Some Thoughts on Wrongdoing, Forgiveness, and Christianity

[Raphael]

There's a Christian left now... was there one in, say, 1600?

Some of the more radical outgrowths of the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire, during the century before 1600, might be described as kind of proto-leftist. And a few decades later, some of the more radical Christian or Christian-inspired groups that appeared during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms might be described as kind of proto-leftist, too.

And if you don't limit "caring about this world" to "caring about this world from a left-wing perspective", then of course large numbers of Christians were and are heavily invested in maintenance of oppressive worldly power structures.

[zompist]

There's a Christian left now... was there one in, say, 1600?

Some of the more radical outgrowths of the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire, during the century before 1600, might be described as kind of proto-leftist. And a few decades later, some of the more radical Christian or Christian-inspired groups that appeared during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms might be described as kind of proto-leftist, too.

Can you give some names? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

As I noted in a recent review of C.S. Lewis's book on 16th century literature, everyone at that time, Catholic or Protestant, was heavy on state-enforced religious uniformity. They just differed on which denomination to enforce.

And if you don't limit "caring about this world" to "caring about this world from a left-wing perspective", then of course large numbers of Christians were and are heavily invested in maintenance of oppressive worldly power structures.

Of course; note that far from denying this, Orwell highlighted it in Animal Farm.

[Raphael]

There's a Christian left now... was there one in, say, 1600?

Some of the more radical outgrowths of the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire, during the century before 1600, might be described as kind of proto-leftist. And a few decades later, some of the more radical Christian or Christian-inspired groups that appeared during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms might be described as kind of proto-leftist, too.

Can you give some names? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Quick Wikipedia examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M%C3%BCntzer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranters

And of course, a bit later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

As I noted in a recent review of C.S. Lewis's book on 16th century literature, everyone at that time, Catholic or Protestant, was heavy on state-enforced religious uniformity. They just differed on which denomination to enforce.

Yes, I didn't say "leftist" in the sense of "modern tolerant progressivism". But arguably early precursors of the political evolution that would eventually lead to that.

[jcb]

What about the Taborites in the 1400s?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taborites

[zompist]

What about the Taborites in the 1400s?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taborites

I did mention religious utopias! I'm curious now when the first non-religious attempted utopia came in.

[Ares Land]

I'd say the 19th century, with Phalanstères?

In literature, there's Rabelais' (purely fictional!) Abbaye de Thélème (16th century). (linked to Gargantua's friend, Jean des Entomeures who is, like Rabelais himself, technically a monk but, to put it mildly, shows no interest in religion.)

[rotting bones]

My main objection to traditional religion is that they generally tell people to be good, obey authorities and not make trouble. Revolutionaries didn't think of themselves as meek or nice. They usually thought they were exerting superhuman effort to overcome repression. Without their sacrifices, society would never progress. For example, my great grand-uncle Kazi Nazrul Islam, who wrote vaguely Nietzsche-adjacent poetry, was a communist, not a fascist. (You can see his political party on his Wikipedia page.) He was alive during the rise of fascist nationalism and religious fundamentalism in Bengal, but he was still an activist for social justice. The poem Rebel ends like this:

I'll uproot this subjugated world
in the joy of recreating it.
Weary of battles, I, the Great Rebel,
shall rest in peace only when
the anguished cry of the oppressed
shall no longer reverberate in the sky and the air,
and the tyrant's bloody sword
will no longer rattle in battlefields.
Only then shall I, the Rebel,
rest in peace.

I'm the Rebel Bhrigu,
I'll stamp my footprints on the chest of god
sleeping away indifferently, whimsically,
while the creation is suffering.
I'm the Rebel Bhrigu,
I'll stamp my footprints
I'll tear apart the chest of the whimsical god!

I'm the eternal Rebel,
I have risen beyond this world, alone,
with my head ever held high!

I'm quoting someone else's translation so you can't make frivolous accusations: https://www.icnazrul.com/index.php/nazr ... el-bidrohi

As for enlightened philosophy, everyone in the world has been told about it by this point. They just don't listen. If anything, most people are annoyed by too much enlightenment. The only thing that gets through to them is creating a system where self-interest aligns with general freedom. For example, affordability can even get Trumpists to vote for socialism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeAgPa4y02k You do have to get a majority if you want democracy.

[rotting bones]

I simply don't agree. The thought might make sense if you're mainly thinking of more traditional versions of, say, Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism. Not other religions, or even other strains of these religions, might see things differently.

It's hard to say what Islam thinks because all major sects today take interpretations to be provisional. I suspect "world" is understood differently in Islam than in the religions you mention. For example, Islamists disparage "dunya" all the time: https://youtu.be/IskKWdk3Zj0 while stressing it's importance in living a religious life.

In Kabbalah too, Malkuth is usually depicted as the lowest of the divine attributes. Mainstream Hinduism also stresses the importance of fulfilling household duties.

I'm not saying the "world" interpretation is wrong, necessarily. I'm just saying that word is carrying a lot of specific information in this context that's not associated with the word by default.

[Raphael]

Thank you, interesting information.

[rotting bones]

BTW, that song gives a heretical Sufi answer to the question, "What is the lower world (dunya) for?" It says all phenomena are Allah. From heaven to hell to every apple you eat is Allah. This immanent intellection of the signs is salvation from the lower world, the bird escaping its cage. This answer contradicts the orthodoxy about Allah's transcendence.

I don't know much about Sufism. My understanding is that when Sufis say "All things are Allah", they are thinking in terms of signs. (Edit: Thinking in signs is what the Quran tells people to do over and over.) In the Bengali thread, I mentioned how Bengali folk music sees the upper world (akhira) as birds escaping cages and the lower world (dunya) as a boatman struggling with the stream. By interpreting all things in the world as signs of the divine order, they are subsumed into the divine plan. All things are Allah in a similar sense to Kant was afraid of; namely, that all things will turn out to be God's marionettes in the noumenal world, leading to moral nihilism.

The Sufi approach is an attempt to reach that vision of noumenal reality and call it salvation: When you see a boatman struggling with the stream, what you are really seeing is a sign for the wise about the place of the lower world (dunya) in the divine order. That's what's enduring in that struggle. The rest is ephemera, shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave.

[Raphael]

Going off on a tangent now:

BTW, that song gives a heretical Sufi answer to the question, "What is the lower world (dunya) for?" It says all phenomena are Allah. From heaven to hell to every apple you eat is Allah. This immanent intellection of the signs is salvation from the lower world, the bird escaping its cage. This answer contradicts the orthodoxy about Allah's transcendence.

I don't know much about Sufism. My understanding is that when Sufis say "All things are Allah", they are thinking in terms of signs. (Edit: Thinking in signs is what the Quran tells people to do over and over.) In the Bengali thread, I mentioned how Bengali folk music sees the upper world (akhira) as birds escaping cages and the lower world (dunya) as a boatman struggling with the stream. By interpreting all things in the world as signs of the divine order, they are subsumed into the divine plan. All things are Allah in a similar sense to Kant was afraid of; namely, that all things will turn out to be God's marionettes in the noumenal world, leading to moral nihilism.

That reminds me of something I read years ago: some autobiographical writings by a Black man who had grown up in New York and reported that, when he was younger, he had spent some time as a member of a religious group that had originally started out as an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. Eventually, they had ended up claiming that each Black man was Allah, and had gone around calling themselves and each other Gods. I'm not sure how popular calling yourself "Allah" and "God" would make you among regular Muslims.

[rotting bones]

That reminds me of something I read years ago: some autobiographical writings by a Black man who had grown up in New York and reported that, when he was younger, he had spent some time as a member of a religious group that had originally started out as an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. Eventually, they had ended up claiming that each Black man was Allah, and had gone around calling themselves and each other Gods.

You might be thinking of the Moorish Science Temple of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorish_S ... of_America They have scripture called the Circle 7 Koran, which is actually cribbed from the Christian bible. Some of their members are heavily involved in sovereign citizen movements, though their sheikhs disavow those groups. The argument goes: Morocco was the first country to recognize America. All black people are Moroccans. Therefore, American law doesn't apply to black people.

I'm not sure how popular calling yourself "Allah" and "God" would make you among regular Muslims.

Unpopular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDDbcLOj2z8

It's also a thing in Ismailism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf3cYHSVxUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Hy1j7-zCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNKT0vdxrWU (Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teGP2fIZgdE)

[rotting bones]

Other Muslims had humbler aspirations than becoming the creator of the cosmos. The Brethren of Purity wanted to be:

of East Persian derivation, of Arabic faith, of Iraqi, that is Babylonian, in education, Hebrew in astuteness, a disciple of Christ in conduct, as pious as a Syrian monk, a Greek in natural sciences, an Indian in the interpretation of mysteries and, above all a Sufi or a mystic in his whole spiritual outlook.

Wikipedia citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brethren_ ... _of_Purity

Some Muslims just wanted to be clean: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14DatmL ... drive_link

[rotting bones]

That reminds me of something I read years ago: some autobiographical writings by a Black man who had grown up in New York and reported that, when he was younger, he had spent some time as a member of a religious group that had originally started out as an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. Eventually, they had ended up claiming that each Black man was Allah, and had gone around calling themselves and each other Gods.

This group looks even closer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Percent_Nation

You might find smaller groups that are even closer if you keep looking. Personally, I first saw that claim on a blog associated with Moorish Science.