Saturday, August 9, 2014

Eso’s Chronicles 391
War Against Byzantium
© Eso A.B.
All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin.

Unorthodox Christianity

It is somewhat amazing that most of the writers about Christianity and or Chritendom ever fail to step out of the realm of Christendom itself, but proceed to offer criticism from within the system.

For example, Malcolm Lambert, a reader in Medieval History at University of Bristol, and author of “The Cathars”, an interesting enough book, cannot for a moment assume that the Cathars represent an early form of Christianity, one that precedes Catholicism, but writes about them only from the perspective that they have been proven heretics to Catholicst Christianity.

No doubt, the Cathars were heretics to the Catholics, but only because they were part of a Christianity that preceded Catholicism and its definition of Christianity by perhaps some thousands of years.

This myopic perspective is similar to all the army of critics from the West, who offer criticism of the West by remaining securely bound to the system, which (having begun with the introduction of taxation) proceeds under the assumption that the Industrial Revolution is an everlastingly new system, rather than the apex of an old faux system come to its apex and about to begin its collapse.

Whatever is it that causes us to presume that Christianity derives solely from the life of Jesus? If indeed this were so, then it cannot be a platform for faith any other than a shallow one—no matter how forcefully Catholics (and its inquisitors) tried or still try to ground it in God. Only violent force can accomplish such a marvel, as in fact the Inquisition proved it by repressing and killing all or most of those who opposed this ‘new’ message.

It may be difficult for the theologians interested in theology to accept the notion that ancient people were better theologians than the academics who stuff the halls of today’s universities, because not only did they evolve a theology as such, but put it in practice in the daily life of the communities to which they belonged.

Take for example the native religion of the Latvian people, to who I have ties a few centuries in duration, and whose language I know rather well. What distinguishes the religion of the Latvians is that it is embedded in their language, with one caveat: it is to be found only in their oral language, whereas written language is utterly western in its orientation and devoid of any spirit—poets excepting--other than having become an obvious objectivist clunker.

The word that holds the nature of Latvian spiritual being is what formerly grammarians called the diminutive, but more enlightened folks call the endearing or gentling word. Some would describe the nature of this spirit animist in essence, but surely if such a description were to stick, it is repressive by nature. Because—how can you call John Johnny, and hold the endearment to be a form of animism? Well, yes, sure, Johnny is an endearment (not a diminutive); and an endearment is for the most part a consequence of love and affection. Besides, while an endearment is not a verb, there stands behind it a feeling it activates.

As far as I know, Latvians have no direct ties to ‘tengrism’ (see EC 290) , but like tengrism the forbears of these once proud forest people, believed in synchronicity, i.e., that all of nature, here and there, was not arbitrary matter, but was connected with profound ties to the present and its beings.

True, the same cannot be said about Latvians today, because the people have been subject to over a century of pro-western proselytizing, this, curiously enough, even with the help of the Soviet Union, which government kept them subjects for half a century. This Western influence from both East and West is true, because Marx for all his opposition to Capitalism oriented the Communist system from within a Western mindset and mold.

No comments:

Post a Comment