This overly long quote only shows me that you have no idea about Christianity but are going by the words of others who in turn have their own agenda. de Benoist is against Christianity, the rights of man, neoliberalism, representative democracy, egalitarianism; and against what he believes embodies and promotes these values, namely the United States.
The assumption that monotheism of the Bible fails to push man to exceed himself is erroneous, although interpretations of the Bible have had that effect. The basic tenet is that God is the vitality of all living creatures, in particular humankind, which had vitality figuratively “breathed into him”, and in so doing is an integral part of each of us. It is the failing to understand this, portrayed in Genesis as choosing the fruit of knowledge, thereby restricting the perspective of humankind, taking them out of immediate participation with nature, and essentially making life hard work, that causes the work of prophets and Christ to regain the awareness that they are one with God.
For this reason, I believe that the negativity towards humankind has been essentially misunderstood, and daily experience reveals that we are not all we could be, as indeed past generations have demonstrated even more drastically. The dynamic balance between selflessness and selfishness has been significantly inclined toward selfishness, which is the driving force of capitalism, and the story of humanity shows that in its suffering. Obviously, the horrendously erroneous attempts to coerce selflessness is in itself contradictory, but it isn’t restricted to religion, but has accompanied all forms of idealistic and ideological struggles.
It would be equally duplicitous to gloss over the inherent selfishness of humankind because it is a necessary aspect of sustainability in a world that continually challenges us. We cannot simply yield to natural dynamics like most animals do, because we are a species that seeks meaning in all things. However, we tend to misunderstand devotion, or kenosis, as relinquishing what is crucial, which the selfish mind expands across many things, instead of understanding it as similar to what has been called the flow-state, a return to immediate participation with life, being deeply absorbed in our activities whilst losing the feeling of exerting effort or passing time. Strangely, we can experience this is sport, creative activities, and Csikszentmihalyi acknowledged, “There’s this focus that, once it becomes intense, leads to a sense of ecstasy, a sense of clarity: you know exactly what you want to do from one moment to the other; you get immediate feedback.”
The fact that religious people associate this ability with the inherent vitality that the Bible refers to as the “living spirit” has long been neglected, and unfortunately fallen into misrepresentation by some Christian groups. It has often sought as a feeling, rather than as the result of meaningful activities, which the apostle Paul called the fruits of the spirit and are essentially expressions of love.
The humanistic obsession with being accomplished individuals, rather than being, together with all of nature, manifestations of consciousness, or an expression of a divine vitality, has restricted their outlook, and de Benoist’s translation of the expulsion from the garden reflects this. Yes, civilization begins, but the story introduces the first example of division beforehand, caused by jealousy, and a man kills his brother. To see the development of civilisation without the atrocities that were done on the way is once again dishonest. It isn’t civilisation that is seen negatively, but the results of human effort going in a wrong direction, or missing the mark, as the Greek word for sin implies. So, de Benoist misrepresents a story as badly as some fundamentalists do. The Bible implies that the creative abilities of humankind are from his being the chosen representative on the planet, albeit a misguided one. The symbology is quite clear, if we are able to read it.
The debate and indeed conflict between monotheism and polytheism, is a question of whether the ground of being is conflict, as often portrayed by polytheistic mythology, or accord, as in the playing together of the elements, the diversity of fusions, the reliability and predictability of processes, with which humankind can work, and develop for his own use. I often have a feeling that modern people are annoyed that the Bible is an anthology of religious literature, culturally diverse and descriptive, but not written as a scientific thesis. The inability to interpret what it says is a witness to their animosity towards what they conceive religion to be.
The other conflict that occurs between monotheism and polytheism is more about tribal conflicts and the need to bond with the group. This was of far greater importance than is often assumed because selfishness (remember what I said at the beginning?) dictated the availability of resources. Even though the proposed history of Israel is full of atrocities, the numbers are clearly exaggerated, and the hero worship was questionable because its morality is at odds with the later prophets and Christ. Moreover, this is an earlier period of history, the sum of which clearly speaks to the progression of moral consciousness, culminating in the call to love even our enemies. It is also this progression that shows that the Gospels portray a growing awareness of the unity of humanity, albeit still focused on duality. The fact that the polytheistic Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans conquered and colonized the known world shows that monotheism came into conflict with the surrounding cultures and tried to separate itself from them. As it was, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel were assimilated throughout history, leaving the proverbial “remnant,” which was later coined by his followers to refer to Jesus.
To assume that monotheism was more problematic than paganism is another form of bible bashing that is so popular today, and the washing of paganism. The derogatory use of the word pagan or heathen have their own history, which is recent history in comparison. As examples of pagan civilisations, the Assyrian Empire ruled through brutal military force, so when it showed signs of instability and weakness, its enemies seized the opportunity. The Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had soaring ambitions; he dreamed of dominating the world and made no attempt to keep it a secret. He is said to have risen to power with the ferocity of a roaring lion and struck fear into the hearts of men and his destruction of cities was so fierce and the fires were so hot that they turned the limestone buildings into lime. Alexander, renowned as Conqueror, explorer, leader, and visionary, was far from perfect. “Like many brilliant men,” historian John Gunther writes, “he was unstable…he ran from one extreme to another…” Roman society was fundamentally hierarchical and patriarchal. A Roman paterfamilias (the family’s oldest living male) had, in theory, the power to kill someone within his household with impunity. This included not only those physically living under his roof, but the wider family of brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews as well. Despite being the most successful multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state in the history of Europe and the Mediterranean, the Romans lived in relative squalor and their favourite past times often centred around brutal violence.
This is, of course, not meant as an example of the daily experiences of people in these cultures, and humanity progressed throughout in various fields, but the same cam be said of Israel, and the biblical tradition is just as little an expression of day-to-day experiences.
The portrayal of hell in Christianity was often a useful tool to coerce the population after Christianity became indistinguishable from Rome after Constantine. It was a power instrument and power has always been a temptation for human beings. I even saw it in nursing amidst people who had chosen a profession designed for helping people. It requires a clear understanding of the shadow personality to avoid falling into temptation, and an active devotion to the Unity and love, which has been at least the intention of Christian service throughout the centuries. There is in my mind no doubt that perversion has continually crept in and is particularly disturbing when the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing misuses trust and exerts power to abuse.
However, hell is also a result of considering how a reunion with the source of my consciousness and vitality would transpire if for my whole life I have been working against the unity of all living things. The sudden realisation that I had been actively working against life itself and causing unnecessary suffering through my selfish behaviour, rather than learning to devote myself to life by loving and caring for people and life around me, could be conceived as a shock of enormous proportions, especially if we came to realise that God is in every creature that suffered because of me. It is an intellectual projection, maybe, but what if there was some truth in it? Wouldn’t then any acquired popularity, fame, or reputation fade, just as deserted cities are quickly overgrown, and buildings demolished? The pictorial portrayal of demise that the inspired prophets expressed shouldn’t be neglected, just because we don’t see it that way.
The Christian message is that the Messiah was not a royal warrior, but a suffering servant who came to return humanity to the ground of being, and the apostle Paul saw Christianity as a school of selflessness and love that prepares believers for this reunion with the source of life. All the projections that have arisen since then are mere speculations, often not based on a reliable understanding of Jesus and his apostle. In the meantime, however, there is a great reliance on the mastery and creativity of human beings and their imitation of the natural patterns observed in nature, except that their motivation should be to contribute to the expressions of love toward human and non-human life. That this has not always transpired is of course a disappointment on a grand scale, and in my impression, due to the temptation that power had on the church. Humanity, after all, is perched on a separation line, between selflessness and selfishness.
The problem with some of de Benoist’s words lay in their shortsightedness. The “likeness to God” is weak when one knows that “the Father and I are one” and only my egoism separates me from recognizing this. The objection to “humility” lies in the misconception of what megalomania achieves, and what humility achieves in a state of flow by comparison, without stress or discomfort, without a sense of time dictating my every step. “Oh dear! Oh dear! I’m going to be late,” we say, following the rabbit down the rabbit hole, lost in our wonderland of self-aggrandizement that, due to a lack of humility, is always trying to be one step ahead of the next person.
You are welcome to that, I know what I have chosen, and so far, life has acknowledged that choice.
Theory is always “perfect”…perfection only exists in the mind…as does the absolute - immutable, indivisible, singularity.
Christian theory as Marxist theory is perfect - for a perfect being, in a perfect world.
Applying theory - theory converted to practice - exposes it to reality.
There all nihilistic theories crumble…and must self-constradict in order to continue existing as an idea with no practice.
Christianity uses ‘sin’ to explain why the Christian ideal - and its absolute one-god - can never be real, applicable, but must be applied in some ideal realm - Platonic ideal realm - in some alternate reality - an alternate reality that is more real than the experienced.
I read nothing over a few sentences…can’t be bothered.
it’s real every time you treat an other as a self
it’s always real cuz the only perfect one to fully do it always exists
to fully do it is to love the other despite their crap (sin of not loving others despite their crap)
guess where that puts the merciless
Others should not be treated as Self though.
Dogs should not be treated as Cats; Cats should not be treated as Dogs.
So there goes your Abrahamic “morality”… waves goodbye!
Why should a Master treat a Slave, as a Master? As-if the Slave is capable of Autonomy, Self-responsibility, or Self-consciousness?
Why should a Parent treat a young child, as a Parent?
Why should Smart person treat a Stupid person, as a Smart person?
It’s folly. Your “morality” is based on a lie, isn’t it?
Most of us remember our parents “teaching” us “How would you feel if they did that to you?” (Unless the parent thought it beyond them to teach a mere child…not a good parent—a delusional parent failing to fulfill their function.)
Our first logic. A=A, they=you. With feeling.
A logic that transcends particular self-feeling into what is objectively true about all selves feeling—but stays immanent.
Asks us to universalize (recognize—not invent) the sameness between every subject.
We have to invent the mentally contortionist excuses and rationalizations (“There is no responsible subject” is well on the way to catatonia if one …lives it out) whenever we will/power differently.
A master should not treat a slave as a master. True power sets free. Masters are not free, because they depend on an other to act as if there is a difference between them that is not actually essential—as demonstrated in every reversal of fortune (the cross being the ultimate demonstration). Freedom treats other as self … there is no master or slave/captive in that.
Abrahamism, Slave-Dialectic, Inversion of morality, right here.
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
Anymore mental backflips for today??
Why do you think the Jews (Hebrews, Israelites, whatevs) had to be told to remember they were once slaves?
Because they were no longer slaves, and it’s easy to rationalize being a dick to people when you forget you were once in their position & got out of it WITH HELP…& can get back in with help, if you forget.
I’m not the one contradicting myself here. So who needs the reminder?
You are making master/slave essential functions, or making some functions essential—or higher than other functions—that aren’t. One is not ALWAYS a parent. One is not ALWAYS a child.
Self=Other is over all functions, so there are ways of being a parent or child that are more or less in line with it.
The same is true of the employer/employee relationship. There should not be master/slave.
Leaders should just be the ones who make sure their part/whole of the group has what it needs (including feeling valued, appreciated) to complete its goal, not someone who looks down and (say) makes arbitrary rules just to feel powerful & make others feel controlled. Servant leaders spark joy (lol), “masters” kill it.
U R Wrong.
A child does not necessarily become a parent, and may remain a child until its death.
A slave does not necessarily become a master, and may remain a slave until its death.
A dimwit does not necessarily become intelligent, and may remain a dimwit until its death.
The inferior position is never equal to the superior, until it is surpassed.
Trying to twist them as “Equal”, is your mistake and prerogative, not mine.
last=first
First=Last
Alpha=Omega
Until you show us a beginning…or a cause that requires no cause.
Let’s just say…you are another symptom of a linguistic infection.
You’ve come in contact with a parasite.