Date: October 28th, 2026 12:08 AM Author: Consuela
you won't understand it, but i addressed it as follows:
"By rejecting the papal magisterium and affirming the priesthood of all believers, it appears to shift the crucifixion of opposites onto the individual. However, the individual is not asked to hold the tension internally; rather, the tension is externalized onto sola scriptura - the Bible as the sole infallible authority. The believer is not required to metabolize the contradiction between divine goodness and worldly evil; they are required to submit to the text and its (often pastorally mediated) interpretation. The crucifixion is still offloaded, not to a hierarchical priest, but to a closed canon and a personal relationship with a God who remains within the privatio boni framework (all-good, evil as absence). This creates a different psychological economy: the Protestant carries the weight of direct accountability to God without a human intermediary, but the weight is still borne by an external reference point. The result is greater doctrinal fragmentation (each denomination becomes its own institutional clearinghouse) and a tendency toward moral certainty that can be more brittle than Catholic casuistry. Protestantism does not produce individuation in the Jungian sense because the opposites are still externalized – they are projected onto the text, the conscience, or the personal relationship with Christ – rather than held internally without resolution. It is institutional containment without a centralized sanitation worker, which often means the believer ends up doing more of the psychological work themselves, but still within a framework that forecloses genuine confrontation with the void."
Date: October 28th, 2026 12:42 AM Author: Historical American
Couldn't you just as easily argue that projecting the tension between the opposites onto some priest doesn't make it any better? You ever met a Catholic most of em have never read a Bible they just do whatever the priest says. Certainly the priest isn't going to tell people about Arbaxas. At least the Protestant is going on a personal quest for knowledge even if it's too easily resolved. The priest waves a wand and absolves people without much thought too. Not a deep intellectual challenge.
Date: October 28th, 2026 12:43 AM Author: Consuela
i don't think projecting the crucifixion of opposites onto external authority, whether it be a priest, a text, or anything else, is optimal for psychic health
Date: October 28th, 2026 12:44 AM Author: Historical American
Right but you singled out Protestantism like you had just written it off without much thought. Now we're comparing whose path is more likely to wind up challenging themselves with the crucifixion of opposites. I'll tell ya it won't be the Catholic guy who thinks that priests have all the answers.
Date: October 28th, 2026 12:46 AM Author: Consuela
from the same post:
"We can see this in the Catholic Magisterium, where the Church acts as the ‘Vicar of Christ’ to resolve the paradoxes of sin and grace for the believer. Just as the Lurianic system uses Rabbinical guidance to navigate the Sefirot, the Catholic hierarchy functions as a spiritual ‘load-bearer.’ By claiming the sole authority to interpret divine will, the institution absorbs the crucifixion of opposites - the paralyzing weight of moral uncertainty - so the individual can focus on communal life and obedience. This is the essence of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor: the elite few accept the terrible burden of freedom and the knowledge of good and evil so that the many may live in a state of peaceful, humble happiness."
"This offloading dynamic is not unique to the Jewish tradition - any elite coordination system must externalize the crucifixion of opposites to maintain hierarchical stability across generations, because internal crucifixion produces distributed psychological sovereignty that is structurally incompatible with centralized command. Catholicism is a good example of this - rigidly hierarchical, confessional for the absolution of sin. Protestantism represents a decentralized variant of the institutional response."
Date: October 28th, 2026 1:13 AM Author: Historical American (Counter-Abraxian)
It seems like you rush through a lot of assertions very quickly without defining them. Even if what you were saying had a kernel of truth the reader isn't so familiar with these terms and concepts as to throw them around willy-nilly. And even then a lot of this remains unproven despite your ability to jump around and jump to conclusions and throw in random quotes that may or may not pertain to what you're saying it's still largely ill-defined, unproven, and lacks concrete sources. Also really just bananas how much you jump from topic to topic which is a hallmark of psychobabble.
brother, i have been discussing these topics for well more than a year now. i'm not going to go over basic concepts over and over in each post. this is one of the main reasons for the book - to explain my essential argument spelled out in order. but i can't do this with every new post, or each post would be a book itself (and people already whine about length)
Consuela just acts like a jewish economist where basically his entire "argue" (if you can call it that) boils down to, "assume we have x, y, and z, therefore..."