1 hit the gym or otherwise exercise regularly and vigorously (and stop eating garbage) you should be doing this anyway
2 get to know your neighbors even if they are assholes
3 find a non-pozzed church and join even if they are evangelical and you dont believe in jesus - show up once a week at first then try to participate in the community activities
They are, but at least Catholicism has the possibility of growing a spine if it chose to.
I was a Friend and it pains me to say that the problem in the Friends is that the sinking lifeboat analogy DOES NOT WORK. There are people who rationally believe that until America is dragged down to the level of the third world, we have a moral imperative to keep taking in more people from the third world. That sinking the lifeboat is morally correct. The immediacy of helping those who's need is greatest takes precedence over building the community.
And the thing is, I can't say they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from, my understanding of the divine leads me to the same conclusions they do. So all I have to fall back on is saying Friends shouldn't be voting at all.
I would tell them they are wrong because by sinking the lifeboat, they destroy the most amount of lives.
It is not moral to destroy yourself for others.
It is like how on an airplane when there is a cabin air failure, you take care of your own mask before helping your child and then the rest of your family and friends.
That analogy is how I feel about life, you help yourself so you can help your family and then help your nation. It is moral to put yourself, your family and nation before others.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I would go further and say that they should be actively considered an enemy force for engaging in such actions.
Christianity should not become a religion that preaches self destruction over a misguided sense of fraternity.
Christianity is a religion that preaches fraternity as the goal, blind to any consequences. Always has been. If we're brought to ruin by doing so, c'est la vie.
We are told to follow the example of Christ, but Christ did not offer His children upon the cross, nor His friends. He offered Himself - and before doing so, He ordered His disciples to arm themselves.
You may bear any burden you choose, but you may not load a burden upon another and call yourself Christian.
God does not recognize the lines you've drawn that distinguish community. There is only the individual and the whole of humanity, no intermediate gradations.
Dying to help another is the pinnacle of virtue.
Look, I get what you're saying. I just cannot contrive a christian divine argument for your side.
Since a lot of people here seem to be incapable of reading between lines and thinking, I'll spell it out plainly.
The problem is Christianity. Period. Christianity is a an ascetic, compassionate religion that aspires to a world without suffering and division. And that is good; too good for its own good. It is an ideology that CANNOT SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF.
Islam is not an adequate replacement for Christianity. I admit it's better than Christianity at combatting SJWs, but it's not going to convert christians in the west, it's too incompatible.
What is needed is a new prophet.
I don't want to be a prophet. I am not a leader, I don't have the personality or persuasiveness for it. I talk and people aren't moved, they don't listen, they aren't inspired, they just bicker.
Sure I could do it, I could be that lunatic who goes around claiming to be the voice of god, but frankly, if I'm going to be an outcast either way, I'd rather be a low profile outcast than a high profile madman. And if god wants to be mad at me afterwards for declining the job, fine, I'll cross that bridge when it comes up; but if I'm supposed to lead people to truth then even just one guy in the crowd saying "You can do it!" without being prompted to would have been nice.
Modern Christianity has created generations of weak men who turn the other cheek.
Kinda makes me wish I'd paid more attention in sunday school, because I swear there's gotta be some misunderstanding with this "turn the other cheek" business. The trope it's turned into doesn't match the other messages I've heard, so there must be some missing context.
Yet, I agree completely; this trope has been effectively made a reality thanks to weak men aplenty. The strong and righteous still exist, but they have little reason to announce themselves.
It's why Rome kept feeding Christians to lions, to try to get them to go rebel so they could crush in a proper standup fight like the Carthaginians. But they just kept stubbornly forgiving the Romans and dying without a fight. Eventually the Romans got bored of it, started believing as well, and then a short while later the Goths invaded.
It was a mistake of the Councils to preserve the Old Testament. The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. There's an obvious schism between old testament and new testament. That's a terrible decision for established dogmatic texts. There should be a more unified vision.
Relatedly, it's been my view that the most successful way to read this mishmash bible is to rely heavily on personal interpretation. But this gets into other matters, like whether a religion should be taking the place of philosophical learning, or what the true purpose of a religious text should be.
People such as yourself (and younger me) foolishly believe that you can teach most people philosophy. Most people do not have the intellect, inclination, or patience to understand philosophy, whereas we think nothing of it and find it fascinating. We're blinded by our high intelligence.
I can't really refute that, but I wanted to share the shorthand I started using: that such people that have no capacity for self-improvement or a desire to question the world aren't really on the level of "human", they are merely "people".
I have already conceded that many people desire the authority and guidance present in religion. Others simply don't give a damn about anything greater than the present moment. I'm not convinced they're all hopeless, but I do try to rearrange my expectations in understanding the difference.
But they still have a pope. Though it be unlikely, though it might take generations, with the right people wearing the mitre they could theoretically be steered back to where they were.
The same cannot be said about the protestants (aside from the Anglicans anyway). Protestantism knows no authority but god and conscience. There is no hierarchy to steer it.
People say that the SJWs took over the church. This is a narrow, nearsighted view. The reality is the SJWs are the end product of runaway Protestantism.
Universalists and the friends (quakers) are two branches of christianity. UU's are unitarian-universalists, as the two joined a while back to survive declining numbers.
Once upon a time, Unitarians and Universalists were the dominant form of christianity in America. More than half of the signatures on Declaration of Independence were from those sects.
Unitarians reject the trinity. In this regard they're basically bacon-eating, christmas celebrating Jewish. Which gets a bit complicated since they clearly believe that god mellowed out a lot between the time when he was telling Joshua to butcher whole nations and then letting romans put himself to death.
Universalists reject the concept of judgement.
Friends (Quakers) reject basically all scripture and ordained leadership.
Humanism... is complicated to explain and to put it very simply it suffices to say that they're SJWs.
It is possible to be a quaker or a universalist without being a deist. There doesn't HAVE to be a deity for their ideologies to work.
Interestingly, the more recent dominant forms, Methodism and Lutheranism, came about because of the Civil War. Most Union army chaplains were Methodists and actively converted soldiers over with Methodism's more aggressive endorsement of the emancipation cause and the righteousness of that war.
This is, incidentally, where the "AND METHODISTS!!!" punchline in Blazing Saddles comes from, because in the late 19th century Methodists were pretty much regarded as belligerent, bloodthirsty warmongers who'd taken advantage of the Civil War to spread their faith.
If we're headed to Soviet style control, I would say learn to act pozzed and then listen to poetry in private.
Weatherproof a basement or storage room and start collecting physical media.
Make copies of the media for trade.
Or go the other route and learn how to make bombs and start hoarding materials and utility infrastructure maps.
1 hit the gym or otherwise exercise regularly and vigorously (and stop eating garbage) you should be doing this anyway 2 get to know your neighbors even if they are assholes 3 find a non-pozzed church and join even if they are evangelical and you dont believe in jesus - show up once a week at first then try to participate in the community activities
Protestantism is partly at fault for what's happened.
I am not Christian so I can offer an assessment of it from an outside view, The Roman Catholic church is just as pozzed as Protestantism.
Even before Francis, the RCC pushed social justice which was precursor to the current wokeism.
Modern Christianity has created generations of weak men who turn the other cheek.
They are, but at least Catholicism has the possibility of growing a spine if it chose to.
I was a Friend and it pains me to say that the problem in the Friends is that the sinking lifeboat analogy DOES NOT WORK. There are people who rationally believe that until America is dragged down to the level of the third world, we have a moral imperative to keep taking in more people from the third world. That sinking the lifeboat is morally correct. The immediacy of helping those who's need is greatest takes precedence over building the community.
And the thing is, I can't say they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from, my understanding of the divine leads me to the same conclusions they do. So all I have to fall back on is saying Friends shouldn't be voting at all.
I would tell them they are wrong because by sinking the lifeboat, they destroy the most amount of lives.
It is not moral to destroy yourself for others.
It is like how on an airplane when there is a cabin air failure, you take care of your own mask before helping your child and then the rest of your family and friends.
That analogy is how I feel about life, you help yourself so you can help your family and then help your nation. It is moral to put yourself, your family and nation before others.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I would go further and say that they should be actively considered an enemy force for engaging in such actions.
And that is why you are not a christian.
Men created divisions, not god. God would have those with more give eagerly to those with less.
If being a Christian requires being self destructive then I hope more people walk away from Christianity.
America is on the path to self destruction because of notions of social justice like this.
Christianity should not become a religion that preaches self destruction over a misguided sense of fraternity.
All people are not the same. Different cultures have different values. To not see that and acknowledge that, is suicidal on a societal level.
It is the mentality of the "Friends" why Europe is full of leftists proud of mass importing rapefugees.
I truly have nothing against Christians but I just don't like people of any background who push destructive policies.
I think the "friends" and any people like them should not be voting.
Christianity is a religion that preaches fraternity as the goal, blind to any consequences. Always has been. If we're brought to ruin by doing so, c'est la vie.
Maybe you should.
We are told to follow the example of Christ, but Christ did not offer His children upon the cross, nor His friends. He offered Himself - and before doing so, He ordered His disciples to arm themselves.
You may bear any burden you choose, but you may not load a burden upon another and call yourself Christian.
It's not me that distributes burdens.
I'm just reminding you that they're there, and that there were people who tried a lot harder in the past to carry them, than people do today.
And this is why I only really look to the Sermons for inspiration because the rest of the book is contradictory.
You're what I call a "litigatious christian", ie, one who uses texts as a set of loopholes to be exploited.
Sure you can. Suicide and condemning your own community is wrong.
God does not recognize the lines you've drawn that distinguish community. There is only the individual and the whole of humanity, no intermediate gradations.
Dying to help another is the pinnacle of virtue.
Look, I get what you're saying. I just cannot contrive a christian divine argument for your side.
Since a lot of people here seem to be incapable of reading between lines and thinking, I'll spell it out plainly.
The problem is Christianity. Period. Christianity is a an ascetic, compassionate religion that aspires to a world without suffering and division. And that is good; too good for its own good. It is an ideology that CANNOT SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF.
Islam is not an adequate replacement for Christianity. I admit it's better than Christianity at combatting SJWs, but it's not going to convert christians in the west, it's too incompatible.
What is needed is a new prophet.
I don't want to be a prophet. I am not a leader, I don't have the personality or persuasiveness for it. I talk and people aren't moved, they don't listen, they aren't inspired, they just bicker.
Sure I could do it, I could be that lunatic who goes around claiming to be the voice of god, but frankly, if I'm going to be an outcast either way, I'd rather be a low profile outcast than a high profile madman. And if god wants to be mad at me afterwards for declining the job, fine, I'll cross that bridge when it comes up; but if I'm supposed to lead people to truth then even just one guy in the crowd saying "You can do it!" without being prompted to would have been nice.
I don't care about your christian divine argument. If God is unjust then I should not want to worship him. From what you're saying it sounds like he's on board with an increase in net suffering.
That's the thing.
It's not "net".
You only think it's "net" because of your perspective. In this regard, the SJWs are correct.
You won't beat the SJWs with Christianity, and even if you beat the SJWs, as long as Christianity is the prevailing moral system, they'll be back.
Kinda makes me wish I'd paid more attention in sunday school, because I swear there's gotta be some misunderstanding with this "turn the other cheek" business. The trope it's turned into doesn't match the other messages I've heard, so there must be some missing context.
Yet, I agree completely; this trope has been effectively made a reality thanks to weak men aplenty. The strong and righteous still exist, but they have little reason to announce themselves.
Nope.
It's why Rome kept feeding Christians to lions, to try to get them to go rebel so they could crush in a proper standup fight like the Carthaginians. But they just kept stubbornly forgiving the Romans and dying without a fight. Eventually the Romans got bored of it, started believing as well, and then a short while later the Goths invaded.
It was a mistake of the Councils to preserve the Old Testament. The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. There's an obvious schism between old testament and new testament. That's a terrible decision for established dogmatic texts. There should be a more unified vision.
Relatedly, it's been my view that the most successful way to read this mishmash bible is to rely heavily on personal interpretation. But this gets into other matters, like whether a religion should be taking the place of philosophical learning, or what the true purpose of a religious text should be.
Religion is philosophy for dummies.
People such as yourself (and younger me) foolishly believe that you can teach most people philosophy. Most people do not have the intellect, inclination, or patience to understand philosophy, whereas we think nothing of it and find it fascinating. We're blinded by our high intelligence.
I can't really refute that, but I wanted to share the shorthand I started using: that such people that have no capacity for self-improvement or a desire to question the world aren't really on the level of "human", they are merely "people".
I have already conceded that many people desire the authority and guidance present in religion. Others simply don't give a damn about anything greater than the present moment. I'm not convinced they're all hopeless, but I do try to rearrange my expectations in understanding the difference.
Then follow the "rules" of LaVey's Satanism. Don't have to worship him to follow decent rules.
What are you smoking? The current pope is super woke.
Yes.
But they still have a pope. Though it be unlikely, though it might take generations, with the right people wearing the mitre they could theoretically be steered back to where they were.
The same cannot be said about the protestants (aside from the Anglicans anyway). Protestantism knows no authority but god and conscience. There is no hierarchy to steer it.
People say that the SJWs took over the church. This is a narrow, nearsighted view. The reality is the SJWs are the end product of runaway Protestantism.
There... are non-theistic universalists and friends, although they're rare and frankly the UU's are completely SJW humanists.
Universalists and the friends (quakers) are two branches of christianity. UU's are unitarian-universalists, as the two joined a while back to survive declining numbers.
Once upon a time, Unitarians and Universalists were the dominant form of christianity in America. More than half of the signatures on Declaration of Independence were from those sects.
Unitarians reject the trinity. In this regard they're basically bacon-eating, christmas celebrating Jewish. Which gets a bit complicated since they clearly believe that god mellowed out a lot between the time when he was telling Joshua to butcher whole nations and then letting romans put himself to death.
Universalists reject the concept of judgement.
Friends (Quakers) reject basically all scripture and ordained leadership.
Humanism... is complicated to explain and to put it very simply it suffices to say that they're SJWs.
It is possible to be a quaker or a universalist without being a deist. There doesn't HAVE to be a deity for their ideologies to work.
Interestingly, the more recent dominant forms, Methodism and Lutheranism, came about because of the Civil War. Most Union army chaplains were Methodists and actively converted soldiers over with Methodism's more aggressive endorsement of the emancipation cause and the righteousness of that war.
This is, incidentally, where the "AND METHODISTS!!!" punchline in Blazing Saddles comes from, because in the late 19th century Methodists were pretty much regarded as belligerent, bloodthirsty warmongers who'd taken advantage of the Civil War to spread their faith.
Archive link: https://archive.is/jI4zk