|February 23rd, 2018||#1|
Join Date: Feb 2018
White alchemy audiobook
"WHITE ALCHEMY" AUDIOBOOK COMING SOON TO
GET THE PDF VERSION TODAY
The inherent intolerance of Christianity
It has been claimed by many former Christians that the religion is (as stated above): and that it cannot be otherwise (inherently so to speak). Why?–The answer lies in it being the establishment of a dogma through a certain form of praxis (i.e. love). But I would claim that this is also inherently contradictory as violence is always the means, the opposite and opposition to love. But the means is not for the manifestation of love per se and in all cases but of love maximally, for the ‘greater good’ -hence the dogma retains its consistency but…the consequences are intolerant. But again is the creed above tolerance or love -amity and concord–which doesn’t imply ‘tolerance’ but rather agreement between parties; and an agreement may have no tolerance at all such as when the prisoner violates the social contract and receives the consequences of breach, namely an intolerant and unpleasant love–for that reaction is borne of love as the mother for its child, the stern pater families meting out just consequences for the betterment (correction) of the transgressive child. So it nevertheless, in spite of intolerance, remains a doctrine of love. Judaism is a dogma of intolerance (as most dogmas are–even those concerned with extolling ‘tolerance’ as the cardinal virtue, the in itself)–but it is definitely about hate, or an antipathy between the chosen race and all others; Christianity is the universal and embraces all even in irons. So is this criticism meaningful, i.e. that it is intolerant? Does tolerance matter as the cardinal virtue? – Why?–So that peace and love will reign? But that proviso would make tolerance a subordinate virtue, with love / peace the end. Hence: the liberal, secular humanists extol what they decry (or vice versa). And they are the inconsistent ones. So the take-home message is: either uphold love / peace / truth (god’s word) or don’t claim that your charge of intolerance matters to those who uphold such virtues especially if you would refute the dogma with itself–you posit the same and defeat your own arguments in absurdity. Myself, I claimed no regard for tolerance except of reason and truth and that which makes the apotheosis of the superman a reality. The messiah could never exist as a strong (competent in terms of human virtue) being worthy of emulation if he only ‘loved’. Here love would have to be construed as agreement amongst a plethora of beings (races, people, etc.) and that would be absurd given their extreme differences. Hence the absurdity and self-defeating nature of love: to love, i.e. to agree, with all is impossible for a particular being, to deal with things as they are in equal ways. However, if the creed is ‘that which is agreeable is what is’, i.e. ‘treating things as they are in themselves and in their relations’. Hence all beings are preserved as they are, even in death (a chicken pot pie is preserved as such by entailing the slaughter of the chicken and its destruction in consumption). This doesn’t seem to be about love however but about a stoical indifference or an objective, god’s eye view of Being and beings. No one can practice this creed of ‘letting things be as they are’ unless it were in their nature: hence they wouldn’t need instruction because they would simply be as they are. Welcome godless materialism on the scene. - All the better for those who would rather live instead of worship idols. The things that are, are…you are a thing, therefore you are - and you are as you are – no chastisement will change that, at most it amounts to pedagogical instruction with the aim of getting others to do your bidding but…isn’t that only natural? Hence we have what we have by way of morality: a certain dogma, a certain regime and a certain compliance. - Tolerance?–No, but a regime. At least it picks people out of the accustomed animality. Nevertheless a godless humanism under materialism is a kindred
substitute and I look upon all humanists as Christians who have lost their god. Best creed: whoever is the best is treated as they are according to the one treating them–and this is a necessary consequence of who ‘they’ are. Best life (follows as a consequence): not necessarily being the Best but to be able to maximally enjoy life.