Author Topic: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity  (Read 2451 times)

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2020, 09:59:53 AM »
Card carrying Stalinist mam ;-)  Careful about projecting opinions on others, that is a lame rhetorical mistake.  Also distinguish between rhetorical postures vs real views.   But emoticons can help with that.

The fact that one has a smart phone isn't progress.  You didn't build it, you didn't invent it.  That is like saying cattle are smart if a college professor has a hobby farm.

This is an epistemological canard made by every collectivist, whether trying to get credit for things you didn't do, or trying to avoid blame for things you didn't do.

Goes back to the Middle Ages ... philosophical realism vs philosophical nominalism.  Though philosophical realism goes back to Plato's "forms".  For example:

Is "red" a category independent of any particular that has the property of "red"?  Plato says yes, and it is an ideal perfect red.  Nominalism says that "red" is only a property of the items in the set of things we aggregate on the basis of being categorized by the property "red".  Philosophical realism is the basis of the claim that real communism has never been tried.  It was never the ideal perfect "form" but the LARPing of real communism by states that aren't real communist.  That Communism wasn't a property of the set of countries like the Soviet Union etc. who could be characterized by the property "communist".

Yep I have noticed so many vocal anti-liberals get their socialist entitlement checks mailed directly to their Plato's cave. Now that is some ironic shit.

 As design team member I understand very well that people work must together to accomplish things impossible for individuals to do. Thus your claims about "getting credit" are irrelevant to defending your 'pushing the rope' statement. Most of us atheists are used to the haphazard arguments delivered by apologists so we just stay on track really. It's easy really. Apologists get into a mindset to never have a direct answer. It's all about restating the questions incorrectly; don't you know?

 Getting things done for betterment on this planet is another irrelevancy to so many theists who live for the next world. They are the ones pushing a rope up to some fantasy place called heaven. The concept of heaven is idiotic. I think it would fun fodder for a future post. 

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2020, 11:04:53 AM »
Illustrated by many, is the difficulty or absurdity of separating religion from politics.  My POV is psychology, not theology.  Anthropology not Marxist historical revisionism.  I take religiosity as cultural not as epistemological (which is typically were atheists go).
You're correct. I look at religion as an epistemic attempt at understanding the world. It was the old attempt. Culturally, coming from a country in the middle of the North Atlantic ocean, I see culture as more than ideology of a particular religion or a particular political party. It's the pattern in which we live our daily lives, religion and politics are shards of that, but not the whole picture.

It has been argued both ways, whether politics is a religion or atheism is a secular theism.  I don't see any possibility of resolving those, because they are ultimately about "feels" not reason (why pick those axioms vs was the deduction valid given the axioms).  Human beings have IQ and EQ.
I am of the conviction that politics, in any useful sense anyways, is about methodology (i.e. how to do something). Whereas religion is about attempting to understand something, the alpha version of science, if you will, which was revisioned in the Enlightenment. Those are just my definitions of those general terms.

Can things be improved?  Not really, we are pushing a rope.  The way the collective gets better is mostly thru individuals getting better ... which usually happens with cultivation and time.  The opposite, of changing the system and expecting people of whatever state of development, to toe the line, won't work.
Real change is education and personal growth - I don't believe in any overarching system of governance or outright collectivism. That stinks of ideological conformity, of just parroting ideas without forming your own thoughts and tracing your own thinking.

Everyone eventually has to choose a "hill to die on".  For some this is theology or philosophy or ideology.  I choose psychology.
I haven't made my mind up yet on philosophy and ideology. I'm still young. Maybe never solidify my beliefs. Right now I think I'm both philosophically and ideologically fluid enough to change my mind given good enough reasoning to rethink a conclusion. I'm not constantly re-evaluating convictions, just that I want to see good enough reasons to believe x when I think y. Since my apostasy I've outright given up on theology, nothing short of brain damage will convince me to reconsider trusting faith. I consider psychology the precursor field to neuroscience, the same way I think theology was the precursor to the natural sciences, but since neuroscience is so basic now, psychology will do for now - it's not something I think about from day to day, though, I just live according to my basic needs and desires in the cultural framework of today. In that regard I'm a simple man.

Eastern Orthodox culture ... St George has another bad day at the office, but the virgin is saved ...


Hope is for suckers, but also dreamers. I'd rather be realistic, because I've abandoned hope.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2020, 12:09:56 PM »
Yep I have noticed so many vocal anti-liberals get their socialist entitlement checks mailed directly to their Plato's cave. Now that is some ironic shit.

 As design team member I understand very well that people work must together to accomplish things impossible for individuals to do. Thus your claims about "getting credit" are irrelevant to defending your 'pushing the rope' statement. Most of us atheists are used to the haphazard arguments delivered by apologists so we just stay on track really. It's easy really. Apologists get into a mindset to never have a direct answer. It's all about restating the questions incorrectly; don't you know?

 Getting things done for betterment on this planet is another irrelevancy to so many theists who live for the next world. They are the ones pushing a rope up to some fantasy place called heaven. The concept of heaven is idiotic. I think it would fun fodder for a future post. 


It is OK to be a progressive, however you want to define that.  When I was young, I hoped for incremental (not revolutionary) improvements in the human condition.  I thought very highly of NASA.  Over time, it has been very hard to sustain that naivety.  But I don't want to deny younger adults their own naivety.  They have to develop on their own schedule.

Religion per se, is very naive.  And educated, studious or experienced people are right to question it.  One ideal for collegians is to "deny everything".  Then having done that, they eventually find out that their parents aren't the morons they thought they were.  Usually after 30 years old.  Which is a good reason why Logan's Run isn't real ;-)  I went thru an "atheist" period myself in my 20s.  But I got more mature and came back to a mature theism eventually (by 56).

@Sal1981 ... it is hard in this world to hold onto "hope".  But there are two interpretations of the Pandora myth.  That while only thing that didn't escape her wedding gift box was "hope" ... was that a blessing or a curse?  Some say a blessing, because "hope" is all people can hold onto if they can.  Some say a curse, because "hope" is in vain.

There is a battle between realism and idealism ... is it really necessary to treat that as a Black/White situation?  A totally idealist person is Shrek or Donkey (joke).  A totally realist person is Prince Farquar (eew)!
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 12:16:26 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2020, 12:40:12 PM »
@Sal1981 ... it is hard in this world to hold onto "hope".  But there are two interpretations of the Pandora myth.  That while only thing that didn't escape her wedding gift box was "hope" ... was that a blessing or a curse?  Some say a blessing, because "hope" is all people can hold onto if they can.  Some say a curse, because "hope" is in vain.
Hope is a motivator, for sure. All too human, if you ask me.

When I think about it, the concept of "hope" is a cousin to faith, but with a stark contrast to faith; hope is about things you want or want to do, but (presently) cannot get or able to do, where faith is blind acceptance and blind conviction that something is true. Hope is then a wish for something you want or want to do.

There is a battle between realism and idealism ... is it really necessary to treat that as a Black/White situation?  A totally idealist person is Shrek or Donkey (joke).  A totally realist person is Prince Farquar (eew)!
Can you even have one without the other? If you take Lord Farquaad out of the Shrek movie, you're left with no story and no ambition, the whole narrative falls apart. It's like science without philosophy is without any probing question on why you're even doing science in the first place. And philosophy without science is merely masturbation of ideas, with no reality checks and balances.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2020, 12:48:18 PM »
You can leave the monastery when you are ready, Grasshopper ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2020, 06:41:26 AM »
You can leave the monastery when you are ready, Grasshopper ;-)
Why? I'm not a slave to morality, unlike you.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2020, 07:14:38 AM »
Why? I'm not a slave to morality, unlike you.

I saw what you did there ;-).  Virtue signaling doesn't work when you are stopped on the side of the freeway with a flat tire.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2020, 07:34:21 AM »
I'm just fucking with you.

Maybe wave at passer-bys, hoping (snicker) for some samaritan to help change the flat tire, if you're unable to change it yourself.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline aitm

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2020, 08:58:03 AM »
I forget which book it is..duet or numbers, but there are several, even more chapters on how one is to pay the priests. For a reasonable person, that should stop you in your tracks as just a little self serving piece of work.
“Let’s start a religion”
“Good idea, but how will we make any money?”
“ Let’s make it part of gods plan”
“Well...duh”
“LOL”
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2020, 01:09:35 PM »
I forget which book it is..duet or numbers, but there are several, even more chapters on how one is to pay the priests. For a reasonable person, that should stop you in your tracks as just a little self serving piece of work.
“Let’s start a religion”
“Good idea, but how will we make any money?”
“ Let’s make it part of gods plan”
“Well...duh”
“LOL”

You work for free, consider money to be un-kosher?

In that context, the priests didn't get paid, there was no money.  They got paid "in kind" with first fruits, part of the animal sacrifice.  Today, we have money.  Of course, just like in The Book of Judges, with Eli, the priest and his sons at Shiloh, we can have unrighteous clergy.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2020, 01:11:38 PM »
I'm just fucking with you.

Maybe wave at passer-bys, hoping (snicker) for some samaritan to help change the flat tire, if you're unable to change it yourself.

Munch would know how ... flex his big muscles, not show a little ankle ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2020, 09:47:24 PM »
The very idea that one can transfer responsibility for transgressions because of a human sacrifice is repugnant. The idea that we are broken via original sin over an apple is just as tragic. The notion that faith is the trait we are to be judged on to determine our place for eternity is idiotic. The concept that you must drink the savior's blood and eat his flesh is barbaric. The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.

Your thoughts on these concepts?

Well, that's a lot of territory to cover, but I think that you are saying you are befuddled over the strange notions inherent in Christianity. In a twisted way it all makes sense if you see it as people using myths and rhetoric to control other people. If we can get others to believe the unbelievable, then we can get them to believe what benefits us. For example, if I can convince people that I speak for a god, then I can convince them to give me money--it's what the god wants, after all. Of course, no real god would want or need money, but if I can get those people to stop thinking ("have faith"), then they are less likely to see through my trick. Politicians in particular find religion to be of great value because they can use it as a ploy to fool the masses into thinking that what's good for the politician is what the god wants.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2020, 09:54:21 PM »
"a ploy to fool the masses into thinking that what's good for the politician is what the god wants" ... Emperor Constantine agrees.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2020, 10:14:40 PM »
Communion is retarded. If you think about it for longer than a minute you realize how folly a replacement cracker and some wine is supposed to be a (symbolic) representation of a human sacrifice for remembering someone.

I think part of the reason the gospel story has Jesus instituting ritual cannibalism and vampirism is to separate the true believers from the "lukewarm." Jesus is essentially using shock to see who will stay with him and who will turn away. The early Christians wanted followers so devoted that the sickest talk would not dissuade them. Christ was then the "Alice Cooper" of first-century Jewish preachers.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2020, 10:39:39 PM »
I think part of the reason the gospel story has Jesus instituting ritual cannibalism and vampirism is to separate the true believers from the "lukewarm." Jesus is essentially using shock to see who will stay with him and who will turn away. The early Christians wanted followers so devoted that the sickest talk would not dissuade them. Christ was then the "Alice Cooper" of first-century Jewish preachers.

Correct.  Rabbis were quick to note, at the time of the early church (regardless if Jesus was historical or not) that the figure of Jesus was non-kosher.  Also non-kohen, non-levite ... though the Church tradition tried to tie Jesus to the Priesthood, thru John the Baptist's mother being related to Mary, and John the Apostle, all being related to same priestly family.  The Epistle to the Hebrews makes it mythical, with Jesus as the eternal High Priest.  None of that is likely to be attractive to regular Jewish people neither then nor now (see Jews for Jesus).

Of course, this wasn't attractive to pagan Gentiles either, who expected certain kind of demi-god/characteristics.  That Jesus was crucified, was Jewish, wasn't royal (except for the made up genealogy) were definite turn offs for Gentiles.  Apollonius of Tyana was a more palatable miracle worker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

If you think of Jesus being a composite figure, this neo-pythagorean and the false Egyptian prophet are likely sources.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.