Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The Love of Christ

Re: The Love of Christ
November 06, 2010, 09:09:38 AM
That's not to say that some of the stuff you mention may not be true; extreme pacifism and poverty are a withdrawal from life...
The things that are eternally true in the Gospels are remnants of the European and Middle Eastern pagan origins of Christianity. The slave mentality and materialism is a product of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. This is why Christianity appears to have a mixed record through history. All Christians will be thrown into the pit!

Or living in terrible poverty and conditions of suffering for so long leads people to speculate it's their lot in life. I mean to tell a peasant in Medieval Europe that they're stuck in a slave mentality is to kick someone while they're down--they don't want to be a slave but they can't do anything about it, their circumstances are dismal. I agree Abrahamic religion often promotes slave mentality in a detrimental way, but sometimes it's used to give hope in cases where otherwise there could be none.

Anyways, I'm all for making fun of Christ but I still say the original post was completely contrived and juvenile.

Re: The Love of Christ
November 06, 2010, 11:03:39 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but could you please point out where the materialism is in Christianity?

It defines the very existence of 99% of self-proclaimed believers, so there must be some source of this phenomenon in the dogma itself.

I. That number is doubtless an exaggeration.
II. Modern Christianity is materialist exactly to the degree that modernism has invaded it (including Renaissance art). This becomes evident when one reads Christian Scripture and sources, but you didn't do so, or I wouldn't have to tell you.
If you would rather watch a movie, INTO GREAT SILENCE shows how the Christian elite lived back then.

PS. If one does not believe in an afterlife, the thought of not caring about created things must appear stupid. So much is clear.

Re: The Love of Christ
November 06, 2010, 11:54:23 AM
I There should be no full stop symbol after a Roman number.
II I find symptomatic the fact Christianity was the first Traditional religion that failed to establish a Traditional system. In fact, the highest representatives of Christianity helped create the duality of the religious and political representation in the early medieval times.
III I regard the appearance of Christianity a symptom of the conception of modernity itself. Because of it's intrinsic impotence it failed to establish a re-ligion with the Principle the way early Buddhism succeeded in reaffirming the Vedas and this lack of effectiveness is the main reason of my skepticism. If we assume only Gautama Buddha completely participates in the Principle, it's still 1:0 for Buddhism: Jesus posited his Father above himself even in the famous half-denial on the cross, while Buddha exposed Brahman as an irrevocably conditioned entity. That puts Christianity at the similar position with Pythagoreans, stuck before the barrier after completing the lesser mysteries.
IV In spite of my skepticism, I hold no hostility to true, practicing Christians, as I find my existence in accord with their deeds significantly more than with atheists' ones. The Scripture will be taken up again and I thank you for the movie recommendation.


Re: The Love of Christ
November 07, 2010, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Frithjof Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religions
A religion is an integral whole comparable to a living organism that develops according to necessary and exact laws; one might therefore call it a spiritual organism, or a social one in its most outward aspect. In any case, it is an organism and not a construction of arbitrary conventions; one cannot therefore legitimately consider the constituent elements of a religion independently of their inward unity, as if one were concerned with a mere collection of facts. This error is one, however, that is frequently committed even by those who judge without preconceived opinions but who nonetheless endeavor to establish correspondences from the outside, without perceiving that a religious element is always determined by the germ and starting point of the integral religion, and that a given element, a personality or a book, for example, can have a different significance from one religion to another.

That being said, what exactly do you mean when you say that Christianity "failed to establish a Traditional system"?

Re: The Love of Christ
November 07, 2010, 12:53:38 PM
Actually, maybe the greater mistake was calling it a Traditional religion. With all respect to Mr. Schuon, a distinction between Traditional and anti-Traditional religions should be acknowledged: telluric and lunar ones, as opposed to solar, do not provide techniques for achieving a complete participation in the Principle, but reach it's highest peak in subordination to the deity- Christianity appears so distinctively lunar I cannot envision Eckhart as a Christian at all.

Christianity failed in establishing a Traditional system because it was too feeble to constitute an Empire "as above, so below" and opted for the division between spiritual and secular government, which is the root of all modernity. Unlike other Traditional religions, it never even had a true pontifex. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because this conclusion was derived from common sense and the subject certainly isn't common.

Incidentally, "INTO GREAT SILENCE" was downloaded this very moment!

Re: The Love of Christ
November 12, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
Revelation 21:8

 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Re: The Love of Christ
November 13, 2010, 12:01:05 AM

Christianity failed in establishing a Traditional system because it was too feeble to constitute an Empire "as above, so below" and opted for the division between spiritual and secular government, which is the root of all modernity. Unlike other Traditional religions, it never even had a true pontifex. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because this conclusion was derived from common sense and the subject certainly isn't common.


Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

Matthew 22:21

“So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

A typical trait of modernism is God is a social product, as a social need. The Christian God is beyond human governments and their interests, but you must respect hierarchy, giving the Caesar what it's his own while not confusing him with God.