Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Demon of Undoing »

Taboo has the right of it. The Golden Rule doesn't have any political or legal footnotes with defenses to prosecution for thus and so. It's all quibbling, or in other words, lying. Not sure why people seem to think they get excused because they act in the name of a state or a sect. There is no basis in scripture for it.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
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.
Don't get me started on the inaccurate and largely meaningless Spengler/Rosenzweig misuse of the term "pagan." Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam all have a "good/bad pile" as you put it, and Judaism has the same sorting process but no real piles. You just get sorted and then nothing happens.

If all Judaism, and Christianity afterwards is an Egyptian eschaton under different paint, what would we need of it?........
The idea is that one is true and another is false, not that they are necessarily so radically different. Spengler's emphaasis on one system being "better" is one of the reasons he's a terrible failure as a theologian.



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....

But Giovanni isn't rejecting life. He wants his life. He's rejecting the authority to judge his life. This is what makes it an Enlightenment work. Giovanni is presented with a sort of "knuckle under or die" choice, and in the mold of Enlightenment and later Romantic heroes, he chooses to die rather than submit. What makes the opera so effective is Mozart's choice to make free-will advocate a jerk, so the decision to reject Divine authority is more ambiguous and we are still talking about it.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Marcus »

Ibrahim wrote:. . Giovanni [is] rejecting the authority to judge his life. This is what makes it an Enlightenment work. Giovanni is presented with a sort of "knuckle under or die" choice, and in the mold of Enlightenment and later Romantic heroes, he chooses to die rather than submit. . .
Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?

The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.”

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

—Psalm 2
"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: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Parodite »

Ok, Luther and other Christian icons were sociopathic because they advocated violence against heretics of sorts. Yes, guilliotine etc also there in the Catholic Dungeons of Wrath. But they did get inspired by the New Testament. Yes, Jesus advocated non-violence, forgiveness etc... but read Revelations and John writes about the rightful punishment, killing, destruction of the entire heretic world by God. Now that begs a certain question...that I don't dare to ask :o 8-)
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote: psalms
The character is rejecting God. Psalms and Bible verses don't provide any insight.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:Ok, Luther and other Christian icons were sociopathic because they advocated violence against heretics of sorts. Yes, guilliotine etc also there in the Catholic Dungeons of Wrath. But they did get inspired by the New Testament. Yes, Jesus advocated non-violence, forgiveness etc... but read Revelations and John writes about the rightful punishment, killing, destruction of the entire heretic world by God. Now that begs a certain question...that I don't dare to ask :o 8-)
Rhap, I don't count such folks as sociopaths simply because none of them lacked a social conscience. True, their conscience may not have been our consciences, but we didn't live during those times, and, if we can't condemn our contemporaries, how much less can we condemn them? As for Revelation, yes, it would seem we are headed for some sort of final separation of wheat from chaff . . too deep for me in the details, but that's not why I'm a Christian anyway.
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote: psalms
The character is rejecting God. Psalms and Bible verses don't provide any insight.
I've got to think otherwise, Ib. The question is not and never has been God himself but rather God's authority to define. Recall the Genesis story: Satan didn't question God's existence, the question was, "Has God said?" The issue is whether God defines good and evil, whether God sets the boundaries, whether God forges the chains and shackles or whether man can define good and evil for himself.

That was and is the great temptation: "you will be like God, knowing good and evil . . ."

As you say, Giovanni is rejecting God's authority to judge his life. Giovanni, it would seem, prefers his own authority.
"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 »

Demon of Undoing wrote:Taboo has the right of it. The Golden Rule doesn't have any political or legal footnotes with defenses to prosecution for thus and so. It's all quibbling, or in other words, lying. Not sure why people seem to think they get excused because they act in the name of a state or a sect. There is no basis in scripture for it.
Romans 13 and the Old Testament where bloodguilt from the innocent was the wage of murder- but the nation kept the right to keep order.

And we still very much operate like this, we just don't do it with injuries against the gods. If you're incredulous, go on, declare yourself free from American taxation because you are your own sovereign. During the "confusion" you might get shot at a whole bunch, trashed in the papers, then if you survive- good luck at that trial where you will be put away for life (and you may get the death penalty if you killed anyone when they came to take you in)....

There are a million examples of this sort of stuff. It is the government keeping order, and I'm pretty sure the Golden Rule applies to individuals and not corporate bodies.

From the Catechism:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


When we live in a world where religion is privatized and not the lynchpin of the public square, it doesn't make much sense or ever comes to a point where national defense and the public order is compromised (which was even more diffuse and fragile in a world where the state didn't have a monopoly on violence.) This is a good thing.

But unless your making a Quarker-ish argument, there are plenty of examples Biblically, historically, philosophically/theologically of communities being allowed to defend the public order- there is no lying or excuses on that point- it is just anachronistic to judge yesterday by today's order.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Mon May 14, 2012 10:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
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.. . .. .
Starting around the last Jubilee, Pope John Paul II re-emphasized the teaching of indulgences, which was a teaching harmed by the confusion after Vatican II; but they didn't go anywhere- as the article itself admits. So they never "went away." And that article really seems to have a tin-ear for theology, which isn't surprising because it is a secular newspaper whose staff probably couldn't tell you the difference between a cross and a crucifix....
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Indulgences . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Starting around the last Jubilee, Pope John Paul II re-emphasized the teaching of indulgences, which was a teaching harmed by the confusion after Vatican II; but they didn't go anywhere- as the article itself admits. So they never "went away." And that article really seems to have a tin-ear for theology, which isn't surprising because it is a secular newspaper whose staff probably couldn't tell you the difference between a cross and a crucifix....
Found this material on an Orthodox Web site . . is it accurate?
Indulgences

Question

The Roman Catholic Pope recently proclaimed “indulgences” as a means to hasten entry into heaven (at least according to what I read in the popular press). Does Orthodoxy share this belief or one similar to it? If not, do you consider this one of several major differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Answer

While this is a complex issue, I will try to offer a clear and concise response.

The Roman Catholic tradition of indulgences dates back several centuries. In essence—and in short!—it was taught that Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints had more “merits” than necessary. As a result, these “extra merits” may be “transferred” to others and, consequently, used toward their salvation. Hence, in this framework, a person who would be expected to spend time in purgatory [the Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory as a “third” or “alternate” state to heaven and hell] may have that time reduced through:

merits received by performing certain acts or prayers to which indulgences are attached, or

having the indulgences applied to the acts or prayers of another person transferred to them

This, according to this line of reasoning, reduces, or, in the case of a “plenary” indulgence, completely eliminates the amount of time one would have to spend in purgatory, during which his or her sins are “purged” in preparation for entrance into heaven.

I apologize for the brevity of this response, but in essence this is the nature of indulgences as seen by Roman Catholicism.

There is no similar concept of indulgences within Orthodox Christianity.
Nor is there any similar concept of indulgences within Protestantism.
"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: Indulgences . . .

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Marcus wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Starting around the last Jubilee, Pope John Paul II re-emphasized the teaching of indulgences, which was a teaching harmed by the confusion after Vatican II; but they didn't go anywhere- as the article itself admits. So they never "went away." And that article really seems to have a tin-ear for theology, which isn't surprising because it is a secular newspaper whose staff probably couldn't tell you the difference between a cross and a crucifix....
Found this material on an Orthodox Web site . . is it accurate?
Indulgences

Question

The Roman Catholic Pope recently proclaimed “indulgences” as a means to hasten entry into heaven (at least according to what I read in the popular press). Does Orthodoxy share this belief or one similar to it? If not, do you consider this one of several major differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Answer

While this is a complex issue, I will try to offer a clear and concise response.

The Roman Catholic tradition of indulgences dates back several centuries. In essence—and in short!—it was taught that Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints had more “merits” than necessary. As a result, these “extra merits” may be “transferred” to others and, consequently, used toward their salvation. Hence, in this framework, a person who would be expected to spend time in purgatory [the Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory as a “third” or “alternate” state to heaven and hell] may have that time reduced through:

merits received by performing certain acts or prayers to which indulgences are attached, or

having the indulgences applied to the acts or prayers of another person transferred to them

This, according to this line of reasoning, reduces, or, in the case of a “plenary” indulgence, completely eliminates the amount of time one would have to spend in purgatory, during which his or her sins are “purged” in preparation for entrance into heaven.

I apologize for the brevity of this response, but in essence this is the nature of indulgences as seen by Roman Catholicism.

There is no similar concept of indulgences within Orthodox Christianity.
Nor is there any similar concept of indulgences within Protestantism.
:roll: Methinks a digression from the topic.

The only two dogmatic points about the doctrine of indulgences according to Trent are:
1) That the Church has the power to grant them.
2) They are spiritually benefical to Christians.

No Eastern or Oriental Catholic denies these dogmatic points about indulgences. In fact, the early Church, as exemplified by the canons of the ecumenical councils, and (off-hand) St. Basil, often practiced the granting of indulgences. Indulgences were nothing more nor less than the power of the bishop to ameliorate or lessen the punishment attached to a particular sin, upon evidence of the sinner's penitiential works. For instance, murder entailed deprivation of communion for 20 years. Upon evidence of true contrition (i.e., evidence of sincere penitential works), a bishop had the authority to lessen this punishment.

The Latin praxis and doctrine has somewhat evolved from this, and indulgences have always been more popular among Northern European Catholics, pre and post-Reformation.

These two dogmatic points decreed by Trent certainly do not comprise the entire doctrine of indulgences according to the Latin Church. But there are many things about the doctrine of indulgences - things peculiarly Latin - that are indeed not dogma but doctrinal. The Catholic Church has dogmatized only what is true and patristic about the doctrine of indulgences.

Eastern Orthodox teachings on purgatory and the intermediate state, in my experience, is a bit difficult to identify any teaching as uniform to the Orthodox. Some accounts can sound very much like the basic Catholic account (sans the vivid imagery one sometimes finds in popular Roman Catholic devotion); other accounts sound a bit like the doctrine of "soul sleep"; some (like Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna) have suggested that hell is really a sort of purgatory; and, of course, many Orthodox prefer to remain quite agnostic about the intermediate state. I have heard all of these things from Orthodox Christians. The safe thing to say would be that the Orthodox don't have an official teaching on the topic.

Furthermore, the only problem the Greeks at the Council of Florence had with Purgatory was the imagery of the purifying fire. They wanted to make sure that the Latins did not believe in a literal, material fire; and the Latins assured them that they did not. Presumably, then, the Greeks didn't have a problem with the basic idea of a postmortem purification of souls, which is all the Catholic Church has ever defined with respect to Purgatory – only that there is one, and those who are undergoing purification can be helped by the prayers, sacrifices, and alms of the faithful. Their criticisms of Catholic practices may vary from the theological to the sartorial [There are some Orthodox who criticize Catholic priests for wearing black vestments for funerary services; ] but the general impression is that they disagree on the defining of an immediate state and not the belief in an immediate state or process itself- it is much akin to their criticism of transubstantiation: push them hard enough and they will agree with the Catholic view of the Eucharist, but they dislike using the word and the scholasticism attached. As someone who has attended more Maronite and Melkite (Byzantine) memorials than I can count [a city near were I grew up had a large Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholic presence,] the Byzantine tradition seems right in step with the Catholic Church as regards to an intimediary state. In fact, if anything the Byzantine tradition does more conscious and directed work for those in Purgatory than any other tradition; prayer and alms/good-works for the benediction of the dead is an almost-constant. At least that's been my experience so far within the Melkite Church. That being said, I must emphasize, that agnosticism about what happens to the dead. They pray for them because they know it can aid them, not because they know exactly what it aids them "against." As Pope Shenouda of the Coptic Church says:
We pray for those who departed from this world not because we believe in the purgatory but following St. Paul who prayed for Onesiphorus saying, "The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day" (2 Tim 1:18). In that Day meant in the Day of Judgment, as he said "Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing." (2 Tim 4:8) St. Paul was not asking for mercy in the purgatory but on the Day of Judgment when he stands before the Just Judge. We pray for the departure that God may grant them rest in the place of waiting for the Day of Judgment has not come yet. Those departed are awaiting without worry or unrest. The litany for the departed does not mention the purgatory at all. We pray saying, "Sustain them in a green pasture, by the water of rest in the paradise of joy, the place out of which grief, sorrow and groaning have fled away" This is definitely not the description of the purgatory for the purgatory contrarily is a place of grief, sorrow and groaning.

Our Church absolves the soul of the departed during the prayer. She absolves her from all the sins she committed while in the flesh. We say to God, 'this soul has departed from us absolved by the church. We do not retain any sin for her … we intercede for her for You O Lord know the weakness of man.
This is all in line with St Antony of Egypt whom God told "Antony attend to yourself; for these are the judgements of God, and it is not for you to know them." Nevertheless, the keeping of the Mystery for the Final Theosis comports with the Western conception of Purgatory, and there isn't any insurmountable conflict even if there are doctrinal disagreements. (Eastern2Western Conception of Purgatory)
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote: psalms
The character is rejecting God. Psalms and Bible verses don't provide any insight.
I've got to think otherwise, Ib. The question is not and never has been God himself but rather God's authority to define.
But the point of the story is that Don Giovanni is rejecting God's authority, period. Bible verses, psalms, or theological arguments are mooted because of the stance Don Giovanni takes. He rejects the very premises that would make a theological or scriptural discussion possible.



As you say, Giovanni is rejecting God's authority to judge his life. Giovanni, it would seem, prefers his own authority.

Precisely. It's free will taken to an extreme.
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 »

Precisely. It's free will taken to an extreme.
Don Giovanni uses and exploits persons for his own purposes and designs with no regard for such persons or their prerogatives. Apparently, no one has the power or cunning to prevent having their will subverted to that of the Don. As such, Giovanni assumes more authority than G_d Himself, as G_d sets boundaries to how much he will exploit Man and allows His Beings to have free will. G_d keeps His contracts with Man regarding free will and treats his Subjects with loving-kindness. Similarly, Don Giovanni could not be arsed - and a god like him would be pagan. It's not really that difficult......
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:
Precisely. It's free will taken to an extreme.
Don Giovanni uses and exploits persons for his own purposes and designs with no regard for such persons or their prerogatives. Apparently, no one has the power or cunning to prevent having their will subverted to that of the Don. As such, Giovanni assumes more authority than G_d Himself, as G_d sets boundaries to how much he will exploit Man and allows His Beings to have free will. G_d keeps His contracts with Man regarding free will and treats his Subjects with loving-kindness. Similarly, Don Giovanni could not be arsed - and a god like him would be pagan. It's not really that difficult......
I don't see it as as Giovanni playing God, he's just exercising his free will as he likes. It comes to a head when he remains defiant to the end and refuses any repentance or contrition. It's free will over any other consideration, an extreme decision that is nonetheless possible under Christianity (all Abrahamic monotheisms really). Nothing Don Giovanni or God does in the opera violates the contract you're referring to.

There's nothing "pagan" in any of this. In fact under paganism there wouldn't even be a story here. Cu Chullainn can seduce and kill all he likes, nobody bats an eye. The drama of Don Giovanni only makes sense within an ethical monotheistic framework.
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Demon of Undoing »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Demon of Undoing wrote:Taboo has the right of it. The Golden Rule doesn't have any political or legal footnotes with defenses to prosecution for thus and so. It's all quibbling, or in other words, lying. Not sure why people seem to think they get excused because they act in the name of a state or a sect. There is no basis in scripture for it.
Romans 13 and the Old Testament where bloodguilt from the innocent was the wage of murder- but the nation kept the right to keep order.

And we still very much operate like this, we just don't do it with injuries against the gods. If you're incredulous, go on, declare yourself free from American taxation because you are your own sovereign. During the "confusion" you might get shot at a whole bunch, trashed in the papers, then if you survive- good luck at that trial where you will be put away for life (and you may get the death penalty if you killed anyone when they came to take you in)....

There are a million examples of this sort of stuff. It is the government keeping order, and I'm pretty sure the Golden Rule applies to individuals and not corporate bodies.

From the Catechism:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


When we live in a world where religion is privatized and not the lynchpin of the public square, it doesn't make much sense or ever comes to a point where national defense and the public order is compromised (which was even more diffuse and fragile in a world where the state didn't have a monopoly on violence.) This is a good thing.

But unless your making a Quarker-ish argument, there are plenty of examples Biblically, historically, philosophically/theologically of communities being allowed to defend the public order- there is no lying or excuses on that point- it is just anachronistic to judge yesterday by today's order.
I am making a Quakerish argument. The Romans verse is a statement of ( then) current reality, an "is" not an "ought". Supposing it to be an " ought", one would have to agree that you could be sawn in half upside down, groin first, for the good of order. The Romans did that, you know. God smiles anyway, I guess.

I know these moral geniuses have convinced the Christian world ( and I use that term laughingly ) that they need to violate God's rules so they can do his job for Him, but I missed the part where Jesus stuttered. Just gotta draw and quarter folks, eh? The Gospel would be silenced forever if not. Christ would be crucified for nothing, we'd all forget God. This is the argument.

Oh ye of little faith. Thought this would be easy, did you? Just do everything the same way you did before, but graft God in there so's we know we don't really mean all the flaying and burning alive. God will forgive us, it's for public order.

Maybe there are more Don G's walking around than folks think.
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by noddy »

some dribbles.

isnt this tension between the fightin fuckin feasting instinct driven people and the serious people in all religions and causes the latter to withdraw to hermitages and monestries out of frustration ? im struggling to see the christian specific in the current discussion.

judge not lest you be judged yourself, let he without sin cast the first stone... wiggle room seems to always require ignoring those less ambiguous statements.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Demon of Undoing wrote: I am making a Quakerish argument. The Romans verse is a statement of ( then) current reality, an "is" not an "ought". Supposing it to be an " ought", one would have to agree that you could be sawn in half upside down, groin first, for the good of order. The Romans did that, you know. God smiles anyway, I guess.

I know these moral geniuses have convinced the Christian world ( and I use that term laughingly ) that they need to violate God's rules so they can do his job for Him, but I missed the part where Jesus stuttered. Just gotta draw and quarter folks, eh? The Gospel would be silenced forever if not. Christ would be crucified for nothing, we'd all forget God. This is the argument.

Oh ye of little faith. Thought this would be easy, did you? Just do everything the same way you did before, but graft God in there so's we know we don't really mean all the flaying and burning alive. God will forgive us, it's for public order.

Maybe there are more Don G's walking around than folks think.
I can't help but recall how the rather pecksniffiian Quakers of Pennsylvania got around their "pacifist" ethos to help the Continental Army....
Franklin gives an illuminating account of "the embarrassment given them (in the Pennsylvania assembly) whenever application was made to grant aids for military purposes." Unwilling to offend the government, and averse to violating their principles, he says, they used "a variety of evasions," the commonest one being to grant money "for the king's use" and avoid all inquiry as to the disbursement. But once, when New England asked Pennsylvania for a grant to buy powder, this ingenious device would not serve:

They could not grant money to buy powder, for that was an ingredient of war; but they voted an aid of 3000 Pounds, and appropriated it for the purchasing of bread, flour, wheat "and other grain." Some of the council, desirous of giving the House still further embarrassment, advised the governor not to accept the provision, as not being the thing he had demanded; but he reply'd, "I shall take the money, for I understand very well their meaning -- other grain is gunpowder." Which he accordingly bought, and they never objected to it.


but what do expect when:
Even William Penn proposed an international "league to enforce peace," requiring compulsion by arms if necessary.
A "League to Enforce Peace" internationally, requiring compulsion by arms if necessary.

...if sanctimonious false dilemmas are the best you got....

The point being that you can bury your head in the sand, but the mighty will always be mighty, and they will never be brought to justice but justice could be brought to them. And that takes a lot of back breaking work, a lot of ugliness reflecting our fallen natures, a solicitude for our neighbors. and a hope that what we chose today was more pleasing to Him than what we did yesterday. It's a slog to the face of God.

Saint Thomas, being the popular example, and his world no longer exist. His suggestion for how to maintain order in a society where Kingship was bestowed by God doesn't exist any longer. It doesn't have to be defended or condemned- it's gone. We've moved past it. Still, no one ever points out the irony that a man who saintliness has more to do with his example of chastity for God (in the full sense of the word) also reasoned that prostitution should be tolerated or that according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
St. Thomas is careful to say that even in self-defence it is unlawful to kill another directly, that is, to intend immediately the death of that other. His mind is that the formal volition of the self-defender should entirely be to preserve his own life and repulse the onslaught, whilst as to the loss of life, which, as a matter of fact, ensues, he keeps himself in a purely permissive attitude. This contention is combated by De Lugo and some others, who believe it to be right to choose expressly the killing of another as the means to self-defence. In conformity with the Thomistic doctrine is the axiomatic utterance that a private individual may never lawfully kill anyone whatever, because in self-defence one does not, technically speaking, kill, but only endeavours to stop the trespasser. Hence, according to the Angelic Doctor, it would follow that only by due operation of law may a human being ever be directly done to death.


which sorta ruins this narrative of the evil Christian going about making sure no one is having any fun...For Aquinas, the primary purpose of civil law is not to reform people or to lead them to behave morally; that is a matter for the grace of God. Civil law can only have indirect, supporting role. The primary purpose of civil law is to preserve social order and the common good. Things should be prohibited only if the common good requires it. Heresy, at that time was against the preservation of social order and the common good. This doesn't automatically lead to sadism or suggesting that people we don't like get tortured- but when people desire such methods they perform them (see War on Terror)and it is apart of the fallen nature of man that it is so. [I imagine we all agree that once you have to enforce something, both your ability to enforce it and that something are not long for this world.]

And that falleness, and the problems with it haven't changed: so today we may not have a king who keeps order for the sake of God but democracies that keep order for the sake of freedom. See the Avengers yet? The Loki character starts off in the beginning making some vague threat against freedom and man's yearning for slavery or something...of course, the whole thing is dropped and not really spoken of again- it was just his mustache twirling moment to show he was here to upset the social order centered around freedom...whatever that means....the more things change....
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Demon of Undoing »

Oh, I know the arguments by the learned fathers. They better hope they can convince somebody besides me. See, I do reprehensible stuff all the time because I reason that it is the lesser of two evils. But I know that when I do it, I do it because I'm walking by sight and not by faith. IOW, I know I'm wrong, but don't have the faith to get right. I know I may pay for it in the end. I don't pretend God is going to care about my excuses. I darn sure don't think that my particular job title means God sanctified a brand new standard on my behalf.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Sin boldly . . .

Post by Marcus »

Demon of Undoing wrote:Oh, I know the arguments by the learned fathers. . . See, I do reprehensible stuff all the time because I reason that it is the lesser of two evils. But I know that when I do it, I do it because I'm walking by sight and not by faith. IOW, I know I'm wrong, but don't have the faith to get right. I know I may pay for it in the end. I don't pretend God is going to care about my excuses. . .
Luther.jpg
Luther.jpg (9.76 KiB) Viewed 1247 times
"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin."

—from a letter from Luther to Melancthon, August 1521
Luther also said one can find anything one wants in the fathers.

Sola Scriptura . . . :D
"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
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Enki »

Demon of Undoing wrote:Oh, I know the arguments by the learned fathers. They better hope they can convince somebody besides me. See, I do reprehensible stuff all the time because I reason that it is the lesser of two evils. But I know that when I do it, I do it because I'm walking by sight and not by faith. IOW, I know I'm wrong, but don't have the faith to get right. I know I may pay for it in the end. I don't pretend God is going to care about my excuses. I darn sure don't think that my particular job title means God sanctified a brand new standard on my behalf.
Thing is, God knows your reasons, which is why he is ever merciful. Of all beings, God does not expect more than you are capable of delivering.

What people will come to recognize one day is that even evil has its place in the guidance of providence, and you suffer only to the degree that it is necessary.

Humanity are but saplings pushing through the topsoil for the first time in our history. We are breaking through to see the light for the first time in our history. What we thought was light previously was darkness. And like the sapling pushing through we hold the promise of becoming a great oak.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Azrael »

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?
I think that dostoyevsky's point is that Christ offered freedom that people are to weak and unwilling to accept. People want someone (like the grand inquisitor) to think for them and relieve them from the burden of responsibility.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Azrael »

Ibrahim wrote:
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
Precisely. It's free will taken to an extreme.
Don Giovanni uses and exploits persons for his own purposes and designs with no regard for such persons or their prerogatives. Apparently, no one has the power or cunning to prevent having their will subverted to that of the Don. As such, Giovanni assumes more authority than G_d Himself, as G_d sets boundaries to how much he will exploit Man and allows His Beings to have free will. G_d keeps His contracts with Man regarding free will and treats his Subjects with loving-kindness. Similarly, Don Giovanni could not be arsed - and a god like him would be pagan. It's not really that difficult......
I don't see it as as Giovanni playing God, he's just exercising his free will as he likes. It comes to a head when he remains defiant to the end and refuses any repentance or contrition. It's free will over any other consideration, an extreme decision that is nonetheless possible under Christianity (all Abrahamic monotheisms really). Nothing Don Giovanni or God does in the opera violates the contract you're referring to.

There's nothing "pagan" in any of this. In fact under paganism there wouldn't even be a story here. Cu Chullainn can seduce and kill all he likes, nobody bats an eye. The drama of Don Giovanni only makes sense within an ethical monotheistic framework.
I think that you're right. Very impressive.

Paganism is definitely a vastly different ethical context than monotheism, where there's one infallible and unquestionable arbiter about right and wrong. Mozart, as a christian and/or Freemason is monotheist.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Azrael »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote: psalms
The character is rejecting God. Psalms and Bible verses don't provide any insight.
I've got to think otherwise, Ib. The question is not and never has been God himself but rather God's authority to define.
But the point of the story is that Don Giovanni is rejecting God's authority, period. Bible verses, psalms, or theological arguments are mooted because of the stance Don Giovanni takes. He rejects the very premises that would make a theological or scriptural discussion possible.



As you say, Giovanni is rejecting God's authority to judge his life. Giovanni, it would seem, prefers his own authority.

Precisely. It's free will taken to an extreme.
Like lucifer in Milton's "paradise lost".
cultivate a white rose
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Ibrahim »

Satan, in Christian theology, is a demonstration of free will taken "too far." Their transgression against God is indeed the same, which is thinking they know better than God or rejecting God's authority.

It's really the basis of the medieval concept of "heresy," which famous Catholic and Protestant writers (e.g. Aquinas, Luther) thought meant damnation at best, and even deserving of a death sentence at the hands of mortal agents. In Dante, non-Christians who are aware of Jesus' message but reject it are also technically heretics. Don Giovanni is in this tradition.
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 »

Little David must've discovered beautiful evil at a rather young age - alone in bed one night and the lights were out, and it must've looked like this......;>........

Qrl3n2ZtK2E
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Spengler discovers Beautiful Evil

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote: and it must've looked like this......;>........
Well considering I've seen Dave wear that "exact" tie on Kudlow's program, you might be on to something.....Plus I think they are using the same guy to light Dave on camera.
Been busy doing stuff
Post Reply