Theme: Religion

(FB 1544287916 Timestamp) IT DEPENDS UPON HOW YOU DEFINE CHRISTIANITY —“I’m confused about something. If you don’t think biblical Christianity is actually true, e.g.you think it is based on elaborate deception, then how is it allowable? How is it beneficial? I believe you’ve made a point of calling out intentional deception as unallowable in society. What reason is there to assume that you can take away non-deceptive parts and dump the rest, and still have a workable system? My impression is that the Jefferson Bible is in no sense Christianity. (my apologies if this is already addressed in the video or elsewhere; I haven’t watched yet)”— Matt Evans Well, that depends upon what you call ‘christianity’ and whether you think it’s good. Christianity can be the scientific content, and the consequences of that scientific content, which while very limited we can demonstrate are in fact good. Or whether you think Christianity is all the nonsense that is wrapped around it (lies). As a scientist I have to acknowledge that the optimum game theory humans can play is the christian command for love of others. I can’t escape that. As a scientist I have to acknowledge that everything else about christianity is catastrophically bad, even if not as evil as judaism or islam. Now, once we distill christianity down to those few rules (rules of optimum prisoner’s dilemma), the question is whether it is still ‘christianity’ in any meaningful way. I would argue that it is still christianity, because religions constitute our means of intuitionistically training members of the polity, nation, and civilization, to pursue the same strategy – hopefully one in their interest – that allows different groups to cooperate at large scale. I think (well I’m certain) that the short list of rules in christianity are optimums. But I do not think the jesus story is good. I am certain the god story is bad. And I think as do many that the christian god is a semitic tyrant over the semitic slaves – and completely against the interests of our people – which is why our people have incrementally escaped christianity, turned it to our own, while the jews and muslims have only become more obsessed with theirs. So, in attempting to solve the problem of the future, how can we provide the same psychological, social, and political functions as did christianity, and suppress, defeat, or eliminate competitors to those rules – competitors that would return us to the semitic darkness that we have saved ourselves from. Now, we have tools of: Naturalism(reality) < Logic and Mathematics (Measurement) < Science(Due DIligence, Naturalism) < Law+Economics(Decidability) < History (Evidence) < Literature (Analogy, Pedagogy, Theorizing), Philosophy (Removing Science), and Theology(Removing Reason) to work with. And I can find no reason to gracefully fail across the spectrum of Measurements, Due Diligence, Decidability < Evidence < Pedagogy, if we supply mindfulness (what we consider spirituality) through equally scientific means (training). And if we have to teach people SOMETHING, why teach them a falsehood when we can teach the same content truthfully (scientifically)? And the only answer is to preserve the psychological malinvestment of preceding generations at the expense of all past and future generations. I think moral education – and a uniform one – is necessary, just as is fitness, daily survival knowledge, calculation ability, and job skills. I think personal, interpersonal, and civic mindfulness is a natural demand of conscious creatures. I think the civic ritual of church: the oath, the historical lessons, and the balance between the heroic tragic warrior and the loving tragic saint (jesus) are important. One can look at the great religions and traditions and observe relatively easily how each tries to, and succeeds in, providing those goods in satisfaction of those demands. It is very difficult to look at judaism, and islam and say that they are other than a destructive force in the world compared to the other religions and traditions – particularly the hindu, chinese and japanese traditions. When we look at christianity it was designed as and used as a destructive force in the world. And the three abrahamic religions are responsible for more evil than all but the great plagues. Our ancestors succeeded in germanizing christianity by keeping it’s good parts and eliminating its bad parts. I see my function, and our function as the living generation encountering this remaining problem, as continuing to modernize that “sick, twisted, desert anti-civilizational blood cult’, into an institution like the catholic church once provided as a competitor to the state, and restoring its role in education, but to deprive it of semitic deceits, and use our own far superior history. I might fail, but it is my job to remove as much lying from our civilization in order to defend our high-trust people against further decline. And if that means the church must further reform then that’s what it means. The alternative is not restoration, but that the church, within a generation or so, will die off. Numbers are numbers. The church doesn’t have any. IF we are to have a church so to speak, and a civic religion that is more than just legalism, that includes the personal mindfulness, socialization and festival that legalism doesn’t provide – making us all invested in one another – then we need a church that provides future benefits to people not past. And while I haven’t discussed much of this in public yet, I think I know at least MOST of the answer. We never ceased being polytheistic. Ever. Just as we are poly grammatical (Frames, Paradigms). Many heroes are always better than one, as long as they are compatible. We are too different in our abilities, social roles, occupations and responsibilities. There is a basis upon which the heroic family in all her grammars and stories, rests, and that is Individual Sovereignty, the natural law of reciprocity, truth and duty and, yes, charity. And it is christian charity: exhaustive optimism and investment in others – rather than donations or mental fantasies that forms that basis.