Religion Christian Society Grooming (or Lack Thereof)

[Morphic Tide]

fact is america was used by the UK as a dumping ground for a lot of very different people we just hear about the puritans because america likes to pretend its a lot more united then it really is and because New Englanders never shut up about that shit.

Early Protestants in general, really, not just Puritans. You also had "first-wave" Protestant denominations kicked out by Catholic rulers, a few Catholics kicked out by the Anglican schism, the Quakers were originally from England as well, loads of different religiously-motivated emigrants. Then you had the "Great Awakenings" making even more of a mess with such a wide variety of bizarre offshoots spawning the likes of the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Religion should be what you put first because they are your first principles they decide what is morally good or bad.

No, first principals are first principals, atheists are entirely able to have them. Religions are codified worldviews promoting specific sets, thereby establishing standards. The freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment is there specifically to force you to argue from the principals themselves instead of the religion you get them from, because the religion in question is nowhere near coherent enough for "Because God" to work.

Catholics' worldview cannot stand any other denomination's existence, the Quakers and Puritans have some nasty disagreements, the Amish flatly forbid an ever-increasing amount of the general culture's lifestyle, "Christian" is far too large an umbrella covering far too different of things to bring it in line enough for positions like this to work without massive and exceptionally invasive oppression of the population.

American conservatives just stupidly say collectivism is communism when it's not.

True/Ideal Communism (that has yet to exist and likely never will) is the total case of collectivism, quite useful as a Reducto Ad Absurdum for prioritization of collectivism "above all".

Yes what is wrong with that?

The fact that we can quite conclusively prove catastrophic change of meaning due to linguistic shifts? Like Hebrew switching the word for "month" to mean "year", thereby multiplying the duration of everything using that word by 12 in rote repetition of the exact words used, causing rather important chronology to be inarguably inaccurate for somebody along the way?

The entire "if you're not a Proper Christian you CANNOT be moral" situation is exactly why I blame Christianity for the post-Christian shitshows of the 20th century. Because they got this totalitarian bullshit from you. From your absurd insistence that it must be 100% aligned or else, from your reliance on a single wholly unsubstantiated axiom for massive chunks of ethics to have any basis, from simply taking some principals to the extremes.

 

[Bacle]

Basically "if you're not religious or abide by the principles set by the Bible, a book written thousands of years ago based on fables and fourth-hand accounts, you're immoral on the level of kiddie-fuckers, communists, and other such degenerates and are utterly alien to us".

This sort of thing is why a lot of people view Americans as either being Leftist loons or religious nutjobs.

Pretty much.

The idea that secular people, or even non-Christians religious folk, can have power in the US gov is anathema to a lot of religious conservatives. They also do not grock that secular thought is not just an 'atheist religion'.

 

[King Arts]

I notice how you completely ignored the fact of how I said I specifically mentioned monarchy as something I don't like. I'm...I'm done here. I don't know what else to say so I'm just done.

You are not understanding what I'm saying!

I'm not saying something is good or bad. I'm saying that it is not communism.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

You are not understanding what I'm saying!

I'm not saying something is good or bad. I'm saying that it is not communism.

no not everything I don't like is communist. (Monarchies for example)

and honestly your the one missing the bigger argument here. Nobody is saying everything we don't like is communism. What we are saying is the way you are describing the ideal church is Christian Communism...and if your overall argument is pro-collectivism your not doing a good job at that either. Your Monarchy example was atrocious and whether it's historical or not. That doesn't make it any less wrong to people like me especially when you use examples like it.

 

[King Arts]

@KilroywasNOTHere

Ahh ok, sorry it's hard to keep track of who said what when you are dealing with 3 separate people. This all started with mrtoo saying collectivism was communism or something.

I can understand not liking aspects of society that are collectivist or thinking something is too much. But again communism is a specific thing one of the most evil things ever thought up. It is the destruction of religion, tradition, and family. It's far more than taking people's property, or conquering nations and living under a dictator that is a minor evil. The evil communism does can hardly be described But Lenin and the others want to change what humans are on a biological basis if they could. There is a reason communism is worse than fascism. The Soviet Union while horrible were actually moderate commies, if you look at Mao you'd see even more extreme and then Cambodia you see the full embodiment of evil.

I fear that future advances in science will let China and the globalists like Davos the tools they need to make transhumanism and then try communism again.

 

[Cherico]

See, the problem is that you've bought into the propaganda, and are blind to the fact that the atheists are just another religious group, and their gospel is much, much more destructive than Christianity.

It's where we get marxism, post-modernism, critical race theory, 'gender queerness', etc, etc.

When Christians controlled the dominant cultural space, the main argument was when is it and is it not appropriate to be merciful to people who committed actual criminal offenses, and whether some things should be taken off the list of criminal offenses.

Now that atheists with explicitly political religion control the dominant cultural space, the open movement is to destroy your entire life if you refuse to actively affirm their sexual degeneracy and totalitarianism.


I wonder if you'll ever escape enough of the leftist propaganda you spent so much of your life immersed in, that you'll be able to realize how much better it was when Christianity was the moral orthodoxy of the culture.

The thing is a lot of people thought that some religous people acted like assholes because they were religious. Now with the benifit of hindsight we know that assholes are going to asshole no matter what and that religion was a restraining bolt that held back the worst of the bullshit.

 

[Terthna]

The thing is a lot of people thought that some religous people acted like assholes because they were religious. Now with the benifit of hindsight we know that assholes are going to asshole no matter what and that religion was a restraining bolt that held back the worst of the bullshit.

Assuming they actually believe in any of the stuff that restricts assholish behavior, and aren't just picking and choosing the parts that they think lets them justify acting like assholes, and wielding their religion as a weapon against criticism the same way the woke cultists do.

 

[mrttao]

No they aren't, no matter how much you and other religious people want to layer your world views/thought process onto others.

Look, I am an atheist and even I can tell that atheist community is a bunch of religious fanatics who have other idols to worship.

There is a vanishing minority of atheists who are truly completely non religious

Basically "if you're not religious or abide by the principles set by the Bible, a book written thousands of years ago based on fables and fourth-hand accounts, you're immoral on the level of kiddie-fuckers, communists, and other such degenerates and are utterly alien to us".

This sort of thing is why a lot of people view Americans as either being Leftist loons or religious nutjobs.

No, its more along the lines that tearing down religion without replacing it with anything specific and concrete has resulted in a fertile ground for the vilest of cults to take over. Resulting in such a vast majority of so called "atheists" falling to the deprivation of such cults.

Although to be fair... said cults have also taken over many of the established religions. as I mentioned before most of the christians are also fallen too.
But there seem to be a much easier backlash against it from the religious. As they have something concrete to return to.

 

[King Arts]

No, first principals are first principals, atheists are entirely able to have them. Religions are codified worldviews promoting specific sets, thereby establishing standards. The freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment is there specifically to force you to argue from the principals themselves instead of the religion you get them from, because the religion in question is nowhere near coherent enough for "Because God" to work.

Catholics' worldview cannot stand any other denomination's existence, the Quakers and Puritans have some nasty disagreements, the Amish flatly forbid an ever-increasing amount of the general culture's lifestyle, "Christian" is far too large an umbrella covering far too different of things to bring it in line enough for positions like this to work without massive and exceptionally invasive oppression of the population.

No without religion then all there is, is nihlism. Why should I care about first principles if there is no hereafter no judgment after death? Just do what thou wilt do what makes you feel good and try to avoid getting hurt yourself. Because at the end of the day why should I care about your first principles? Why should I value your oppinion on morals more than a CCP agent, or a Taliban? What makes you so special?

Because God is the only thing that works for morality.

True/Ideal Communism (that has yet to exist and likely never will) is the total case of collectivism, quite useful as a Reducto Ad Absurdum for prioritization of collectivism "above all".

I haven't read the commie manifesto so I'm not particularly sure on what the end state is, but don't people say that the "end state of communism is supposed to be a utopia with no want" all your material needs are met blah blah blah.

Also again people being more than free individuals but actually competing groups is not what communism teaches. Communism wants to collectivize everyone into one group. But supporting groups working as a collective does not imply they are communists. It's the Hitler ate sugar argument here.

The fact that we can quite conclusively prove catastrophic change of meaning due to linguistic shifts? Like Hebrew switching the word for "month" to mean "year", thereby multiplying the duration of everything using that word by 12 in rote repetition of the exact words used, causing rather important chronology to be inarguably inaccurate for somebody along the way?

The entire "if you're not a Proper Christian you CANNOT be moral" situation is exactly why I blame Christianity for the post-Christian shitshows of the 20th century. Because they got this totalitarian bullshit from you. From your absurd insistence that it must be 100% aligned or else, from your reliance on a single wholly unsubstantiated axiom for massive chunks of ethics to have any basis, from simply taking some principals to the extremes.

You actually might be on to something here. But much of it is wrong however, first off you can't say Christianity is unique in saying you must be Christian to be moral. Judaism and Islam say the same thing yet post modernism did not spring from them. I have considered it a possibility that once people leave an Abrahamic faith Christianity, Islam, or Judaism then they enter a sort of super rebel phase of rejection of all that that is good that the religion stood for. I've noticed it in the LGBT thing. Other religions like Buddhists in Asia for example did not have the repression of the homos so gay people there were more normal than here. They would have lovers for what they actually enjoy but realize that marriage is for raising kids and so if they want to do that and continue the family they'd have to get married. Wheras in the west they want to marry each other and do pointless things.

Of course we are at an impasse because God HAS forbidden homosexual acts and no human can gainsay him.

 

[mrttao]

The fact that we can quite conclusively prove catastrophic change of meaning due to linguistic shifts? Like Hebrew switching the word for "month" to mean "year", thereby multiplying the duration of everything using that word by 12 in rote repetition of the exact words used, causing rather important chronology to be inarguably inaccurate for somebody along the way?

The entire "if you're not a Proper Christian you CANNOT be moral" situation is exactly why I blame Christianity for the post-Christian shitshows of the 20th century. Because they got this totalitarian bullshit from you. From your absurd insistence that it must be 100% aligned or else, from your reliance on a single wholly unsubstantiated axiom for massive chunks of ethics to have any basis, from simply taking some principals to the extremes.

While there are individual christians who are super dogmatic. Actually christianity had the opposite issue of being hyper tolerant of opposing view points.
Which is why there are:
1. so many different christian denominations.
2. every christian nation allowed non christians to flourish.

Go try opening a church of satanism in Istanbul.

Sounds like you had a personal bad experience with an ultra religious christian family and then decided to blame all of the world's ills on it. Ignoring actual reality.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Why should I care about first principles if there is no hereafter no judgment after death?

Ask historians studying Mesopotamian history, or the Buddhists who consider doing too much good wrong for getting in the way of ceasing to exist. There's been lots of times that morality didn't contain a particularly significant "afterlife" imperative. And having literally all the rules set non-negotiably by a single totally unaccountable force with a binary "suffer forever" or "everlasting peace" is decidedly different from the variety of middle-grounds and demand for exceptional character to have the "good" ending, one so emotionally dissonant that the idea of "limbo" was bullshitted into being whole cloth to cover "wait, what about my mother who died just the week before you showed up?"

But much of it is wrong however, first off you can't say Christianity is unique in saying you must be Christian to be moral. Judaism and Islam say the same thing yet post modernism did not spring from them.

Judaism's legalistic shenanigans are well known and the exclusivity of the Covenant draws a line between "moral person" and "doctrinal adherence" (the usury shenanigans behind the Happy Merchant stereotype are the perfect example), while Islam is much the same sort of attempted "successor" to Christianity that Mormonism is, only formed by syncretizing local popular schismatic veins and working things out as expansion went along instead of one cult leader making shit up in a bulk lot then moving forward with it.

Other religions like Buddhists in Asia for example did not have the repression of the homos so gay people there were more normal than here. They would have lovers for what they actually enjoy but realize that marriage is for raising kids and so if they want to do that and continue the family they'd have to get married. Wheras in the west they want to marry each other and do pointless things.

Of course we are at an impasse because God HAS forbidden homosexual acts and no human can gainsay him.

You consciously understand and bluntly admit that Asian cultures do not suffer these problems because there's no imperative to be a jackass to homosexuals, then immediately state that this is wholly unacceptable to solve the problem solely on the basis of "Because God Said So".

You are perfectly demonstrating what I loath about "singular moral authority" religion as a category. It does not matter to you one wit if I were to directly show to you that proper Christian doctrine being followed directly caused the deaths of millions in materially pointless cruelty, so long as you can be convinced God said so you will accept anything, because you have wholly abandoned your reason and will to blind faith, you totalitarian theocratic piece of shit.

Actually christianity had the opposite issue of being hyper tolerant of opposing view points.

Has, today, it sure as shit did not when dealing with "pagans" (during expansion) and "heretics" (before the canonization process) was still a routine matter. To such an extent that the breakdown of Christ's nature as "the son of God and Mary" drove a Roman Emperor to order the Church Fathers in a room and exile anyone who refused to settle on an answer.

And the doctrine responsible for this totalizing "street riots over ivory tower minutia" nonsense never left, kicking right back in when the Protestant Reformation happened.

 

[mrttao]

Has, today, it sure as shit did not when dealing with "pagans" (during expansion) and "heretics" (before the canonization process) was still a routine matter. To such an extent that the breakdown of Christ's nature as "the son of God and Mary" drove a Roman Emperor to order the Church Fathers in a room and exile anyone who refused to settle on an answer.

The last roman emperor died 1500+ years ago.

Are you seriously are blaming the "post 20th century" shitshow on the fact the roman christians were intolerant of other religions thousands of years ago in imperial rome?

 

[Cherico]

The last roman emperor died 1500+ years ago.

Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos died in 1453 so about 570 years or so ago, and yes I consider the eastern empire to be a continuation of the roman empire.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos died in 1453 so about 570 years or so ago, and yes I consider the eastern empire to be a continuation of the roman empire.

not to mention all of the attempts to be the next Rome or new Rome.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The last roman emperor died 1500+ years ago.

As mentioned in the first edit seemingly somehow missed by both the site's edit tracker and you, it stayed in the doctrine, returning to relevance in the Protestant Reformation with the sparking of quite a few full-on wars.

Are you seriously are blaming the "post 20th century" shitshow on the fact the roman christians were intolerant of other religions thousands of years ago in imperial rome?

To associate the sentiment with a common criticism of atheists, the reason for so many dictators, philosophers, and cult leaders seeking to become God is because the Western worldview became cripplingly dependent on God for lack of anything else to root ethics in. Once the Church falls below another priority, there's no "backup" connection between the principals to solidly constrain how far from the previous norm society can go, and the established tendency is to follow "The Authority" without question.

Basically, Christian monoculture set a nearly perfect stage for totalitarian utopianism, because that's just what happens when you collapse the worldly and the metaphysical of Christianity together. It has about the worst consequence for failure an ethics system can have, because you either end up with no checks on a jackass at the top, or dissolve into moral anarchy that atomizes society if God is actually just killed. The 20th century was the former, we're currently living through the latter.

 

[LordsFire]

An individualist would support the eye going "I don't need you!" if the eye wanted to leave and go make it's own way. Collectivist societies penalize that sort of selfishness.

I think I see part of the root problem here.

You think we believe in a hilariously caricaturized strawman of individualism.

I suppose it's not that surprising.

 

[mrttao]

To associate the sentiment with a common criticism of atheists, the reason for so many dictators, philosophers, and cult leaders seeking to become God is because the Western worldview became cripplingly dependent on God for lack of anything else to root ethics in. Once the Church falls below another priority, there's no "backup" connection between the principals to solidly constrain how far from the previous norm society can go, and the established tendency is to follow "The Authority" without question.

Basically, Christian monoculture set a nearly perfect stage for totalitarian utopianism, because that's just what happens when you collapse the worldly and the metaphysical of Christianity together. It has about the worst consequence for failure an ethics system can have, because you either end up with no checks on a jackass at the top, or dissolve into moral anarchy that atomizes society if God is actually just killed. The 20th century was the former, we're currently living through the latter.

How do you explain the CCP?
last I checked they are not christian.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

@KilroywasNOTHere

Ahh ok, sorry it's hard to keep track of who said what when you are dealing with 3 separate people. This all started with mrtoo saying collectivism was communism or something.

I can understand not liking aspects of society that are collectivist or thinking something is too much. But again communism is a specific thing one of the most evil things ever thought up. It is the destruction of religion, tradition, and family. It's far more than taking people's property, or conquering nations and living under a dictator that is a minor evil. The evil communism does can hardly be described But Lenin and the others want to change what humans are on a biological basis if they could. There is a reason communism is worse than fascism. The Soviet Union while horrible were actually moderate commies, if you look at Mao you'd see even more extreme and then Cambodia you see the full embodiment of evil.

I fear that future advances in science will let China and the globalists like Davos the tools they need to make transhumanism and then try communism again.

I thought I posted this earlier. I'll give you the like not because I agree...but your argument makes sense. But dude, I think the reason why you are getting ratioed so badly is because your trying to argue 5 different points with 5 different all at the same time and it's making you come across as incoherent especially when you start losing track of who you are arguing what with. take your time and slow down handle each argument individually.

I think I see part of the root problem here.

You think we believe in a hilariously caricaturized strawman of individualism.

This doesn't help.

 

[Aldarion]

That is debatable about it being a social issue. After all the Bible does teach to care for refugees strangers and foreigners advocating for them is not Marxism.

Really? Because the quote I see most often used to support "caring for refugees, strangers and foreigners" is actually talking about how Israelites are about to conquer a foreign land and please do not be asshats to people you are about to conquer.

That is very, very different from allow half the world to settle into your home.

 

[Scottty]

You are mixing Protestantism with Christianity. Protestant thought Is individualist Christianity recognized that individualism is the seed of satanism.

"What, you care more about the state of your own soul than about working to make religious leaders richer? How daaare you!"

Yes I don't want you to think I just talk out of my butt. Basically I watch non Christians explain their religion and can see how they act and what they believe. I have watched some interesting Jews and Muslims explain their theology I can recommend you some if you want.

But why I think individualism is satanic. Because that is what the atheists preach about a person's individual right to kill their child, to have perverse sex, etc. Lucifer himself fell because of HIS individualism HIS desires were higher than almighty God.
Look up the satanic temple and all of that it is pure Randianism, it is anti Christian.

On the one hand, a person who strongly desires to obey God, and does not trust the leaders of organized religion to give him proper guidance on that, so he studies the Bible himself.

On the other hand, a person who says "I decide for myself what's right or wrong! I don't need the approval of any god!"

Do you really not understand the difference?

Catholics' worldview cannot stand any other denomination's existence,

Which is precisely why many Protestants were historically not at all keen on allowing any Roman Catholic to hold any position of political power, in a nation that was supposed to have legal freedom for all Christian denominations.

the Quakers and Puritans have some nasty disagreements,

They did, but they were able to resolve things by moving away from each other. Live and let live.

the Amish flatly forbid an ever-increasing amount of the general culture's lifestyle,

The Amish are not trying to impose alternative culture on everyone else at gunpoint.

As mentioned in the first edit seemingly somehow missed by both the site's edit tracker and you, it stayed in the doctrine, returning to relevance in the Protestant Reformation with the sparking of quite a few full-on wars.


To associate the sentiment with a common criticism of atheists, the reason for so many dictators, philosophers, and cult leaders seeking to become God is because the Western worldview became cripplingly dependent on God for lack of anything else to root ethics in. Once the Church falls below another priority, there's no "backup" connection between the principals to solidly constrain how far from the previous norm society can go, and the established tendency is to follow "The Authority" without question.

Basically, Christian monoculture set a nearly perfect stage for totalitarian utopianism, because that's just what happens when you collapse the worldly and the metaphysical of Christianity together. It has about the worst consequence for failure an ethics system can have, because you either end up with no checks on a jackass at the top, or dissolve into moral anarchy that atomizes society if God is actually just killed. The 20th century was the former, we're currently living through the latter.

Dude, many of those Asian nations that went Communist look pretty totalitarian to me.