On the difference between mythic and divine violence

Walter Benjamin in "On a critique of violence" writes:
"Just as God is opposed to myth in all spheres, so divine violence runs
counter to mythic violence. Indeed, divine violence designates in all
respects an antithesis to mythic violence. If mythic violence is
law-positing, divine violence is law-annihilating; if the former
establishes boundaries, the latter boundlessly annihilates them; if
mythic violence inculpates [verschuldend] and expiates [sühnend] at the
same time, divine violence de-expiates [entsühnend]; if the former
threatens, the latter strikes; if the former is bloody, the latter is
lethal in a bloodless manner"
"Mythic violence is blood-violence over mere life for the sake of
violence itself; divine violence is pure violence over all of life for
the sake of the living. The former demands sacrifice (*in German the
word is the same as "victim" - which is very important here I believe);
the latter assumes it (*the latter assumes victims)."
Mythic violence: Torah commands the Jews to circumcise their sons. This
is a myth. This is blood-violence over mere life for the sake of
violence itself. Law-positing violence. This is bloody.
Divine violence: I tell you to stop mutilating the dicks of your sons.
This is divine violence - pure violence over all of life for the sake of
the living. Law-annihilating violence. This is lethal in a bloodless
manner.
Judaism and Frank establish boundaries, I annihilate them.
What Judaism and Frank do should be considered chillul hashem -- at
least from a secular perspective ;)
What I'm doing is to be considered kiddush hashem.