Christianity

[Gary Childress]

Get back to us when you see "GAZZA_IN_HELL" on a numer plate and then also on a couple of billboards!!

Oh, yes. "Hell". If you have no proof, just threaten eternal damnation at one's critics. How civil and "Christian".

Oh I apologise Gazza, but it didn't seem appropriate to post Gazza in heaven since by your own descriptions your life seems more on the Hellish side!

Apology accepted. I apologize if I misinterpreted.

[iambiguous]

Chaz Bufe
Reasons to Abandon Christianity

Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex.

For centuries, Christianity has had an exceptionally unhealthy fixation on sex, to the exclusion of almost everything else (except power, money, and the infliction of cruelty). This stems from the numerous "thou shalt nots" relating to sex in the Bible. That the Ten Commandments contain a commandment forbidding the coveting of one's neighbor's wife, but do not even mention slavery, torture, or cruelty—which were abundantly common in the time the Commandments were written— speaks volumes about their writer's preoccupation with sex (and women as property).

Sex will always be problematic for the powers that be. God or No God. And I suspect this revolves by and large around the fact that sexuality reminds them that when push comes to shove, we are just another species of animal. With sex comes lust and passion and moaning and groaning and the sort of [at times] frenzied behavior that just does not intertwine seamlessly with...civilized men and women?

Also, as explored by those like Maurice Brinton in The Irrational in Politics:

In learning to obey their parents children learn obedience in general. The deference learned in the family setting will manifest itself whenever the child faces a 'superior' in later life. Sexual repression----by the already sexually repressed parents---is an integral part of the conditioning process.

According to Reich, the 'suppresion of natural sexuality in the child....makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, 'good', and 'adjusted' in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief the goal of sexual repression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all the misery and degradation...the result is fear of freedom, and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political reaction, not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical, but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order'.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have written pages about the medical effects of sexual repression. Reich however constantly reiterated its social function, exercised through the family. The purpose of sexual repression was to anchor submission to authority and the fear of freedom into people's 'character armour'. The net result was the reproduction, generation after generation, of the basic [psychological] conditions essential for manipulation and enslavement of the masses.

Here both the church and the state are often in sync. Sexual repression is linked to an authoritarian mentality whereby children become all the more docile when it comes time to enter the workforce. Which is why reactionaries like Ron DeSantis along with evangelical Christians here in America are so worked up about homosexuality and transgender politics. On some level they know what is at stake if such things are not repressed.

Thus...

Today, judging from the pronouncements of many Christian leaders, one would think that "morality" consists solely of what one does in one's bedroom. The Catholic Church is the prime example here, with its moral pronouncements rarely going beyond the matters of birth control and abortion (and with its moral emphasis seemingly entirely on those matters). Also note that the official Catholic view of sex—that it's for the purpose of procreation only—reduces human sexual relations to those of brood animals. For more than a century the Catholic Church has also been the driving force behind efforts to prohibit access to birth control devices and information—to everyone, not just Catholics.

Now, again, to the extent that this all "planned out"? Not likely. It's just the realization that sexual repression is an important component of an authoritarian political agenda.

Some just take it farther than others...

The Catholic Church, however, is far from alone in its sick obsession with sex. The current Christian hate campaign against homosexuals is another prominent manifestation of this perverse preoccupation. Even at this writing, condemnation of "sodomites" from church pulpits is still very, very common—with Christian clergymen wringing their hands as they piously proclaim that their words of hate have nothing to do with gay bashings and the murder of gays.

Next up: sexual repression and these guys: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

So, it's not just the Christians.

[attofishpi]

The Catholic Church, however, is far from alone in its sick obsession with sex. The current Christian hate campaign against homosexuals is another prominent manifestation of this perverse preoccupation. Even at this writing, condemnation of "sodomites" from church pulpits is still very, very common—with Christian clergymen wringing their hands as they piously proclaim that their words of hate have nothing to do with gay bashings and the murder of gays.

Next up: sexual repression and these guys: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

So, it's not just the Christians.

Do you think Jesus the Christ would condone hatred towards homosexuals?

In all my years where I bothered to attend a Catholic Mass, I have never encountered a priest EVER talking about homosexuals, let alone talking of hatred towards them.

[iambiguous]

...what I said was that morality is grounded in the nature, character AND expressed wishes of God. And they are in descending order of importance, I might add: the first two are determinative of the third, since God never expresses a wish that is not in accord with His own nature and character.

Okay, let's think this through...

Alice has an abortion.

Is that moral or immoral?

Well, in regard to some, those who are naturally good and those who are of good character will never choose abortion. Whereas in regard to others, those who naturally good and who embody good character may choose an abortion because abortion is not inherently immoral.

Those, say, who embrace one of the many, many conflicting moral narratives and political agerndas here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

So, which point of view is the correct one?

Well, according to IC, if you are someone who thinks exactly as he does about abortion, that means that you are by nature good and necessarily embody good character. So, that means you will become a Christian.

But not just any Christian. After all, there are many different interpretations of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

And of the 2.6 billion total Christians around the globe, 1.345 billion of them are Catholics.

And then to complicate things further, Christians are not the only ones who worship and adore the God of Abraham. There are also 1.6 billion Muslims and 14 million Jews.

No, Immanuel Can will roundly assure you, true Christians are only those who think about the Christian God precisely as he does.

Go ahead, ask him how he can prove this definitively beyond a mere "leap of faith" or that truly pathetic "wager".

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, let's think this through...

Well, I wish you thought through what I'd said, not what I did not.

Alice has an abortion.

Is that moral or immoral?

Well, in regard to some, those who are naturally good and those who are of good character will never choose abortion. Whereas in regard to others, those who naturally good and who embody good character may choose an abortion because abortion is not inherently immoral.

Good character does not come "naturally" to human beings. We're fallen creatures.

Morality is grounded in God's character, not in any man's, far less in the decisions of corrupt mankind.

Those, say, who embrace one of the many, many conflicting moral narratives and political agerndas here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

So, which point of view is the correct one?

The one that follows the teachings of Jesus, of course. There can be no clearer and undebatable definition of "Christian," because it literally means, "Follower of Christ."

Well, according to IC, if you are someone who thinks exactly as he does about abortion, that means that you are by nature good and necessarily embody good character. So, that means you will become a Christian.

None of this did I ever say or suggest.

[Belinda]

Chaz Bufe
Reasons to Abandon Christianity

Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex.

For centuries, Christianity has had an exceptionally unhealthy fixation on sex, to the exclusion of almost everything else (except power, money, and the infliction of cruelty). This stems from the numerous "thou shalt nots" relating to sex in the Bible. That the Ten Commandments contain a commandment forbidding the coveting of one's neighbor's wife, but do not even mention slavery, torture, or cruelty—which were abundantly common in the time the Commandments were written— speaks volumes about their writer's preoccupation with sex (and women as property).

Sex will always be problematic for the powers that be. God or No God. And I suspect this revolves by and large around the fact that sexuality reminds them that when push comes to shove, we are just another species of animal. With sex comes lust and passion and moaning and groaning and the sort of [at times] frenzied behavior that just does not intertwine seamlessly with...civilized men and women?

Also, as explored by those like Maurice Brinton in The Irrational in Politics:

In learning to obey their parents children learn obedience in general. The deference learned in the family setting will manifest itself whenever the child faces a 'superior' in later life. Sexual repression----by the already sexually repressed parents---is an integral part of the conditioning process.

According to Reich, the 'suppresion of natural sexuality in the child....makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, 'good', and 'adjusted' in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief the goal of sexual repression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all the misery and degradation...the result is fear of freedom, and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political reaction, not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical, but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order'.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have written pages about the medical effects of sexual repression. Reich however constantly reiterated its social function, exercised through the family. The purpose of sexual repression was to anchor submission to authority and the fear of freedom into people's 'character armour'. The net result was the reproduction, generation after generation, of the basic [psychological] conditions essential for manipulation and enslavement of the masses.

Here both the church and the state are often in sync. Sexual repression is linked to an authoritarian mentality whereby children become all the more docile when it comes time to enter the workforce. Which is why reactionaries like Ron DeSantis along with evangelical Christians here in America are so worked up about homosexuality and transgender politics. On some level they know what is at stake if such things are not repressed.

Thus...

Today, judging from the pronouncements of many Christian leaders, one would think that "morality" consists solely of what one does in one's bedroom. The Catholic Church is the prime example here, with its moral pronouncements rarely going beyond the matters of birth control and abortion (and with its moral emphasis seemingly entirely on those matters). Also note that the official Catholic view of sex—that it's for the purpose of procreation only—reduces human sexual relations to those of brood animals. For more than a century the Catholic Church has also been the driving force behind efforts to prohibit access to birth control devices and information—to everyone, not just Catholics.

Now, again, to the extent that this all "planned out"? Not likely. It's just the realization that sexual repression is an important component of an authoritarian political agenda.

Some just take it farther than others...

The Catholic Church, however, is far from alone in its sick obsession with sex. The current Christian hate campaign against homosexuals is another prominent manifestation of this perverse preoccupation. Even at this writing, condemnation of "sodomites" from church pulpits is still very, very common—with Christian clergymen wringing their hands as they piously proclaim that their words of hate have nothing to do with gay bashings and the murder of gays.

Next up: sexual repression and these guys: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

So, it's not just the Christians.

True, It's not just the Christians. All politicised religions are politicised to to give the head people social control. Despite religions' tacky histories , Christianity throughout has remained almost the sole nurturer of civilised values .

[iambiguous]

Okay, let's think this through...

Well, I wish you thought through what I'd said, not what I did not.

Trust me: no one ever thinks through what you said until they agree with what you say.

Though not unlike many of the God and No God objectivists one will encounter on other One True Paths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

It's just that some need the additional comfort and consolation that comes with God.

But, hey, don't get me wrong...I'd like this back again myself. But how to actually accomplish it given arguments that, in my own rooted existentially in dasein "personal opinion", are as truly weak as yours.

Unless, of course, you can back them up with...YouTube?

That's what is so entertaining to me about "minds" like yours. The manner in which, incredibly enough, for some, they are not even able to to recognize this!!

Alice has an abortion.

Is that moral or immoral?

Well, in regard to some, those who are naturally good and those who are of good character will never choose abortion. Whereas in regard to others, those who are naturally good and who embody good character may choose an abortion because abortion is not inherently immoral.

Good character does not come "naturally" to human beings. We're fallen creatures.

Morality is grounded in God's character, not in any man's, far less in the decisions of corrupt mankind.

Okay, I see your point now. All of it is derived from God. But then I'm confused regarding how you connect the dots here. Adam and Eve dared to partake of fruit dangling from the tree of knowledge...the knowledge of good and evil.

Thus, given God's moral compass, because of their corruption we are born corrupt ourselves. The sins of the first human beings are simply passed on to all of their descendants. To us. And, as a moral dictum, that makes sense to you? Punish the child for the sins of the parents?

And in being born corrupt, all the more likely Alice is to Sin. Until she becomes a Christian in recognizing that Jesus Christ dies for her Sins.

Those, say, who embrace one of the many, many conflicting moral narratives and political agendas here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

So, which point of view is the correct one?

The one that follows the teachings of Jesus, of course. There can be no clearer and undebatable definition of "Christian," because it literally means, "Follower of Christ."

Good. That allows me to segue back to this:

The fact that you "prove" Christianity is the One True Path because it says so in the Christian Bible. And that's true because, after all, the Christian Bible is the word of the Christian God.

And the fact that you insist there is evidence beyond the Bible. Evidence contained in those YouTube videos. But you refuse to explore this with me one by one here on this thread.

Which makes no sense given what you claim is at stake for those who refuse to "follow Christ".

Instead, you insist I must watch them all. But if I do that, then our discussion about them won't be nearly as effective. Why? Because there may well be things in them that I might overlook or misconstrue. Whereas if we discuss them in depth one by one there's not much at all we would likely miss.

Again, lets start with the "meaning video":

"Basically, what is being argued here is that, as the Christian woman says, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. That as philosophers like Camus noted, No God and human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd.

In other words [and I agree with this] if there is no God than there is no basis for objective morality. It is all merely the result of the evolution of life on Earth and "human conventions".

So, the atheist suggests that "human flourishing" ought to be the criteria. And the Christian woman then points out [rightly in my view] that if there is no God than who is to say what flourishing means? She points out how Hitler thought that his Nazi policies were what would accomplish this. And, she notes, certain philosophers have argued that using the tools of philosophy will not lead us to objective morality. And I agree with this in turn.

Then she gets to the bottom line for most Christians: "What happens after you die"?

No God, no afterlife.

She sums it all up: "If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. He intentionally created you. So, your life ultimately does have meaning and value and purpose."

But then the Atheist makes the point, "Well, that doesn't prove that Christianity is true".

And she agrees. She merely points out again how comforted and consoled you can be if you do believe in Christianity.

Your reaction please.

Well, according to IC, if you are someone who thinks exactly as he does about abortion, that means that you are by nature good and necessarily embody good character. So, that means you will become a Christian.

None of this did I ever say or suggest.

Again, you're right. I misconstrued your point. You were attributing those qualities to the Christian God and not to mere mortals.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, let's think this through...

Well, I wish you thought through what I'd said, not what I did not.

Trust me: no one ever thinks through what you said until they agree with what you say.

If that's what you experience, that's what you experience. I don't experience that.

It's just that some need the additional comfort and consolation that comes with God.

Really? You're gonna trot out that old line? Okay.

I'm not even going to bother with it. It's too silly.

dasein

Oh yes...translated, that reads, "".

Yeah, we're not bothering with any more of this message. Sorry. Got better things to do...like shampooing my cat.

[Harry Baird]

This might be a good point to introduce the discourse of a man (Tom Holland) -- not a Christian believer in the traditional sense, but definitely a member of the *academy* and a historian -- who talks about the reasons why his view and understanding of Christianity has changed.

That talk was very interesting, for two reasons: firstly, because, based on its contents, Tom seems very clearly to be the source of some of the views you've expressed almost verbatim, so I have a clearer sense of how you've arrived at those views, and, secondly, because it was insightful in its own right - whether that's in the objective sense or just in the sense of providing a novel and thought-provoking perspective I don't know.

[Harry Baird]

Harry asked: "Could it be meaningful to define two types (maybe even origins) of evil: "evil by choice" and "evil by nature"?"

'Evil nature' undercuts free will. That is: a man with an evil nature cannot be a free will. Such a man cannot truly be morally responsible. 'Evil by (or thru) choice' coherently 'fits' with free will.

For me, the determining factor here is not choice but intent. That's why I'm satisfied to describe as "evil" a being with the intent to cause extreme (easily avoidable) harm even if that is merely ("merely") because of its (unchosen) nature.

[Harry Baird]

I'll stick with steak (rare), AJ.

It seems then that you must hold to be true that non-human sentient beings do not have natural rights. Why is that?

[Harry Baird]

I wouldn't mind taking part in strange rituals. Just sayin.

Have you considered taking up morris dancing? It has all the strangeness you could ask for, but without the requirement of believing in the ridiculous.

Unlike religion, you don't have to be bonkers to participate, you merely have to appear to be bonkers.

https://youtu.be/0ionTgFxPgg

That's the British version of the Japanese Tea Ceremony, infused with metaphysical connotations. Right, AJ?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That talk was very interesting, for two reasons: firstly, because, based on its contents, Tom seems very clearly to be the source of some of the views you've expressed almost verbatim, so I have a clearer sense of how you've arrived at those views, and, secondly, because it was insightful in its own right - whether that's in the objective sense or just in the sense of providing a novel and thought-provoking perspective I don't know.

Hello Harry, I hope all is going well.

I only came across Holland recently. My thoughts were developed independently of his. It is possible that he has read people I had read: Christopher Dawson perhaps. But there are others.

[Harry Baird]

Hello Harry, I hope all is going well.

Thanks, and yes, things are well. I'm just getting settled into a new home. Likewise I hope all's well with you and yours.

I only came across Holland recently. My thoughts were developed independently of his. It is possible that he has read people I had read: Christopher Dawson perhaps. But there are others.

Even more interesting...

[iambiguous]

Well, I wish you thought through what I'd said, not what I did not.

Trust me: no one ever thinks through what you said until they agree with what you say.

Though not unlike many of the God and No God objectivists one will encounter on other One True Paths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

If that's what you experience, that's what you experience. I don't experience that.

Well, of course you don't! After all, if you ever did acknowledge others are in fact obligated to accept what you believe about the One True Christian Path to immortality and salvation or be wrong -- damned? -- then you'd have to admit to yourself that this is also what many of those on their own One True Paths to immortality and salvation above are insisting of you as well. That's simply how it works given the enormity of the stakes on both sides of the grave. And that's why with so many diverse and conflicting beliefs about God "out there" it becomes utterly vital that actual evidence is provided allowing mere mortals to pin down which God it really is.

You claim there is such evidence beyond the circular "logic" of the Christian Bible "proof" but refuse to provide us with it. At least those who embrace a leap of faith, or a wager are admitting that is really all it comes down to. And who can't respect that in a world where, after all, a God, the God is one possible explanation for...everything.

It's just that some need the additional comfort and consolation that comes with God.

But, hey, don't get me wrong...I'd like this back again myself. But how to actually accomplish it given arguments that, in my own rooted existentially in dasein "personal opinion", are as truly weak as yours.

Unless, of course, you can back them up with...YouTube?

That's what is so entertaining to me about "minds" like yours. The manner in which, incredibly enough, for some, they are not even able to recognize this!!

Really? You're gonna trot out that old line? Okay.

I'm not even going to bother with it. It's too silly.

What?!

With God the comfort and the consolation pertains not just to this side of the grave -- re the secular moral objectivists among us -- but for all the rest of eternity after it!

That's a silly consideration?!!!

The one that follows the teachings of Jesus, of course. There can be no clearer and undebatable definition of "Christian," because it literally means, "Follower of Christ."

Good. That allows me to segue back to this:

The fact that you "prove" Christianity is the One True Path because it says so in the Christian Bible. And that's true because, after all, the Christian Bible is the word of the Christian God.

And the fact that you insist there is evidence beyond the Bible. Evidence contained in those YouTube videos. But you refuse to explore this with me one by one here on this thread.

Which makes no sense given what you claim is at stake for those who refuse to "follow Christ".

Instead, you insist I must watch them all. But if I do that, then our discussion about them won't be nearly as effective. Why? Because there may well be things in them that I might overlook or misconstrue. Whereas if we discuss them in depth one by one there's not much at all we would likely miss.

Again, lets start with the "meaning video":

"Basically, what is being argued here is that, as the Christian woman says, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. That as philosophers like Camus noted, No God and human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd.

In other words [and I agree with this] if there is no God than there is no basis for objective morality. It is all merely the result of the evolution of life on Earth and "human conventions".

So, the atheist suggests that "human flourishing" ought to be the criteria. And the Christian woman then points out [rightly in my view] that if there is no God than who is to say what flourishing means? She points out how Hitler thought that his Nazi policies were what would accomplish this. And, she notes, certain philosophers have argued that using the tools of philosophy will not lead us to objective morality. And I agree with this in turn.

Then she gets to the bottom line for most Christians: "What happens after you die"?

No God, no afterlife.

She sums it all up: "If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. He intentionally created you. So, your life ultimately does have meaning and value and purpose."

But then the Atheist makes the point, "Well, that doesn't prove that Christianity is true".

And she agrees. She merely points out again how comforted and consoled you can be if you do believe in Christianity.

Your reaction please.

dasein

Oh yes...translated, that reads, "".

Yeah, we're not bothering with any more of this message. Sorry. Got better things to do...like shampooing my cat.

Sure, sure, turn it all into a joke. But that doesn't make the bottom line [mine admittedly] go away: that you claim to have actual evidence able to assure atheists and infidels that the Christian God does in fact exist...evidence that can save their souls...but refuse to disclose it.

All I can do is to keep reminding you of this. And to suggest that you yourself know that this evidence does not exist. Otherwise, that's all you would focus in on here: providing it.

Instead of going up into the spiritual clouds and engaging others here content themselves to reduce immortality and salvation down to abstract assessments of...of what exactly? the philosophy of religion?

No, first and foremost, you should be focusing in here on Judgment Day. The only thing that ultimately matters with God and religion, right?