Speaker 1: If would really be an extremely useful inquiry to try to make a completely impartial and accurate assessment of the advantages derived from religion compared with the disadvantages which have attended it. But that would require a much greater quantity of historical and psychological data than we two have at our command. Academies could make it the subject of a prize essay.
Speaker 2: They will take care not to do so.
"(t)he difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time", and this is precisely why the Church never ventured to offer that kind of antinomian teaching - a recipe for schizophrenia which has always been for the 'elite' only - to the masses, which were rendered schizophrenic by the constant psychic and psychological clash between their nature, their day-to-day life, and the noctambulistic assumption of other carefully selected, then mediumnistically and mediatically communicated passages of the scriptures.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Joel Dietz <jdietz@...> wrote:
>
> When the Church says that, in the dogmas of religion, reason is totally
> incompetent and blind, and its use to be reprehended, it is in reality
> attesting the fact that these dogmas are allegorical in their nature, and
> are not to be judged by the standard which reason, taking all things *sensu
> proprio* , can alone apply. Now the absurdities of a dogma are just the mark
> and sign of what is allegorical and mythical in it. ... [T]he difficulty is
> to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the
> same time. And as all religions are in a greater or less degree of this
> nature, we must recognize the fact that mankind cannot get on without a
> certain amount of absurdity, that absurdity is an element in its existence,
> and illusion indispensable; as indeed other aspects of life testify.
> -Schopenhauer
>
>
>> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:47 AM, vandermok <vandermok@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Even Evola, in 'Roma e il natale solare nella tradizione nordico-aria'
> > (La Difesa della razza, 1940) made a little "lapsus calami" when he wrote
> > that the 25 December is the day of the winter solstice, while it
> > just symbolizes it.
> >
> > Xmas, is celebrated now about 4 days after the true astronomical solstice
> > (solar ingress into Capricorn). In Rome, after the beginning of the
> > Saturnalia, the day of the solstice was dedicated to the goddess Angerona,
> > the one who overcomes the "angustiae", the fears of the longest night of the
> > year. The emperor Aurelianus initiated the Natalis Solis Invicti related to
> > the solar god Mithras, the favourite of the legionaries, just the 25
> > December, to which Christianity merely superimposed its Nativity.
> >
> > Now, why Aurelianus chose the day 25 for celebrating the feast-day of the
> > Sun, instead of simply remove Angerona from the calendar at the
> > solstice? It's not clear.
> >
> > By the way, an oddity of the Christian Xmas is that St. Luke talks of
> > "shepherds keeping watch over their flock by night", but in Palestine the
> > sheep-rearing stopped in winter. For not talking of the uncertainty about
> > the year, because no document, apart from the Gospel, confirms the famous
> > "census" that obliged the Holy Family to move to Bethlehem.
> >
> > We are on a mythical stage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>