Deleuze on Christianity

[Anonymous No.14743494]

>Nietzsche never stops saying that there are active and affirmative Gods, active and affirmative religions. Every selection implies a religion. Following his favorite method, Nietzsche recognizes a plurality of senses in religion depending on the forces which can take posession on it: there is therefore a religion of the strong, with a profoundly selective, educative sense. Moreover, if we consider Christ as personal type - we must recognize how far he lacked ressentiment, bad conscience; he defined himself by glad tidings.
>The inventor of bad conscience is not Christ, but St. Paul, the man of ressentiment.
- Nietzsche and Philosophy (pg 143-144 Columbia Uni Press), Deleuze

This suprised me to read. Obviously Deleuze was not Catholic but it seems to me that many people confuse being against institutional Christianity with rejection of Christ himself. Whether or not this is a valid position is another debate, but there is clearly nuance in what many so-called "anti-Christians" think about Christ himself.

[Anonymous No.14744210]

>>14743494
Both Deleuze and Nietzsche are shitty thinkers. They are trash. Get over your fucking self already. The sooner these idiots are forgotten, the better.

[Anonymous No.14744220]

>>14744210
post your dissertation

[Anonymous No.14744227]

>>14743494
>many people confuse being against institutional Christianity with rejection of Christ hi
>Dionysus against the Crucified
Both were slaughtered, rising again is the point. ~ Dalmoxis against the kapparot. Mithras against the Golden Calf.

[Anonymous No.14744265]

>>14743494
>hey peter you are my rock and upon you i will build my church
>NO NOT AN INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH I MEANT A METAPHORICAL "CHURCH" THAT IS JUST A COLLECTIVE TERM FOR EVERYONE THAT FOLLOWS ME
>NO NO NO WHEN I COMMISSIONED YOU TWELVE TO BE THE LEADERS OF MY CHURCH I DIDN'T MEAN LITERAL LEADERS I MEANT METAPHORICAL "LEADERS" WHO DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY

Why do people keep peddling this anti-Pauline nonsense as though its possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Apostolic Fathers?

[Anonymous No.14744277]

>>14743494
Is that Deleuze and his daughter (male)?

[Anonymous No.14744289]

>>14744210
this nigga thinks he can talk shit about two of the most refined thinkers the human civilization has produced from the comfort of his cum covered keyboard.

[Anonymous No.14744298]

>>14744265
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.14744308]

>>14744265
gospels > epistles

[Anonymous No.14744324]

Agreed

[Anonymous No.14744325]

>>14744308
Gospels being more important than the epistles doesn't mean the epistles aren't the Word of God.

[Anonymous No.14744345]

>>14744265
Retard, we already know from the suppressed gospels that Peter and Paul were not favored apostles, but Thomas and Mary. The Catholic church is a manifest fraud, as evidenced by its leading the west into disarray.

[Anonymous No.14744346]

>>14744289
>Deluze
>one of two of the most refined thinkers the human civilization has produced
For fuck's sake anon.

[Anonymous No.14744386]

Whos the qt

[Anonymous No.14744416]

>>14744345
>taking the suppressed "gospels" seriously
You're the retard, not me

[Anonymous No.14745156]

>>14744210
Christianity is dead and the domination of Platonic metaphysics is over. You're the one who needs to get a grip and move on.

[Anonymous No.14745165]

>>14743494
This is dumb as fuck. Reusing the word religion is just obscurant.

[Anonymous No.14745194]

>>14744210
>if I ignore them they'll go away :)

[Anonymous No.14746540]

>>14743494
Think about the holocaust. It's funny and sexy.

[Anonymous No.14746573]

>>14743494
>but it seems to me that many people confuse being against institutional Christianity with rejection of Christ himself. Whether or not this is a valid position is another debate, but there is clearly nuance in what many so-called "anti-Christians" think about Christ himself.
wtf

humanist bourgeois have seized power because they hated that the priests messed with their life, ie asking for money and getting people to marry.
Even voltaire whined about this 200 years ago, but they said ''spirituality'' is no pb for them/ and indeed bourgeois are secular just christians when it suits them, pumping an dumping juedo christian values on the plebs they have been educating for the last 100 yers.

[Anonymous No.14746642]

>>14744345
>suppressed gospels
Thanks for the laugh, mate.

[Anonymous No.14746644]

>>14746573
>juedo christian values
Was Jesus the original Karate Kid?

[Anonymous No.14746673]

>>14746644
you don't cleanse a temple of money lenders without a solid pair of nunchakus

[Anonymous No.14747005]

>>14744265
There's no proof Jesus even existed, but if he did, there's no proof he had any interest in politics or plans to build such a hierarchy as the church's and wasn't simply used by others as a segue into a new political power. Paul is sometimes referred to as the beginning of that segue for having played a role in spreading the early form of Christianity to the locals.

What we do know though, because we have literary works that demonstrate it, is that the Bible is a mixture of pagan and Hebrew literary concepts and religious feelings. It is quite a mess. There's little doubt that the political intervention of populists and the masses at some point disrupted the emotional and philosophical ponderings of men who were relatively outside of politics.

[Anonymous No.14747054]

>>14744265
>you are the rock I will build church on = ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE YOUR SUCCESSOR SPEAKS THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD AND ACTS AS SURROGATE CHRIST ON EARTH
Peter was the Rock, but I have high doubts about the rest of these shmucks that call themselves Popes

[Anonymous No.14747266]

So is Nietzsche's whole anti-paul shtick historically correct /lit/?

[Anonymous No.14747528]

>>14744289
>The first difference between science and philosophy is their respective attitudes toward chaos.
>Chaos is defined not so much by its disorder as by the infinte speed with which every form taking shape in it vanishes. It is a void that is not a nothingness but a virtual, containing all possible particles and drawing out all possible forms, which spring up only to disappear immediately, without consequence.
>Chaos is an infinite speed of birth and disappearance
-Deleuze and Guattari 1994

How is this not gibberish to you? Have you ever had a class in higher maths?

[Anonymous No.14747577]

>>14747528
Cherry picking. Talk about Deleuze's early philosophical work, which is his best, not his trash with Guattari.

[Anonymous No.14747585]

>>14747577
>most refined thinkers the human civilization has produced
if >>14747528 constitutes cherry-picking then the above statement can't be true, can it?

[Anonymous No.14747590]

>>14747585
I'm not him but the statement >>14744289 was equally false

[Anonymous No.14747593]

>>14747590
The statement >>14744289 was responding to that is

[Anonymous No.14747609]

How is Jesus lacking ressentiment when his whole mission is based around his opposition to wealth, power, nation and family, everything he lacked as a Roman/Jewish bastard of rape in 1st century Judea?

[Anonymous No.14747622]

>>14747609
Don't bother, Deleuze was a retard that wrote meaningless word salads and pretended it made sense. Post-modern philosophy is as lazy as it is pretentious.

[Anonymous No.14747639]

>>14747585
You can take any statement from any renowned philosopher and make them look retarded.

[Anonymous No.14747648]

>>14747266
I think it is, but the language of his English translators makes it sound more "triumphant" and "dramatic" an event than he wrote or thought about it. Paul was a fanatic, and he is greatly to blame for the perversion of Christ's teachings that would fester throughout history, but he wasn't consciously malevolent, or consumed by some old religious lunacy like you always see portrayed by the likes of Monty Python and such. He was simply a Jew who understood things in very Jewish ways, and as such, reinterpreted Jesus in a way that made sense to him (i.e., in a way that missed the original point). He probably thought he was doing honest work for an honest God and nothing more. That said, there is no reason to pity him.

[Anonymous No.14747650]

>>14747609
>wealth and power
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
>nation and family
Honor thy mother and thy father.

Refuted by Jesus himself.

[Anonymous No.14747660]

>>14747622
gee, wonder where you picked up that one from

[Anonymous No.14747670]

>>14743494
uhhh sweaty Deleuze(pbuh) was muslim

[Anonymous No.14747674]

>>14747585
I think he is referring to Deleuze and Nietzsche as two great thinkers -- no mention of Guattari

[Anonymous No.14747679]

>>14747005
>There's no proof Jesus even existed

[Anonymous No.14748510]

>>14747528
>Have you ever had a class in higher maths?
Several, and your implication that D&G are in any way invoking formal mathematics rather than painting with its language for the affects. You quite literally are cherry picking. What could be your complaint here? That we aren't speaking in FOL + ZFC? Is that really what'd be appropriate to what D&G are saying or did we (oh) remove that context?

[Anonymous No.14748525]

>>14747054
>I have high doubts about the rest of these shmucks that call themselves Popes
Its not like we have video from back then. There was no fucking internet. I don't know how people can blindly trust Catholics/Protestants when its abundantly clear that Rome mass slaughtered Christians and burned books until only state approved copies remained.

[Anonymous No.14748530]

>>14744345
lmao

[Anonymous No.14748545]

>>14747609
>ressentiment when his whole mission is based around his opposition to wealth, power, nation and family, everything he lacked
Its always a sad laugh when you catch someone implying ressentiment=resentment(pettiness, jealousy) and being a master as a virtue. Please don't post anymore.

[Jesus Christ No.14748631]

Present

[Jesus Christ No.14748650]

what would I do?

[Anonymous No.14748657]

>>14744210
>profane & refuted Deleuze and profane & refuted Nietzsche on Christianity
OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14748663]

>>14744265
Based.

[Anonymous No.14748677]

>>14747639
>You can take any statement from any renowned philosopher and make them look retarded.
Not from Guénon though.

[Anonymous No.14748779]

>>14748677
Call him by the name he chose before you can claim to answer that with honest intentions

[Anonymous No.14748798]

>>14748779
I will not sully his (pbuh) initiatic name on a modernistic forum. It has too great of a power to be used in vain.

[Anonymous No.14748848]

>>14748798
Then you aren't taking him seriously, you discredit his identity with this behavior which calls into question the honesty of your posts

[Anonymous No.14748893]

>>14748848
>you discredit his identity
I do not, he (pbuh) recognized the need for displaying reverence when pronouncing Holy Names and talked about this in great length in his (pbuh) "Perspectives on Initiation".

[Anonymous No.14748919]

>>14744210
That's a lot of ressentiment.

[Anonymous No.14748943]

>>14747528
Something something quantum mechanics, superpositions.

[Anonymous No.14748954]

>>14747622
Deleuze wasn't postmodern and he was certainly more successful than the ressentiment filled anons shitposting against him in every thread.

[Anonymous No.14748959]

>>14748893
Lmao cultist shitposting truly is the latest trend.

[Anonymous No.14748963]

>>14744227
Read Girard.

[Anonymous No.14749090]

>>14747528