Color's Kapanadze forum, FE builds circuits and comments

[color]

예도야~ 거시기 표절헝거 좃빠지게 기대헌다 예도야~

[color]

💝💖💗💓

[color]

사르트르 : 실존은 본질에 앞선다
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiuk7utnes0

시작에 철학자는 비장미 있다, 골계미 아닌
실존과 본질 간 직교 관계는 정신문화적인 가구의 구조로서 비평될 만한
본질은 대체로 최소한주의, 그림자 세계에 실제 무게를 금지하며 대신 공책에 무색계 형식론적 사유를 필적
본질은 목적이나 이유라고 했으니 맹목적인 기술자 죽기 딱 좋은
그래도 그냥 실존한다기보다 가족이나 사회라 하는 단위의 튜브로서 태어나 기대 속에 있을 것인
이미 주어진 사명은 없는 인생의 자유 때문에 선택해야 한다고 하는데
이 때에 정답이 없어 선택이 어려움은 목적이나 기능을 즉 본질을 알지 못하기 때문이라 하고
이것을 정답 없는 문제지라고 부르신
이로 인하여 불안이 생기고 이걸 피하기 위해 자기 기만을 한다
선택할 자유가 없는 것처럼 행동 하신다
자기를 속이고 있는 것이라
그런데 정답은 자기에게 가장 가치있는 것을 정답이라고 한다
가치론 하셔야할, 가치를 모색하기 위하여
그 가치들은 크게 욕망과 의무라는 두 기준에서 고른다
선택하면 가치가 생기신다
그렇게 선택하며 미래로 나아가셔야 한다
불안해도 자신을 계속 미래로 던지셔야, 기투하여야 한다
단, 선택에는 책임이 있다
그러나 타에 모범이 되도록 선택해야 할
남에게 영향을 미치기 때문이다
앙가주망, 인게이지먼트, 사회적 책임
피투->선택->가치->영향 => 기투

--------

사르트르가 기투최면에 빠진 것은 모세처럼 가나안땅 찾아가라는 신의 계시 표절아니드나.
뭔가로 끊임없이 던지는 기투펌핑이 정보선택자 놀리지 말고 머슴노예질시키라는 강박적인 투척일변도라 멍청도 사고는 아니다.
멍때리기는 늘 신선계 유람중이지만,
현상계 멍때리기나 신선계 오도방정 선택지는 철학이 강매해도되는 채찍질 영역이 아니야.
입으로는 자유 투기하며 기투하라 강매하는 것 자체가 사르트르 씹선비질이다.
철학을 빙자한 신의 정언령 흉내.
중세는 마녀사냥 십자군이 거덜냈겠지만 근세이후 세상은 끊임없이 투덜대던 철학욕정이  배려놨잖냐.
세상은 상식 고자만든 자들이 고장냈지, 상식이 배려논게 아니자너.
없는말만들기 말바꿔치기 헛소리철학사업도 전세기부터 사양길이라 재탕이 유행인갑다.
철학(자)이 공산당을 닮은 것은 교육이라는 강요에 있는게다.
안가르쳐도 될 사유문제가 아니라,
한계없는 기투실험이 욕망이란 이름으로 발현해서다.
저지르고 피투로 도주한놈 눈깔빼 손목짤라만 원망중이다.
철학이 빈부에게 갑질한게 빈익빈부익부다.
돈은 원래 돈을 번다.
철학이 돈에게 철옹성 뿐만 아니라 자존심까지 건내줬으니 말이다.
가난한 철학만큼 자존심센 폼생폼사 귀신들이 또있드나.
곧죽어도 똥폼잡는 인선이가 더 잘알것 아니드나.
배고픈 철학은 시궁창에 던져도 똥폼나지만,
배부른 철학은 똥개도 안쳐먹는다.
예도나 쳐먹는게다.

약쟁이가 약 못 끊는 이유?
https://www.ilbe.com/view/11386747440
오르가슴 엔돌핀의 13배에서 100배까지 나옴
그상태를 7시간에서 72시간까지 유지됨
뇌가 충격 받아서 그 전 상태로 못 돌아감

아니야.
죽지못해 사는게 좃빠지게 쥴리해서야.

[color]

실존은 실존철학에 있어서 인간의 본질이다. 중세에서는 실존이라는 말이 세상만물의 존재성격, 곧 모든 것이 모두 신에 의해 피조되어 있다는 사실을 가리키는 말이었다. 반면 인간의 본질규정으로서의 실존이란 인간이 언제나 스스로 자기의 존재를 규정하는 식으로 (사물들 같이 태어날 때부터 이미 주어진 어떤 본질규정을 지니지 않은 채로) 존재한다는 것을 의미한다.
물론 현존재가 언제나 자기의 고유한 존재를 선택하는 식으로 자기를 규정하는 것은 아니다. 오히려 우선 대개 현존재는 자기의 고유한 존재를 외면한 채 일상적 자기로서 살아간다. 남들의 시선을 의식하며 일상성 안에서 고뇌하고 부대끼는 것이 현존재의 일상적 모습이다. 그러나 그럴 경우에도 현존재에게 항상 자신의 존재가 문제되며 규정되고 있는 것이므로, 현존재는 비본래적인 방식으로 실존하고 있는 것이다.


비본래적인 방식이 신선계 멍때리기다
신선은 거기에 없다
Dasein is not there
주관적 편파적 신화해석이 누천년온게 종교이듯
너 자신을 알라 소크라테스 철학종교가 비본래적인 자에게 눈을떼지 못하고 있다
소경으로 난 자는 어둠만 섬긴다
어둠에 비본래가 있다면 어둠의 원감각자만 안다
눈을 가진 자는 빛의 비본래에 중독되어 영구탈출하지 못한다
소경으로 난 자가 뱀의 뒷목을 잡고 있는 것도 그들만의 천국이다
공(空)은 지옥가는 지름길이 아니라 소경들 천국이다

헛똑똑이 김성철이 두 눈깔뜨고 뱀의 뒷목잡았다 여기 눈팅질하고도 공(空)을 오해한게 오감각적 오류다
과정없는 무분별한 컨닝이 더 위험한게다
생각은 감각을 초월하지 못한다
감각만이 생각을 바꿀 수 있다
모든 이해는 봄, 들음, 만짐, 느낌이 바꾸는게다
감각은 오인하면서도 니들의 전부다
동국대철학박사논문 검토해보니 쥴리와 막장드라마 찍어도 피장파장 어색하지않다

[color]

 
대부 새해인사다.


공중파 시상식 존나 웃기지 않냐?
배리나룩북채널구독자
http://www.ilbe.com/view/11386800449
2022-01-01 04:43:22
드라마고 예능이고 시발 뭐 있는지도 모르는데 지들끼리 상주고 울고불고 지랄하네ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 받는 사람도 존나 쪽팔릴듯


쪽팔려도 눈팅하는 중독성이 니들 운명마약아니드냐


태생부터 소경인 Djed의 눈을 예수가 침과 진흙이겨 틈만나면 고쳐놨다.
어둠 신 애비 여호와 죽이기다.
원래부터 죽은 자 죽이기가 빛의 입장에서 판단되어질 수 있는가는 논외로 두고.
그러나 혼재가 발생한 이상 논외가 문제 그 자체다.
어둠이 Djed의 눈역활 할 때는 소경이지만,
번개가 Djed의 눈역활 할 떄는 소경이 아니다.
춤추는 자는 졸지에 눈 뜬 Djed에게 일자리 뺏겼다.
두 는 부릅뜨고도 당한게다.
해서,

1   그 때에 바리새인과 서기관들이 예루살렘으로부터 예수께 나아와 가로되
12   이에 제자들이 나아와 가로되 바리새인들이 이 말씀을 듣고 걸림이 된줄 아시나이까
13   예수께서 대답하여 가라사대 심은 것마다 내 천부께서 심으시지 않은 것은 뽑힐 것이니
14   그냥 두어라 저희는 소경이 되어 소경을 인도하는 자로다 만일 소경이 소경을 인도하면 둘이 다 구덩이에 빠지리라 하신대
Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?"
But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.
"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

천부가 심은 것은 뱀침대 깊숙히 박혀있는 Djed의 두 손이고,
뽑힌 것은 춤추는 자(바리새인)의 두 손이다.
그리고 춤추는 자는 소경이 아니지만 예수에 의헤 소경으로 몰린다.
Djed이 눈뜨는 사역이 아니라서 Djed은 아직 소경이고, 소경을 따르는 춤추는 자도 소경이라는 예수의 비아냥이다.
두 Djed에 대한 시간차 발언도 포합한다.

29   저희가 여리고에서 떠나 갈 때에 큰 무리가 예수를 좇더라
30   소경 둘이 길 가에 앉았다가 예수께서 지나가신다 함을 듣고 소리질러 가로되 주여 우리를 불쌍히 여기소서 다윗의 자손이여 하니
31   무리가 꾸짖어 잠잠하라 하되 더욱 소리질러 가로되 주여 우리를 불쌍히 여기소서 다윗의 자손이여 하는지라
32   예수께서 머물러 서서 저희를 불러
33   가라사대 너희에게 무엇을 하여주기를 원하느냐 가로되 주여 우리 눈 뜨기를 원하나이다
34   예수께서 민망히 여기사 저희 눈을 만지시니 곧 보게 되어 저희가 예수를 좇으니라
As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him.
And two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"
The crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"
And Jesus stopped and called them, and said, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
They said to Him, "Lord, we want our eyes to be opened."
Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him.

여리고, 벧엘 모두 아펩신전 사역물이다.
어떤 에피소드라도 신전에 묘사된 기본추론을 벗어나지 않는다.
마음으로 간음도 간음이라 선포한 예수입장에서 진정한 원초적 어둠을 잃어버린 Djed은 두 번 다시 어둠으로 돌아갈 수 없는 빛을 투약받은 상황이다.
해서 Djed이 눈을 뜨면 소경 떄처럼 어둠을 계속 섬길 수 있느냐가 첫 번째 문제다.

지젝은 아직 소경 코끼리 더듬는 중이라, 오래전 발언 그리스도 무신론도 소경 코끼리 범주다.
그러나 황소 뒷걸음질치다가 쥐잡는다고 지젝 나름의 그리스도 무신론도 예상 외 통섭이 하나있다.
엘리 엘리 라마 사박다니/Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.
성서에는 아주 명쾌한 해석이 나와있지만,,,, 예도-박충일위해 숙제로 남겨둔다.







---------------

Superstar Communist Slavoj Zizek is The Most Dangerous Philosopher in the West
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS_Lzo4S8lA
Slavoj Žižek on "They Live" (The Pervert's Guide to Ideology)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k
Žižek on Atheism and Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY
Slavoj Zizek and Christianity (Hegelian Death of God, Christian Atheism, Religion in Marxism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raIGk7lX-0w


That's how I read the death of Christ – here I follow Hegel, who said: What dies on the cross is God himself."


This year's debate between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek was marketed as one of the greatest intellectual debates of the century. At one point, tickets were being scalped for over $1,500 a seat. To many's disappointment, but probably for the best, the event went off without the anticipated drama. Peterson and Žižek managed to find significant common ground.

The debate, which lasted over two and a half hours, has been watched online by more than 350,000 viewers. The interest in Peterson and Žižek represents a growing online audience who are routinely consuming multi-hour lectures and debates through youtube and podcasts. Figures like Žižek and Peterson are having a profound influence on, particularly, young men. While Peterson describes himself as a person who "lives as if there is a god," his precise views on Christianity are complex and intentionally hard to categorize. Alternatively, Žižek describes himself as an atheist but provocatively contends that the only true path to atheism is through Christianity.

Since their debate in April, there has been one moment which I continue to see shared and discussed online. It is often referred to as, Christ's moment of atheism on the cross. It was Žižek who introduced the topic into the night's discussion. He represents a growing trend of individuals who articulate a path of Christian Atheism, honoring the value of Christianity while maintaining there is no God.

The topic came up in Žižek's description of Christ's cry from the cross: "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me." Žižek explained:

"The crucifixion is something absolutely unique because in that moment of, father, why have you abandoned me?, for a brief moment, symbolically, God himself becomes an atheist, in the sense of getting a gap there. That is something absolutely unique. It means you are not simply separated from God. Your separation from God is a part of divinity itself."

Peterson, visibly struck by this observation, responded, "There is something that is built into the fabric of existence that tests us so severely in our faith about being that even God himself falls prey to the temptation to doubt."

The Rise of Christian Atheism

For some time, Žižek has been reading the gospels as an argument for atheism. Žižek goes so far as to claim that the only path for atheism to have developed was through Christianity. In his view, Christianity sowed the first seeds of an atheistic worldview. Christ was abandoned on the cross. When Christ turned to God, he came to the realization that there was no God.

Žižek articulated this brand of Christian Atheism in an interview with Third Way. He explained:

"I take seriously those words Christ says at the end: Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? It's something really tremendous that happens. G K Chesterton (whom I admire) puts it in a wonderful way: Only in Christianity does God himself, for a moment, become atheist.

And I think – this is my reading – that this moment of the death of God, when you are totally abandoned and you have only your 'collectivity', called the 'Holy Spirit', is the authentic moment of freedom."

When making this point, Žižek often turns to the writings of G. K. Chesterton, a twentieth-century Catholic writer and contemporary of C. S. Lewis. This week I went digging through my copy of Chesterton's Orthodoxy, and sure enough, I found the lines which have caught Žižek's attention. In chapter eight, entitled "The Romance of Orthodoxy," Chesterton writes:

"In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt...

He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God.... Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."

Chesterton himself warns that we can not be too careful in speaking of this topic. Yet, it's interesting that when quoting Chesterton, Žižek eliminates the word "seems." Chesterton's words were, "God seemed for an instant to be an atheist," but they are remembered by Žižek as "God himself, for a moment, became an atheist." In a nearly three hour debate, who would expect a person to recall quotations word-for-word? We always allow for rough paraphrasing. But here, more than the word has changed. Chesterton's point is fundamentally altered.

Žižek suggests that in Chesterton, he has found a Christian theologian, who supports his radical reading of the crucifixion as not just the death of the son of god, but the death of God himself. Jesus' cry from the cross and heaven's empty response prove that there is no god. But something significant is missing from Žižek's reading.

Follow the Footnotes: The Source of Jesus's Cry

Chesterton was right about the nature of approaching Jesus's cry of abandonment; it is dark and difficult to consider. Church history is filled with writers who have been shocked by Christ's words, and surely there is something about it which pulls all of us to the edge of the darkness. But there are important points about that moment in the gospels which Žižek seems to be completely unaware of. I hesitate to say that, Žižek's familiarity with the text and historical theology are evident, but it's hard to understand how a person can draw such massive implications from a Biblical text without taking the text itself equally serious.

Of all the gospel writers, Matthew, in particular, makes Jesus cry of abandonment central to his story. A careful reading of Matthew 27 reveals that much of his passion narrative has been structured around allusions to Psalm 22. In fact, Jesus's prayer, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," is a direct quotation from the psalm's opening. The parallels go on. Both the psalm and Matthew describe the mocking crowd, those who "wag" their heads, how the sufferer has trusted God, and yet how he has had his hands and feet pierced. Both Psalm 22 and Matthew 27 describe enemies dividing up the victim's garments. Matthew clearly wants us to read his passion story in the echos of Psalm 22.

As modern readers, having far less familiarity with the Hebrew texts, it's difficult to understand how these references would have struck an early Jewish reader. The Psalms, in particular, were the spiritual foundation of Israel's prayer life. The Psalms formed the vocabulary of Jewish worship and religion. Mentioning even the first word would call to mind the entire Psalm and set the cross in the context of David's reflections.

As an example, when Jesus was tempted in the garden to turn stones into bread, he had responded, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the Lord." We might hear that as a kind of cryptic, sagacious response, but Jesus was referencing Old Testament scripture. He was quoting from Deuteronomy 13 which explained that God had fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna so that they might learn that man's need is greater than his belly. Satan's temptation of hunger wouldn't work. Jesus's quotation pulled in a broader context beyond just his single sentence citation.

To offer a more current example, you might say to a rival after your defeat, "you may have won the battle." Though that appears to be a statement of defeat, we know it isn't because what is implied is the next line of that saying, "but you won't win the war." The assumed familiarity with the referenced content fundamentally changes the meaning of what is being said. With the right context, we can ironically say one thing while implying the opposite.

A quick reading of Psalm 22 reveals, that while it opens with an expression of abandonment, it is hardly a song of defeat. Quite the opposite. Psalm 22 builds towards the triumphant ending of faith and trust in times of darkness and isolation.

Psalm 22 concludes:
For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him,
but has heard, when he cried to him.
From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
The afflicted shall seat and be satisfied;
those who seek him shall praise the LORD!
May your hearts live forever!

Jesus could have cried any phrase of abandonment from the cross. He could have invented his own. The thieves surrounding him had no problem turning to curses. The crowds imagined he was crying to Elijah for help.

It's hard to imagine Jesus would have selected the opening line of this psalm in an attempt to articulate God's nonexistence when every Jew would have immediately associated that Psalm with the reassurance of God's presence. That Žižek would claim to "take seriously those words Christ says at the end" and yet not even mention David's psalm is reading far too simplistic and crude. Matthew uses every literary detail of his passion narrative to turn our minds to Psalm 22. There is no discussing Jesus's words without taking the time to consider David's.

A Darkness Deeper Than Death

What Žižek does manage to capture is the horror of what Christ experienced on the cross and the unexpected possibility of that experience. Christ's suffering faced its greatest test in the temptation to doubt, to abandon God in the face of having been abandoned. What does it mean for God to reach out to God and for the first time in all eternity, find nothing? In this way, Christ, in his humanity, tastes the atheist's deepest experiences of nothingness. Christ took on the most fundamental human experience, alienation. And so Matthew records, a verse before Jesus's words, "darkness came over all the land."

As a painter, Rembrandt is known for his dramatic use of light and darkness. Nowhere does he deploy this contrast more effectively than in his painting of Christ being raised on the cross. In the painting, a large crowd has formed around Christ, as three men work to hoist the cross upward. Interestingly, the man central to the raising is believed by scholars to be a self-portrait of Rembrandt. Christ is cast in warm and bright light, but the source of that light is mysterious because surrounding the scene is a black shadow. It is the noon hour, but there is no sun in the sky. As the cross is still being raised, it has not yet reached its vertical position. Its angle forces Jesus's view upward on to the vast open darkness which dominates half the painting. Jesus stares into the empty black.

By comparison, many medieval painters filled their Good Friday skies with angelic creatures and beams of heavenly light. Many of Rembrandt's contemporaries, like Peter Paul Rubens, opted for dramatically clouded skies. Rembrandt sought instead to draw our attention to that overwhelming, empty section of the canvas. This was also the experience of Christ. To look upward and find emptiness.

This same observation led Chesterton to consider Christ the God of atheists because no other god could better relate to the crushing weight of doubt. The atheist's sense of God's apparent absence has never been experienced as deeply as Christ did on the cross. Christ himself stepped into the experience of doubt in ways more profound than any human before him.

As C. S. Lewis put it, "To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell is to be banished from humanity." What Christ saw in that great emptiness was hell opened before him. It was a space void of God's presence. It was the nihilistic world of the atheist's most crushing doubts.

Chesterton also pointed out that, "In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden, God tempted God." When man was tempted, we each failed. We continue to. Even waking each morning into the preserving grace of God's patience, even walking daily with him in the garden, as the first man did, we continue to fail that test. We live as if there is no God. It takes less than God's abandonment for our hearts to turn against Him.

But, and it's an important but, a test of one's faith in the face of doubt is not necessarily a denial. It may be, as I think Rembrandt captures, that the greatest light of faith shines brightest in the greatest darkness. Rembrandt's mysterious source of light is Christ himself. And Christ's cry is no curse. Instead, Christ does what no man has been capable of doing. In the honesty of his cry, acknowledging his abandonment, he sows the seed of hope. He turns us to Psalm 22. Christ threw himself into the emptiness. But far from cursing God, Luke records Jesus's final words as, "Then Jesus called out in a loud voice, "'Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.' And when He had said this, He breathed His last."

By his allusion to Psalm 22, Jesus forces into the darkness expectations of faith. In the absence of God, Christ still believed. Even when alone, he called out, "my God!" How, in the echo of Christ's words, do we not hear the psalm's final conclusion still to come? "He has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him... May your hearts live forever!"

Jesus plunged into the abyss, entrusting his spirit to a God he couldn't see and believing in a vindication still to come. So Søren Kierkegaard would write, "This is one of the most crucial definitions for the whole of Christianity; that the opposite of sin is not virtue but faith." Christ is made perfect in faith. His power is revealed in weakness. His vindication in defeat. His faith in the face of doubt.

The Absence of Resurrection Light

It's striking that, as seriously as Peterson and Žižek discuss the cross, neither makes mention of the Gospel's resurrection finale. The gospel writers could not have imagined a conversation about the cross, which dismissed the resurrection. As the Apostle Paul would put it, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is empty." The meaning of Christ's cry on the cross hangs on the actuality of his resurrection. Christians have believed this since the first century.

To imagine you are reading the gospels carefully while lopping off their final culminating event is hard to reconcile. Try telling the story of the Trojan war without the Trojan horse? Could you recount Lord of the Rings without Frodo finally casting the ring into the fires of Mordor? Is it still a fairy tale if you delete it's final happily ever after?

Paul was correct. Even two thousand years ago, he recognized that life and death—defeat and vindication–depend on the resurrection. The message of the cross hangs on the resurrection. There is no way to read the gospels with any semblance of respect while simultaneously stripping them of their conclusion. The moment we reduce Christ's resurrection to the symbolic, we forfeit the vindication of his suffering. Without that vindication, Christ's abandonment becomes defeat. He is nothing more than mistaken or disillusioned. The entire edifice of Christianity collapses in on itself. We are left to the scraps.

In a novel move, Žižek attempts to cast this collapse as Christianity's strength. In a Nietzschean proclamation, Žižek declares the cross the actual death of God. Or as Žižek has described it, "The truly dramatic point is in Christianity, and that is why, although I am (I must admit it) an atheist, I think that you can truly be an atheist – and I mean this quite literally – only through Christianity. That's how I read the death of Christ – here I follow Hegel, who said: What dies on the cross is God himself."

I think Chesterton, a self-acknowledged favorite of Žižek's, offers the final pages of the gospel story the fuller reading they deserve. Chesterton saw in the death and resurrections story, not the death of God but the death of humanity. He saw in it not a dawning of man, but a dawning of God—a new creation. I have rarely read words by any Christian author more profound than Chesterton's description of resurrection from the Everlasting Man.

"There were solitudes beyond where none shall follow. There were secrets in the inmost and invisible part of that drama that have no symbol in speech; or in any severance of a man from men. Nor is it easy for any words less stark and single-minded than those of the naked narrative even to hint at the horror of exaltation that lifted itself above the hill. Endless expositions have not come to the end of it, or even to the beginning. And if there be any sound that can produce a silence, we may surely be silent about the end and the extremity; when a cry was driven out of that darkness in words dreadfully distinct and dreadfully unintelligible, which man shall never understand in all the eternity they have purchased for him; and for one annihilating instant an abyss that is not for our thoughts had opened even in the unity of the absolute; and God had been forsaken of God.

They took the body down from the cross and one of the few rich men among the first Christians obtained permission to bury it in a rock tomb in his garden; the Romans setting a military guard lest there should be some riot and attempt to recover the body. There was once more a natural symbolism in these natural proceedings; it was well that the tomb should be sealed with all the secrecy of ancient eastern sepulture and guarded by the authority of the Caesars. For in that second cavern the whole of that great and glorious humanity which we call antiquity was gathered up and covered over; and in that place it was buried. It was the end of a very great thing called human history; the history that was merely human. The mythologies and the philosophies were buried there, the gods and the heroes and the sages. In the great Roman phrase, they had lived. But as they could only live, so they could only die; and they were dead.

On the third day the friends of Christ coming at daybreak to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realised the new wonder; but even they hardly realised that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden, in the cool not of the evening but the dawn."

While Žižek reads the cross as God's defeat, he reads Chesterton very wrongly to come to that conclusion. Instead, Chesterton saw in Christ's cry a kind of courage. It is the courage to believe even when abandoned. This is the great contribution of Christ to man. This is what separates the Christian God from others. As Chesterton put it, "Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point–and does not break."

Christ's prayer of abandonment was a subversive act of faith. When tested, and even when acknowledging the sheer horror of his isolation, still Christ does not break. He leads us not to atheism but pulls us by faith through our doubt.

Christ did not give in to the doubt. "Not my will but yours," was his prayer. He passed through hell and was vindicated in resurrection. This is not the story of denial or defeat; it is the story of courageous faith, a perfect faith. A leap of faith, as Kierkegaard would describe it.

I can't help but end in reflecting again on Rembrandt's painting. At the foot of the cross is a shovel stuck in the ground before a freshly dug grave. For those soldiers who placed Christ's body in the tomb, death was the finale. How shocked those who had carried his cold body must have been to have seen him resurrected: eating fish, walking with his disciples, and bearing his scars. Christ's resurrection transcends our certainty.

Or remember the words of Lewis's imaginary tempter, Screwtape, "Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."

"For me the most radical demand of Christian faith lies in summoning the courage to say yes to the present risenness of Jesus Christ." — Brennan Manning, Abba's Child
https://pastorwriter.com/zizek-peterson-and-the-christian-atheist/