2 Answers

  1. It's not entirely clear where you got this idea that a creature should kill the creator, but it's easy to explain.

    Let's imagine that this is the case.

    In fundamental anthropology, there is such a theory of mimetic relations, or the theory of mimetic desire. According to it, relations between people are purely mimetic, that is, imitative. A person never knows what to wish for until they see someone else wanting the ” right thing.” According to this, since the fish is looking for where it is deeper, and the person is looking for where it is better , the subordinate will want the position and privilege of the boss, the slave-the master, the child-the father. But since the boss, master, and father already exist, it is not so easy to take their place, and the only conclusion is obvious.

    Early biblical myths say that Lucifer, or Lucifer, saw that man was too cool for God, and he did not like it. On the contrary, he said that this is some kind of crap, and I will not obey it. And if you keep asking me to, I'll make my own world, you know what. This is the first example of conflict, the second is when “people wanted to be like gods”, but this again went sideways for them. There is no such direct theme of killing God, because it would be an oxymoron at all, but we already see how everything unfolds.

    Many biblical commentators say that after the fall, it would have been good for Adam if God had not existed, and he sought to hide from His face. Cain after killing Abel due to the same mimetic rivalry (God liked Abel's animal sacrifice => he's cooler) you also sought to hide, and as a result, you built cities to live in your own way, and not as if God were above you. That is, becoming a god in your own world is the leitmotif of deicide. Remove the creator, as the previous speaker correctly pointed out.

    If you can't remove the Creator, you can remove his messengers-prophets, which is what the long history of the Jewish people shows us. Right down to the last one, who unexpectedly for everyone, even for the closest disciples, turned out to be the Son of God – as evidenced by the event of the Resurrection and Ascension – and showed all the inconsistency of the approach of wanting someone else's place.

    “Not my will, but the will of the Father who sent me” says that one should abandon one's own desires and imitate the Son, who, in turn, is able to imitate the Father, and thereby bridges the gap between the Creator and His creation with help… that same indestructible mimetic desire. It must cease to desire for itself – neither a house, nor a wife, nor your neighbor's livestock-but to desire for his good, to the very end. “There is no more love like if someone

    he will lay down his life for his friends “(John 15: 13).

    In the rhetoric of parricide, we can say that a creature wants its Creator dead only when it understands that its Creator is infinitely good. For the child, there is no higher authority than the father; the father is the ultimate model for him; but he is also an obstacle. How can I become like my father if I already have one? It is necessary to eliminate it, and along the way you can wish for the same thing that the father wants. Thus, the same Elipov complex is a particular form of mimetic desire, according to which the father or Creator acts as a barrier-a model.

    The catch is that, according to early biblical traditions, man has decided that God is a treacherous tyrant and wants only power and unquestioning submission; whereas God only wants good for His creatures and complete freedom for them (otherwise, He would restrict our freedom, thus obtaining complete submission to His will). The whole story of the Bible is the story of the return of understanding of the relationship between the Creator and the creation, sometimes expressed in terms of desire, where there is no place for the creation to compete with the Creator, but only guess what.

  2. Must is an imperative. Maybe it shouldn't be at all.

    There is no doubt that there is a problem in the relationship between the creator and the created.

    For there is a connection and relation between them. If there is a connection and an attitude, then there may be problems in this relationship. Well, they are.

    The whole trick here is that what is created a priori feels secondary to the creator. There is one who believes it. There is someone who defined it. He's not free. It is not independent. How to get rid of it?

    Well, remove the creator. By removing the creator, we will not get rid of the fact that he created us. But it doesn't matter. Because we still exist and he is no longer. We are above it already because we are.

Leave a Reply