Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Endovelico »

Ibrahim wrote:
Endovelico wrote:But one should be careful about accusing Christians of torture and murder, when one has such horrifying examples in one's own history...

Why would this even be relevant? And who would be allowed to say anything about anything under this dubious system?
One should criticize actions and their direct agents, not the cultural environment in which those agents live. You, of all people, should realize that. Mind you, I am equally to blame. I often attack Frau Merkel as a German, and not as the durian she is and her idiotic policies, which can only remotely be associated to her being German.
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Taboo »

Dioscuri wrote:
Taboo wrote: I am more than happy to agree that for most of its history and for most Christians alive today, Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recorded in the New Testament. It is not for nothing that Dostoevsky wrote the parable of the Grand Inquisitor...
May we ask, for what that is not nothing, was it written?
It's like a haiku, can be read in so many ways. It's fun, you should try it.

Anti-Establishment (old style): The Church worships Satan!
Anti-Establishment (Libertarian): All institutions are eventually corrupted by the weight of their bureaucracy, so any genuine expression of faith must be at the individual not collective level.
Dostoyevsky: I just found this passage while reading Don Carlos, thought it was cool, plus it filled a bunch of pages. Cha-ching!
Gender-queer theory: To provide a backdrop for homosexual kissing.
Muslim: What was the prophet Isa doing in al-Andalus anyway? We did not expect him for a while yet.
Nietzschean: The will to power in humans is juxtaposed against the flimsy tattered illusions of the slave-religion.
WarHammer 40,000: genuflect yeah!
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Parodite »

Torchwood wrote:Beautiful is not the good - just look at the Italian renaissance, the high point of Western visual art, when you could literally get away with murder as long as you did it with style.
Could have been paralel and mostly disconnected tracks. Unless those artists and the people enjoying had secret Dexter-like lives..
But far more evil has been generated by deeply moral persons with a flawed morality, who thought it was crucial for the good of all to burn heretics, keep slaves, women and the lower orders in their place, eliminate the bourgeois, slay the infidel - and kill Jews. Zealous intolerant morality does of course have some Abrahamic roots...
My feeling is that it more has socio-biological roots since expelling, killing the unadapted, misfits, otherners, revolutionaries... is of all societies. With the separation of powers this seems to become manageable.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Sneaky Pete?

Post by Marcus »

Taboo wrote:So you are claiming that the leaders of the inquisition, who spent their days torturing women, were not "true Christians"?

From Augustine onward, and with a special emphasis in Thomas Aquinas, we have the clear statement that forcing people into accepting Christianity is a good thing. Aquinas agrees that heretics should be killed, if they refuse to recant. As far as I recall, they are both considered Christian saints. If saints are not true Christians, then I guess there are no true Christians. Yet these saints advocated the torture and murder of human beings on the basis of their accepting or not accepting the dogma of Christianity.

Perhaps you wish to revise your previous statement?
Taboo wrote:
Marcus wrote:I assume you mean my statement that "devout Christian sociopath" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, an impossibility? Revise it? Not at all . . why would I?

I have no way of knowing what was in the hearts of the Inquisitors and no way of judging the morals and ethics of past ages. What have such things to do with sociopathy? They were what they were in terms of the times in which they lived:

"New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth; . ."

Marcus, I thought that one of the hallowed advantages of being a Christian was the belief in the existence of an immutable divinely ordained set of morals and ethics, more durable and unchanging than even Pharaoh Akhenaten's granite coffin. My knowledge of Christianity is a bit hazy, admittedly, but I thought there were some stone slabs or something with things like "Killing people is BAD" written on them, weren't there? How can you possibly say that you have "no way of judging the morals and ethics of past ages" especially since we're talking about fellow Christians?

Do your fundamental Truths change a lot that way?

We all know what a sociopath is—a person with no social conscience—and such a condition is an impossibility for a devout Christian* individual.
  • *You understand that I am differentiating between a nominal Christian and a genuine Christian:
    "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." —St. Paul

Yes, I understand perfectly, and I gave you literal examples of devout people, so devout that they were sanctified and are revered many centuries later, who advocated the killing of people on the basis of what they thought. Was Martin Luther not a devout Christian? He surely was. Yet he wrote the infamous "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen"

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ...
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV (Fortress Press, 1971)

So, either advocating something close to genocide is not a marker of sociopathy, or Church Fathers like Luther were not devout enough. Which is it?


So what's up, Taboo, you pulling our collective leg? You claim a "hazy" knowledge of Christianity yet you reference Augustine, Aquinas, and quote Luther?

If you have a point, define your terms, make your claim, and we can go from there.

My assertion stands: A "devout Christian sociopath" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and an impossibility. Now if you'd like to assert otherwise, just come out and say it instead of asking me all these trick questions. I can and will reply but only if and when you make a clear statement of what point you're trying to make.

Fair enough? . . . . ;)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sneaky Pete?

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:My assertion stands: A "devout Christian sociopath" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and an impossibility.
This is what Spengler actually wrote (my bold):

"Don Juan exists to prove by construction that a devout Christian can be a sociopath, and by extension, that the Christian world can be ruled by sociopaths."

Obviously meaning that outward devout behavior can merely disguise the sociopath. Same way a "devout Catholic priest" can be a child molester.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sneaky Pete?

Post by Taboo »

Marcus wrote:So what's up, Taboo, you pulling our collective leg? You claim a "hazy" knowledge of Christianity yet you reference Augustine, Aquinas, and quote Luther?

If you have a point, define your terms, make your claim, and we can go from there.
My point is simple: if you look at observable Christian practice, you can't distinguish between a sociopathic Torquemada/Aquinas and a saint. In fact, a bunch of sociopaths (that advocate murder) have been raised to saint or near-saint levels by Christians. All of these men acted very devoutly, lived nice ascetic lives and did everything that the canon demanded.
My assertion stands: A "devout Christian sociopath" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and an impossibility. Now if you'd like to assert otherwise, just come out and say it instead of asking me all these trick questions. I can and will reply but only if and when you make a clear statement of what point you're trying to make.

Fair enough? . . . . ;)
These are no trick questions - they are called examples. If you are factually wrong, and there are examples of outwardly devout Christians that incited murder, I can prove you wrong by pointing them out.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Hazy knowledge indeed!

Post by Marcus »

Taboo wrote:My point is simple: if you look at observable Christian practice, you can't distinguish between a sociopathic Torquemada/Aquinas and a saint. . . These are no trick questions - they are called examples. If you are factually wrong, and there are examples of outwardly devout Christians that incited murder, I can prove you wrong by pointing them out.

Ah, thank you, that's much better . . nice to get things out in the open . . ;)

You are, however, wrong on two counts:

1) None of your examples fit the definition of sociopath: "a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience . . "

2) None of your examples fit the definition of murder: "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human . . "

Parodite wrote:This is what Spengler actually wrote (my bold):

"Don Juan exists to prove by construction that a devout Christian can be a sociopath, and by extension, that the Christian world can be ruled by sociopaths."

Obviously meaning that outward devout behavior can merely disguise the sociopath. Same way a "devout Catholic priest" can be a child molester.


And Goldman is wrong. A devout Christian cannot be a sociopath—period! But, yes, devout behavior can disguise a sociopath. Goldman should read the New Testament:
A person is not a Jew [Christian] who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew [Christian] who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, . . .
Goldman hasn't a clue as to what constitutes a Christian, but how could he . . he's an outsider.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Taboo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Taboo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:19th century Romanticism.
Itself a nefarious and poisonous counter-reaction to the perceived rainbow unweaving of the Enlightenment.
Why "nefarious and poisonous?"
The answer is too complicated for a short post, yet I have no patience for a longer reply, so this will have to do, with apologies for oversimplification:

Partially because that proud rejection of reason in favor of emotion (lauded as more genuine and more alive somehow) is the root-seed from which other truly poisonous weeds grew out. Perhaps it is just me, but I see a direct link between romanticist exaltation of an imagined Teutonic past (and deprecation of rationality and Christian mercy as alien concepts), and notions of group superiority that eventually lead to National Socialism's triumph in Germany.
So basically you think Goethe eventually leads to Hitler, by way of Wagner. Or were there other poisonous weeds you wanted to mention?

I don't see how romanticizing emotion over reason is necessarily hostile to Christianity. The appeal of "Christian mercy" is as emotional as it is rational, if not more so.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Taboo wrote:So you are claiming that the leaders of the inquisition, who spent their days torturing women, were not "true Christians"?

From Augustine onward, and with a special emphasis in Thomas Aquinas, we have the clear statement that forcing people into accepting Christianity is a good thing. Aquinas agrees that heretics should be killed, if they refuse to recant. As far as I recall, they are both considered Christian saints. If saints are not true Christians, then I guess there are no true Christians. Yet these saints advocated the torture and murder of human beings on the basis of their accepting or not accepting the dogma of Christianity.

Perhaps you wish to revise your previous statement?
Actually, they may be the perfect example of "true bureaucrats" or "true administrators", something we suffer from to this day. :)

As for saints, "Saints" are chosen as examples of certain heroic virtues displayed in their life, mostly done by the communities themselves (which is why the Eastern Church regard Constantine as a saint). They are in no way more greater "true Christians" than those unnamed who persevere in holiness with the grace God has given them. (Perhaps, many of them less so.)

Anyone baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has a Christian claim but only God judges who and who wasn't true to his or her calling. Oh, and if you are going to drag up the inquisitions- perhaps we should get into numbers and context, because your narrative is weak by reducing 2000 years of history and the confusion of synchronizing Aquinas, Augustine, Luther and the Inquisition together is bizarre.

Perhaps you should have stuck to saying that your knowledge of Christianity is hazy. ;)
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . your narrative is weak by reducing 2000 years of history and the confusion of synchronizing Aquinas, Augustine, Luther and the Inquisition together is bizarre.

Perhaps you should have stuck to saying that your knowledge of Christianity is hazy. ;)
The only thing he missed was the burning of Servetus in Geneva . . :oops:
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Taboo wrote:So you are claiming that the leaders of the inquisition, who spent their days torturing women, were not "true Christians"?

From Augustine onward, and with a special emphasis in Thomas Aquinas, we have the clear statement that forcing people into accepting Christianity is a good thing. Aquinas agrees that heretics should be killed, if they refuse to recant. As far as I recall, they are both considered Christian saints. If saints are not true Christians, then I guess there are no true Christians. Yet these saints advocated the torture and murder of human beings on the basis of their accepting or not accepting the dogma of Christianity.

Perhaps you wish to revise your previous statement?
Aquinas is an interesting case because he grew up experiencing the troubles of Emperor Fredrick II- his brothers were intimately involved in the failed overthrow of the Emperor. This was also a period of time where open rebellion of whole communities threatened the political stability of several kingdoms in the Mediterranean. It also should be noted that Aquinas was a bit of an integralist [though the term is anachronistic and doesn't exactly apply to him] and most of his writings dealt with how to integrate God's Law with the customary law. This is where his criticism of Aristotle comes to the fore. Should it be a surprise that a gentleman who was well versed in Aristotle's warning that civil war was the greatest of evils, suggested that heretics not be given quarter?

Notice however, that heretic is not a category he applies to all non-believers and whether they accept the Christian dogma. By heretic, Aquinas meant a person of Catholic faith who deliberately and resolutely, even after having been called to reflect on the matter, has chosen to renounce that faith in some important particular. Aquinas points out that the word heresy comes from the Greek word for choice. Heresy for him is not a mistake of the intellect but a choice of the will. It is a choice of adherence to a proposition, or set of propositions, known by the chooser to contradict the Catholic faith. It is a choice to cut oneself off from communion in the Catholic faith, to put oneself in a sect-a thing cut off.

This cutting off, was extremely volatile in an age where societies had little else but kinship and religion to bind them. Heresy was not only a person's private judgement but treason against the King and a state issue. We can see the result of challenging these ties by what happened during the Reformation, where civil war swept all of Europe and mass political killings finally occurred. The most "violent" period of Christianity happened between 1600 and 1800 for this reason. Most of these "witch-burnings" "violent inquisitions" and their ilk happened when the secular ties of these societies were dissolved when they could no longer shared a common religion between their patriarchs. This position doesn't make as much sense in today's world where the cultus is not the center of civil society. It doesn't make sense though to judge a concern one way of ordering governance by the standards used in a different governing order.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Ibrahim wrote:I think Spengler is correct in identifying a "loophole" in Catholic doctrine, I only mock him because everybody has already thought of it long before Don Juan. French and Italian Priests had not only recognized it but actually monetized it by the Middle Ages.

In theory, you can do whatever evil thing you like and then "repent" at a later time. I think the doctrine of many Christian churches supports that. Of course would it work? I think the spirit of the law might triumph over the letter of the law in this instance. To use this "loophole" as a critique of Christianity as a religion is as crude as some of the attacks against Islam that I've dealt with on these various forums.

That Spengler thinks it's a) a Jewish idea, and b) that it's actually very clever, is just too precious.
This is a rather bigoted thing to say. It reduced mercy, forgiveness and perseverance trivialized as a "get out of jail free card."

Though I can imagine plenty of Christians who practice as such; I can't think of a community Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant who has encouraged this practice.

For all your bellyaching and defensiveness about the bigotry you face, you are a very quick to dole out some really ignorant things, and I am starting to be informed by this sort of hypocrisy.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: More obscurities . . .

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Marcus wrote:Another comment from "over there":
The Christian confession doesn't require enough from the faithful to require him to be good, to do what is right and just and to let His Will influence everything he thinks and does. Contrast this to the Jewish confession.......no?........

The great chain of being, (scala naturae) with the divine right of kings as the first link may have provided the common people of Europe a constant reminder of G_d's presence, but Francisco Suárez sundered that and replaced it with - I'm not sure. Anyway, this illustrates the difficulty that Christendom has with modernism, something our spengler drills us on.....'>.......

Now, what does one do with that maedieval monstrosity, other than have it put restraint upon the motives and actions of the powerful and well connected and encourage a subconscious movement towards personal responsibility and improvement in everyone else?.........

Instead, we have this?.........
First, I have no idea what "Christian confession" this person is talking about, but they are not talking about any of the confessions that came out of the Reformation.

Second, the "great chain of being" is a Greek notion, not Christian except possibly in the writings of St. Thomas. Reformed Christianity thoroughly rejects any such notion.

Third, what is meant by Christendom's "difficulty" with modernism. Maybe the writer will explain? The Christianity with which I'm familiar has no problem with modernism.

Fourth, what is "that medieval monstrosity"?
I think of the "great chain of being" as being Christian and it was rather that Greek furnished a convenient series of concepts and a technical vocabulary. It should be remembered that we have St John the Divine a good century before Plotinus, who supposedly founded the NeoPlatonic School. Just because Christianity shares beliefs with greek philosophy doesn't mean that the latter influenced the former. Two people may come up with the same answer because one copied the other, or, it may be, because it is the right answer.

But the real division comes between those who wish to integrate God's Law into the law of the land; and those, who follow Augustine (or Luther) in their "Two Kingdoms" separation with the confident understanding that God will gather to Him whom He wills despite the law of the land. I agree that this Augustinian-view is much more prominent among the Reformers, though I can think of prominent counterexamples.

As for sociopathic Christians. there is something to be heeded in the words of Christ when he says that he has brought forth a sword and he will divide father and son, mother and daughter. There is an inherent instability that Judaism, being both a religious and national identity, cannot handle. If the princes of this world are meant for Satan, what business is it of the Christians to make sure these kingdoms extend perpetually? When our nations die (or when we die) we are reminded that such things aren't immortal or that man's order isn't divinely inspired; we are to be the children of Abraham raised from stones and set aside from our nations. Which is why this whole sociopath-altruist spectrum doesn't make much sense before a reduction to individuated individuals and the acceptance that your "world" is not everlasting...

I think that is a very uncomfortable notion for a Jewish man or woman to consent to, and the Christian man or woman must suffer with.

So a Don Juan, a Christian sociopath may be an instrument while the Lamb winds down the world to weeping. But I am unsure such a Christian could be thought of as "good" as far as we are aware of the judgments of God. He is more of a revealing (a warning) of what man looks like when he has not God and the foundations of his nation are crumbling underneath him. What Spengler does is confuse this as someone's ability to repent as being analogous with a conviction of obedient repentance. Though this is a highly contested area among Christians of all denominations (and even within denominations,) presumption of forgiveness seems broadly condemned. We could never judge whether Don Juan has an actual change of heart, but he couldn't even claim a willingness to repent for fear of damnation because he spent his life as if he sat in judgment of the Being whom he'd later ask forgiveness. There is an vitiating point by living such a life where the God Don Juan prays to is nothing but his own image indurated in his mind, and there is no seeking salvation in that.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Sun May 13, 2012 5:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:I think Spengler is correct in identifying a "loophole" in Catholic doctrine, I only mock him because everybody has already thought of it long before Don Juan. French and Italian Priests had not only recognized it but actually monetized it by the Middle Ages.

In theory, you can do whatever evil thing you like and then "repent" at a later time. I think the doctrine of many Christian churches supports that. Of course would it work? I think the spirit of the law might triumph over the letter of the law in this instance. To use this "loophole" as a critique of Christianity as a religion is as crude as some of the attacks against Islam that I've dealt with on these various forums.

That Spengler thinks it's a) a Jewish idea, and b) that it's actually very clever, is just too precious.
This is a rather bigoted thing to say. It reduced mercy, forgiveness and perseverance trivialized as a "get out of jail free card."

Though I can imagine plenty of Christians who practice as such; I can't think of a community Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant who has encouraged this practice.

For all your bellyaching and defensiveness about the bigotry you face, you are a very quick to dole out some really ignorant things, and I am starting to be informed by this sort of hypocrisy.

There is no justification for this false ad hominem in my comments on this subject. If anything you should be angry at Spengler, whose position I am summarizing.

Moreover, if anyone cannot sincerely repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness at any time, no matter what they have done previously, please explain why. If I am (or Spengler is) wrong about this aspect of Christianity then say so. Don't fraudulently scream that I'm a bigot and a hypocrite. I'm not spreading malicious propaganda, I'm literally saying "Jesus saves."
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Ibrahim wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:I think Spengler is correct in identifying a "loophole" in Catholic doctrine, I only mock him because everybody has already thought of it long before Don Juan. French and Italian Priests had not only recognized it but actually monetized it by the Middle Ages.

In theory, you can do whatever evil thing you like and then "repent" at a later time. I think the doctrine of many Christian churches supports that. Of course would it work? I think the spirit of the law might triumph over the letter of the law in this instance. To use this "loophole" as a critique of Christianity as a religion is as crude as some of the attacks against Islam that I've dealt with on these various forums.

That Spengler thinks it's a) a Jewish idea, and b) that it's actually very clever, is just too precious.
This is a rather bigoted thing to say. It reduced mercy, forgiveness and perseverance trivialized as a "get out of jail free card."

Though I can imagine plenty of Christians who practice as such; I can't think of a community Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant who has encouraged this practice.

For all your bellyaching and defensiveness about the bigotry you face, you are a very quick to dole out some really ignorant things, and I am starting to be informed by this sort of hypocrisy.

There is no justification for this false ad hominem in my comments on this subject. If anything you should be angry at Spengler, whose position I am summarizing.

Moreover, if anyone cannot sincerely repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness at any time, no matter what they have done previously, please explain why. If I am (or Spengler is) wrong about this aspect of Christianity then say so. Don't fraudulently scream that I'm a bigot and a hypocrite. I'm not spreading malicious propaganda, I'm literally saying "Jesus saves."
Christian forgiveness typically requires not only repentance, but also actively correcting the wrong as much as possible and a sincere effort and desire to not repeat the sin. The Roman Catholic tradition often requires absolution by a priest as well.

Ibrahim is not exactly right, but there are many Christians who have the same incomplete conception of forgiveness he does. Accepting admission without contrition happens every day, and Roman Catholicism has reinstated the practice of selling indulgences. Ibrahim's statement is merely incomplete.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: More obscurities . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . what business is it of the Christians to make sure these kingdoms extend perpetually? When our nations die (or when we die) we are reminded that such things aren't immortal or that man's order isn't divinely inspired; we are to be the children of Abraham raised from stones and set aside from our nations. . .
"All men are born into some particular bond of loyalty to family, race, country. But all finite forms must die,...

"A myth is a form of mental life which pretends to be deathless; its kernel is alway a fixing of the mind on some transient thing which thereby is immortalized. Nothing on earth is good or forever. The myth pretends it to be. In this pagan fragmentation of mankind by myths every community was enclosed in a private time and space....

"Christianity came into a world of divided loyalties -- races, classes, tribes, nations, empires, all living to themselves alone. It did not simply erase these loyalties; that would have plunged men into nihilism and cancelled the previous work of creation, and Jesus came not to deny but to fulfill. Rather, by its gift of a real future, Christianity implanted in the very midst of men's loyalties a power, which, reaching back from the end of time, drew them step by step into unity."

—Rosenstock-Huessy, from The Christian Future
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Christian forgiveness typically requires not only repentance, but also actively correcting the wrong as much as possible and a sincere effort and desire to not repeat the sin. The Roman Catholic tradition often requires absolution by a priest as well.
I agree with all of this. As I think I said earlier, Don Juan's cynical plan would not "work" under this system, but if he sincerely repented at a later point, he could still seek absolution.

Ibrahim is not exactly right, but there are many Christians who have the same incomplete conception of forgiveness he does. Accepting admission without contrition happens every day, and Roman Catholicism has reinstated the practice of selling indulgences. Ibrahim's statement is merely incomplete.
Did they really resume selling indulgences?! I'm surprised that didn't make a bigger splash in religious news circles.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

I'm not sure why indulgences are being brought up. They never went anyway and they certainly aren't being sold.

So what does reinstated even supposed to mean?
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:We could never judge whether Don Juan has an actual change of heart, but he couldn't even claim a willingness to repent for fear of damnation because he spent his life as if he sat in judgment of the Being whom he'd later ask forgiveness. There is an vitiating point by living such a life where the God Don Juan prays to is nothing but his own image indurated in his mind, and there is no seeking salvation in that.
Very good post, sir. Few I've read on any thread as excellent.....;)...........

I think the misconception of what G_d's judgment is gets to the heart of the matter. Mistaken beliefs aside, G_d's judgment is not a culling. G_d is not Anubis weighing a heart against the Feather of Truth, putting the blessed on the 'good pile' and throwing the damned into the midden heap. In the end, the soul finds its disposition and G_d gives it what it seeks. Without this distinction there would be no Israel and no need for Moses to lead his people from the land of Pharaoh. The message of Don Giovanni is simple - the soul is what it is, the soul is true, and G_d leads it to the home it seeks. And the Reformation took this simple message and mucked it up - well done......
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:I think the misconception of what G_d's judgment is gets to the heart of the matter. Mistaken beliefs aside, G_d's judgment is not a culling. G_d is not Anubis weighing a heart against the Feather of Truth, putting the blessed on the 'good pile' and throwing the damned into the midden heap.
Most conventional interpretations of Christianity would say this this is exactly what happens (well, without the Anubis part). The difference with Christianity is that it's easier to place yourself in the "good" pile.



The message of Don Giovanni is simple - the soul is what it is, the soul is true, and G_d leads it to the home it seeks. And the Reformation took this simple message and mucked it up - well done......
I see it as more of a non serviam thing.
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

Ibrahim wrote:Most conventional interpretations of Christianity would say this this is exactly what happens (well, without the Anubis part). The difference with Christianity is that it's easier to place yourself in the "good" pile.
And all good pagans think that, too. If all Judaism, and Christianity afterwards is an Egyptian eschaton under different paint, what would we need of it?........
Ibrahim wrote:I see it as more of a non serviam thing.
I'd counter that with, "Questo è il fin" .......
The concluding ensemble delivers the moral of the opera – "Such is the end of the evildoer: the death of a sinner always reflects his life" ("Questo è il fin"). In the past, the final ensemble was sometimes omitted by conductors who claimed that the opera should end when the title character dies. However, this approach has not survived, and today's conductors almost always include the finale in its entirety. The return to D major and the innocent simplicity of the last few bars conclude the opera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Giovanni

The metaphor of Il Commendatore as a statue suggests that Giovanni has left the notion behind that other human beings are as 'real' as he is in other words, he's a classic psychopath. Because human beings are a means to him and not ends, he becomes habituated to that mode of being and the Lake of Fire becomes the one place that is fit for him. Something like that....
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Hazy knowledge indeed!

Post by Taboo »

Marcus wrote:
Taboo wrote:My point is simple: if you look at observable Christian practice, you can't distinguish between a sociopathic Torquemada/Aquinas and a saint. . . These are no trick questions - they are called examples. If you are factually wrong, and there are examples of outwardly devout Christians that incited murder, I can prove you wrong by pointing them out.

Ah, thank you, that's much better . . nice to get things out in the open . . ;)

You are, however, wrong on two counts:

1) None of your examples fit the definition of sociopath: "a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience . . "

2) None of your examples fit the definition of murder: "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human . . "
By that glorious definition, not even Stalin, the greatest murderer of all times, can be called what he is, because he, like the Inquisitors in question, got the privilege of making the law... :lol:
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Taboo »

Oh, and if you are going to drag up the inquisitions- perhaps we should get into numbers and context, because your narrative is weak by reducing 2000 years of history and the confusion of synchronizing Aquinas, Augustine, Luther and the Inquisition together is bizarre.
Who is synchronizing? My point was that three of the most influential Christians seem particularly prone to inciting the murder of dissenting others, making it a long-established phenomenon spanning more than a millennia of Christianity, and several different Christian religious traditions. Apparently, the sight of the forest was blocked off by the trees for you.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Aquinas is an interesting case because he grew up experiencing the troubles of Emperor Fredrick II- his brothers were intimately involved in the failed overthrow of the Emperor. This was also a period of time where open rebellion of whole communities threatened the political stability of several kingdoms in the Mediterranean. It also should be noted that Aquinas was a bit of an integralist [though the term is anachronistic and doesn't exactly apply to him] and most of his writings dealt with how to integrate God's Law with the customary law. This is where his criticism of Aristotle comes to the fore. Should it be a surprise that a gentleman who was well versed in Aristotle's warning that civil war was the greatest of evils, suggested that heretics not be given quarter?
The modern "tough childhood" excuse, repackaged? Killing heretics was ok at the time, then? My bad, I had foolishly assumed that killing people simply for believing what they thought was true was universally wrong.
Notice however, that heretic is not a category he applies to all non-believers and whether they accept the Christian dogma. By heretic, Aquinas meant a person of Catholic faith who deliberately and resolutely, even after having been called to reflect on the matter, has chosen to renounce that faith in some important particular. Aquinas points out that the word heresy comes from the Greek word for choice. Heresy for him is not a mistake of the intellect but a choice of the will. It is a choice of adherence to a proposition, or set of propositions, known by the chooser to contradict the Catholic faith. It is a choice to cut oneself off from communion in the Catholic faith, to put oneself in a sect-a thing cut off.
Ok, he only wants to kill straying Catholics, just like some Sunni clerics "only" want "apostate" Sunnis killed. So? Is everything ok then?
This cutting off, was extremely volatile in an age where societies had little else but kinship and religion to bind them. Heresy was not only a person's private judgement but treason against the King and a state issue. We can see the result of challenging these ties by what happened during the Reformation, where civil war swept all of Europe and mass political killings finally occurred. The most "violent" period of Christianity happened between 1600 and 1800 for this reason. Most of these "witch-burnings" "violent inquisitions" and their ilk happened when the secular ties of these societies were dissolved when they could no longer shared a common religion between their patriarchs. This position doesn't make as much sense in today's world where the cultus is not the center of civil society. It doesn't make sense though to judge a concern one way of ordering governance by the standards used in a different governing order.
It is rather amusing too see people going through these amazing mental contortions to justify murder, or incitement to murder. It is almost as amusing as it is to historically track the Christian attitude towards how religious minorities should be treated. Justin Martyr and the like (back when Christianity was a minority religion) were all about toleration and about how diversity and open dialogue were wonderful. Funny how the attitude shifted when they became the top dog towards murdering dissenters (throwing away the bad apple, so that the barrel be spared corruption, etc).
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I'm not sure why indulgences are being brought up. They never went anyway and they certainly aren't being sold.
They're baaacckkk.. . .. .
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

New to me . . .

Post by Marcus »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:. . the soul finds its disposition and G_d gives it what it seeks. . . the soul is what it is, the soul is true, and G_d leads it to the home it seeks......
Lizz, I'd like to understand your "interpretation" here so I can also understand how the Reformation "mucked" it up. Can you refer me to articles, parts of the Roman Catholic Catechism/Magisterium, or some authors for further understanding?

I'm assuming your view here is Roman Catholic?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Post Reply