Re: 'Religious Founders' vs. other 'Geniuses'...part 2
- There is an argument that Jesus was not the founder of a new religion,
but that is beside the point of the context of your post.
Perhaps I'm "slow," but I don't see any evidence of Jesus living
"without God." And, I don't see the rationale for his dying on the
cross as atonement for his own guilt, as delineated by Otto Weininger.
I know I'm not your favorite existentialist. You came down on me for
one mention of science-fiction author, Philip K. Dick, yet you have
allowed others to post lengthy excerpts from Dick's EXEGESIS, without
My post is such as it is. I can deal with your condescending response.
--- In email@example.com, new_trail_blazer
> Thus the founder of a religion is the greatest of the geniuses,
> for he has vanquished the most. He is the man who has accomplished
> victoriously what the deepest thinkers of mankind have thought of
> only timorously as a possibility, the complete regeneration of a man,
> the reversal of his will. Other great men of genius have, indeed, to
> fight against evil, but the bent of their souls is towards the good.
> The founder of a religion has so much in him of evil, of the
> perverse, of earthly passion, that he must fight with the enemy
> within him for forty days in the wilderness, without food or sleep.
> It was only thus that he can conquer and overcome the death within
> him and free himself for the highest life. Were it otherwise there
> would be no impulse to found a faith. The founder of a religion is
> thus the very antipodes of the emperor; emperor and Galilean are at
> the two poles of thought. In Napoleon's life, also, there was a
> moment when a conversion took place; but this was not a turning away
> from earthly life, but the deliberate decision for the treasure and
> power and splendor of the earthly life. Napoleon was great in the
> colossal intensity with which he flung from him all the ideal, all
> relation to the absolute, in the magnitude of his guilt. The founder
> of religion, on the other hand, connot and will not bring to man
> anything except that which was most difficult for himself to attain,
> the reconciliation with God. He knows that he himself was the man
> most laden with guilt, and he atones for the guilt by his death on
> the cross.
> Otto Weininger in 'Sex and Character'
- Hello Dennis,
Jesus living 'without God'? I would take this to simply mean that he
was lacking in perfect conscious-contact with the Same.
I'm open to the possibility that his death on the cross could have
been suicide or attitude adjustment by mob.
Going front and center in one's early 30s claiming perfection with
limited insights and down to earth living experiences seems not all
that wise here.
I think of J. Krishnamurti here too in the same light but peg him as
being real slick (dishonest) and quite cowardly in comparison.
Consider me enlightened/awakened/tenaciously 'self'-watchful(stop)
Dennis, and without ever having read any sci-fi stuff. Discovery of
and the rectification of what's inside ('know thyself') is the key to
fullness of being, not what's (maybe) out there, over there, or up
Bob M. (NTB)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "neurom9999"
> There is an argument that Jesus was not the founder of a newreligion,
> but that is beside the point of the context of your post.Weininger.
> Perhaps I'm "slow," but I don't see any evidence of Jesus living
> "without God." And, I don't see the rationale for his dying on the
> cross as atonement for his own guilt, as delineated by Otto
> I know I'm not your favorite existentialist. You came down on me
> one mention of science-fiction author, Philip K. Dick, yet you havewithout
> allowed others to post lengthy excerpts from Dick's EXEGESIS,
> My post is such as it is. I can deal with your condescending