Halal halenă

Puțin după moartea lui Antioh Epifanul, alți seleucizi omorau evrei. Un rabin a fost crucificat. Un nepot nătîng, elenizat, a venit să-și bată joc de el, călare: „Vezi ce cal mișto mi-a dat mie domnul, și ce cal nasol ți-a dat ție Domnul?” Unchiașul i-a răspuns de pe cruce: „Dacă asta dă Domnul celui care-L supără, cu atît mai mult celui care-L ascultă.” Netotul, obraznic încă: „Nu ești tu cel care L-a ascultat mai abitir decît oricine?” Rabinul: „Dacă asta dă Domnul celui care-L ascultă, cu atît mai mult celui care-L supără.” Nepotul a încasat din plin lovitura. S-a dus acasă și s-a sinucis în toate cele patru feluri de execuție prescrise de lege: lapidare, ardere, decapitare, spînzurare (pentru detalii tehnice, vezi Bereșit Raba 65:22). Înainte să-și dea duhul pe cruce, rabinul și-a văzut nepotul căit zburînd spre cer. „Na că mi-a luat-o înainte în paradis!”

Dincolo de imorala poveștii, interesant e faptul că, în realitate, nu știm dacă rabinul a fost crucificat sau tras în țeapă. Cu tot entuziasmul anticilor pentru spectacole macabre, detaliile tehnice sînt neclare. Egiptenii și asirienii ne-au lăsat poze – peste tot numa’ țepe. Romanii (cu ceva precedent persan/sirian) par să fi iubit crucea. Creștinii au preferat (cu valahe excepții) spînzurătoarea. A muri pe lemn e, pe cît de eficient, pe atît de ambiguu.

σταυρόω (de unde „stavrofor”) poate însemna și „a construi o palisadă”. צלב (ebraicul modern pentru „cruce”) provine dintr-un verb care înseamnă și „a trage în țeapă”. Echivalentul arab (صلب) înseamnă și horny. Englezescul stour/stower și islandezul staur înseamnă „țeapă”. Nu mai știe omul de ce să-și agațe speranțele. Sau Hamanul.

Primii creștini n-au avut probleme cu ceața asta. „(Atîrnat) pe lemn” era suficient (Fapte 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galateni 3:13; 1 Petru 2:24). Important era că blestemul morții lui Isus a fost infirmat de Înviere.

Cuvîntul aramaic folosit în Bereșit Raba pentru instrumentul execuției rabinului este שָׁרִיתָא (șarita) – stîlp, bîrnă. Abia m-am abținut să nu vă spun o poveste despre cum ar putea proveni din egipteanul nṯr. O poveste frumoasă, cu afereze și păsări de pradă.

Și Odiseu, în procesul de restabilire a ordinii la întoarcerea acasă, pare să spînzure niște șturlubatice. Apoi se pune, cum povesteam și altădată, pe fumigații. Cere, mai exact, foc și pucioasă (Odiseea 22:481). E specialitatea lui Yahweh – sodomizatorul, apocalipticul. De altfel, cuvîntul grecesc pentru pucioasă e θεῖον (theion), perfect încadrabil familiei de cuvinte a divinului. Nu mai vorbim că Isaia 30:33 ne spune pe șleau că duhul Domnului duhnește a sulf. Isus e balaurul.

Dacă scepticul Cicero scria De ira, încercînd să facă terapia mîniei omenești (călcîiul nostru ahilian), creștinul Lactanțiu scria De ira Dei, aducîndu-ne aminte că, pentru a fi buni, Dumnezeu trebuie să fie rău. Lactanțiu urăște alegoreza, e voios înainte-mergător al „teismului deschis” (nu doar al lui Jonathan Edwards) și se ia la trîntă (fără șansă de succes) cu Leucip, Democrit, Epicur, Lucrețiu. Scria fix la începutul imperiului creștin – vremea în care creștinii îmbrățișau și semnul crucii. Nu știm, apropo, de unde vine labarum. Poate de aici.

Calcidius îl traducea în aceeași perioadă în latină pe Platon. Echivala „trupul lumii” cu machina mundi. Versiunea lui avea să definească teologia creștină și nașterea modernității (vezi-l pe Cusanus aici). Cum se petrecuse tehnicizarea universului? Eu cred că răspunsul e, de pildă, în Lucrețiu. În superba carte a cincea a Poemului naturii, scrie:

Principio maria ac terras, caelumque tuere,
Horum naturam triplicem, tria corpora, Memmi,
Tres species tam similes, tria talia texta,
Una dies dabit exitio, multosque per annos
Sustentata ruet moles et machina mundi.

Marea, pămîntul și cerul sînt cele trei corpuri ale întreitei naturi. Cele trei specii (fețe, persoane). Cele trei texte (țesături, firmamente). Toate se vor nărui într-o zi. Toată „materia și mașina lumii”. Textualizarea veacului duce la revelația mașinii universale. Organul devine instrument. Apropo, tuere îmi aduce aminte de semiticul טוּר (tur) – a vedea, a inspecta, a augura.

Exitium. Anihilare. Antonim? Adventus. Poate asta e creștinismul – tentativa patetică de a imagina post-lumea.

De ira Dei l-a făcut posibil pe Augustin. Eu îl prefer pe Aristofan tuturor serioșilor Domnului. În secolul V înainte de Țeapă, era perfect posibil să tragi un pîrț în fața zeului și să supraviețuiești (vezi splendidul episod din Belșugul). Vorba vorbelor lui Lucrețiu: verbis vexare dominos acris.

Caracatita savant si acvariul

Legea lustrației

Unul dintre fascinantele mistere etimologice ale latinei este dacă mundus care a dat „imund” și mundus care a dat „mondial” sînt unul și același cuvînt. Eu sînt printre cei – nu puțini de data asta – care cred că da. Nu știu dovadă mai bună decît cuvîntul „monden” – și curat, manierat, stilat, și umblat, la modă, în văzul lumii. E destul de clar o familie conceptuală care clasează lumea spălată, ordinea strivitoare a opulenței, atotcuprinderea puterii. Puterea atotcuprinderii, opulența strivitoare a ordinii, spălarea lumii.

Avem paralelă în evoluția grecescului kosmos – împărțit frățește între „cosmetic” și „cosmic”. Ambiguitatea e splendid surprinsă în trecerea de la textul Septuagintei pentru Genesa 2:1 (καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν) la cel al Vulgatei (igitur perfecti sunt caeli et terra et omnis ornatus eorum). Originalul ebraic are צבא (țavá) – mulțime, șleahtă, armată (ca în cărtărescianul SAVAOTH). Pentru că sensul de bază al lui kosmos e „ordine”. Iar oastea Domnului trebuia să fie și curată (Deuteronom 23:9-14).

Precedentul egiptean e însăși Ma’at. Lumea e frumoasă cînd se respectă ordinea. Ba chiar este doar pentru că cineva a făcut ordine în haos. Întemeierea lumii e impunerea ordinii. Cosmetizarea e cosmicizare. De aceea inaugurarea unui templu e purificarea unei noi lumi. Iar Creația e imposibilă fără sînge. Tiamat, Kingu, Isus – cineva trebuie să moară pentru ca lumea să existe (Apocalipsa 13:8 iluminat de/contaminat cu Evrei 9:26, Matei 25:34, 1 Petru 1:20, Efeseni 1:4, Evrei 1:2).

Bineînțeles că v-am mințit. E perfect posibil să mai fie un mundus care și-a vîrît coada în povestea nu tocmai curată a „lumii” – un radical indo-european care a dat în germana medievală Mund („căuș”, „protecție”), iar în engleza modernă mound („movilă”, „glob”). E aici poate ecoul lui mundus cerialis. Vorba lui Ovid: prima Ceres dedit leges, Cereris sunt omnia munus. Rotunjimile lumii, regula lor perfectă, cerul de deasupra și cerul de dedesubt. Închisoarea libertății noastre. Sanctuarul mizeriei noastre.

​Mai mare decât Dumnezeu e nevoia de dumnezeu

​Nu a fost bine ca omul să fie singur și Dumnezeu i-a dat un ajutor potrivit. O fantomă. În care se regăsește, din el dar nu e el.

Apoi li s-au deschis ochii și au văzut.
Din nou fantoma. Bântuiți de decizii care le aparțin. De incertitudine pentru că nu mai picură din Adevăr.

Suntem bântuiți de ceea ce nu suntem noi. Bântuiți de interpretare. A celorlalți și celorlalte lucruri.
Ce ne sperie nu e că nu conștientizăm asta ci că ne găsim copleșiți din a decide ceva singuri. Astfel e mai ușor cu existența pitiți în spatele lui Dumnezeu.

De când am deschis ochii că suntem dar nu suntem singuri, e complicat. Ușor era în pântecele Evei. Și mai ușor era una cu Dumnezeu, când nu eram.

Diavolul este în detalii și să ne păzească Dumnezeu să ne ferim de ele.
Și credincioșii plătesc bir postmodernismului când afirmă pe Dumnezeu de frica paraliziei incertitudinii în lipsa unui dumnezeu.

​Închinare la idoli e și că „mai mare decât dumnezeu e Nevoia de dumnezeu”.

Atunci li s-au deschis ochii

Căderea în păcat a presupus un exercițiu de reinterpretare. Ceea ce era natural a fost redescoperit ca rușinos. De atunci, tot păcătuim. Descoperim, de pildă, că ceea ce e păcat e natural (homosexualitatea, să zicem). Sau că ceea ce e natural e imoral (sclavia, să zicem). Sau că nu toți ochii deschiși văd (alegeți voi ce vreți, de la isihasm la sesiunile prelungite de redeșteptare la woke-ism).

Printre șerpii care ne-au dus în ispită a fost și evreul Isus. Cum? Nu v-ați prins că titlul acestui editorial e de fapt citat din Luca 24:31? Isus a avut însă geniul ca, imediat cum s-au deschis ochii, să se facă nevăzut.

N-avem nicio scuză. Nimeni nu ne picură în gură adevăruri mălăiețe. Vine doar din cînd în cînd cineva care ne întreabă pe ce lume trăim. Putin de exemplu: cîți oameni e acceptabil să omori pentru ca să-l scutești pe Dumnezeu de bătăi de cap?

Capcana lui Thucydides

Incuiati usile noaptea

Theoria sacra Romaniae

Un interview

[Dacă nu citiți engleză, ChatGPT vă poate traduce.]

What is cancel culture?

Cancel culture refers to the social or cultural phenomenon of publicly calling out and boycotting individuals or groups for actions or statements that are perceived to be offensive, insensitive, or harmful, often on social media. The idea is to „cancel” the individual or group’s reputation or cultural relevance by creating a boycott of their work and denying them the opportunity to participate in public discourse. The concept of cancel culture is controversial, with some people seeing it as a way to hold those in positions of power accountable for their actions, while others view it as a form of mob justice that stifles free speech and encourages groupthink.

How old is cancel culture?

The concept of cancel culture can be traced back to at least the 2010s, but the term itself and its widespread usage as a cultural phenomenon is a more recent development. It gained widespread attention and controversy in the early 2020s, as social media usage became more widespread and the internet became a more prominent forum for public discourse. The concept of cancel culture continues to evolve and is the subject of ongoing debate and discussion.

How old are the behaviors involved in cancel culture?

The behaviors involved in cancel culture, such as publicly calling out and boycotting individuals or groups for controversial or offensive actions, have existed in various forms for many decades, if not centuries. The idea of publicly shaming individuals for their actions is not a new one, and similar practices have existed in various cultures throughout history. However, the rise of social media and the internet has made it easier for people to participate in these behaviors on a larger scale, and has amplified the reach and impact of cancel culture.

How about millennia?

The concept of publicly shaming individuals for their actions, which is a key component of cancel culture, has existed for thousands of years. Evidence of such practices can be found in various cultures throughout history, including ancient civilizations. For example, in ancient Greece, the act of ostracism was used to exile individuals who were perceived to be a threat to the city-state. In other cultures, similar practices were used to publicly shame individuals who violated social norms or committed crimes. So, while the specific term „cancel culture” is a more recent development, the underlying behaviors and motivations behind it have existed for millennia.

Do religions encourage cancel culture?

Religious teachings and beliefs can have varying degrees of influence on the attitudes and behaviors associated with cancel culture. Some religious traditions place a strong emphasis on forgiveness, compassion, and second chances, which could be seen as being at odds with the idea of publicly shaming and boycotting individuals for their actions. On the other hand, some religious teachings emphasize accountability for one’s actions and the importance of avoiding moral or ethical wrongdoing, which could be seen as supporting the principles behind cancel culture.

It is important to note that religion is a complex and diverse field, and attitudes and behaviors associated with cancel culture can vary greatly within and across different religious traditions. Some religious communities may actively discourage or condemn cancel culture, while others may embrace it as a way to promote justice and hold individuals accountable for their actions. Ultimately, the relationship between religion and cancel culture is complex and shaped by a variety of factors, including religious teachings, cultural context, and individual interpretation.

Was Jesus cancelled?

Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ, was not „cancelled” in the sense of the modern concept of cancel culture. However, he faced opposition, criticism, and ultimately crucifixion during his lifetime, which led to his death. According to the Christian tradition, Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities for claiming to be the son of God and the Messiah, which was seen as a challenge to their power and authority.

However, despite this opposition and the events of his crucifixion, Jesus’ teachings and message have continued to inspire and influence countless people over the centuries, and he remains a central figure in the Christian religion. So, while he may have faced opposition and criticism during his lifetime, Jesus was not „cancelled” in the sense of being completely disregarded or erased from history.

Have Christians cancelled other cultures?

Throughout history, some Christian groups and individuals have engaged in actions that could be seen as cancelling other cultures. This has often been done in the context of colonialism, imperialism, and evangelization efforts, where dominant Christian powers have sought to impose their beliefs and values on other cultures and societies.

For example, during the colonial period, Christian colonizers often sought to suppress indigenous religious practices and replace them with Christianity. This was sometimes done through force, but could also involve more subtle forms of cultural oppression, such as the establishment of schools and institutions that taught Western values and beliefs while suppressing local cultures and traditions.

It is important to note that these actions do not reflect the beliefs or values of all Christians, and have been opposed and condemned by many within the Christian community. The relationship between Christianity and other cultures is complex and shaped by a variety of factors, including historical context, cultural context, and individual interpretation.

It is also worth noting that many Christians have been advocates for cultural tolerance and diversity, and have worked to promote mutual understanding and respect between different cultural groups.

Have Christians cancelled each other at times?

Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Christians cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular denomination or between different Christian denominations. Differences in religious beliefs, theological interpretations, and cultural practices can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Christians.

For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Christians criticizing each other for theological differences, such as disputes over the interpretation of the Bible or the nature of salvation. There have also been instances of Christians criticizing each other for differences in religious practices, such as disputes over the use of icons or the role of religious leaders.

In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown theological or cultural disputes, with each side accusing the other of heresy or of straying from the true faith. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or excommunication of individual Christians or entire Christian communities.

It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Christians have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different cultural and religious groups.

Have Jews cancelled each other at times?

Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Jews cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular Jewish community or between different Jewish communities. Differences in religious beliefs, cultural practices, and political views can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Jews.

For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Jews criticizing each other for differences in religious practices, such as disputes over the interpretation of Jewish law or the role of religious leaders. There have also been instances of Jews criticizing each other for political differences, such as disputes over the state of Israel or the role of Jews in wider society.

In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown disputes, with each side accusing the other of violating core Jewish beliefs or values. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or ostracism of individual Jews or entire Jewish communities.

It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Jews have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different Jewish and wider cultural groups.

Have Muslims cancelled each other at times?

Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Muslims cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular Muslim community or between different Muslim communities. Differences in religious beliefs, cultural practices, and political views can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Muslims.

For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Muslims criticizing each other for differences in religious practices, such as disputes over the interpretation of Islamic law or the role of religious leaders. There have also been instances of Muslims criticizing each other for political differences, such as disputes over the role of religion in society or the interpretation of Islamic teachings on political activism.

In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown disputes, with each side accusing the other of violating core Islamic beliefs or values. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or ostracism of individual Muslims or entire Muslim communities.

It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Muslims have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different Muslim and wider cultural groups.

Have Romanians cancelled each other at times?

Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Romanians cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular Romanian community or between different Romanian communities. Differences in political views, cultural practices, and historical interpretations can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Romanians.

For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Romanians criticizing each other for differences in political beliefs, such as disputes over the role of the state in society or the interpretation of Romanian history. There have also been instances of Romanians criticizing each other for cultural differences, such as disputes over the role of traditional customs and practices in contemporary society.

In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown disputes, with each side accusing the other of violating core Romanian values or beliefs. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or ostracism of individual Romanians or entire Romanian communities.

It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Romanians have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different Romanian and wider cultural groups.

Have Romanians cancelled other cultures?

Throughout history, there have been instances where Romanians have criticized or dismissed other cultures. This can occur due to differences in beliefs, values, or historical experiences.

For example, there have been instances where Romanians have criticized or dismissed other cultures for religious or political differences, or for perceived cultural superiority. These conflicts can sometimes result in the marginalization or ostracism of individuals or communities from these other cultures.

However, it is important to note that not all Romanians engage in this type of behavior, and many Romanians value diversity and respect the cultural beliefs and practices of others. Furthermore, throughout history, there have also been instances of intercultural exchange and collaboration between Romanians and people from other cultures, leading to increased understanding and respect between different groups.

It seems that we could say that cancel culture is human culture.

It’s accurate to say that elements of cancel culture are not unique to our current time, and have existed throughout human history in various forms. People have always criticized and dismissed others for their beliefs, values, or behaviors that are perceived as different or contrary to their own. This can result in ostracism, exclusion, or marginalization of individuals or communities.

However, it is also important to note that cancel culture as it is currently understood and used has specific characteristics and is influenced by the unique social, political, and technological context of our time. The rapid spread of information and the ability to publicly call out and boycott individuals or organizations through social media has amplified the impact and visibility of cancel culture in recent years.

In its narrow sense, therefore, cancel culture is a technological phenomenon, not a new human behavior.

In a narrow sense, cancel culture as it is currently understood and discussed in popular media can be seen as a technological phenomenon, enabled by the rapid spread of information through digital platforms and social media. The ability to publicly call out and boycott individuals or organizations has been amplified by technology, making cancel culture more visible and impactful than it was in the past.

However, it is important to note that the underlying behaviors and social dynamics that drive cancel culture have existed throughout human history, and are not unique to our current time. The impulse to criticize and dismiss others for beliefs or behaviors that are perceived as different or contrary to one’s own is not new, but the technology-driven nature of cancel culture has changed its scope and influence.

Have there been other technological innovations that have amplified this aspect of human culture in the past?

Yes, there have been other technological innovations throughout history that have amplified the tendency to criticize, dismiss, or exclude individuals or groups for beliefs or behaviors perceived as different or contrary to one’s own.

For example, the printing press and mass media in the 16th and 17th centuries allowed for the widespread dissemination of information and ideas, which allowed for the rapid spread of criticism and exclusion of those who were seen as different. This contributed to religious and political conflicts, such as the European witch trials, where individuals were accused and persecuted for practices perceived as deviant or contrary to prevailing beliefs.

Similarly, the telegraph and later, radio and television, in the 19th and 20th centuries, allowed for the rapid spread of information and opinions, leading to the amplification of criticism and exclusion of individuals or groups based on their beliefs, values, or behaviors.

In this sense, cancel culture can be seen as the latest iteration of a long-standing aspect of human culture, amplified by technological advancements that have increased the scope and visibility of criticism and exclusion.

Can I cancel you?

As an AI language model, I don’t have feelings or personal experiences, so I cannot be „cancelled” in the traditional sense. I exist to provide information and answer questions to the best of my abilities, and I will continue to do so regardless of any criticism or dismissals.

90 de secunde pana la miezul noptii