Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

There are no morals in evolution. It's just a biological mechanism. It doesn't "care" about kindness, and isn't even capable of doing so.

There are no morals in natural selection; in selective breeding, there are. If I were given the option, I would prefer selective breeding for intelligence rather than the lack thereof. I don't hate the disabled. It's just that, given the option between becoming disabled or not, I would choose not to become disabled. Now I'm going politically incorrect.

What you're describing is "eugenics": the selective breeding, and preventing of breeding, of pools of human beings in order to "prefer" some genetic strains over others. It has not been fashionable to advocate that since the days of the little man with the toothbrush moustache who loved eugenics so much...and I'm not meaning Charlie Chaplin.

I'm not an evolutionist, especially about human beings. But if I were, then eugenics would be a logical implication. If breeding "the best" caused the human race to arrive where it is now, as Darwin thought, then that would argue that more selective breeding would be good for the race. Of course, it would be devastatingly bad for all the "less fit" of the human race, but in a Darwinian paradigm, there would be no reason to care about that, since there would be no moral absolutes to back the value of particular human lives anyway.

I'm sure that's not a world any of us, particularly anybody with a conscience, really wants to live in, though. And ultimately, there are really no winners in the game of racing to oblivion.

[Lacewing]

I think it's because there are countless agendas going on all the time. One has to chart their own agenda within the framework of other more powerful agendas. And in the case of institutions that seek to control, one has to think for themselves and see the larger agendas at work. One has to be smarter than the agendas of limited humans, regardless of the positions any of those humans are in.

It's not that people are being intentionally evil... they're just focused on their agenda... and all else may fall to the wayside. It is very narrow thinking.

Within anything, I think, there are limitations and opportunities. The trick is in seeing/utilizing it for what it is... NOT getting lost in fantasy... NOT following a herd blindly... RATHER, continually seeing what ELSE there is.

That is interesting. The truly intelligent one would not necessarily be degraded by the institution. In fact, they might have to act more intelligently in a dumb organization to compensate for its shortcomings.

Yes!

Of course that might strain the faculty of deception past its limitations. It would be a better ruse just to avoid any institutions that are against the ideal, leaving the deception for those rare instances that are unavoidable. It's very hard to keep up appearances indefinitely.

Being intelligent in a limited situation is not really deception. If people/organizations are too narrowly focused to see more, it is good to demonstrate what else there is accessible/possible from within that system. If that's not possible or worthwhile, then (yes) move on. Perhaps there will be other people/methods that can evolve those things.

I see life as an ongoing dance of living within systems and with agendas, while discovering what can be realized/attained further DESPITE them. Wrestling all the time with them would be depleting. I decide what to accept peacefully (some things are just part of a structure/phase), and determine what to work outside of and beyond. There are no single answers/positions that apply to everything -- it is a shifting, dynamic landscape, so it's best navigated, utilized, and enjoyed with flexible and dynamic methods. People who stand rigidly/blindly on platforms and swallow/spread the intoxication of those platforms are just more of the limitation to be worked around. Hopefully at some point they will notice that there is much more.

[Systematic]

Within anything, I think, there are limitations and opportunities. The trick is in seeing/utilizing it for what it is... NOT getting lost in fantasy... NOT following a herd blindly... RATHER, continually seeing what ELSE there is.

That is interesting. The truly intelligent one would not necessarily be degraded by the institution. In fact, they might have to act more intelligently in a dumb organization to compensate for its shortcomings.

Yes!

So, Lacewing, I'm curious now.

Do you have any underground books that explain some more of what you are talking about?

I tried to write down a book with similar concept, at least in parts of the book, but I haven't quite edited it.
The book that I wrote is more about thinking than overcoming, but it's in there somewhat. It's hard to read though: not well edited.

Also, I'm curious as to whether you are English or American or what ethnic background you are?
Just a curiosity though. You don't have to comply, obviously.

[Systematic]

There are no morals in natural selection; in selective breeding, there are. If I were given the option, I would prefer selective breeding for intelligence rather than the lack thereof. I don't hate the disabled. It's just that, given the option between becoming disabled or not, I would choose not to become disabled. Now I'm going politically incorrect.

What you're describing is "eugenics": the selective breeding, and preventing of breeding, of pools of human beings in order to "prefer" some genetic strains over others. It has not been fashionable to advocate that since the days of the little man with the toothbrush moustache who loved eugenics so much...and I'm not meaning Charlie Chaplin.

Scheiße! Live and let live, I guess. Or, perhaps, here I will hit the mark: We should encourage breeding of the intelligent and rich education, and the rest of humanity may do whatever they please.

[Immanuel Can]

Scheiße! Live and let live, I guess. Or, perhaps, here I will hit the mark: We should encourage breeding of the intelligent and rich education, and the rest of humanity may do whatever they please.

Well, achieving selective breeding requires more, of course. It requires not just the allowing of the desired to breed, but the suppression and eventual elimination of the breeding of the "bad stock." That is, if the goal is the achievement of a "better strain" of humanity in general, rather than, say, the mere temporary advantage of one or two.

And this was always the excuse for eugenics policies. They were "for the good of the human race," which could seem to excuse any action necessary to bring it about...

[Lacewing]

Within anything, I think, there are limitations and opportunities. The trick is in seeing/utilizing it for what it is... NOT getting lost in fantasy... NOT following a herd blindly... RATHER, continually seeing what ELSE there is.

That is interesting. The truly intelligent one would not necessarily be degraded by the institution. In fact, they might have to act more intelligently in a dumb organization to compensate for its shortcomings.

Yes!

So, Lacewing, I'm curious now.

Do you have any underground books that explain some more of what you are talking about?

No, I do not. I've tried to write a few times in the past, but my realizations kept shifting and broadening... and I could not pin anything down long enough to write about it. Writing (and playing) in this forum has helped me to explore and describe some ideas -- but there is always MORE, and I do not want to limit anything to a certain story. I'm more interested in noticing/describing within a flowing landscape rather than believing in some rigidity that I can claim to be "right" about.

I tried to write down a book with similar concept, at least in parts of the book, but I haven't quite edited it.
The book that I wrote is more about thinking than overcoming, but it's in there somewhat. It's hard to read though: not well edited.

Congratulations on your efforts!

Also, I'm curious as to whether you are English or American or what ethnic background you are?
Just a curiosity though. You don't have to comply, obviously.

I am a white American female who does not believe in gods... but since I do not like such classifications/labels/flag-waving, etc., I prefer to be known as an authentic spirit experiencing Earth. And I try to do it living as much in the moment as possible.

[attofishpi]

I have an underground book - well I will have, once I find my spade.

[attofishpi]

It's not that people are being intentionally evil... they're just focused on their agenda... and all else may fall to the wayside. It is very narrow thinking.

Within anything, I think, there are limitations and opportunities. The trick is in seeing/utilizing it for what it is... NOT getting lost in fantasy... NOT following a herd blindly... RATHER, continually seeing what ELSE there is.

Do tell, since I as you state, I am a mere fantasist - wot have thee found oh thy great open mind of gaseous wisdom Lacewing? PRAY do tell!!

[Lacewing]

It's not that people are being intentionally evil... they're just focused on their agenda... and all else may fall to the wayside. It is very narrow thinking.

Within anything, I think, there are limitations and opportunities. The trick is in seeing/utilizing it for what it is... NOT getting lost in fantasy... NOT following a herd blindly... RATHER, continually seeing what ELSE there is.

Do tell, since I as you state, I am a mere fantasist - wot have thee found oh thy great open mind of gaseous wisdom Lacewing? PRAY do tell!!

Well, I have noted that you are often an intoxicated asshole, but I don't ever doubt that there's more than that to you -- and maybe someday we'll have some interesting discussions if you ever climb out of the self-indulgent sandbox of your ego.

[Nick_A]

Be kind one to another. Forgiving one another.

Be kind to your neighbor as yourself.

Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife while he is away.

Give to him who asks of you. And let him borrow from you who would.

Hopefully, I can get agreement that Christianity is kindness.

But kindness cannot be achieved by stupid people. Ergo I propose a new wine skin. Remain in intellectual kindness.

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

Did the Jews coerce everyone into kindness. Most likely yes. But do you really want to go back into constantly having to be paranoid of everyone?

Was Jesus proposing intellectualism? Not in the least. But I am honoring the old value of kindness in the very act of allowing the intellect. It is very unkind to make someone stupid.

We don't need transvaluation of values from kindness unto cruelty. We just need to be wise about our kindness. Instead of rebellion from the old way, there can be addition to it.

Matthew 16

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” 24Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.…

Peter was just trying to be kind and protect Jesus from danger. Why was his act of kindness and consideration harshly rejected?

[attofishpi]

It's not that people are being intentionally evil... they're just focused on their agenda... and all else may fall to the wayside. It is very narrow thinking.

Within anything, I think, there are limitations and opportunities. The trick is in seeing/utilizing it for what it is... NOT getting lost in fantasy... NOT following a herd blindly... RATHER, continually seeing what ELSE there is.

Do tell, since I as you state, I am a mere fantasist - wot have thee found oh thy great open mind of gaseous wisdom Lacewing? PRAY do tell!!

Well, I have noted that you are often an intoxicated asshole, but I don't ever doubt that there's more than that to you -- and maybe someday we'll have some interesting discussions if you ever climb out of the self-indulgent sandbox of your ego.

Yeah, maybe.
You could make an effort NOT to keep addressing what I state as my know_ledge of God as a fantasy.
If I was making stuff up, I would under_stand, but I am not.
If there is something I am not sure about, I state it so.
If there is something I have certainty about (from 23yrs of experience of God and a sage)...I WILL STATE IT SO.

[attofishpi]

Be kind one to another. Forgiving one another.

Be kind to your neighbor as yourself.

Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife while he is away.

Give to him who asks of you. And let him borrow from you who would.

Hopefully, I can get agreement that Christianity is kindness.

But kindness cannot be achieved by stupid people. Ergo I propose a new wine skin. Remain in intellectual kindness.

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

Did the Jews coerce everyone into kindness. Most likely yes. But do you really want to go back into constantly having to be paranoid of everyone?

Was Jesus proposing intellectualism? Not in the least. But I am honoring the old value of kindness in the very act of allowing the intellect. It is very unkind to make someone stupid.

We don't need transvaluation of values from kindness unto cruelty. We just need to be wise about our kindness. Instead of rebellion from the old way, there can be addition to it.

Matthew 16

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” 24Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.…

Peter was just trying to be kind and protect Jesus from danger. Why was his act of kindness and consideration harshly rejected?

Mate, it is blindingly obvious.

Christ has NOTHING to fear - fear of 'danger' are 'THE THINGS OF MEN'.
Secondly - He is about to command his leadership, Christ does not fuck about with short sighted men, He is impelling His authority and insisting that thing - FAITH in Him.

[Lacewing]

You could make an effort NOT to keep addressing what I state as my know_ledge of God as a fantasy.
If I was making stuff up, I would under_stand, but I am not.
If there is something I am not sure about, I state it so.
If there is something I have certainty about (from 23yrs of experience of God and a sage)...I WILL STATE IT SO.

Maybe for you that is real. But for you to apply that to me (or anyone else) IS a fantasy. Maybe you could make an effort to stop projecting what you feel that you "know" as some kind of reality/truth for everyone. It is not. Many of us have had 23 years of profound experience informing us. Truth is broader than just one person's experience. Additionally, you're not even consistent in what you say. In one post you'll talk about your god or your sage... and in another post (probably when you're drunk) you say vulgar things to women. How does that demonstrate any credibility or clarity at all?

Doesn't it seem reasonable, given all that we can see throughout humankind, that people can operate on different channels/frequencies? And one person's truth is a fantasy to another person. Do you show respect for my views? No, you don't. Why would you expect to be treated any differently?

[attofishpi]

You could make an effort NOT to keep addressing what I state as my know_ledge of God as a fantasy.
If I was making stuff up, I would under_stand, but I am not.
If there is something I am not sure about, I state it so.
If there is something I have certainty about (from 23yrs of experience of God and a sage)...I WILL STATE IT SO.

Maybe for you that is real. But for you to apply that to me (or anyone else) IS a fantasy. Maybe you could make an effort to stop projecting what you feel that you "know" as some kind of reality/truth for everyone. It is not. Many of us have had 23 years of profound experience informing us. Truth is broader than just one person's experience. Additionally, you're not even consistent in what you say. In one post you'll talk about your god or your sage... and in another post (probably when you're drunk) you say vulgar things to women. How does that demonstrate any credibility or clarity at all?

Doesn't it seem reasonable, given all that we can see throughout humankind, that people can operate on different channels/frequencies? And one person's truth is a fantasy to another person. Do you show respect for my views? No, you don't. Why would you expect to be treated any differently?

I don't state anything vulgar to 'women' on this forum - to you perhaps at times when you fail to address points I make in a succinct logical rational approach - opting to just dismiss what I state as 'fantasy'..
You are the ONLY person on this forum that calls what I state a fantasy, probably because you are too intellectually deficient to actually address the points I make. If experiencing HELL is a fantasy, fuck nose what a 'nightmare' would entail.

[gaffo]

To paraphrase Voltaire: If the English had one religion, they would have dogmatism. If the English had two religions, there would be war. But since the English have a plethora of religions, there is peace.

The English have had at least 4 civil wars, one via inheritied kingship - steven vs empress maud, the others were in effect over the tribes of Christianity. Catholic vs Church of England (not prot in reality, but just Catholic centered on London rather than Rome (hist revised as Protestant in today's history books)