Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • Two Answers on Religion

    Two Answers on Religion https://t.co/uL2BdATzV3

  • Two Answers on Religion

    Two Answers on Religion https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/two-answers-on-religion/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 12:05:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267426988320591873

  • Two Answers on Religion

    —“You are clearly analyzing religion as some kind of intentional civilization building thing rather than a set of existential beliefs that individuals possess in light of the full human ignorance of the origins and purpose of reality.”—John Marshall

    A) Yes I understand human demand for mindfulness. I simply observe that this particular means of mindfulness is catastrophically destructive, and that there are scientific and philosophical means of achieving the same ends, without the same side effects. So did the conquering christians – which is why they closed all the stoic schools, and killed or chased off the philosophers, and destroyed the arts letters and architecture of the ancient world – to prevent men from independence they would gain by stoic training, and epicurean lifestyles, rather than abrahamic mindfulness submission and slavery. B) You don’t think each and every institutional religion was designed to employ suggestion, empathy, and false promise as a means of coercing primitive illiterate ignorant petty people into a politically beneficial behavior? I mean, I’m pretty well read on the development of every religion and by and large there isn’t any difference between the development of a logic, a science, a philosophy, a work of literature, a work of mythology, and a theology. it’s all engineering the human experience by a combination of techniques. There is no difference between the script writer and director provoking an experience, than that of Saul of Tarsus trying merge the various Roman, Greek, Persian, Mesopotamian religions into a jewish rebel’s narrative, in order to replace the primary religious works of the Mediterranean (Homer and Achilles), with an anti-hero (Abraham and Jesus). The fact that we desire the provisions of science, history, literature, philosophy, and theology and that we have produced religions for different classes in every civilization except islam is rather obvious. it’s just that the underclasses are better governed by theological superstition, the middle by philosophical sophism, and the upper by exercise of power, is nothing more than evidence of the need for a system of achievement accessible to classes possessed of different degrees of agency. Escapism and supernaturalism; justification and sophism; empiricism and power. You need to feel you aren’t manipulated by those with greater agency – I understand.It’s just false. Religion largely provides sedation as a means of mindfulness, while buddhism, stoicism, and wisdom(science, history) incrementally provide mindfulness by providing one with agency – rather than sedation. Just because drugs feel good doesn’t mean that they are good for you. Just because theology makes you feel good doesn’t mean it is good for you. Just because lying feels good doesn’t mean it is good for you.

  • Two Answers on Religion

    —“You are clearly analyzing religion as some kind of intentional civilization building thing rather than a set of existential beliefs that individuals possess in light of the full human ignorance of the origins and purpose of reality.”—John Marshall

    A) Yes I understand human demand for mindfulness. I simply observe that this particular means of mindfulness is catastrophically destructive, and that there are scientific and philosophical means of achieving the same ends, without the same side effects. So did the conquering christians – which is why they closed all the stoic schools, and killed or chased off the philosophers, and destroyed the arts letters and architecture of the ancient world – to prevent men from independence they would gain by stoic training, and epicurean lifestyles, rather than abrahamic mindfulness submission and slavery. B) You don’t think each and every institutional religion was designed to employ suggestion, empathy, and false promise as a means of coercing primitive illiterate ignorant petty people into a politically beneficial behavior? I mean, I’m pretty well read on the development of every religion and by and large there isn’t any difference between the development of a logic, a science, a philosophy, a work of literature, a work of mythology, and a theology. it’s all engineering the human experience by a combination of techniques. There is no difference between the script writer and director provoking an experience, than that of Saul of Tarsus trying merge the various Roman, Greek, Persian, Mesopotamian religions into a jewish rebel’s narrative, in order to replace the primary religious works of the Mediterranean (Homer and Achilles), with an anti-hero (Abraham and Jesus). The fact that we desire the provisions of science, history, literature, philosophy, and theology and that we have produced religions for different classes in every civilization except islam is rather obvious. it’s just that the underclasses are better governed by theological superstition, the middle by philosophical sophism, and the upper by exercise of power, is nothing more than evidence of the need for a system of achievement accessible to classes possessed of different degrees of agency. Escapism and supernaturalism; justification and sophism; empiricism and power. You need to feel you aren’t manipulated by those with greater agency – I understand.It’s just false. Religion largely provides sedation as a means of mindfulness, while buddhism, stoicism, and wisdom(science, history) incrementally provide mindfulness by providing one with agency – rather than sedation. Just because drugs feel good doesn’t mean that they are good for you. Just because theology makes you feel good doesn’t mean it is good for you. Just because lying feels good doesn’t mean it is good for you.

  • I love christian manners

    I love christian manners https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/i-love-christian-manners/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 12:04:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267426869500162048

  • I love christian manners

    I love christian manners: “god bless you” et all. I am equally happy with ‘the gods’ instead of ‘god’, and equally unhappy and hostile to the other semitic gods. I love christian ethics. and I love christian behavior. And I love the church experience. And i love its role in birth, adulthood, marriage, care-taking, suffering, and death. I wish it still retained juris over the matters of the family. And My experience with education by the church was far superior to that of the state – by orders of magnitude. Personally I would prefer a military experience more suitable to males. And I know some would value sports, or arts, or commercial experiences. And I know I would prefer to find old gods, heroes, artists, scientists, and saints in my Church with Jesus but one among them. And I would find prayer to them more valuable than to those I find feminine. And yes I would prefer the stoic method of discipline rather than submission to a semitic god. I would prefer we celebrate love our heathen(nature) and pagan(masculine) as well as christian (feminine) holidays. But that said, while there are many good social and personal consequences of the religion, christianity failed us politically – it had to – the church could not survive the restoration of aristotelianism and its consequences no matter how hard the theologians tried. And worse, the church failed to reform. And the catholic church’s pope has now our declared the church our enemy. Orthodoxy is too weak in the west. Protestantism thankfully has evolved into a folk religion, especially with the advent of American evangelicals. I think I understand where this will lead and it is beautiful. But first we must solve real problems that are unavoidable: ending another conquest by hostile alien political systems masquerading as religions. Ending the destruction of our civilization by the second attempt at undermining us using the abrahamic methods of deceit – this time in secular prose, as well as fundamentalist semitic prose. And second we must solve the failure of our religion to merge the aristotelian-legal, moral-rational-political, masculine religion, and feminine religion. I can only describe the problem I do not have the skill or talent or mind to provide a solution other than the incentives for others with appropriate skills and talents, to bring a religious system across that spectrum into fruition. Although maybe if I live long enough it will be possible.

  • I love christian manners

    I love christian manners: “god bless you” et all. I am equally happy with ‘the gods’ instead of ‘god’, and equally unhappy and hostile to the other semitic gods. I love christian ethics. and I love christian behavior. And I love the church experience. And i love its role in birth, adulthood, marriage, care-taking, suffering, and death. I wish it still retained juris over the matters of the family. And My experience with education by the church was far superior to that of the state – by orders of magnitude. Personally I would prefer a military experience more suitable to males. And I know some would value sports, or arts, or commercial experiences. And I know I would prefer to find old gods, heroes, artists, scientists, and saints in my Church with Jesus but one among them. And I would find prayer to them more valuable than to those I find feminine. And yes I would prefer the stoic method of discipline rather than submission to a semitic god. I would prefer we celebrate love our heathen(nature) and pagan(masculine) as well as christian (feminine) holidays. But that said, while there are many good social and personal consequences of the religion, christianity failed us politically – it had to – the church could not survive the restoration of aristotelianism and its consequences no matter how hard the theologians tried. And worse, the church failed to reform. And the catholic church’s pope has now our declared the church our enemy. Orthodoxy is too weak in the west. Protestantism thankfully has evolved into a folk religion, especially with the advent of American evangelicals. I think I understand where this will lead and it is beautiful. But first we must solve real problems that are unavoidable: ending another conquest by hostile alien political systems masquerading as religions. Ending the destruction of our civilization by the second attempt at undermining us using the abrahamic methods of deceit – this time in secular prose, as well as fundamentalist semitic prose. And second we must solve the failure of our religion to merge the aristotelian-legal, moral-rational-political, masculine religion, and feminine religion. I can only describe the problem I do not have the skill or talent or mind to provide a solution other than the incentives for others with appropriate skills and talents, to bring a religious system across that spectrum into fruition. Although maybe if I live long enough it will be possible.

  • Argumentum Ad Theologicum

    Argumentum Ad Theologicum https://t.co/b1f8JsSskD

  • Argumentum Ad Theologicum

    Argumentum Ad Theologicum https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/argumentum-ad-theologicum-2/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 12:03:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267426658388238336

  • Argumentum Ad Theologicum

    (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible) We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal. In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law. We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer. When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for: (a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting … … Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony. … And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution. So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon. There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology. There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments. That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises. Not much to do about it. Edit