If the Christian mystic does not like Jews
What is most striking in the last book of Marco Vannini is violence. Convinced that "the present day religion has recovered to be topic of great interest," I pray to God to release me from God (Bompiani), the distinguished scholar of mysticism in Western intends to separate the truth from the lie of religion, and is arguing that Christianity is the result of two components, a good which is the Greek Platonic and more specifically, a bad and that is the Jewish one. In fact, while the 'Plato the kingdom of God, or truth and justice, "the biblical mythology gives an external God, Creator and Lord - a mirror image of God idolatry of the body, blood, race', which should free to reach "a purified Christianity by the legacy of Israel." With this objective Vannini strongly attacked the theology, the Bible and each institutional dimension: "theology, ceremonies, synagogues, churches, with their implied but not too racist implications of the chosen people, a community of saints, etc.., continuing source of discrimination and hatred. " Often he does it with a bitterness that contrasts with the "detachment" which he placed at the heart of mystical experience, as when he says that theology "is a lie and sin, indeed something bestial," a "product of gula spiritualis with a purpose appropriate goditiva, greedy. " The speech reached tones invective especially against the Jewish Bible, for Vannini 'series of falsehoods designed to racial ideology. " There are even words that should not be written after the Holocaust, such as those that "the Jews, after killing Jesus, persecuted his followers from the beginning," or those that "children of the devil, who is the father of lies, the Jews are called by Jesus." Actually just read the Gospels carefully to see that Jesus has never defined Jews as those "sons of the devil," because the text states that it was addressed to those Jews "who believed in him" (Jn 8.31 ), not the Jewish people as such. Nor is it fair to say that they were "Jews" to kill Jesus, because we know that was the priestly aristocracy of the temple, the collaborationist party of the Sadducees, to deliver Jesus to the Roman power, which then executed Jesus as a threat to the status quo. A kill Jesus were "Jews", but the religious power and political power united in the common interest (as so often in history). But how do you, even today, shifting the responsibility for Jesus' death on an entire people, saying that "the Jews did kill Jesus? And this would be purified Christianity? In fact repeat these stereotypes, the same religious basis of anti-Semitism that has produced ethnic Auschwitz, is (at least) a mistake is to ignore completely the results of the most reliable historians and historical-critical exegesis. But it's all in the setting of Vann puzzling not only left his Judaism. Speaking of theology, Bible and Church in the singular, it is wrong. There are different theologies, different aspects of the churches, other biblical books. And among these diverse realities there are negative and true, very true, and must criticize, do not trouble to do so. But not to exercise the wisdom of making any distinction apples and oranges, would mean breaking the main task of thinking, means not only deliver what the company thought can give, namely the settling of the calm passions, and the light of intelligence. To say that theology as such is "the negation of true religion" is to ignore the history of the theology of 900, in which there were men of a unique spiritual greatness, not less dear to the medieval masters Vannini, think Florenskij, Bonhoeffer, Teilhard de Chardin, theologians who have paid with their lives (red martyrdom and martyrdom green) for their dedication to research and the good of the world. How do you, forgetting to talk about theology in derogatory ways and summaries of Vann? But the real root of his error is, in my view, the concept of spirit. Spirit for Vannini is properly understood only as opposed to blood, rises only as "posting", like "removal of all content-psychic bonds," as "death of the soul" because a man can live the experience of the spirit, must die in His psychic individuality. In this opposition between spirit and soul, between soul and body, revives the tradition of Augustinianism radical with his contempt for the world, in particular of human nature. So Vannini: "Human nature is the source from which all the evils of man, so who is based exclusively on the human can not be anything but evil," and yet, the man must know that "everything proceeds from himself, from his own will, is a lie and proceeds from the devil. " At the bottom of the real lie for him, beyond theology church Judaism, it's human nature. Discounting the chill of the late Agostino anthropological pessimism that humanity was a "bloody mass" and place all the unbaptized hell, Vannini supports using the concept of "detachment" that enters the experience of the spirit only by denying human nature. If Christianity was so then why Nietzsche would call it a hatred of the health, strength, beauty of natural existence. And there is evidence of this is true, the radical Augustinism the exhibition. But for Jesus, the soul should not die, but must be saved, preserved, grown, and everything must be done in love with the world and with each fragment to be, not in separation but in the communion (union-with), with joy of brotherhood towards all forms of life, because, as we learned in the Hebrew Bible, we are living in "an eternal covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh" (Genesis 9:16).
Vito Mancuso in "the Republic" January 19, 2010
Vannini answers Mancuso
Republic yesterday, January 19, published an article on my Vito Mancuso I pray that God deliver me from God, in which I am charged, among other things, anti-Judaism. It is a 'strongly reject that accusation, calling to witness my entire life as a scholar who has spent years translating the Bible Commentaries: in Israel, in the forest-Jules Isaac John XXIII, there are five trees planted in my honor by friendship Jewish-Christian Rome (Keren Kayemeth Leisrael). This charge is based on the method of quoting sentences mutilated, taken out of context, or even attribute to me that those quotes are much higher authority. The latter is, for example, the case of theology, defined as "animal" is not from me but from Meister Eckhart (hence the book itself takes its title), and the context in which well explains the sense: as ignorance, stupidity because theology is presumptuous to talk about God, but that is beyond any possible discourse. It 'also the case of "Christianity purified from' heritage of Israel" quote, this, Simone Weil, another point of essential reference book - and wonder that Mancuso is silent, as the dedicated one of his books perhaps feared the accusation of "anti-Jewish left"?
I am especially criticized, with regard to the condemnation of Jesus, the 'mistake of talking about "Jews", without specifying that these were the only collaborators Sadducees, whereas just prior to the offending line it says that Jesus was condemned by the " Jewish priestly power, the political ally of the Romans ", the same argument that says Mancuso. It 'still evident from the whole context that does not mean to give absurd historical collective responsibility, but only emphasize that Christianity was founded on the assertion of identity between Jesus and the Father - blasphemy, this, for Judaism, which marked out clearly the contrast between the two religions. That the biblical story is built on lies - the Patriarchs invention, the invention of 'Exodus, the Temple of invention, invention of the law, etc.. - And that this has been done for political purposes, is an acquired by the modern historical-critical research (in my book is mentioned among others Mario Liverani, Beyond the Bible. Ancient History of Israel, Laterza), and who has well built "a closed community not only religion but also race" (ibid. p. 391), it is equally important. Because it is not in fact to criticize a book of the Bible rather than another, accepting what they like and rejecting what'm sorry, but to recognize that "the real supreme blasphemy is sacred calling that comes from human hands," as the humanist Cornelius Agrippa. By the time the largest Catholic publisher Italian presents the Bible as "way, truth, life" by giving a book to what Christ says of himself, I think it is legitimate to speak of religion as a lie, next to religion as truth. For this, and not the other, is my book, so that vindicates the importance of the Greek source, and Platonism in particular, in the formation of Christianity.
Platonism means the primacy of the interior against the exterior, it means not to build theology / mythology, but try to "become like God" in justice. Means knowledge of the malice inherent in the ego, in its most irrepressible selfishness, and therefore the need for a conversion of a "death of the soul", that is a radical departure from the ego. It means, in conclusion, the experience of nature as much grace, and the primacy of the latter - and that is what Christianity is founded, and the mystique - the only true heir of Greek philosophy - has kept. It is not me or Augustine, with its "icy pessimism", as dictated by Mancuso, and especially since Christ himself hate his soul / life, to deny oneself, to die to themselves as a grain of wheat dies experiment and the rebirth and new life in the Spirit, are in fact the steps and essential features of the Gospel message and the conditions of following Christ. If you clear them, Jesus, as a man, is reduced to a master of new-age, and Christianity (but it makes sense to call it that?) With a molasses silly and insignificant. Marco Vannini
0 comments:
Post a Comment