"For twenty-four centuries or so, the West has been dominated and formed by these two men—and by the tension between them. The tension is between the pursuit of truth as doubt in Socrates and the absolute certainty in truth offered by Jesus"
I have little to add. But, naturally, not nothing. Xenopol is content to talk about the upsides, being all positive and shit, whereas I'm focused on the dissonant nature of the downsides, when it is possible and necessary to discard these dissonances.
"The love Jesus offers is the all-embracing—perhaps all-destroying—love of the Father"
Love without boundaries is to be without boundaries. To be without boundaries is narcissism. Yeshua was literally an insane eldritch god.
Particularism is holy to Gnon. You can tell, because Creation is highly discriminated. Things not only differ from one another, but differ elaborately and profoundly.
Universal, indiscriminate love is heresy against Gnon. If he wanted you to love all things he wouldn't have given you preferences and dislikes. Or do you suggest one particular unifying preference of yours is more important than the divine?
Yes. Eldritch gods are typically all-destroying. Indeed to 'unify' means to destroy walls and differences. To destroy all differences is total annihilation. To rewind Creation to before time. If there is only one, there is nothing.
"This is why the West and Westerners are always slightly doubtful; we can never have the absolute certainty found in Muslims; we always have Socrates on our shoulder reminding us to doubt and undermine through dialectic."
This, too, is error. More subtle than Yeshua's ear-shredding raves. Both "absolute certainty" and all-encompassing skepticism are errors. The stellar path, as usual, appears contradictory. Have absolute certainty that you can correct your errors when they become relevant. Be confident of uncertainty. Have utmost faith your ideas are wrong.
In general, your beliefs are good enough. Test: you ain't dead.
You're wrong as fuck. Wrong about everything. Every single belief is false. And that's fine; practically speaking you're right enough. Strictly speaking every datum is a sin; pragmatically, it approximates truth enough that truth's demands are satisfied.
The point of the method of Σωκράτης is to get better beliefs, because - get this - it's better.
When your beliefs are flawed, you don't need to go looking for it. Your plans will fail. If a plan fails and you don't notice, it's not a failure. When you plan fails, you can be confident that you can fix it. Be familiar with the methods of inquiry. Be certain you can ask questions.
If you want, as a hobby, you can also pre-emptively correct your beliefs. Again, there is no need for self-doubt or lack of confidence. It's just a hobby. You can learn. If you try and it doesn't work, then learn how to learn. Can you learn? Can you speak? Can you walk? Can you multiply? You can learn. There's no need to lay weird baroque semi-spiritual emotional foundations. Just do it.
Σωκράτης: "I know that I know nothing." He knows it so hard he trolled every Athenian he could get his hands on. This is not uncertainty. This is the way.
"Nor can we be as tolerant and easy-going as the Indians, we always have Jesus on our shoulder to tell us that the truth is absolute and must make all bend before it. We cannot easily say, “That’s your god, your truth. That’s fine!”"
In reality, I have my falsehood and you have your falsehood. And that's fine; we ain't dead.
In the end the truer one will win anyway, whether we intentionally seek competition or seek chill live and let live.
P.S. Holy shit, if there is only one, there is nothing. Perfect cosmos is perfect chaos. Which means, in turn, perfect chaos is a kind of cosmos. Ex nihilo.