concerning the content of those changes. All this requires a commitment and an active engagement of the citizens. They have to invest their desire and, so to say, love their society. Yet, precisely they have to love is not known in advance what and depends finally on the whimsicality of their wishes and desires. It depends on their groundless love for democracy. That love is abysmal base. democracy’s This kind of democratic love is much closer to the paradigm more eros than the one of If it is to be associated with a god, then, it is little agapè. Venus’ son who cannot stand neither sacrifices not altars, as we have already have learned from Euripides. So, is then Christianity and its paradigm incompatible with modern agape democracy? Not exactly. Of course, Christianity is responsible for the idea of the society united as a body, as it has been the for more than a ‘regulative idea’ millennium of western politics. And that idea, indeed, originates in in agapè, love thought from (an as) satisfaction love thought from (and as) the shore of – eternal truth it longs for. But Christian love is not solely it has agapè, incorporated Greek too. And fits with one of the core concepts of eros eros Christian doctrine, more precisely with the apocalyptic and eschatological condition we humans are in. More exactly does it fit with one of the dimensions implied in these concepts. They claim that we live in the fulfillment of time and, thus, in the satisfied condition of Yet, at the same time, these concepts agapè. say that the and the are still to come and that the world as it eschaton apocalypse is now including its political system is under reserve; that nobody knows the – – truth the Messiah will reveal at the end of time. Here, clearly appears as a paradigm underlying Christian tradition as eros well. Here enters love in its quality of still unsatisfied desire, of unfulfilled messianic expectation. It is not a minor line in the Christian tradition, that, despite its strong line of ascetism, has is at the same time a genuinely ‘erotic’ dimension, living love as groundless desire.
concerning the content of those changes. All this requires a commitment and an active engagement of the citizens. They have to invest their desire and, so to say, love their society. Yet, what precisely they have to love is not known in advance and depends finally on the whimsicality of their wishes and desires. It depends on their groundless love for democracy. That love is democracy’s abysmal base. This kind of democratic love is much closer to the paradigm more eros than the one of agapè. If it is to be associated with a god, then, it is Venus’ little son who cannot stand neither sacrifices not altars, as we have already have learned from Euripides. So, is then Christianity and its agape paradigm incompatible with modern democracy? Not exactly. Of course, Christianity is responsible for the idea of the society united as a body, as it has been the ‘regulative idea’ for more than a millennium of western politics. And that idea, indeed, originates in agapè, in love thought from (an as) satisfaction – love thought from (and as) the shore of eternal truth it longs for. But Christian love is not solely agapè, it has incorporated Greek eros too. And eros fits with one of the core concepts of Christian doctrine, more precisely with the apocalyptic and eschatological condition we humans are in. More exactly does it fit with one of the dimensions implied in these concepts. They claim that we live in the fulfillment of time and, thus, in the satisfied condition of agapè. Yet, at the same time, these concepts say that the eschaton and the apocalypse are still to come and that the world as it is now – including its political system – is under reserve; that nobody knows the truth the Messiah will reveal at the end of time. Here, eros clearly appears as a paradigm underlying Christian tradition as well. Here enters love in its quality of still unsatisfied desire, of unfulfilled messianic expectation. It is not a minor line in the Christian tradition, that, despite its strong line of ascetism, has is at the same time a genuinely ‘erotic’ dimension, living love as groundless desire.
from_utoya_with_love_-_christianity_and_politics_in_breiviks_manifesto.docx