Re: Christianity as natural religion

Must Christianity be a revealed religion?

When I became a Christian, I accepted that there were natural and revealed religions: and Christianity was a revealed religion. It was an ‘historical’ religion; which made claims about human history and ‘therefore’ (it was said) some history must be taught, learned and accepted.

A natural religion like the animism of hunter gatherers was the natural and spontaneous spirituality, and paganism was an elaboration and formalisation of this spontaneous animism (totemic religions being a half-way house). Hinduism was perhaps the highest development of this spontaneous paganism – yes, it is full of culturally specific detail, but something like the polytheism of Hinduism would form in all civilizations (eg Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome), by culturally inflected spontaneous developments…

Zodiacism, for example, is a hypothetical natural religion which, I’ve claimed, follows when a critical mass of people in a population are Luciferians (which I claim is also a natural religion via the emergent biomoralism of pathological narcissism).

[…]

In other words, the idea was that we could Not work-out Christianity for ourselves, from our spontaneous inner feelings and reactions, and natural ways of thinking about the human condition and the world in general. We needed to be told about Christianity; or brought-up in it.

The idea was that – if a bunch of young children were raised from infancy to adulthood, on an island, cut off from the world, they would Not become Christians. This was the rational basis for Christian missionary work.

But there is another way of regarding Christianity as a natural religion. I sometimes think of this as a ‘cosmic’ view of the work of Christ: that what Jesus did was to change the cosmos.

[…]

Is this true? I believe it is true; and I hope it is true!

Because if it is Not true, then Christianity is on its way-out; because the records and teaching of revelation, and the ways that people are interpreting it, are by now deeply tainted and corrupted.

Revealed Christianity nowadays points away-from Christ and towards the totalitarian System of this world. Revealed Christianity has it that Christianity must be changed and fitted into the mainstream, dominant, global ideology.

The question to ask is whether a loving God (our Father, the creator) would allow a situation to exist. Would such a God allow a situation in which his children – who wished to find it – were unable to discover and discern the truth; because the history was lies, the priests and pastors were political ideologues, the rituals were degraded, and everybody was trained to interpret the world through the lens of politics?

I do not accept such an understanding.

-Bruce Charlton

Setting aside the fact that this flagrantly contradicts his eschatology, I wonder if Charlton has considered the intellectual consequences of getting this wrong. If, contra Mere Christianity, the Christian worldview is supremely intuitive, then there’s nothing to be gained by believing either way. In that case the heart will have its way, sort of like a solipsistic Calvinism.

But if traditional theology is right, and the ataviste is wrong, and furthermore we’re entering an age when children are being misled and statistically do not think or read independently (see Twenge), then this would be a cope which precludes and excuses Christian intellectuals from working on the most pressing intellectual question of our time. We might also wonder why the enemy is expending so much effort. He certainly appears to believe it’s important to pervert the understanding of children.

That would be almost as bad as getting Pascale’s wager wrong, and you’ll please note this dichotomy has the same logical form.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Re: Christianity as natural religion

  1. Obadiah says:

    Yeah that also seemed wrong to me. Even if a human is perfectly virtuous, if you take Christianity literally then said perfectly virtuous person still needs Jesus who is extrinsic in origin. If you take Christianity seriously/literally, it is inherently and obviously non-naturalistic. Our hypothetical perfectly-virtuous individual may be more naturally predisposed toward becoming a Christian upon hearing the Gospel story than a dysgenic/wicked person but will still ultimately need to receive the Gospel from without.

    “Because if it is Not true, then Christianity is on its way-out; because the records and teaching of revelation, and the ways that people are interpreting it, are by now deeply tainted and corrupted.”

    ^I believe that’s where we’re supposed to come in, Bruce.

    “Revealed Christianity nowadays points away-from Christ and towards the totalitarian System of this world. Revealed Christianity has it that Christianity must be changed and fitted into the mainstream, dominant, global ideology.”

    ^No it doesn’t and never did; the transmission of the gospel via human mouths offers a potent vector for corruption but the gospel itself is a past-event that has already literally taken place and is therefore inherently incorruptible; Christianity itself is an objective series of historical events that are inherently incorruptible

    “Hinduism was perhaps the highest development of this spontaneous paganism – yes, it is full of culturally specific detail, but something like the polytheism of Hinduism would form in all civilizations (eg Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome), by culturally inflected spontaneous developments…”

    goodboi just tryna turn his life around become a god-king git mo money fo dat zodiacism

    “I sometimes think of this as a ‘cosmic’ view of the work of Christ: that what Jesus did was to change the cosmos.”

    Bruce “Astrology Cultist” Charlton

    • MM says:

      >Christianity itself is an objective series of historical events that are inherently incorruptible
      >incorruptible

      A platonic form! Such a useful thing.

      In practical, meaningful terms you may live to see it corrupted in full, with the christian converting to the new religion he formed around the corruption of an old tenant: the last shall be first.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        You’re being silly. He’s saying the past is fixed and unchanging.

        • MM says:

          Im saying it doesnt matter as it has no utility and is not accessible ; hence the comparison.

          • Obadiah says:

            The fact that it is not accessible is part of what proves my counter-point wrt Charlton’s thinking (inaccessible ~= what I mean by ‘incorruptible’). I can’t quite philosophically ratiocinate exactly why material reality is real and why things that happened in the past are objectively real so we’ll have to rely on my gut for now.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Pain need not justify itself. We are driven to empiricism to justify our experience of it, hoping to avoid it in the future.

            • MM says:

              No, we are driven to anti-empiricism to justify it, as you just displayed.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1110

              “Kegan (1982) was clear that the process of growth can be painful since it involves changing one’s way of functioning in the world. Borrowing from Winnicott (1965), Kegan (1982) introduced the idea of the “holding environment” (p. 116) to assist individuals with these changes. The holding environment has two functions: supporting individuals in their current stage of development and encouraging movement to the next evolutionary truce. Kegan (1994) equated a holding environment to an “evolutionary bridge, a context for crossing over’ (p. 43) from one order of consciousness to the next, more developed order.”

              “Parents must remain steadfast as the child pushes against them to determine where the boundaries are between its self and the environment.”

              “[Challenge them] to take responsibility for themselves and their feelings as they begin to perceive the world realistically and differentiate themselves from others while moving into order 2.”

              “Challenge to develop [to stage 3] involves encouragement to take into consideration the expectations, needs, and desires of others.”

              “…while challenge [to move to stage 4] takes the form of resisting codependence and encouraging individuals to make their own decisions and establish independent lives.”

              “Individuals are encouraged to develop further when significant others refuse to accept relationships that are not intimate and mutually rewarding.”

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Now you prove your assertion.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            The study of history is, in fact, possible. It can be done better or worse, but it can be done.

            Solipsism, on the other hand, is neither good nor adaptive.

            • MM says:

              >The study of history is, in fact, possible. It can be done better or worse, but it can be done.
              >Solipsism, on the other hand, is neither good nor adaptive.

              Your brain is misinterpreting, putting me in a box you can deal with.

              Much the way Boneflour used to call me an sjw or compare me with the New York Times when I criticized Trump.

              Its part of the process of depersonalization of ‘enemy’.

              Suddenly I’m ‘one of those damn people that doesn’t believe in objective history’.

              If this keeps up, I will have you know I have no interest in talking to someone who is incapable of conversing with me as a human being.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              This is kid gloves. Grow up.

            • MM says:

              And there it is.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I’m not dehumanizing you. I’m not even threatening to withdraw love. Do you see that this is an example of how you need to grow up? You aren’t young anymore.

            • MM says:

              >If I insulted you 1/10 of the way you insult me this would be a very different relationship.
              >withdraw ‘love’

              I’ve realized that all that ‘our relationship’ actually is is a mutual zeal for ideas. It is an illusion on any other level.

              In general: where I perceive you to be ossified, lazy, or wrong intellectually, I criticize. I get nastier the more work I put in for the less I get back. You mistake my critiques of ideas as critiques of your Self (which anyone perceives them to be if they are deep seated enough I suppose)

              Reciprocity is a basic human instinct, and you know this. Yet, you are very poor at it.
              I’ve been way too nice by accounting for your aspergers.

              Surely it should now be regarded as a disfavor for someone who says they are going to invent heroism.

              >Do you see that this is an example of how you need to grow up?

              In the back of my mind, I see the truth very well.

              Participating in a childish place like this, writing comments to myself for people who I have nothing in common with, and who will amount to nothing of consequence (sorry, its just true), is a waste of time, and I need to finish writing my last few posts (sunk cost fallacy), break the addiction, leave, and stay away. Whats coming isnt a joke or a Zelda game. Im just weary of all the bullshit and cummies and… I dont know.

              That’s growing up, and it really is gonna be hard to do after 6+ years of tism.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              If removing yourself from my influence will make you a better person then make it happen. If I believed that, I would act on it

              >Reciprocity is a basic human instinct, and you know this.

              If that’s true, then I am not human and Bice is right. Simple as.

  2. MM says:

    >Pain need not justify itself. We are driven to empiricism to justify our experience of it, hoping to avoid it in the future.

    I’ll say three things about this:

    1. Humans will endure great pain on the road to pleasure, even a simple pleasure (in fact , according to behaviorism the shorter the loop is, the stronger the reinforcement).

    As an aside: I had to think of this comment, write it, and was even consciously aware that there was no reward of any kind for its creation. I still wrote it, because of the tiny amount of self satisfaction
    (a small cummie of ‘power’; a small cummie of ‘meaning’) it gives during the creation.

    2. The machinations if the id can cause the conscious mind incredible pain, and yet the person seemingly cannot stop the behavior. The food addict eats long after they are full, the drug addict takes drugs long after they are already high. This is done for the same reason- that these experiences are analogues for things that promoted ‘fitness’ (effective breeding) during our development as a species. The lizard brain will always wrest control over such important matters, and doesnt seem to give a shit if it makes the “rider” miserable if it is for one of its primary motives.

    (The conscious mind can only take the reigns in hard-won spurts, hence the observation: all you can do is to build good habits).

    3. The will-to-meaning is a basic human drive per Viktor Frankl, just as important as Freud’s will to pleasure, and is more than capable of ‘taking the wheels’ as prime motivation. The balance of power between drives can vary greatly by individual nature, but note how many cummies only flow because of belief, because of a structure of accepted meaning that frames them!

    In light of this, it is little wonder people will sacrifice everything for real power and for full-on second worlds that justify their lives.

    Even whilst simultaneously immiserating them.

    PS: Its also no wonder that the will to power is primed to take center stage, as it contains both will to meaning and will to pleasure.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I don’t see any proof here, just more assertions.

      • MM says:

        Sometimes comment are being written before other comments are even seen. I’m debating whether or not its worth it to ‘prove’ anything to you right now, as you are clearly triggered.

        (ie, this comment was good shit, and you give it a sentence? Insulting)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s