Thursday, August 27, 2015

Two religious points

One of the hardest things about assimilating Christ into a new religious frame is that he was certainly in favor of forgiving your enemies and I am not. At least not across the board. I am in favor of a case by case approach, and my motives are far less high-minded.

Aside from his sinlessness, what makes Christ problematic as a moral exemplar for what Jung calls "empirical man" is that he was never anyone's fellow-equal for a lifetime. Among his disciples, he was always The Master, even --or especially-- when serving them. With his opponents he was a relentless opponent and never had a kiss and makeup with the Pharisees. And when he was betrayed and murdered, his forgivenss was a one-time event. Jesus did not have to live with other humans in groups for a whole lifetime where he had no special status. We do. 


Part of the folly afflicting the Sons of Europa is that we have lost the capacity to do what Samuel Huntington --who may be one of the Soul Doctors of the new faith-- reminded us about: how to accurately assess relationships with Others. Despite Will Rogers' wisdom about many things, the stupidest thing he ever said was that "A stranger is just a friend you haven't met yet." Maybe in the comparatively idyllic White America of his time that mighta been true, now in Obamaworld, it's insanity. The inability to name an enemy as an enemy --especially if he's Brownish-- is part of our immorally foolish "ethics."

A wisdom-based faith would give up the high-minded ideals that do not match actual terrestrial life. Or at least relegate them to monastic practitioners who have no control over other peoples' lives.

Second, the phrase Sons of Europa well captures the intent of what I am about: this has to be a religion for men. For all its flaws, Islam has a great survival advantage in that it appeals to natural manliness. Even traditional Judaism, which fostered intellectual power over physical strength, was a male religion. Christianity, even though pilloried by feminists as a patriarchal power structure, introduced a powerful and eventually fatal dose of the feminine. It is totally common to see a church pastored by men but populated --and hence emotionally dominated-- by women.

What is true in religion is true in the larger society: a great many of the indignities and pathologies we endure --from Clown Masses to the Kardashians--would be unthinkable if men truly ruled.

Even at the risk of making non-conventional males like myself more unwelcome, I'd like to see a faith that men would not be embarrassed to embrace and practice. Christianity was once a faith like that. Witness its history. But those days, at least in the Catholic/Protestant West, are over.

How can a White Man now live through the Churches' double betrayal of his people and his sex?

----




3 comments:

-A said...

Would women have nothing to so with the religious service? Would they have their own masses? Would there be an Oracular sect of Priestesses to worship a Goddess (or the same God as the men) who represented the ethics of their roles in society? Or, so long as the men have their Chivalric Order and their Fiath, they will be able to see to the health of society? Actually, either way would be good for me but, the latter seems to make the most sense.

-A

p.s. Of course, I do not expect you to make a religion for women. We could leave that to women that aren't total capital C's.

DrAndroSF said...

All world religions are founded by and for men, so I am sticking to that course.

As my brain rambles through this experiment, I play with various elements of the masculine and feminine. It is ironic that Apostolic Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox), with its very large cult of the Virgin Mother, is the part of former Christendom which resists the triumph of feminism in refusing to ordain females or to marry homosexuals. Protest Christianity, which eradicated all femininity in a burst of Yahwish puritanism, now finds itself entirely swamped in estrogen.

I did think that a secondary and limited priesthood for females only might contain some of that energy and keep them away from the men...

The only cultures that can handle priestesses without imploding are highly masculinized and patriarchal warrior cultures where the sexes are truly and without question opposites. Given our blurred boundaries, a male priesthood that either admitted females or allowed female priests to serve males would be an invitation to a repeat of our present disaster.

-A said...

I figured you would want to stick the with Masculine Faith model, which as wise for as you say: All religions were built with men in mind. However, my question was if women should have their own masses with their own cloth, not if women should ever serve mass to men. Perhaps even their own religion and oh God, I just realized as I was typing that such a thing could quickly lead to a religious war of the sexes.

-A

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...