/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The inseparable accretions of ressentiment and philosophical thought contaminate the entirety of the Nietzschean corpus. His final fragments are blistered with unrestrained animus, dreadfully bitter and yet sustain an addictive virulence. In his own words:

The two types: Dionysus and the Crucified. – To determine: whether the typical religious man is a form of decadence (the great innovators are one and all morbid and epileptic); but are we not here omitting one type of religious man, the pagan? Is the pagan cult not a form of thanksgiving and affirmation of life? Must its highest representative not be an apology for and deification of life? The type of a well-constituted and ecstatically overflowing spirit! The type of a spirit that takes into itself and redeems the contradictions and questionable aspects of existence! It is here that I set the Dionysus of the Greeks: the religious affirmation of life, life whole and not denied or in part; (typical – that the sexual act arouses profundity, mystery, reverence). Dionysus versus the “Crucified”: there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom – it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering – the “Crucified as the innocent one” – counts as an objection to this life, as a formula for its condemnation. – One will see that the problem is that of the meaning of suffering: whether a Christian meaning or tragic meaning. In the former case, it is supposed to be the path to a holy existence; in the latter case, being is counted as holy enough to justify even a monstrous amount of suffering. The tragic man affirms even the harshest suffering: he is sufficiently strong, rich and capable of deifying to do so. The Christian denies even the happiest lot on earth: he is sufficiently weak, poor, disinherited to suffer from life in whatever form he meets it. The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return again from destruction.

>Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §1052 (March-June 1888)

In Nietzsche, we find a recognition of the irreconcilable opposition between the perspective of the victimisers’ mythology and the Biblical perspective of the victims – and the consequent ramifications for all future ethics and politics. The passion and intensity of Nietzsche’s polemic betrays his ressentiment par excellence. Perhaps blunted by the silence brought by Christian society, Nietzsche considered ressentiment the primary form of the desire for violence, and both the fruit and the germ of Christianity; everything in Nietzsche is under the influence of Christianity. As the Bible relates:

And the Lord said to him, “Therefore, who ever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him. Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of this son – Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech. Then Lamach took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

>Genesis 4:15-22

The legacy of Cain lies in his role as both fratricide and founder. Consequent to Abel’s murder, the law against reciprocal violence is established. And where Cain builds the first city, his descendants give that city husbandry, music and technology.

>>839047

Modern anthropology, ignorant or unwilling of cultural interpretation, ends at observing the same elements in the mythologies of Cain, Dionysus and Romulus. All these myths are statements on collective murders, and so require a name. As Jesus said:

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of all lies.

>John 8:43-44

That name is Satan, and these myths are thus expressions of the false accusations, collective murders and victim deification that founded pre-Christian culture, and that the Gospels recognise, reproach and reject. The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, is therefore the advocate of all martyrs as witnesses to the truth of the Gospels. The dreadful sword of Christ, l’ordre de la charité, spells the doom of all those Satantic societies by revealing their social order lies on the convergence of collective violence upon a scapegoat. And it was this inevitable destruction of Satan, by the Christian interpretation of collective violence and its universal declaration of guilt that must invariably, argued Nietzsche, prevent any continued order or fraternity between men.

Ressentiment is the element of violence that survives the impact of Christianity. For ressentiment flourishes wherever violence is diminished and Christianity has only partly succeeded in its aims to eliminate violence in all its forms.

The ressentiment, only made possible by Christianity and its diminution of Satanic violence, expressed by Jungian efforts to Biblicise mythology, by Heideggerian efforts to mythologise the Gospels, and by the idealisations of primitive cultures have only contributed to the vague and eclectic religiosity of our time. Faced with the dreadful turbulence of Christianity, both Jung and Heidegger grasped at the vestigial elements of the old sacred. Except for their vocabulary, they are wholly within the realms of nineteenth-century historicism.

>>839048

Unexposed to the priestly whetting of pagan teeth with blood, few recognise the urgency of the Gospels. Bewilderment and condescension follows each mention of the collective murder of God. Per Nietzsche:

“…God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife – who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed to great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event – and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!” - Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. “I come too early,” he then said, “I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling – it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars – and yet they have done it themselves.

>Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §125

The expression here is contaminated across several layers, yet still logically distinguishable. At its most obvious, Nietzsche is writing on the modern disappearance of the deification consequent to the collective murder of a real victim. The second level follows, the realisation that the victims of collective murder are the pagan gods. The highest level is the realisation that the Passion of Christ is not the death of the Christian God but the death of all other gods.

Like his fellow idealists, Nietzsche felt that the death of an exhausted religion – the Biblical religion – would allow the birth of some new god, a birth unrooted in the death of the resented Biblical God. Idealists are unable to apprehend the reality, rendered intelligible by Christianity, of collective violence, and see it only as a cure for the fermenting pandemonium – the ressentiment – of their, and our, time. The caustic trickle fills the cup of every “intellectual” nihilist, i.e., the psychologists.

Despite its enshrinement in the modern canon, the dramatic insights of Nietzsche have been buried under the rhetorical ornaments and milquetoast analyses necessary to avoid the dreadful guilt of collective violence. The idolatry of Freud ceases wherever his gospel turns to the same Satanic theme.

These men exemplify the heights of ressentiment; their writings plaster every theatre and brothel. They know but one thing: to fill their belly and be drunk, to be wounded whilst fighting for their favourite charioteer, to live like goats and pigs. Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the Cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. The response to the God Question is as it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: You are free to think as you will, and everything of yours shall remain yours, but from this day on, you are one apart from the many. Few are ready for the answer of Christ:

The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

>Psalm 118:22

The habitual reaction, in the wake of any exception to internalised ressentiment, but especially in real violence, is to retroactively apply a host of malignancies upon the vengeful; and, since every community believes every evil that befalls it comes of evil purpose, to erect prohibitions against the behaviour or action of the vengeful.

Yet modern society further prevents the mediation of the desire for violence with each new prohibition. For, possessing no equivalent response to the adolescent rite of passage or funereal liturgy, it cannot pre-empt and resolve the desire for violence; and dissuades only with the socially-acceptable reciprocated violence of legal justice. Where nineteenth-century nihilism quietly seethed, modern annihilism flares, with pagan intensity, for real violence. Every modern prohibition is therefore to the exciting of further violence, and to the dissolution of the community. For as Jesus said:

Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

>Matthew 12:25-26

No. The Cappadocians reject the primacy of essence over person, it is closer to existentialism.

Read Kierkegaard instead.

>>839044 neitzsche is just satanism for the elite

>>839044

if it is so what?

>>839048

What is this gross s—? Cain is evil because he killed out of jealousy. According to the Bible King David was justified to say death to all who oppose me and Paul authorized to commit beatings because of his superior understanding of religion. I know you're just virtue signaling because nigs are nogging but virtue signaling is still evil because it leads to heresy.

>>839044

It's an oxymoron. Plato promoted Elitism. Platonism was definitely a component of Gnosticism with it's hierarchies and "levels" (same as it's other mystery cult descendants, like Rosicrucians or Freemasons), but not Christianity. To be "for the masses" is precisely the opposite of Platonic thinking. The last thing Plato would want is for the plowman to have the same access to God as the king. And the 7th Ecumenical Council literally placed an anathema on adherents of Platonism. How can you curse something to Hell, and at the same time be for it? Only in the retarded mind of the Fedora does this somehow make sense. And perhaps some misguided Catholics as well, who have been corrupted by classicism since the Renaissance (but usually for them, they're Aristotelian. Not Platonists, per se).

>>839075

It has nothing to do with Reality. Via con Dios. If you really want reality, you know who to go to.

There's a reason why the Christian world shelved Plato and Aristotle and had their texts rotting or lying dormant. Until your rapist crusaders came and pillaged everything, that is.

>>839078

The Bible says violence (to a certain degree depending on reason) is justified as long as it's committed by those of superior capability. Those violent Crusaders brought superior knowledge back to the mainstream.

>>839079

No it doesn't

>>839079

Like I said, via con Dios. Defending rape before the Almighty on judgement day won't help you. I highly recommend you don't even think it.

As for Platonism. You are ill and in need of a physician. As a Catholic, do you understand that you yourself are beholden to the 7 Ecumenical Councils? The anathema on Platonism is all about finding "reality" through the proper channels of theology and revelation. Not men. Acknowledging this is the only way you'll ever get healthy.

>>839081

I'm not even a platonist but to claim they were wrong about everything is delusional.

>>839078

Pope Leo XIII, Urbanitatis Veteris

For if those whose training and teaching have been followed in acquiring wisdom rightly receive a large part of the glory due wise men, We judge that your Aristotle certainly has received honor from the fact that We have honored blessed Thomas Aquinas, easily the most outstanding of the disciples and great followers of Aristotle.

Moreover we are delighted to no little degree by those of Our predecessors to whom Greece gave birth and race, and frequently We recall how wisely they aided and abetted the Christian Church as it progressed through hard and difficult times in those days. How bravely most of them, as Anacletus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, after accomplishing great labors, underwent martyrdom. Although, to tell the truth, We scarcely ever recall the Popes of Greek origin without grief and longing because of the great loss brought about by the misfortune of later centuries. We refer to that ancient union, free from discord, by which Greeks and Latins were held together for their mutual profit when that part of the earth which had produced Socrates and Plato often provided the Supreme Pontiffs. The sharing of man and great blessings would have remained if concord had remained.

Pope Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissimo

But in vain did the adversaries try to arrest and stop that course of Catholic wisdom; in vain did they seek objections from the schools of Greek philosophy, especially from those of Plato and Aristotle, with high-sounding words indeed. For our champions, declining not even that kind of contest, applied themselves to the learning and study of the heathen philosophers; having examined with the greatest diligence what each one of them had professed, they took these things into consideration one by one; they examined them, they compared them; many things were rejected or corrected by them; not a few were justly approved of and accepted; they also discovered and established by them, that those things which are proved to be false by human reason and intelligence, are in the same manner opposed to Christian doctrine, so that he who withstands and opposes this doctrine, of necessity equally withstands and opposes reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. xlvii, art. 12, Answer.

Prudence proceeds from reason, and to reason it specially pertains to guide and govern. Whence it follows that, in so much as any one takes part in the control and government of affairs, in so far ought he to be gifted with reason and prudence. But it is evident that the subject, so far as subject, and the servant ought neither to control nor govern, but rather to be controlled and governed. Prudence, then, is not the special virtue of the servant, so far as servant, nor of the subject, so far as subject. But because any man, on account of his character of a reasonable being, may have some share in the government on account of the rational choice which he exercises, it is fitting that in such proportion he should possess the virtue of prudence. Whence it manifestly results that prudence exists in the ruler as the art of building exists in the architect, whereas prudence exists in the subject as the art of building exists in the hand of the workman employed in the construction.

>>839072

>The legacy of Cain lies in his role as both fratricide AND founder.

Where did I imply that Cain is not evil? And how does my writing suggest virtue signalling or any level of support to the Satanic protests?