To me it seems as if the thesis is making a turn. I should see the actual thing( though the website i took it from is allied to the Catholic Universy of Louvain/Leuven, so it should be a fair representation, published with permission of the Author De Smet.)@ MAAT...continued.....
Very good...and thought provoking indeed.
Followers of Judaism and Islam may differ in their approach, but they both believe that they worship the same deity who is eternal all powerful unique self subsisting and not a human or an earthbound creature.
We don't usually give up even if our human local "heros" fail because we still have our top boss who is totally invincible and eternal!
Unfortunately, the "Christian" perspective does NOT allow the believer to understand such a GOD.
They have created a god out of a man who was born and then died.
They can say the man got up from the dead..went to heaven...did this and did that...but without a shred of evidence.
By hedging their bets on a man they have to keep convincing themselves that the man is indeed god...and each christian has this doubt 1000 times a day...what if jesus is not god..what if he was just man?
They overcome this fear by repeating their "mantras"..jesus is this..jesus is that..hoping they can drown out their OWN doubts and noises!
It is very hard to project a tiny man into orbit...and then get him completely out of this universe plus many more universes to turn him into an all powerful GOD.
That is why "christianity" in its present form cannot survive.
They need to return to the ways of the followers of Jesus the man and messenger who was a devoted slave of God...
Instead of following what he did and worshipping his GOD, "they are WORSHIPPING the WORSHIPPER - an ignorant recipe for disaster.
It's as if the initial question A.) is not followed through to the end, as i did in my comment.
A.)Or did he face the violence as mirror to face his own violent tendencies. That would be the main theme of the thesis.
Girard stresses that the evangelium and the cross hold a mirror to people, in which they are confronted radically with their own violence. Everyone has their own scapegoats. Stronger: scapegoats define each and everyones identity.
Christian conversion means that people dare to face their own violence.
A famous example would be the first stage performance by Susan Boyle, an unemployed frumpy housewife, ridiculed by the audience and the viewer at home and afterwards still got a standing ovation. Judging member Amanda phrased is thus:Im so thrilled because I know that everybody was against you. We are all so cynical but that was a complete wakeup call!
The christian faith oversteps and offers an alternative.
If humanity is religious by nature, as exemplified by our now-adays idol-cult, than the christian alternative would make a seamless connection with it.
It calls on humanity to consciously place J.C. as non-violent example centerstage and to follow suite.
So His divinity does not come to be from channeling/guiding violence but in the recognition of ones own sin-goat violence.
Authentic believe in Jesus Christ means that he makes the difference in a non-violent manor/way.
Jesus became sin-goat and victim, so no others victims would be needed.
We discussed the violence of the crusades, of evangelising, of building empires, of Jesus rudeboy scapegoating stance. The scapegoating that happened for centuries of the jews. The scapegaoting now of muslims and vice versa. And the interfaith started out with blaming itself for egging on believers to go at other faiths and individulas(the shoa and crusades), but later it revokes and states it was neo-paganism. So now we have the child-abuse this interview alludes to.
But should the conclusion not be that jesus takes the underdog position that provides the very template for scape-goating others. Is christian identity about emulating his scape-goating?