Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Dontaskme]

Did we evolve from apes? Most likely yes. But that's no excuse to be cruel in default.

We did not evolve from apes we are an ape, one of the Great Apes, we are Primates.

Primates with nukes.

The human primates brain got too big...equals a more complex awareness, and a much broader scope for creative potential.

And that's what happens when big gets too big, it goes POP!!

[Systematic]

I must have omitted to comment on that important point made by Immanuel Can. I agree Jesus was no simplistic legalist, and when he aimed to be a faithful Jew he aimed to support the transethnic ability of the Jewish God. He succeeded in this, and so did Paul.Forgive the anachronistic words.

I know almost nothing about contemporary Judaism.

I don't think he was trying to be a bridge for Judaism to other religions. I think that he was trying to remove or replace Roman influence in Israel. But he died before he could effect that.

Also, he might have thought that he was the bringer of the Apocalypse and of Utopia. But he died before he could effect that.

I think that starting a religion was not his intention. More of a kingdom of his own.

[Systematic]

We did not evolve from apes we are an ape, one of the Great Apes, we are Primates.

Primates with nukes.

The human primates brain got too big...equals a more complex awareness, and a much broader scope for creative potential.

And that's what happens when big gets too big, it goes POP!!

I think that the solution is more intelligence--not less.

[Dontaskme]

Primates with nukes.

The human primates brain got too big...equals a more complex awareness, and a much broader scope for creative potential.

And that's what happens when big gets too big, it goes POP!!

I think that the solution is more intelligence--not less.

Intelligence is dangerous in the wrong hands.

[Systematic]

I think that the solution is more intelligence--not less.

Intelligence is dangerous in the wrong hands.

So a better solution would be what? Let the power, technology, science, etc. stretch beyond the bounds of our intellect?

[Dontaskme]

I think that the solution is more intelligence--not less.

Intelligence is dangerous in the wrong hands.

So a better solution would be what? Let the power, technology, science, etc. stretch beyond the bounds of our intellect?

Anything born of thought, is destructive.

Intention is even more destructive.

In other words, stop giving yourself an intellect, aka a mind.



.

[Immanuel Can]

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

Blank cynicism leads to credulity. When one doesn't know what truth is, one can't detect falsehood when it takes hold of one.

I know Atheists who believe fervently in astrology. I know others who believe in all kinds of superstitions, from aliens to extropianism. Some don't even know the difference between male and female anymore. In such cases, credulity is apparently increased by the existential vacuum in which they live.

[Immanuel Can]

What is held to be right or wrong are manmade criteria .

That's flawed thinking.

What "is held to be" right or wrong only speaks of the fallible opinions of men. What "IS right or wrong" speaks of whether or not their opinion is correct. Those are different issues.

The function of right and wrong is and always was for social solidarity

No, that's not the case. Social solidarity is, at most, a byproduct of agreement about right and wrong. But right and wrong do not depend on social consensus. If they did, then when women were not allowed to vote, that was right. Their society agreed they couldn't handle it, would vote badly, would be subject to being propagandized, were too emotional, and were in any case, not the intellectual equals of men in political matters.

Do you agree? That had social solidarity. A majority believed it, and only a small minority though otherwise. Does that mean it was right?

As I said, I need to think more about witch burners, and Nazis, not to mention ISIS.

Yes, that's also a very relevant case. Good thinking.

These are departures sometimes criminal strayings from the larger culture. The larger trend of human cultures and moralities has been and is I sincerely hope towards universality and universalism, and away from tribalism.

Well, I would wish so too; but ISIS is a particularly good case. And since you bring it up, let's think that one through together.

Nobody ever says that Radical Islam does not produce "social solidarity." It sure does that...by brutal force, where it's convenient to do so. But we would not say that because Radical Islam condones forced child marriages and revenge rapes, that they are right to do those things, would we?

But if forced child marriages and revenge rapes are wrong, it will only be established if we have a code that is bigger, more authoritative and more definitive of good and evil than ISIS Islam's code. So to what code or principle shall we refer in order to establish that forced child marriages and revenge rapes are really, truly, universally, and always wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

But Jesus was no anarchist. He wanted the power for himself.

And yet, he insisted, "My kingdom is not of this world," and when the Jewish people tried to take him and make him a king by force, he evaded their hands. Even when his disciples implored him, "Lord, is it now you're establishing the kingdom," he refused to do so.

He never led, participated in or condoned, a rebellion. He had no militants. He encouraged his fellow Jews to accept the present fact of Roman authority, by paying taxes to Caesar. He did not collect armaments, train fighters, conquer territories, issue propaganda papers, or do anything else that might have helped him come to earthly power. Instead, he preached pacifism, loving enemies, turning the other cheek, and dying for the guilty.

So if Jesus Christ wanted mere power, then he did just about everything opposite to getting it.

[Lacewing]

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

Blank cynicism leads to credulity.

So, when you don't believe in something, that's blank cynicism?

When one doesn't know what truth is, one can't detect falsehood when it takes hold of one.

You speak of truth, yet you are so dishonest in the blanket claims you make. Answer the bolded question I've posed to you above... HONESTLY. I'm sure there are many things you don't believe in. But you would not characterize your own beliefs/disbeliefs in the ways you characterize those of others. Rather, you skew things dishonestly against others...and it's really quite despicable. You do not hold yourself to the same standards that you repeatedly insist others are deficient in.

I know Atheists who believe fervently in astrology. I know others who believe in all kinds of superstitions, from aliens to extropianism. Some don't even know the difference between male and female anymore. In such cases, credulity is apparently increased by the existential vacuum in which they live.

Of course there are many variations of what people find value in and meaning from... even among theists. Your blanket claim at the top of this post is nonsense, and I pointed out why. You seem to like to bash non theists even if it requires you to be dishonest in doing so. What does that say about you?

[Arising_uk]

Did we evolve from apes? Most likely yes. But that's no excuse to be cruel in default.

We did not evolve from apes we are an ape, one of the Great Apes, we are Primates.

Primates with nukes.

Apparently so.

[Immanuel Can]

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

Blank cynicism leads to credulity.

So, when you don't believe in something, that's blank cynicism?

No. Blank cynicism is when one refuses to imagine he believes in any basic ontological axioms at all. He thinks he's living with no believes qua beliefs. He does, of course, tacitly have beliefs, since he cannot make a single decision without believing in something; he's just obdurately ignorant of what those axioms might be. And that lack of self-awareness also makes him credulous.

[Lacewing]

Blank cynicism leads to credulity.

So, when you don't believe in something, that's blank cynicism?

No. Blank cynicism is when one refuses to imagine he believes in any basic ontological axioms at all. He thinks he's living with no believes qua beliefs. He does, of course, tacitly have beliefs, since he cannot make a single decision without believing in something; he's just obdurately ignorant of what those axioms might be. And that lack of self-awareness also makes him credulous.

So after you claimed that people who stop believing in god, believe anything...
and I pointed out that was nonsense...
then you point out how various non-theists believe various things, as if that somehow supports what you said...
then you jump to some claim about blank cynicism, as if that somehow supports what you initially said...
yet, no matter how much nonsense you add-on, your initial statement is still nonsense.

You can actually see that, right?

[Systematic]

But Jesus was no anarchist. He wanted the power for himself.

And yet, he insisted, "My kingdom is not of this world," and when the Jewish people tried to take him and make him a king by force, he evaded their hands. Even when his disciples implored him, "Lord, is it now you're establishing the kingdom," he refused to do so.

He never led, participated in or condoned, a rebellion. He had no militants. He encouraged his fellow Jews to accept the present fact of Roman authority, by paying taxes to Caesar. He did not collect armaments, train fighters, conquer territories, issue propaganda papers, or do anything else that might have helped him come to earthly power. Instead, he preached pacifism, loving enemies, turning the other cheek, and dying for the guilty.

So if Jesus Christ wanted mere power, then he did just about everything opposite to getting it.

So the gospels that were likely written long after he died and the religion had been established,
cannot be interpreted any other way than as written?
It is foolish to think that Jesus wanted an Earthly kingdom, because the Bible said so?
I'm just trying to think outside the box here.
You don't have to believe me when I'm trying out different theories.

[Systematic]

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

That's brilliant.

Edit: Hello, my name is Josh, and I'm a Christaholic.
Hi Josh!
It's been 4 years, 3 months and 5 days since I believed in something ridiculous.