About the ass, the problem is Romans did not distinguish between Christians and Hebrews, considering both similar superstitious sects. The god Set could point out that some root of Christianity goes back to Egypt too (through the "Egyptian" Moses).
Anyway, the ass and the ox represent two forces, one tamed and the other one still wild, like the good and bad robbers at the sides of Jesus crucified.
----
----- Original Message -----
From: Asdfasdsfdas Sfsdf
Not "decline of Christianity" but Christianity as decline, or from the same chapter, opening paragraph:
The advent of Christianity marked the beginning of an unprecedented decline.
And then from the disputed paragraph: Not only was the ass present in the Nativity scene, but it was on an ass that the Virgin and the Divine Child escaped to Egypt, most of all, it was on an ass that Jesus rode during his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem. The ass was a traditional symbol of an infernal dissolutive "force." In Egypt it was the animal sacred to Set, who embodied this force, had an antisolar character, and was associated with the "children of the powerless rebellion."
My point, and you can belittle me as much as you like but I am using the same methodology as did Evola, is that the symbol of the donkey has never been used as the primary symbol of Christianity, unlike the aquarial fish symbol.
In Rivolta's "North and South" Evola posited Northern man's primary relationship with the sun and Southern man's relationship with the earth, but what about Levant-based man's relationship with water?
Is this unworthy of mentioning?
I mean, its all photosynthesis, "ouroboros." Plus it all stems from nature's scarcity in where man place's spiritual emphasis. The principle of deduction is the same, and the "traditionalist method" could equally be applied here.
From: Evola <evola_as_he_is@...>
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:54 AM
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: De Giorgio (it was: Reghini and Pythagorism)
He did, in 'Revolt' (p. 284-85), without however linking it up to a so-called "decline of Christianity", far from it : it represented "the secret sign of a force that was associated with primitive Christianity and to which it partially owed its success."
Your first statement was that he saw "Christianity as purely a destructive force and connected to the demon Set..." We put it right by pointing out that it was Judaism he viewed, after Diodorus Siculus, as being possibly connected to Set.
----- Original Message -----
From: Asdfasdsfdas Sfsdf
Not "decline of Christianity" but Christianity as decline, or from the same chapter, opening paragraph:
The advent of Christianity marked the beginning of an unprecedented decline.
And then from the disputed paragraph: Not only was the ass present in the Nativity scene, but it was on an ass that the Virgin and the Divine Child escaped to Egypt, most of all, it was on an ass that Jesus rode during his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem. The ass was a traditional symbol of an infernal dissolutive "force." In Egypt it was the animal sacred to Set, who embodied this force, had an antisolar character, and was associated with the "children of the powerless rebellion."
My point, and you can belittle me as much as you like but I am using the same methodology as did Evola, is that the symbol of the donkey has never been used as the primary symbol of Christianity, unlike the aquarial fish symbol.
In Rivolta's "North and South" Evola posited Northern man's primary relationship with the sun and Southern man's relationship with the earth, but what about Levant-based man's relationship with water?
Is this unworthy of mentioning?
I mean, its all photosynthesis, "ouroboros." Plus it all stems from nature's scarcity in where man place's spiritual emphasis. The principle of deduction is the same, and the "traditionalist method" could equally be applied here.
From: Evola <evola_as_he_is@...>
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:54 AM
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: De Giorgio (it was: Reghini and Pythagorism)
He did, in 'Revolt' (p. 284-85), without however linking it up to a so-called "decline of Christianity", far from it : it represented "the secret sign of a force that was associated with primitive Christianity and to which it partially owed its success."
Your first statement was that he saw "Christianity as purely a destructive force and connected to the demon Set..." We put it right by pointing out that it was Judaism he viewed, after Diodorus Siculus, as being possibly connected to Set.