I wrote: "A 'righteous God' is a God absolutely outside of human issues and problems. In this sense a 'righteous' God must be an absolutely intelligent God, and thus knows that in one way or another, in one moment or another, all souls can be reached"
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm
Yes! This is what I see/think, as well. So, I must wonder about men who fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations, and then insist that IT defines and rules over all, as an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of all. And they (themselves) are the uniquely divine interpreters of it, while casting themselves as being in service to its greatness. Such madness/delusion tangled up in ego and desperation is fascinating (and can be horrifying). Such does not reflect the clarity or broadness of sight of a god, at all. Rather it represents man who is willingly and willfully accepting or utilizing deception (and lies) and denial to sustain whatever delusion serves that man.
The questions that you ask, and I repeat this often, have to be seen and examined within the *context* in which you ask them. There is *the general social, political and economic context* in which your questions arise, and then, drilling down into the matter, there is your personal reasons for (as I interpret it) your reaction against those limitations that you feel constrained you.
I am reminded that you once described the motto "Jesus Christ, the same then and forever and ever" (paraphrased) on a plaque of the pulpit at your childhood church. It rubbed you the wrong way. It did not seem 'true'. For I suppose you say, and according to your doctrine you must say, that whatever Jesus Christ is must be ever in evolution, ever in development and transformation.
You say that men "fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations". I propose that if this idea-statement were examined more closely that I would likely find that it dovetails with some modern, perhaps 'revolutionary' ideas, that have come to the fore in the Sixties and post-Sixties. This is why I say all 'declarations' can be and must be probed and their ideological content revealed and exposed. I am not sure, as you seem to be sure, that the structural ideas that have been accreted are 'fabrications' in the sense in which you use that word. I would instead examine the history of their development, and certainly as it pertains to the roots of Christianity, better see and better understand the 'revelatory' dimension. What is revelation? As a way to understand it I could suggest examining Plato's Seventh Epistle
where, describing what can result from certain disciplines of mind (and intelligence) which are part of his method and teaching he says:
"For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself."
This is, I would suggest, a form of revelation, and thus I present it as a way to open an examination of what *it* is. So the question is: Is this 'invented'? Is this 'fabricated'? You seem to have come to a solid conclusion. And if as you say all ideas of these sorts are invented, they are, it would seem, simply devised as structures to control. And as you say "it represents man who is willingly and willfully accepting or utilizing deception (and lies) and denial to sustain whatever delusion serves that man".
Obviously, I propose a closer examination of what you propose. That is why I refer to Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
. You could, to get a sense of what he criticizes, examine some of the quotes from his book. But I would definitely recommend reading his book. It changed my outlook and provided me with a new orientation. But that much is clear, isn't it? What I define is essentially conservative and tends toward the traditional as well. I mean 'traditional' in a special, metaphysical sense. Yet now, with the introduction of the term 'metaphysical', we have a whole other needed set of definitions.
Do your ideas have a metaphysical base? Can they be expressed as metaphysical tenets? Have you thought these things through? What is the basis of your propositions related to 'endless innovation'?
As should be obvious, I am interested in what puts a brake on 'endless innovation'. I am interested in defining 'metaphysical bedrock'. I am more interested in countering ungrounded innovation which seems to have revolutionary impulse, and thus vast 'consequences' that I sincerely doubt are really any good at all (and certainly this must be proved not merely stated).
So in this sense I am on the whole in alignment with what I understand IC's *larger project * to be. Yes, I differ in details but not in the over-arching sense. And I have, at the very least, devoted a good deal of time (years) to examining Christian material, now pushed to the side, now depreciated, now no longer understood, now misunderstood and now denigrated (and also despised), to see that a vast content of *value* has been dismissed when it really should be embraced and elevated.
That is my position. And I believe I can back it up.
So in this sense I align with what IC has himself said (in regard to another topic but the general ideas come through:
IC wrote: "And today there's a special reason for hating marriage among the Neo-Marxists. It's that the destruction of the nuclear family and the scrambling of sex roles leaves a populace angry, adrift, permanently unhappy and alienated -- in short, the perfect lumpenproletariat revolutionaries. So no wonder today's Left is so hateful about marriage and sex roles, and calls them "oppressive." They shore up social stability and the social fabric, and make people content. Neo-Marxists do not want that."
I define a counter-revolutionary position. I define a 'traditionalist' position. And I define a position in which I go back through the idea-hierarchies and glean out of them the 'value-elements' which I feel should not be dismissed. But to be truthful I go beyond this as well in ways that I do not think would be taken well by those with *progressive* inclinations and ideological commitments. That is one reason why I attempt to define a specifically Greek and also a European and (gasp) Anglo-Saxon or better said Indo-European position in regard to the Christian teachings that came from Judea. (The entire consideration has become 'forbidden territory', though there are some serious *scholarly* examinations such as The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation
I am interested in, and involved in, ideas that pertain to the renovation and renewal of Europe, not the breaking apart through acidic processes of European identity. My *identitarian* position is not at all well-received in our present and, as well, has problematic elements
that I recognize.
What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
This to me is -- permit me the honesty -- an absurdly premised statement. If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build.
Here is a review-quote from the Amazon page of the book I mention. It is a good review and provides some info as to why I consider it important:
In the "Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity," James Russell argues that the conversion of the Germanic tribes, over the course of centuries, from roughly 400 AD down until 800 AD, resulted in a fundamental transformation of Christianity. The book could be subtitled "Contra Nietzsche," for Russell carves-out a grand exception to Nietzsche's portrayal of Christianity as "slave morality." Stated differently, and more baldy than Russell would, the process of "Germanization" amounted to a reversal of early Christian values.
Russell identifies the cult of saints, sacral kingship & crusades, proprietary churches, and a dramatic-representational liturgical form as examples of "Germanization." But his argument is at the level of paradigms, not empirical history as such. He maintains that a heroic, world-accepting, folk-centered reinterpretation of Christianity emerged, displacing the early version of Christianity which was world-rejecting & universalist, urban & anomic & soteriological. "As a consequence of the religio-political influence of the Ottonian emperors in Rome during the tenth and eleventh centuries, this Germanic reinterpretation eventually became *normative* throughout western Christendom." The Gothic cathedral would be its ultimate artistic expression.
The question thus arises, which Christianity is the real Christianity? The primitive church, which all later reform movements would seek to restore in one way or another--from the mendicant orders down through the Protestant Reformation and the Second Vatican Council--or the Germanized version? A better question might be, which Christianity is better able to resist Islam? [I would here suggest that a far more demanding 'resistance' is required, but this must be defined -- AJ]
Russell's thesis is of the utmost relevance to the spiritual-political situation in today's Europe, where the prospect of city-to-city, street-to-street, house-to-house warfare against Islam is imminent. In contrast to such leading thinkers of the Right as Alain de Benoist, who in matters of religion seem to do little more than adopt the quietist position of the late Heidegger, in essence waiting for new pagan gods to save us, the implication of Russell's argument is that a "counter reformed" Christianity is the only real option if Europe's defenders are to have spiritual resources.
Also, Russell's discussion of "Hellenization" in the first half of the book is fascinating, wherein the expansion of Greece (and later Rome) entailed the loss of Indo-European identity. The conversion of the German barbarians, in a mirror-image ruse, brought with it a reassertion of the Indo-European, albeit on a higher & more chivalrous plane