). Nietzsche argues that there is both good and bad in life. Then he therefore refutes Stoicism, because Stoicism says that everything is neutral. But how can one disagree with the fact that everything good and bad is such, only because of a person's conviction about whether something's good or bad and his view on a particular topic? Isn’t it possible to live happily, turning everything bad into good, and not overestimate everything good, but neutrally respect and appreciate it, while maintaining clarity of mind?

However, Nietzsche himself speaks of love for fate (Amor Fati). He says that you need to love everything that happens - both good and bad. But doesn't that then contradict his argument against Stoicism and the way Stoics "devalue" life? Yes, you say, but loving everything that happens does not mean turning everything into neutral. I agree, but how will the result of my actions and fate differ depending on whether I love the bad and turn it into good, or turn the bad into neutral and use it to achieve something new (that is, also turn it into good).

Nietzsche denies, and then speaks of the ambiguity of his own denials.

HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT MY THOUGHTS ARE COMPLETE AND REASONABLE BECAUSE OF MY AGE AND POSSIBLE YET IGNORANCE/NON-ACQUAINTANCE.