The Most Interesting Philosophy of Vasily Rozanov

[speed]

The Russian philosopher Vassily Rozanov developed the “religion of procreation" in which he exalted what he called the “root of life”—genitalia, blood, and semen; that were, immortal and eternal. He didn’t espouse orgiastic debauches like the Russian khlysts, or free love like hippies however (which may disappoint some); rather he attempted to reconcile the holy birth with that of the holy crucifixion: to promote sex over death in a spiritual and religious context. He also considered Christianity to have a latent homosexuality or bisexuality due to its sexually abnormal founder and its equally abnormal saints. He was on to something wasn’t he?

Thoughts on this? Is their a immortality in passing genes to ones children, and ones name to ones son; the immortality of instilling ones beliefs, political slants, and interests? The eternal nature of sex and birth?

Rozanov, who was considered the Russian Nietzsche, starved to death after the takeover of the grim grimy Soviets. So is the fate of such men.

 

[Norsemaiden]

He sounds like someone who thinks along the same lines as I do. As I have said before on the forum, the only true immortality is genetic, by having children with someone reasonably similar to yourself. Many of us will know that we closely resemble one of our ancestors (in my case it seems to be my Finnish great grandmother). Sex could be said to be the meaning of life.

What he says about sperm reminds me of the scene of the Catholic family in Python's "Meaning of Life". How did the song go? "Every sperm is holy. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is wanted in your neighbour hood. etc".

The thing is with Christianity though, that it is really anti-reproduction. Sex itself is the original sin for Catholics and Christians are supposed to devote themselves to Christ and to not care about having a family, but spread Christian ideas and help poor people.

Vasily Rozanov sounds worth looking up. Thanks Speed!

 

[Valtries]

Christianity is all about the anti-sex. Example the mother of the Jesus, The Virgin Mary, immactual conception and whether or not it could be argued that Christianity stole that from Greek/Roman mythology. (birth ofHercules&Perseus)
Priests must be chaste, the Pope must be chaste, the bible stating women are essentially the root of all evil. (Eve taking the apple and getting kicked out of Eden)
I'm not sure about the homosexual and bisexual statement but yeah i think Vasily Rozanov was on to something.

 

[Impudent]

Has he written any books? Could I get them at a major bookstore such as Borders?

 

[infoterror]

Is their a immortality in passing genes to ones children, and ones name to ones son; the immortality of instilling ones beliefs, political slants, and interests?

Taking a gnostic view...

The immortality derived therein is not achieved by procreating, but by being of a state of mind in which one sees (a) the literality of life (fucking = brute act) and (b) its transcendent possibilities - love, beauty, family, natural selection.

 

[speed]

Has he written any books? Could I get them at a major bookstore such as Borders?

Like his contemppraries Solviev, and Berdyaev, hes not really very popular or translated in English.

Well he wrote a prose piece called Fallen Leaves

Uh, this is good one to check out: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Rozanov, V. V. Dostoevsky and the legend of the Grand Inquisitor. PG3325 B73 R613 1972 Cornell University Press [1972] --this is the book I became familiar with him. [/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[proglodite]

The thing is with Christianity though, that it is really anti-reproduction.

Christians are supposed to devote themselves to Christ and to not care about having a family

Christianity is all about the anti-sex.

Bullshit. God created sex, he even encourages it in Song of Songs. For most, a result of devotion to Christ is a desire to raise a family - he created us as his children did he not?

Brad

 

[speed]

Bullshit. God created sex, he even encourages it in Song of Songs. For most, a result of devotion to Christ is a desire to raise a family - he created us as his children did he not?

Brad

I see where you are coming from here. I wish I could find some of his essays on this subject. Anyway, Rozanov tried to make the case you are, but he did so by acknowledging and reconciling the anti-sexual message of Jesus.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Aren't Christians supposed to love everyone on Earth equally, and not show favour to some people above others, ie. family and friends? Having a family seems very exclusivist and favouritist and so seems incompatible with this egalitarian idea.

A ha! Now I remember the quote I really needed. Jesus said in Matthew 10:35-39 "For I came to set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."

http://www.bibleabc.net/l4/matthew10-35-39htm (the link isn't working but you can google "daughter against her mother".)

 

[proglodite]

"a man against his father and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.

This section is quoted by Jesus from Micah 7:6. In Micah, this is the described result of judgement day, and as such when Jesus quotes it he is not referring to the direct effect he will have on families, but the fact that he has paved the way for all to be judged by God, at which time families and relationships will become irrelevant.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think that as Christianity was developing , individuals would be choosing this new religion and this would set them at odds with other family members. Jesus says that he came to cause such disharmony, and that the would-be Christian should reject his family and follow Christ instead. Their first priority had to be love of Christ, and not let any feelings for his family get in the way of that. This makes sense in this context, but no sense in the context of judgement day - which is in Revelations anyway isn't it?

The way that nuns, monks and priests are supposed to be celebate is plainly anti sex. Their behaviour is supposed to be exemplary in this way, but other people are more likely to sin, and sex is the "original sin", particularly in Catholicism.

 

[derek]

Then where does modern Christianity find its love for the family unit?

Is it because of genetic generational evangelism?

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is not uncommon for the church to advocate things that are not in the Bible. Infact the whole idea of church is against Christ's teachings, because he said that you shouldn't go to a place to pray in front of people, but just be private and in any place you like, it doesn't matter where as long as its not done in a showy public way.
Matthew 6:5-6 and Timothy 2:8

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Has he written any books? Could I get them at a major bookstore such as Borders?

how to purchase/read online the things written by this author is a question that should have been answered in the initial thread-starting post

 

[proglodite]

I think that as Christianity was developing , individuals would be choosing this new religion and this would set them at odds with other family members. Jesus says that he came to cause such disharmony, and that the would-be Christian should reject his family and follow Christ instead. Their first priority had to be love of Christ, and not let any feelings for his family get in the way of that.

On the contrary, a newly found love for Christ should be reflected in an increased love for one's family. You can still love your family whilst putting God first.
In regards to celebacy, the deliberate act of celebacy in order to become closer to God - as most commonly found in nuns, monks, priests etc - is just another aspect of action-based religion. However, some Christians are given by God 'The Spiritual Gift of Celebacy' in which they find no need to marry/have sex. Hence, they are theoretically more able to focus on God without being distracted by such relationships.

Infact the whole idea of church is against Christ's teachings, because he said that you shouldn't go to a place to pray in front of people, but just be private and in any place you like, it doesn't matter where as long as its not done in a showy public way.
Matthew 6:5-6 and Timothy 2:8

Gatherings of large numbers of God's church, usually referred to as 'Church' serve two purposes:
1. To allow the individual to worship God as part of a larger entity
2. To allow the individual to socialise with others in God's church
The combination of the artificial nature of the 'worship' (stand in a grid, sing, don't do anything else, sit down) and the tendency for all attendees to depart immediately after the conclusion of a service in some modern churches results in each of these two aims being unfullfilled, and as such some church services are completely pointless.
In Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus is saying that you should not pray to show others how well or how much you pray; instead you should pray because you want to - it should be between you and God.
Brad

 

[speed]

how to purchase/read online the things written by this author is a question that should have been answered in the initial thread-starting post

Thats totally irrelevant. The ideas are what's important.

 

[Dushan S]

It is not uncommon for the church to advocate things that are not in the Bible. Infact the whole idea of church is against Christ's teachings, because he said that you shouldn't go to a place to pray in front of people, but just be private and in any place you like, it doesn't matter where as long as its not done in a showy public way.
Matthew 6:5-6 and Timothy 2:8

Exactly. As for instance there is in Matthew written that we should not call anyone "Father" because there is only one father, father on the heavens, so it seems this one leaves priests out as "Fathers" out.

Although it seems that people have wrong informations. Christianity is not basically anti sex. In ortodox christianity it is allowed to priest to marry and have children. It is intetnionally made difference, between priests that are serving god in everyday life, and are still part of the world, and between that become devoted only to god and live in monastery. Have in mind that Catholicism is a sect from the point of view of Ortodox Christianity. Also, there were Gnostics in early Christianity that belived that Maria was actually sexual partner of Jesus and his wife later.
It is just that if you want to control people , you have to put the pressure on them where they are weak, and weakest and most vulnerable point in human being is love and sexuality. So it is about a control of masses, and this is a proper way to look at it, not from philosophical point. People often think about some stuff in christianity as a symbolism, but in reality it is just a set of practial measures. For instance: Suicide is sin because when you have a slave that is working for you, you need him to be alive as long as it is possible (so it keeps your investment) and at the same time to be inspired to keep working and living (so you use religious inspiration for that).

I think that here and globally people tend to forget about practical meaning of some rules in mass religion systems and tend to think about them as part of the philosophy. There is nothing negative about Christs teaching when you go back 2000 year back at its source and basic ideas, it is the man who has twisted those meanings and used them for evil causes. So in a way, Christ's mission is maybe a biggest failure in human history.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Well put, but can I ask you do you really think God is good? Or do you think you could be better yourself? (I'm assuming you believe in God). I'm just interested because I think God has a lot of serious failings and just even the fact of insisting people believe in Him and worship Him is one of them.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Thats totally irrelevant. The ideas are what's important.

yes the ideas are important
but if your initial thread-starting post mentions a specific author (as opposed to the homosexuality pedophilia sex ed and satanism threads) then you should post a link to some work written by the aurthor mentioned instead of just assuming that every one is going to be familiar with the author enough to know that your not severely misquoting him and putting your own totally bogus spin on his work

when a forum is operating on the idea that everyone on the forum has some kind of "common knowledge" this can become very elitist to the point that this forum could (with bad moderators) quickly de-generate into being as supremisist and elitist as the "billy milano" forum

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I think God has a lot of serious failings and just even the fact of insisting people believe in Him and worship Him is one of them.

couldn't have said it better

"thou shalt have no other deities before me"
kinda seems like "God" (misspelling of the name "Gad" that appears in Isaiah) is acknowledging of the existance of other dieties, but does not want people to worship them