Religion · Uncategorized

If Christianity is Dead, We Still Have a Problem. But At Least We Know Most of the Answer

IF CHRISTIANITY IS DEAD, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM

Christianity as we know it is dead. The rituals are not unique nor terribly effective compared to the alterative major religions. The myths and lessons are suitable to those living at subsistence levels. The priesthoods are populated by those who can console us from the forces of nature, but not those who can educate, advise, lead, and decide, and as such,, form both a local head of community of common interest, and counter to the state.

But the philosophy is exceptional as it seems to create trust, ‘openness’, encourage salvation through action, creates commercial prosperity everywhere it goes. This combination of interpersonal optimism and the Aryan predilection for markets, and stoic natural law is nearly as effective as our greco-roman civilization.

So assuming the word ‘philosophy‘ means ‘method of decision making’, then of the spectrum of Religion, Political philosophy, Ethical Philosophy, Personal Philosophy, Law, and Science, I would state that transcendence, sovereignty, natural law, male stoicism/female epicureanism, the common empirical law, and Testimonialism are probably the optimum combination for those who wish to LEAD humanity, rather than to be led by others, by some some other strategy.

But natural law is skeptical, and incomplete without christian optimism. In other words, christian optimism tells us that if enough of us invest in trust, and tolerate minor losses, we will produce it, and produce outsized gains.

The problem we face, is we need a binding narrative, and we need better binding rituals and we need better local teachers, advisors, leaders.

To create the mythos we must distill it from our many authors into our own ‘bible’. Because we learn from loose general principle, to more specific general rule, to more precise rules of science.

And without the binding narrative it appears to be very difficult to bind general literary rules and precise rules of science into a portfolio of decisions across the entire possible spectrum in which we must make decisions in modernity.

I have been struggling with this problem for two years now and while I have my ups and downs, the problem remains the same: without an effort equal to the council of nicea, or the first american constitutional convention, or a frankfurt school, it will be difficult to produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization – a ‘book’ that beyond which no man nor state may tread.  It is necessary to restore teaching, advising, and leadership, and community.

But also as a means of defense against the semitic technologies of deception that arose from the innovation of abrahamic deceit. And a ritual that is costly so that men defend the law in that book against all attacks.

Religion

Why Our Religion Fails

LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING
(why our religion fails)

It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language.

Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent.

They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar.

So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend.

So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words.

The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort.

And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand.

Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic.

Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do.

We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.

Religion · Uncategorized

Why Does The Church Fail Europeans?

THE CHURCH FAILED AND CONTINUES TO FAIL

How can you advocate christianity as a market good (something that people want to believe), when it so clearly is failing to compete in the market?

What do socialism and cultural marxism, and postmodernism sell that people prefer to buy over christianity?

What does islam sell that people prefer to buy over socialism, cultural marxism postmodernism – as well as christianity?

Religion

Why Do We Need Religion: Alone-ness, and therefore Mindfulness

WHY DO WE NEED RELIGION: ALONENESS: MINDFULNESS.
As far as I know, aloneness, or what marx called disenfranchisement, or what I call distance from the pack, is where religion fills the hole in us.

that’s level one: eliminating aloneness thru mindfulness.
level two is a common mythos (strategy).
level three is festival, holiday, ritual. (equality) reinforcing strategy.
level four is norm and law. (limits.)
We need these things.
But of them the one thing that defeats aloneness is what we loosely categorize as religion, but is better described as mindfulness.

Mindfulness is necessary because of consciousness.

Religion · Uncategorized

Why Cant We Speak Religion In The Language of Truth?

If you cannot speak in the language of truth how do we know you do not lie, and how do we know you are capable of making a truth claim?

To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives.

So we see the simple truth: that simpletons talk in Children’s stories, semi-simpletons in rational excuses, those that argue using wisdom stated historical references, and those that have obtained that wisdom in the laws of nature that cause that history to occur without our comprehension of it at the time.

To be christian is to be european, is to follow the law of nature and natural law, in correspondence with reality.

To argue in Christan verse is to argue in children’s stories. To argue in rationalism is to argue in excuses. To argue in law and history is to argue basted on the evidence of our actions. To argue in science is to argue in the laws of nature, and in natural law, drawn from that evidence, corresponding to that history, in spite of excuses, and children’s stories.

A MAN DOES NOT DEBAT A CHILD, HE RULES CHILDREN FOR THEY ARE NOT READY – THEY LACK AGENCY
Have we not transcended? Are we still ignorant, illiterate, poor, lacking knonwledge, technology and institutions? Do we still require morality by children’s story, rather than by literature, history, law, science, and mathematics?

Are we admitting we are children and that we are not able to speak and think in the language that the gods have written the universe with?

if you speak the truth then why must you lie?
The judeo christian of the church constitutes a framing: a lie.

Why must you have that lie? Can’t you look at history as a greater story than the children’s story of the myths and superstitions? the chidren’s stories for the dim, the ignorant, and the impoverished?

Why aren’t your own histories superior to those? They are.
I can speak the words of natural law in the words of jesus(myths), of augustine(wisdom), of plato(ideals), and of aristotle(description). WE can obtain meaning from myth, wisdom and ideals, But I will only argue them in the language of truth: Aristotle.

To deny Natural Law is to destroy mankind. Islam and Judaism deny natural law.
Natural Law of the West > Laws of Men, Sharia of Islam, Talmud of Jews.

Natural Law results in man’s transcendence into gods. Abrahamism, Paul, and Muhammed results in landlessness and parasitism (jews) or mindlessness and parasitism (islam). The god of Abraham is the devil.

in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement.

A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure.

What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital.

What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?

Religion

The Content of Religion – and the Failure of the Church

Apr 13, 2017 1:53pm
THE CONTENT OF RELIGION, AND THE FAILURE OF THE CHURCH

Why did the church fail to reform?
– anti-intellectualism.
– 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?

The answer:
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.

My response:
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.