/lit/ - Literature

>>22785452
Similarly, this. Not because Nietzsche is wrong about all Christians, or even the ones he knew, but because it turns out it's impossible to say simple things about 2,000 years of thought stretching from Japan to the Americas.

You had some pretty wild heretic groups and some were a good deal more Dionysian than Nietzsche ever managed to be. Some were commies forsaking property, some were the ultimate wanderers, owning nothing and moving from place to place living for the day, some were far more life denying than the Christians Nietzsche knew and said the material world was a prison created and that Yahweh from the Old Testament was a demonic figure named Yaldaboath who gang raped Eve with his Archons, whole Christ was the snake in the Garden giving the fruit of Gnosis. Some believed in reincarnation. Others thought the last days were upon them during the Black Death. Some were fanatical warriors, others didn't need to be tied to their stakes so ready were they for martyrdom. You even have Buddah-Christ fusion statues in China for a spell in the early hundreds AD, nudists who wanted to return to the Garden as anarcho primitives, Cathars, Sethian, Bogomils, etc. Esotericists and mystics a plenty as well. People having ecstatic drunken gang bangs, polygamy, vol cels, and people cutting their dicks off to avoid sinning.

I tend to agree with Tilich that Christianity only saw its universalism wounded later by conflict with Islam and the Reformation. Early Christians saw all truth, any apparent knowledge in Hindu thought, Persian tradition, Plato, etc. as necessarily part of the same universal Logos, the Logos that was Christ. So they weren't denying much of anything. All truth, even if corrupted, as much as it was truth had to be the eternal Logos, and so you could have Euclid read in churches. Praxis then, could be incredibly varied.