This is standard human morality btw. It wasn't just the 10 commandments. In Hinduism there's a general "don't kill" rule but there's an obvious nuance to it. In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna bitch-slaps Arjuna for not wanting to kill righteously in war.
-
-
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @AnarchicEvolist
But we’re supposedly dealing with divine morality here (though Evolist wouldn’t call it that). It makes more sense to me that a divine commandment would be very straightforward & absolute, with no ifs or buts. But maybe that’s not how the Hebrews saw it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RightModernist @AnarchicEvolist
You're assuming a sorta modern Sola Scriptura approach to the Old Testament, that's the problem. Those laws were didactic like a lot of ancient near eastern legal systems, it was flexible and could be amended & refined under certain conditions. That's Jesus' point on the law.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @AnarchicEvolist
Yes,the most interesting thing about Christianity is its ‘impossibility’.How can one love all men?This strange demand, so impractical&contrary to human instinct,is what is fascinating.Only a few sects have really tried-Cathars,for instance.But even they couldn’t avoid waging war.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RightModernist @NocturnalSatyr
Loving your adversary does not mean not fighting him, it might even require fighting him
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @NocturnalSatyr
I disagree. The obstacles presented by worldly contingencies are part of that impossibility, which is what lends Christianity its otherworldly beauty. A saint would have to forgo fighting, allow himself to be killed if necessary.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RightModernist @NocturnalSatyr
Read the Metaphysics of War by Evola, although it does not deal exclusively with Christian doctrine, he was a 'traditionalist' after all
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @NocturnalSatyr
Evola was a self-described ‘Catholic pagan’, so I assume he had a unique viewpoint. Maybe he was similar in a way to Meister Eckhart, in that he attempted a synthesis of Christianity & paganism.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RightModernist @NocturnalSatyr
Perhaps, what would you say Dante did?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @NocturnalSatyr
As I recall, God appears in the final passages of The Divine Comedy as a spinning wheel of fire. So it seems he was trying to present a non-anthropomorphic vision of God, which is intriguing in the context of the times.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I thought antropomorphic image of God only came after Dante with humanism, protestantism, renaissance?
-
-
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @NocturnalSatyr
A somewhat anthropomorphic image is suggested by the words ‘Father’ & ‘Lord’ (consider that Heraclitus did not refer to God as ‘he’ or ‘father’, but rather as ‘it’ or ‘the Divine’). The wheel of fire recalls Heraclitus in fact-he said that the world is ‘an ever-living fire.’
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RightModernist @NocturnalSatyr
Ah yes, but remember that Scripture speaks to each man on his own level, and must therefore take on a certain manner of words, while Heraclitus certainly did not intend his writing to be for the common man. Still, you have a point
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.