Apr 13, 2017 1:53pm
THE CONTENT OF RELIGION, AND THE FAILURE OF THE CHURCH
Why did the church fail to reform?
– superstition rather than myth.
– peasant rather than middle class
– agrarian rather than industrialism
– suffering rather than heroism and possibility.
– Semitic rather than European.
Why did the church fail to produce a reformer?
– why no Augustine, or Luther?
– why was Smith/Hume/Jefferson insufficient?
– why no accommodation for Darwin, Menger, Maxwell, Durkheim, Nietzsche?
Too much of a change. The academy took possession away from the church. The academy took funding away from the church. The state took all lands from the church.
Then it might have been possible if not for the world wars and communism. However, the germans were very close. The british traditionalists were very close. The church could have seized the opportunity, or it could have defeated the opposition: marxism. But it did neither. It was LAZY AND INTELLECTUALLY INCOMPETENT.
As far as I know, all that matters in a religion is:
(a) a community setting where individual expression prohibited. (signal free environment)
(b) a very simple set of comprehensible laws (strategy)
(c) a method of achieving mindfulness, and excuse for it.
(d) recitation of myths, legends, history, heroes
(e) application of past wisdom to current issues.
(f) participatory rituals (praying, singing, moving).
(g) participatory holidays ( relief – vacation days )
(h) participatory feasts (special holidays – family)
(i) participatory festivals (sports, plays, games)
(j) an institutional means of transference of all of the above between generations. (profession)
The acts matter much more than the words. The acts produce the experience. The words JUSTIFY it.
THE CHURCH WAS SO HEAVILY ANTI INTELLECTUAL IT ABANDONED THE PEOPLE TO THE PROFIT SEEKING OF THE ACADEMY, THE PROFIT SEEKING OF THE STATE, THE PROFIT SEEKING OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, AND HID AMONG THE DEVELOPING WORLD’S POOR.