Interzone

Symposium => Philosophy => Topic started by: Jackal on October 16, 2014, 11:33:22 PM

Title: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 16, 2014, 11:33:22 PM
Christianity is another great example of pretending that falsehood is true and insisting that others treat the excursion into total fantasyland as normal and rational.

2edgy4me.
Title: Re: The Trans Debate: What is wrong with people?
Post by: Sponsz on October 16, 2014, 11:43:20 PM
Quote
2edgy4me
You see that term used a lot by 19 year olds on reddit. 

I'm a big fan of realism and evidence.  When you live your life on the basis of false beliefs your entire decision process becomes distorted.  If one package of falsehood is ok, why not another?  Why demonize trannies when you yourself buy into all manner of ridiculous, wild lies about the nature of the universe?

It's also worth mentioning that the most pernicious founding assumptions of liberalism emerged from judeo christianity.  When you form beliefs in the absence of any evidence and adhere to them in the face of abundant evidence what you end up with is a pile of rot.
Title: Re: The Trans Debate: What is wrong with people?
Post by: Urban IX on October 16, 2014, 11:50:10 PM
This thread is derailed to all hell. A tranny redditor screaming oppression and edgelords baiting an off-topic debate on Christianity's validity.
Title: Re: The Trans Debate: What is wrong with people?
Post by: Sponsz on October 16, 2014, 11:53:54 PM
Just a point about shattered OODA loops and it's actually absolutely on topic.  If you are going to worship a jewish zombie, why castigate others for pretending that they're female and evangelizing it like a religion?  What's the difference once you live in a fantasy world? The tranny's attack on christianity is just the pot calling the kettle black and vice versa.

It's like LARPers and Otherkin attacking each other's philosophical basis.
Title: Re: The Trans Debate: What is wrong with people?
Post by: Urban IX on October 16, 2014, 11:58:12 PM
In brief: Because transsexualism is delusion and Christianity is not.
Title: Re: The Trans Debate: What is wrong with people?
Post by: Sponsz on October 17, 2014, 12:03:40 AM
Quote
In brief: Because transsexualism is delusion and Christianity is not.
Ok, provide some hard evidence supporting some of its bizarre theological claims. 

The fact is there is actually abundant hard evidence supporting brain abnormalities in trannies which goes a long way toward explaining their bizarre fantasy ideologies.  What's your excuse?
Title: Re: The Trans Debate: What is wrong with people?
Post by: Urban IX on October 17, 2014, 12:08:36 AM
Bizarre? I wouldn't say its theological claims are bizarre. They seem quite normal to me.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 17, 2014, 12:44:24 AM
Controversial statement:

All systems of thought are philosophies. These can include descriptive and prescriptive values, among others.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." Yes, and there are no philosophies or ideologies; only interpretations.

Interpretation varies directly with (a) IQ and (b) character, including traits like openness and less formulated attributes like nobility.

People interpret philosophies according to their own perceptions, which (per esotericism) vary directly with their abilities and time spend exploring these ideas.

Quote
It would take me all night to tell about Old Bull Lee; let's just say now, he was a teacher, and it may be said that he had every right to teach because he spent all his time learning; and the things he learned were what he considered to be and called "the facts of life," which he learned, not only out of necessity but because he wanted to. He dragged his long, thin body around the entire United States and most of Europe and North Africa in his time, only to see what was going on.... there are pictures of him with the international cocaine set of the thirties — gangs with wild hair, leaning on one another, there are other pictures of him in a Panama hat, surveying the streets of Algiers.... He was an exterminator in Chicago, a bartender in New York, a summons-server in Newark. In Paris he sat at cafe tables, watching the sullen French faces go by. In Athens he looked up from his ouzo at what he called the ugliest people in the world. In Istanbul he threaded his way through crowds of opium addicts and rug-sellers, looking for the facts. In Chicago he planned to hold up a Turkish bath, hesitated just for two minutes too long for a drink, and, wound up with two dollars and had to make a run for it. He did all these things merely for the experience....

A genius interpreting Christianity will make of it a genius religion; an idiot interpreting any religion will make it idiotic. Nature > nurture, and there's a correlating factor: geniuses tend to explore more than idiots, in part because they can see what to explore where it is invisible to most people.

Numerous scientists have had metaphysical belief; many of the great philosophers articulated them as well. Using materialism to argue against metaphysics is a failed argument because by its very nature a non-sampling category cannot comment on a sampling category; the two do not overlap. It is like using smoke signals to disprove radio signals.

Instead of focusing on blanket categorical statements like whether or not we think Christianity is Aktion T4 material, let us look at an interpretation of Christianity that would be healthy.

For context, I am a perennialist, but not a big fan of dualism. I seek the triad: culture, heritage and values. This includes religion, but cannot base its arguments in religion itself.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Sponsz on October 17, 2014, 07:49:07 AM
Quote
Bizarre? I wouldn't say its theological claims are bizarre. They seem quite normal to me.
Ok, so provide some supporting evidence.

If you're going to live based on realism, do that.   What religion does is make a collection of baseless assertions and then try post facto to interpret the world in such a way as to justify the specious founding assumptions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

As for the utility of religion to manipulate and control the proles gullible enough to  believe it, I'm fine with that. 

Christianity is an inclusive place.  As long as you pay your tithe in the plate, they will accept anybody from post-op transvestites to the swarthiest mestizo.

And let's face it, not everybody has what it takes to face reality.  The world is a pretty scary place and some people just need fairy tales to hang on to.  But don't blame the realist for calling religion what it is.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 17, 2014, 08:45:44 AM
I like to enforce high standards, and this enforcement does not reveal my position.

Christianity is an inclusive place.  As long as you pay your tithe in the plate, they will accept anybody from post-op transvestites to the swarthiest mestizo.

Not logical, because every other organization is the same way. Government, business, the military, etc.

Same way lack of Jews at collapse of Maya, Aztec and Inca empires suggests the cause of civilization collapse is not Jews.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: warkin on October 17, 2014, 02:23:39 PM
Christianity vs. Trannyanity: which is truer?  Ye shall know them by their fruits.  That is, don't get too caught up in details, look at the results.

There are many historical examples of healthy Christian civilizations and communities.  The most basic requirement for a healthy community is that it endures, it reproduces.  Maybe one day there will be a civilization of transsexuals that replicates via cloning vats.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on October 17, 2014, 03:01:00 PM
There isn't any way around the primacy of results, deemed immoral or unpopular or no, particularly when looking evolutionary in scope. Things we consider horrible and unconscionable now were of immense benefit, indeed indispensable to the fruits of evolutionary fitness we enjoy today. Both the modern religious and secular sides have behaved like a bunch of backward, reactionary rubes when it comes to letting nature take its course.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Sponsz on October 17, 2014, 04:05:14 PM
Quote
The most basic requirement for a healthy community is that it endures, it reproduces.

That's exactly the way cancerous tumors are healthy.  There has to be more than that even in a basic definition.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 17, 2014, 04:40:25 PM
Lets be clear. I have no memory of the creation of this thread. Commented on the tranny thread. There was a sense of arrogance ascribed to putting down and delibratley misrepresenting christianity.

Thats why its 2edgy4me.

Too bad instead of transcending the stereotype you decided to make an ass out of yourself.


Quote
You see that term used a lot by 19 year olds on reddit.

ironic considering that the faggot in the thread said he was from reddit. The phrase is apt considering how autistic the anti-christianity 'critiques' are.


Quote
I'm a big fan of realism and evidence

no. Youre a materialist. Its a philosophical position.

Quote
When you live your life on the basis of false beliefs your entire decision process becomes distorted.

An exceedingly small number of people actually consider their own beliefs in any manner approaching rigor. Not only do I doubt you spend alot of time considering your own priors but I consider this quote to be basically begging the question. You assume everyone is as philosophically ignorant as you.

Quote
If one package of falsehood is ok, why not another?

some many questions to beg. So little time.

Quote
Why demonize trannies when you yourself buy into all manner of ridiculous, wild lies about the nature of the universe?

sophistry.

Why demonize trannies? They are symptoms of anti-civilization moralities. Thats a good enough start.

The rest of your statement is just edgelord redditor.

Quote
It's also worth mentioning that the most pernicious founding assumptions of liberalism emerged from judeo christianity.

first of judeo chrisitanity isnt really a fair stament. Abrahamic religion perhaps.

"the most pernicious founding assumptions of liberalism"

well prove it. This is just the natsoc atheist critique of christianity one sees on 8chan. Its more likely a European (the proto leftists) phenomenon than a christian one considering the orthodox and catholic traditions. Still its your claim.

Quote
When you form beliefs in the absence of any evidence and adhere to them in the face of abundant evidence what you end up with is a pile of rot.


...riggggggghhhhtttt. and yet im the '19 year old on reddit'


Quote
If you are going to worship a jewish zombie, why castigate others for pretending that they're female and evangelizing it like a religion?

I'm going to call you a cunt.

Cunt.

You're mostly a cunt for generating a fallacious statement. Most commonly seen as a false equivalence but there are a few others that could be drawn on at this point.

However there is a very logical reason that religions are not inclusive of other religions and I'm not sure how you havent grasped that yet.


Quote
It's like LARPers and Otherkin attacking each other's philosophical basis.

they haven't even gone that far. Hell you havent even spared a single neuron to it.

Quote
Ok, provide some hard evidence supporting some of its bizarre theological claims. 

look at the 5 dollar word: theology.

Its part of the study of reality, you like realism right?, more commonly known as metaphysics.

Comprised of cosmology, ontology, and theology.

What, pray tell, are the bizzare theological claims?

Quote
The fact is there is actually abundant hard evidence supporting brain abnormalities in trannies which goes a long way toward explaining their bizarre fantasy ideologies.

body, mind, spirit. Its a type of sickness. I see no reason the body wouldnt have evidence of such evidence.

Quote
What's your excuse?

I've actually spent some time considering the philosophical basis of materialism, evidence, science, phenomenology, and the general study of metaphysics.

http://cl.ly/3Z0r3m0W003H

you could start at one point. Whats your excuse?



Quote
Ok, so provide some supporting evidence.

youre the one who made the claim. Herpaderp that means you have to justify it.

Do you understand how this works?

Quote
If you're going to live based on realism, do that.   What religion does is make a collection of baseless assertions and then try post facto to interpret the world in such a way as to justify the specious founding assumptions.

how realistic is a world without metaphysics? easy answer: not very.

Quote
And let's face it, not everybody has what it takes to face reality.  The world is a pretty scary place and some people just need fairy tales to hang on to.  But don't blame the realist for calling religion what it is.

next time how about you face that youre just verifying the redditor atheist stereotype. No better than dawkins.

Quote
That's exactly the way cancerous tumors are healthy.  There has to be more than that even in a basic definition.

speaking of fields you dont get: oncology. Tumors dont endure. Tumors are so unstable they can actually catch meta-cancer. There are more definitions but your logical refutation is illogical.

====================

Thansk vir.

Quote
Numerous scientists have had metaphysical belief; many of the great philosophers articulated them as well. Using materialism to argue against metaphysics is a failed argument because by its very nature a non-sampling category cannot comment on a sampling category; the two do not overlap. It is like using smoke signals to disprove radio signals.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Sponsz on October 17, 2014, 05:46:47 PM
Yeah, jackal, you got me.  I don't know anything about oncology or biology in general so I will just have to defer to the expertise you have on display.

People ask me why I don't participate in places like this.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 17, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
People ask me why I don't participate in places like this.

This particular topic goes to shit anywhere it is tried, even in real life. It is totally polarizing.

Some approach with science (material), philosophy (informational) and religion (metaphysical). These do not always talk to each other, although the middle one can.

The problem is that no proof will be found in the physical for the non-physical EXCEPT through the informational.

Kant was on point with this, Schopenhauer also interesting (in summarizing the heritage of German idealism by minor philosophers + Upanishadic knowledge).

Some like Heidegger. I find him... annoying. And Schopenhauer to be more complete.

But, if I could have asked for a clearer demonstration of why I suggest NR/NRX remain "secular," this is it -- there will not be a universal here.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 17, 2014, 06:02:08 PM
People ask me why I don't participate in places like this.

dont pussy out.

You just talked a whole bunch of madshit.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 17, 2014, 06:03:59 PM
dont pussy out.

We might as well have this one out once, call each other fags and then realize it's an impossible bridge. Some people see it; others do not.

For those who want to see it, meaning an invisible world within this one, I suggest Bruckner. It will take a few weeks of listening and familiarization before it becomes comprehensible.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 17, 2014, 06:15:15 PM
People ask me why I don't participate in places like this.

This particular topic goes to shit anywhere it is tried, even in real life. It is totally polarizing.

Some approach with science (material), philosophy (informational) and religion (metaphysical). These do not always talk to each other, although the middle one can.

dont worry there are too many atheists and those who dont get metaphysics in nrx for it to ever really be anything but secular in the near future.

My big beef is that the 3 approaches are not mutually exclusive and the major problem is people who try to argue philosophical statements without any consideration on to the prior assumptions they make in order to get that.  I dont mind having civil conversation but all sides have to be willing to be civil or else you just get trolled.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 17, 2014, 06:16:22 PM
dont pussy out.

We might as well have this one out once, call each other fags and then realize it's an impossible bridge. Some people see it; others do not.

For those who want to see it, meaning an invisible world within this one, I suggest Bruckner. It will take a few weeks of listening and familiarization before it becomes comprehensible.

its not his beliefs that make him a fag. Its him spending a significant amount of time literally talking shit with very little substance. If he gets all upset that someone calls him out on it than hes a pussy.

EDIT: the faggot from reddit comment from my second post in the thread is directly related to the tranny not to sponz.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Moses on October 18, 2014, 06:45:16 AM
The problem with these kind of discussions, which has already been identified, is that people do not understand the limitations of particular areas of knowledge and essentially make their argument from a particular set of subjective premises.  This is accompanied by a modern tendency to be exceptionally unimaginative and literal in interpreting both traditional texts and empirical facts.  The philosophical materialist seeks to reduce everything to empirical data which is assumed to be synonymous with truth while the "Christian" bases their argument on a rather biased reading of the Bible together with some pop theology.   

Only objectivity can permit constructive discussion and objectivity transcends both empirical data (and matter) and religious dogma although its content (truth) can be expressed through both.

I would add that in my opinion religion, including Christianity, is essentially a framework which allows truth to be accessed according to the qualification of the seeker.  It also contains a vast and complex network of social rules and considerations that allow it to form the foundation of a civilization.  It is no coincidence that all successful human societies were founded on religion in one form or another, whereas our modern "civilization" which represents the most advanced form of decay ever witnessed is also the first to remove religion from a central role in its social infrastructure.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on October 18, 2014, 10:06:43 AM
A lot of us are thinking religion wasn't removed but underwent a secular transformation. There is state dogma, state sanctioned social justice saints and public secular rituals for example. Heretics are persecuted with a vengeance. High priests of secular humanism issue decrees from the academic, executive, judicial and legislative temples.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Moses on October 18, 2014, 07:54:17 PM
A lot of us are thinking religion wasn't removed but underwent a secular transformation. There is state dogma, state sanctioned social justice saints and public secular rituals for example. Heretics are persecuted with a vengeance. High priests of secular humanism issue decrees from the academic, executive, judicial and legislative temples.

So the outward forms were retained while the content was replaced.  It is incredible how members of the modern establishment are fundamentally incapable of seeing that their own way of thinking is based on a particular set of subjective premises.  What is more this is the very accusation they use to undermine all traditional institutions and ways of thinking.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 18, 2014, 09:48:38 PM
concerning nihilism:

http://vimeo.com/107395294
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 19, 2014, 10:00:12 AM
Its him spending a significant amount of time literally talking shit with very little substance.

I recognize in this the symptoms of someone who is intellectually exhausted by the topic and does not want to engage.

I have been there myself.

I think however that this is an important topic and should be expressed but with less of the emotional drama that usually accompanies it.

It is, after all, an engineering question.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 19, 2014, 03:49:29 PM
its an important question.

I dont even mind if he makes philosophical statements from a materialist stand point. Without rigor ideas are meaningless.

If serious statements on Christianity want to be brought up thats fine. I'll grant that American Protestantism really does deserve lots of  the critique it gets. However it is the proto-leftist Christians that fill this puritan attitude far more than catholic or orthodox traditions. Sola  Scriputre is also relatively recent as a major focus of the religion.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 19, 2014, 05:26:22 PM
Jackel, I agree with vir that Christianity is more of a framework than a particular religion.  Within that framework, the Puritans were the best religion of them all.  This neoreactionary idea of blaming liberalism on the Puritans is just nonsense.  The only fault of the Puritans was supporting democracy, but other than that they were excellent.  They had good morals and a strong community.

It is true that the Protestant religious passion has been passed to the liberals.  So what, passion can be either good or bad depending on what the passion is for.  This forum here also contains people passionate about their ideas.  What's the difference?  The Catholics and Orthodox lack passion which means that creating a moral society will be challenging for them.

Sola Scriptura has been an issue forever.  This is what the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on (Sadducees supporting sola scriptura) and this later continued with Rabbinic Jews verus Karaite Jews.  This issue will always be around because the optimal is somewhere in the middle, between sola scriptura and centralized dictates.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 19, 2014, 05:29:47 PM
I'll grant that American Protestantism really does deserve lots of  the critique it gets. However it is the proto-leftist Christians that fill this puritan attitude far more than catholic or orthodox traditions. Sola  Scriputre is also relatively recent as a major focus of the religion.

Yes, it is an important question... not just for political reasons. It is one of the great mysteries of life and should be addressed one way or another.

I dislike the liberalization of Christianity that occurred in Protestantism. The idea of "democratization," or even one of those grubby proles out there entrusted with reading the Bible and deriving "his own truth" from it, strikes me as the height of idiocy. People come to religion for truth, not to project on it. And as with democracy, they will screw it up if given the authority to make a personal interpretation, because there's no truth value in that -- it's pure preference, projection and pretense.

Then again, around here all the Catholics speak Spanish, I think Francis is a nutjob and wasn't too fond of JP II, am completely unimpressed with the Catholic handling of their pedophilia scandals and generally see Catholics beating the tin drum about the evils of abortion, the joy of open borders and the importance of aiding our third world friends. Then again, our Protestant friends love their mission trips.

If Christianity is to survive, I think it needs to junk some of the chaff from both. Specifically, this would be a great place to entirely dump any liberalizations and to find a better command structure than centralized. Further I think the doctrine needs to streamline. It's too superstitious compared to more technical religions from the east.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 19, 2014, 05:58:23 PM
This neoreactionary idea of blaming liberalism on the Puritans is just nonsense

Thats not really a refutation.

Its not about blaming the ideology specifically as much as blaming the people who are likely to uphold it. Its also not accurate to say NRx blames liberalism on the puritans.

I'm only referencing to sola scripture as its the central american critique of Christianity. Its the only focus of the recent christian break (new atheists and McChristians)
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on October 19, 2014, 07:21:49 PM
The Puritans were some of the so called liberal gene carriers. It follows that New England is heavily blue state with high tax/low employment Mass. pretty much an epicenter state. Job one for eugenics would be to weed that out maybe.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 19, 2014, 09:08:49 PM
Jackal, please consider my explanation of what went wrong with American Christianity:

http://www.scripturist.org/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Christian-Culture-tp5001012.html
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 19, 2014, 09:39:17 PM
Appreciate it. Rather well written and thought out.

==================================

I only have a few qualms here:

Quote
Christianity was relatively unproductive for its first 1500 years

I disagree. Im not a catholic and I can def see abuses in orthodoxy and  Catholicism but it was highly influential in this time period.

Quote
Others like Zwingli and the early Anabaptists were more reasonable

luther had his faults but the anabaptists were generally not that reasonable all things considered.

Thats all that really jumped out at me as being off.

======================================================

Good bit here:

Quote
All this sounds very alien to modern thought, for reasons I will explain later.  But think about the practical impact of such a theology.  People have no control over their salvation, they are at God's mercy.  This would cause extreme humility before God.  And while people can't control their fate, they may change what they believe their predetermined fate is through their actions.  This would cause serious soul-searching and serious Bible study in an attempt to understand where one stands.  A person would not consider himself saved unless he has studied the Bible and lived a virtuous life.  Only after doing these things might he hope that he is one of the elect.  So it is this remarkable theology of Calvin that caused the incredibly moral early Protestant culture.

Good qoute from finney as well.

as well as the poignant contention:
Quote
He was certainly a good man with good intentions, which just shows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote
And these doubts force him to focus on fixing himself, not others.

Quote
Finney produced the modern American character, extremely confident and self-righteous, even while being relatively ignorant.

Quote
But the Calvinistic Christian is consumed with doubt while also having supreme faith.

Quote
Modern Christianity is a moral disaster.  What can be done?  As a non-Christian, I am not in a position to tell Christians what to do, but I will give my suggestion anyway.  Calvinism is not intellectually acceptable in our time because of its concept of predestination

free will and Fate are having a free for all as of late as well.


My final thoughts are that a protestant revitalization is one of the few plausible methods in america just do to american history. The abolition of man seems quite relevant for some reason.

I do empathize with your analysis with applying american christian evolution to modern politics. I do not think that it conflicts with current neoreactionary analysis and is merely more clarification. Those finney quotes and breakdown are dynamite.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 20, 2014, 06:45:24 PM
I think Calvinism is misunderstood:

Quote
INTERVIEWER

You’ve said that you are “an old Calvinist pain-in-the-ass.” What do you mean?

HOUELLEBECQ

I tend to think that good and evil exist and that the quantity in each of us is unchangeable. The moral character of people is set, fixed until death. This resembles the Calvinist notion of predestination, in which people are born saved or damned, without being able to do a thing about it. And I am a curmudgeonly pain in the ass
because I refuse to diverge from the scientific method or to believe there is a truth beyond science.

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6040/the-art-of-fiction-no-206-michel-houellebecq

It's Evola's concept of races of the spirit plus the idea that each person has a certain ability and only those who pursue those abilities can know higher truths (esotericism).

Quote
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

What an interesting statement.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 20, 2014, 06:52:55 PM
The irony is that Calvinism disproves Calvinist predestination because real Calvinism increases the percentage of the population that are qualified to be saved by Christian standards.  In the same way, Calvinism disproves the idea of 100% nature, 0% nurture.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 20, 2014, 07:21:35 PM
real Calvinism increases the percentage of the population that are qualified to be saved by Christian standards

Not to my knowledge. It simply says that some are born to sweet delight, and some are born to the endless night.

A reasonable assumption, part of recognizing that we have different roles in the world, and that we cannot "save" anyone or everyone.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 20, 2014, 07:30:27 PM
Not to my knowledge. It simply says that some are born to sweet delight, and some are born to the endless night.
And you think the ratio of people of sweet delight to endless night is the same regardless of culture (assuming same genetics)?  If so, here are 2 books describing 2 groups from the same tiny genetic group whose behavior is entirely different for purely environmental reasons:

http://www.amazon.com/Forest-People-Colin-Turnbull/dp/0671640992/
http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-People-Colin-M-Turnbull/dp/0671640984/
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 20, 2014, 08:13:09 PM
And you think the ratio of people of sweet delight to endless night is the same regardless of culture (assuming same genetics)? 

No, I do not. I think there are many factors here, but level is different.

Another way to think of this is musical. You have a specific key; within that key you have degrees of the scale. In the same way, genetics determines what level at which a civilization will have its bell curve, but the order applies at that level independent of genetics.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 20, 2014, 10:07:53 PM
No, I do not. I think there are many factors here, but level is different.

Another way to think of this is musical. You have a specific key; within that key you have degrees of the scale. In the same way, genetics determines what level at which a civilization will have its bell curve, but the order applies at that level independent of genetics.
I agree with this, but with an added key point.  A good society will have improving genetics and a bad society will have decaying genetics, so in the long run a good society will climb to the top regardless of its starting genetics.  This genetic change is caused both by immigration/emigration and by internal breading caused by the society.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 21, 2014, 07:38:50 AM
A good society will have improving genetics and a bad society will have decaying genetics, so in the long run a good society will climb to the top regardless of its starting genetics. 

Here we agree. Eugenic breeding always produces good results; dysgenics always produces third world. The lower the substrate, however, the more generations and greater stresses are needed.

This genetic change is caused both by immigration/emigration and by internal breading caused by the society.

Immigration destroys the evolution in progress; emigration allows the unfit to leave, or if the society is devolving, all of the competent to leave if they can.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 21, 2014, 10:47:38 AM
The only fault of the Puritans was supporting democracy, but other than that they were excellent.
It appears I may be wrong about this:

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/review-of-unqualified-reservations-part-1/#comment-45556

This would make the Puritans close to perfect in my view.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on October 21, 2014, 04:11:35 PM
It takes an Anglo Saxon to make a Puritan however. Here's an old opinion piece against one size fits all: http://www.amerika.org/globalism/universal-morality-on-its-death-bed/
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 22, 2014, 09:06:46 AM
http://foseti.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/review-of-unqualified-reservations-part-1/#comment-45556

This would make the Puritans close to perfect in my view.

Sounds interesting:

Quote
Puritans ministers were strictly forbidden roles as civil magistrates so theocracy was entirely out of the question.

The Puritan magistrates ruled according to their company charters with the advice of an elective council and generally in keeping with English law so Puritans were never even close to totalitarians. They were strict rule of law people. John Winthrop was voted out of the Governor’s office quite frequently.

Frankly, I think many people that write about the Puritans have no knowledge of them from primary accounts but only from their 19th and 20th c. detractors which is a shame.

By the way, Winthrop, Dudley & Cotton all agreed that democracy was the worst of all forms of government and cooperated to uphold a traditional if truncated hierarchy with the gentry as the ruling class, with yeomen and freemen able to elect representatives to the council, with propertyless servants at the bottom without representation. This, of course, worked much better than democracy.

This traditional English order was not seriously challenged until the revolution.

Still some glitches in that, but better than what others have tried.

I like the Puritan approach in general: if something is wrong, there's no bargaining with it -- do not support it, exile it from your communities, and let nature finish it off.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Jackal on October 22, 2014, 09:35:25 PM
be wary of history. Remember that most factions back in the day do not exhibit sign of modern leftism since they needed to be masculine.

Yes the puritans werent all bad but all the puritans are are the 1600s equivalent of all the people living in the north east right now. Much of the attitudes and actions taken by the left are related to the puritans activies and as such some of us may not like them. I'm mostly german and even though I love traditional systems I find puritanical systems deplorable.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 22, 2014, 11:25:22 PM
Jackal, can you give specific examples of Puritan attitudes and actions that you dislike?
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 30, 2014, 12:25:30 PM
Quote
I can see a better form of Christianity, for example, where we use nihilism like a scrub-brush and scrape away all the irrelevant crap clogging up the path toward seeing its actual truth, which is a restatement of the ancient Indo-European belief in divinity through fearlessness regarding mortality. Heaven is a state of mind.

http://www.amerika.org/texts/cicada-killers-and-christ/
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on October 30, 2014, 06:00:43 PM
Fschmidt, does God hate everything you hate?

If so, how do you explain that amazing coincidence?
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 30, 2014, 06:26:17 PM
Fschmidt, does God hate everything you hate?
I interpret God as an impersonal force, so God doesn't hate.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on October 30, 2014, 07:32:04 PM
Fschmidt, does God hate everything you hate?
I interpret God as an impersonal force, so God doesn't hate.
Revelation 2:6 - "But this thou hast , that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

Also - how could man be created in God's own image if God is an "impersonal force?" Doesn't that imply that God has a body and that it resembles the bodies of human men?
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 30, 2014, 08:09:58 PM
Revelation 2:6 - "But this thou hast , that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

Also - how could man be created in God's own image if God is an "impersonal force?" Doesn't that imply that God has a body and that it resembles the bodies of human men?

I am not Christian, so Revelation isn't relevant to me.

I don't take Genesis literally, but in any case all concepts are human creations, and that includes things like gravity and God.  And since these things are a reflection of human thought, these concepts reflect our own image.

Lastly, I have my own ideas about truth, but I am a relativist which means I don't care whether other people's truths are the same as mine.  In fact I would go further and say that for people in the normal intelligence range, I would much prefer that they were Christians than that they held my view of truth since their minds couldn't handle that.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on October 30, 2014, 08:23:16 PM
In fact I would go further and say that for people in the normal intelligence range, I would much prefer that they were Christians than that they held my view of truth since their minds couldn't handle that.

That could lead to political thinking... a downside.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 30, 2014, 10:37:05 PM
That could lead to political thinking... a downside.
What do you mean by "political thinking"?
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on October 31, 2014, 12:28:46 AM
Gravity certainly isn't a human creation. We don't even know if it was created. The way the West interprets God (real or fiction) is still up for grabs however. I like to think of God as not just impersonal but not even a persona, or conscious agency of any sort yet It is nonetheless the origin of things like gravity and humans. Call it a Neoplatonic view.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on October 31, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
Gravity certainly isn't a human creation. [...] Call it a Neoplatonic view.
Yes that is a Plato-oriented view.  In my non-Plato view, all concepts are human creations.  There are no ideal forms to be discovered by looking at shadows.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on November 01, 2014, 07:04:21 AM
Lastly, I have my own ideas about truth, but I am a relativist which means I don't care whether other people's truths are the same as mine. In fact I would go further and say that for people in the normal intelligence range, I would much prefer that they were Christians than that they held my view of truth since their minds couldn't handle that.

A relativist? As in, you don't believe that reality is absolute, but that it's just like, yer opinion maaaaaan?

Do you realize you're in a den of nihilists, who believe that reality is absolute and that human interpretation of reality is bullshit by default?

I ask you again - why are you even here? Every post you make is like a new episode of Token the Negro's Trip to the Klan Klubhouse.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 01, 2014, 11:48:28 AM
A relativist? As in, you don't believe that reality is absolute, but that it's just like, yer opinion maaaaaan?
As in truth is relative which means applying the word "absolute" to anything is meaningless.

Quote
Do you realize you're in a den of nihilists, who believe that reality is absolute and that human interpretation of reality is bullshit by default?
Yes.

Quote
I ask you again - why are you even here? Every post you make is like a new episode of Token the Negro's Trip to the Klan Klubhouse.
Do you have a better place for me to be?  Since I am a misfit everywhere in the modern world, this place is no worse than others, and better in some ways.  Also, I did almost leave but vir encouraged me to stay.

Lastly, my kind of relativism is about as reactionary as one can get.  It reflects Greek thought before Plato, Jewish thought before Greek influence, and probably Northern European paganism before Roman/Christian influence.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on November 01, 2014, 12:07:43 PM
Do you have a better place for me to be?
I never waste the effort to consider where differents out to go, anywhere that's not where I am is perfectly suitable.

Quote
Since I am a misfit everywhere in the modern world, this place is no worse than others, and better in some ways.  Also, I did almost leave but vir encouraged me to stay.

Lastly, my kind of relativism is about as reactionary as one can get.  It reflects Greek thought before Plato, Jewish thought before Greek influence, and probably Northern European paganism before Roman/Christian influence.

For Vir's sake I ask you to make some kind of thread summarizing your thoughts and beliefs, i.e. to elaborate on the above.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on November 01, 2014, 03:42:14 PM
That could lead to political thinking... a downside.
What do you mean by "political thinking"?

Political thinking: looking at truth as a method of manipulating others, rather than something of value in itself.

Once you go down that path, you may be headed to Joel Osteen. His formula mixes Christian myticism, Randian self-interest and Hollywood emotional appeal. It is brilliant but disturbing.

Can you connect your beliefs at all to conservatism, neoreaction, new right, or identitarianism?
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 01, 2014, 04:20:40 PM
Truth has value in itself for me personally.  To give an analogy, I value my taste in food and I value finding new foods that taste good to me, but I have no interest in the taste of others.  I don't care what foods they like, but if we go to a restaurant together, I will consider their taste in suggesting a restaurant.  I view truth in the same way.

I don't know anything about Joel Osteen.  What is his motive?  My motive is morality and I will try to understand someone else's view of truth and use that to support morality, but I won't lie in the process.  A perfect example of what I mean is my recent writing on the Old Testament:

http://www.scripturist.org/The-Old-Testament-for-Christians-tp5001181.html

Last Sunday, I gave a copy of this to the priest of the Greek Orthodox church that I attend.  We met to discuss it on Tuesday and he approves of it, so I will hand it out to members of the church tomorrow.  Do you see anything wrong with this?

You will have to decide whether my beliefs connect to conservatism, neoreaction, new right, or identitarianism.  What I believe in is strong traditional cultures with good morals.  I reject democracy, aristocracy, and racism.  I support meritocracy of which a priesthood is an example.  The Eastern Orthodox Church is a good example of a well organized culture, governed by a priesthood that provides guidance for the ignorant masses.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on November 01, 2014, 06:01:46 PM
Last Sunday, I gave a copy of this to the priest of the Greek Orthodox church that I attend.  We met to discuss it on Tuesday and he approves of it, so I will hand it out to members of the church tomorrow.  Do you see anything wrong with this?

Yes, but it has more to do with the Greek Orthodox religion being essentially fake and by default made up on the fly by its pastors and handed down as The Truth to the congregation more than with you exploiting that system to promote your views, whatever they are.

Quote
You will have to decide whether my beliefs connect to conservatism, neoreaction, new right, or identitarianism.  What I believe in is strong traditional cultures with good morals. I reject democracy, aristocracy, and racism.

Vir, you still sure you like this guy? 

Quote
I support meritocracy of which a priesthood is an example.

That's a big assumption to make that certainly doesn't always jive with reality. Have you had much exposure to Catholics?

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Church is a good example of a well organized culture, governed by a priesthood that provides guidance for the ignorant masses.

Why waste time leading the ignorant masses? Why not expel or otherwise be rid of them and then do smart people things independent of them? What are they going to do, improve those of highest merit by infusing their bloodlines with their prole genes?

I dunno. Vir asked you to stay, but I'm still not sure why.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on November 01, 2014, 09:14:24 PM
Christian + proletariat = modernity
Christian - proletariat = impossible
Post-Christian + proletariat = leftism
Post-Christian - proletariat = undiscovered country
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on November 02, 2014, 08:25:56 AM
I value my taste in food and I value finding new foods that taste good to me, but I have no interest in the taste of others.  I don't care what foods they like, but if we go to a restaurant together, I will consider their taste in suggesting a restaurant.

Let me start with this, as it's the crux of any friction here.

We acknowledge that all actions have consequences, and these consequences are not dictated by intent.

Thus "taste" is bullshit, nonsense and lies. People choose what they choose for a reason. Either they grew up with it, or it is what their intellect can process. This was recognized fifty years ago when elites dined on filet mignon and masses dined on cheeseburgers, by choice. There is a difference.

Further, being agnostic to taste is also nonsense. You are making decisions; what you choose, you will get more of. "Taste" is bullshit nomenclature designed to avoid facing the fact that this is a moral choice, like all others.

Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 02, 2014, 02:12:08 PM
My point with the "taste" analogy is that both are relative.  All of your statements seem to support my analogy.  Yes, all actions have consequences including what you eat.  So your taste has consequences (for your health) just as your beliefs have consequences.  Your point that "elites dined on filet mignon and masses dined on cheeseburgers, by choice" is an example of taste varying by group, just as beliefs vary by group.  People's taste and beliefs are formed by a similar process, what they grew up with and what they genetically capable of appreciating/processing.  And yes, being agnostic to taste is nonsense, at least regarding one's own taste.  Everyone has their own taste and their own beliefs.  No one is fully agnostic.  But that doesn't mean that one should impose one's tastes or beliefs on others.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on November 02, 2014, 02:26:57 PM
Why? Are all actions equal? Do all actions have positive consequences? No. Some behavior is garbage and needs to be ground up under an iron boot. Hence, imposing beliefs or at least a more gentle form of sorting away the chaff so it can rot away from the wheat.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 02, 2014, 02:31:37 PM
Sure, beliefs matter but it doesn't matter whether other people's beliefs are the same as mine as long as they produce the results I want.  This is why I support good forms of Christianity even if I am not Christian.  My only concern with other people's beliefs is whether they produce good actions, I don't care at all whether they match my ideas of truth.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on November 02, 2014, 03:38:55 PM
Ok the point is similar to that of science: we can agree on conclusions and replicate one another's results consistently. Thus, we can have a set of standards as a group that don't boil down to individual taste. That is truth and it isn't the absolute relativism you're claiming isn't absolutist.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 02, 2014, 06:09:23 PM
Ok the point is similar to that of science: we can agree on conclusions and replicate one another's results consistently. Thus, we can have a set of standards as a group that don't boil down to individual taste. That is truth and it isn't the absolute relativism you're claiming isn't absolutist.

Sure.  But "absolute relativism" sounds like a contradiction.  Standards means something shared, and that doesn't require absolute universal truth.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on November 02, 2014, 06:58:39 PM
Reality is real, and if you disagree you are objectively wrong.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on November 02, 2014, 08:18:45 PM
It looks like this thread was getting used to torch an absolute universal truth straw man and then declare a fallacious victory over the Platonist ideologues.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 02, 2014, 08:31:01 PM
It looks like this thread was getting used to torch an absolute universal truth straw man and then declare a fallacious victory over the Platonist ideologues.

Don't blame me for this.  I was just defending my beliefs.  And the whole point of relativism is that one never declares victory over other beliefs.  I have no problem with Platonists as long as they don't attack me.

I would love to see this thread get back on track about Christianity.  I handed out 12 copies of my writing today after church.  Next Sunday I will see the response.

http://www.scripturist.org/The-Old-Testament-for-Christians-tp5001181.html
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Exilarch on November 03, 2014, 03:50:25 AM
Don't blame me for this.  I was just defending my beliefs.  And the whole point of relativism is that one never declares victory over other beliefs.  I have no problem with Platonists as long as they don't attack me.

I would love to see this thread get back on track about Christianity.  I handed out 12 copies of my writing today after church.  Next Sunday I will see the response.

http://www.scripturist.org/The-Old-Testament-for-Christians-tp5001181.html

Vir seems to pride himself on his cool headedness, whereas I pride myself in my explosive, fiery passion. I view it as indicative of my own vitality, contrasted against the gray proles around me with their dead eyes, low libido and defeatest attitude towards life. While others see my occasional outbursts of rage as a character flaw, I see them as a virtue and see others' deficits of passion and drive as vices.

With that in mind, fuck your beliefs. I won't let you defend them. As somebody who is generally more Platonist than not, your beliefs are garbage even if you'd rather we "all get along" for the sake of tolerating your delusion.

Only two types of people ever come to believe in the level of relativism you do:

1. Those who have totally given up on attempting to figure out reality, aka "retards" - well, not just retards, but retards who are also so egotistical that rather than admitting that objective reality exists but they are simply too dumb to make progress on figuring it out, but are too egotistical to admit it and thus deny that objective reality exists.

2. When people get jaded about the average idiot's low ability to figure anything true out and their poor relative tendency towards any good behavior, sometimes they start asking themselves, "how can I pull the wool over their eyes? maybe I can brainwash them or bullshit them into thinking and acting kinda good as opposed to mostly bad." At their intermediate stages, they tell their friends or other humans with promise that perhaps it would be a good idea to use propaganda, schooling and false religion to the masses to willfully deceive them into better behavior, but still acknowledge that it's just a fix to use on people who can't comprehend objective truth of any kind. When these types get really bad, they become solipsists and start treating everyone as "sheep who need brainwashing" and become self professed relativists while secretly harboring some kind of notion of objective reality and fixed ideas of what sort of end they want to try to manipulate everyone towards.

There's still time for you to become a good human, but so long as you're a relativist you are scum.

The question is, which type of scum are you?

Are you the egotistical retard or are you some autistic solipsist who insults us with your arrogant thought process that implies we are all sheep to be bullshitted into your pet lifestyle?

I suspect it's a 60/40 mix in favor of solipsism - you seem obsessed about manipulating others towards some kind of static optimized goal, but rather than spell out that goal so you could participate in a healthy discussion of how to accomplish it, you think we're all good little sheep to be bullshitted too. That's why you won't confess the objectivity of reality even though you privately believe in it - you don't think we can take it.

I see through your bullshit. Fuck you.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on November 03, 2014, 08:19:40 PM
Reality is real, and if you disagree you are objectively wrong.

I agree here, but add the eternal monist idea: and what else is also real?

I trust pattern comparison more than materialism, and definitely more than dualism, which is the craziest lie to ever be spoken among humans, and yet (naturally) one of the most popular fictions.

"Every savage can dance." - Mr. Darcy
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: fschmidt on November 04, 2014, 09:42:49 PM
Reality is real, and if you disagree you are objectively wrong.
"Reality is real" is a tautology, and if you disagree you are simply illogical.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on November 04, 2014, 10:04:17 PM
Reality is real, and if you disagree you are objectively wrong.
"Reality is real" is a tautology, and if you disagree you are simply illogical.

Before we go down this path of fighting over metaphysics using physics and then trying to refute reality itself, which is going to go nowhere productive, let me state these:

1. Not all tautologies are in error, especially near-misses like reality = has attribute real.
2. It is impossible to argue against metaphysics using physics.
3. It is equally impossible to prove metaphysics using metaphysics alone.
4. Your only weapon here is pattern similarity and reality description.
5. It really is a good idea -- really, really -- to stress distinctions between dualism and monism.

$0.02
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: scourge on November 05, 2014, 07:59:20 PM
Salvation or insanity? That's a complex question without the benefit of some context. Christianity for whom? If Christianity is for the exiled riffraff, the meek and lifelong unexceptional then the answer is neither. Instead I would answer with either irrelevant or history.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: Carjack on November 08, 2014, 02:38:01 AM
I don't know anything about Joel Osteen.  What is his motive?  My motive is morality and I will try to understand someone else's view of truth and use that to support morality, but I won't lie in the process.  A perfect example of what I mean is my recent writing on the Old Testament:

http://www.scripturist.org/The-Old-Testament-for-Christians-tp5001181.html

Quote
Q.  Didn't Christ come to replace the Law with Faith?

A.  The whole concept of "the Law" is misunderstood.  The Old Testament is not a law book, it is a book of ethics.  The Old Testament contains laws that were specific to the Israelite society of that time.  These laws are examples of applied ethics, but these laws were never meant to be eternal, not even for Jews.  The part of the Old Testament that contains these laws is called the "Torah" in Hebrew, and Torah means "teaching", not "law".  Of course some laws are so basic that they are in fact fundamental ethical principles, so they are eternal because ethical principles are eternal.  The obvious example of this is the Ten Commandments.

So I take it your whole thing is using the Bible as a cultural guidebook without having to believe anything in it is true.

If that's so, why not use something from a more advanced society, or from one's own ethnic background (whatever that may be)? It takes a special segment of society to follow Biblical morality today without reinterpreting it however they want (strike out the parts with sex slaves).
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on November 08, 2014, 11:55:52 AM
I suspect it's a 60/40 mix in favor of solipsism - you seem obsessed about manipulating others towards some kind of static optimized goal, but rather than spell out that goal so you could participate in a healthy discussion of how to accomplish it, you think we're all good little sheep to be bullshitted too.

I do not think we should bullshit and manipulate. These things cause a binary inversion when partially debunked (look at drug education).

Instead, I think we should look at the roots of metaphysics, and go back to the question that Schopenhauer posed:

If we accept that an underlying order of information exists, why might it lack a God/afterlife?

He was the first "metaphysical atheist" I encountered.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: crow on November 23, 2016, 06:09:08 PM
All anyone needs to know about life is that it exists.
The Universe exists.
The World exists.
Even you, for now, exist.

Anything else is fluff.
Does God exist? Try looking, with an unbiased attitude.
Is there meaning in life? Why not discover it for yourself?
Life after death? You'll find out, won't you?
A future? Same thing.

You exist. That's all that counts. Try doing it to the best of your ability. Then all the other stuff will resolve itself, by itself.

Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: -A on November 28, 2016, 08:07:33 PM
Rather said, don't base your own existence off of questions.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: vir on February 18, 2017, 02:13:37 AM
Christianity is 99% good and 1% bad, with that bad perhaps seeming trivial but being fatal: it is not of wholly European origin, even if it is mostly European, Indian and middle eastern thought rebranded.

That is the challenge to any future Christians; how to make it European?

It may need a name change and a more heroic end than a Roman crucifixion.
Title: Re: Christianity: salvation or insanity?
Post by: -A on February 24, 2017, 02:16:25 AM
A good basis in Theology and where it came from would be a good start. Then, use Euro Gods in place of the Biblical figures. Also, remove what doesn't really work for the European and make something new which does and fills the same role as that which did not work. That is an idea and only a start. I think it also bears importance as to what the European needs from a Savior and Redeemer. What brings Grace in Christianity that was so lacking from the Greeks, Romans and Nords? Or the Gothic Nation for that matter. Why did the Gothic kings who took Rome turn to Christendom when they were in charge? More to the point, what is entirely a foreign idea to Europe? What did we simply take from abroad and not learn from the principles of? Finally, what is the true allure of Paganism?