Christianity

[attofishpi]

I believe Christ was on to something profound. Though, I do feel resentment at times that God apparently created such a world where we have struggle with so many things, such as to love one another. (Assuming there is a God.)

I can't help thinking that if there is a god, it really can't be as described in any holy book I'm aware of, and certainly not the Old Testament. To demand that you are feared and loved doesn't strike me as the basis for a healthy relationship.

...like I have said to my Dad when he realised how 'troublesome' he was to me...I said:- "Compared to God, you were like Mary Poppins."

That's the truth about God - I fear God more than I ever did my own father, and my father made me fear.

[henry quirk]

True. Christianity has always been about compulsion and conformity

True, but also untrue. Christianity has also a unique feature of presenting an example of taking an absolute and principled stand against reigning authority and convention. That is one of its essences. The Christian as opponent of conventions and conformity snd one who stands up for a new order of being.

Yep. That is what draws me to the Christian anarchists and that is one on the reasons I...

defend the god-believers.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I got fed up waiting for you to explain so I looked it up. It is as I suspected:
""Legacy media" is politi-speak that political conservatives use to identify long-standing ("mature") media outlets (such as the TV news networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc., and the major print news services - New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times., etc.) Typically, these ostensibly "left-wing" news outlets are critical of conservative political agendas."

Legacy Media is a descriptive term that is employed not only by Right leaning sources because the concept originated on the Left: a critique of corporate media systems. See for example Chomsky, Herman:

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to explain how propaganda and systemic biases function in corporate mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, and political policies, both foreign and domestic, is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda. The theory posits that the way in which corporate media is structured (e.g. through advertising, concentration of media ownership or government sourcing) creates an inherent conflict of interest and therefore acts as propaganda for anti-democratic elements.

In ultra-strange flip-flops and reversals — my main reference is Tucker Carlson — the Right-leaning media has allowed an extremely unusual political critique to be presented. See for example Carlson’s exposé on Paul Singer and the destruction of rural America.

Simultaneously, the traditional “Left” media has been noticed to take up positions in defense of ensconced institutions that it traditionally had intensely critiqued.

One must also note among the traditional Right, the dissident Right and the radical Right a stance in opposition to American war-making adventures — at least in principle. Notably in opposing the “party line” in respect to Ukraine.

The open and festering divisions within American culture, politics and economy produce strange reversals and ideological conflicts.

(Had you any level of genuine interest you’d know something of this of course. I doubt you do though.)

[Belinda]

True. Christianity has always been about compulsion and conformity

True, but also untrue. Christianity has also a unique feature of presenting an example of taking an absolute and principled stand against reigning authority and convention. That is one of its essences. The Christian as opponent of conventions and conformity snd one who stands up for a new order of being.

Yep. That is what draws me to the Christian anarchists and that is one on the reasons I...

defend the god-believers.

Me too! The Christ as a moving icon is one of the reasons I like Christianity more than Islam. However there is little point in rejecting an old regime unless you have a comprehensible alternative.

[Sculptor]

Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.

True. Christianity has always been about compulsion and conformity

To what? Comprehending that there are reasons to second think your actions?

Is good oui?

Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.

It has always been exactly that. THough these codes were never that simple, but were confused and contradictory.

How confusing is this, the simplest code:- Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

Except that priests and presumably god wished for sinners to receive eternal damnation. Except that witches were burned; that unbelievers were put to the sword, and the infidel, savage and pagan were invaded conquered and subdued.

Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.

Except that the church hierarchy are doing all the informing, and the plebs have been doing all the obeying.

It would appear that way in any 'heirarchical' system.

No only in bad ones

Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.

And it has been these compulsions, and confusions that have made Christianity decline into a minority religion in the UK.

Actually, on a re-read you are probably right. Especially where evangelist fundamental bigotry is reflected via idiotic interpretations of "Christianity"..

Britain truly has benefitted socially through time as a landmass where the moral tenets of Christianity sweeped its shores and overwashed its lands...it has served its purpose, making (most) people second think their actions - (call that ethics if u must).

[Sculptor]

True. Christianity has always been about compulsion and conformity

True, but also untrue. Christianity has also a unique feature of presenting an example of taking an absolute and principled stand against reigning authority and convention. That is one of its essences. The Christian as opponent of conventions and conformity snd one who stands up for a new order of being.

Delusion.
Christianity only opposes conformity to impose its own.

[Sculptor]

Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.

True. Christianity has always been about compulsion and conformity

Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.

It has always been exactly that. THough these codes were never that simple, but were confused and contradictory.

Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.

Except that the church hierarchy are doing all the informing, and the plebs have been doing all the obeying.

Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.

And it has been these compulsions, and confusions that have made Christianity decline into a minority religion in the UK.

To continue Sculptor's theme I'd say most people are not religious in the UK because education levels are higher, and curriculums are better structured than they were formerly especially among younger people. Improved education helps people to think for themselves and not accept sermons from ministers of religion. Educated parents tend to rear educated offspring.

True. Atheism scores higher in more educated people.

[Alexis Jacobi]

True. Christianity has always been about compulsion and conformity

True, but also untrue. Christianity has also a unique feature of presenting an example of taking an absolute and principled stand against reigning authority and convention. That is one of its essences. The Christian as opponent of conventions and conformity snd one who stands up for a new order of being.

Yep. That is what draws me to the Christian anarchists and that is one of the reasons I...

defend the god-believers.

I am down with you on that one in a host of ways. An-archy (as you know) means no ruler, no authority. My view is we have to define authority anew.

An anarchist, and anarchy, when successful, would present a new rule effectively.

We are in a process of total breakdown of agreements. So “bickering” replaces clear-headed work in the arena of (re-)defining values.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To grasp, fairly, what is going on culturally and politically requires a far more nuanced and careful effort to see. Meaning to observe and interpret.

I subscribe to The Intercept (started by Glen Greenwald who later resigned in protest.)

Observe how they present what is occurring in Italy with the election of Giorgia Meloni:

A DAY AFTER Italy’s general election this fall ended in a triumph for the Brothers of Italy, a far-right party with neofascist roots, Paolo Berizzi, a journalist with one of Italy’s largest newspapers, shared some of the messages he was receiving on social media. “Die. Run away. Castor oil,” the messages read — the latter an explicit reference to a form of torture favored by supporters of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. “Hang yourself. … Stop writing. We’re coming for you.”

With Italy slated to get its most extremist government since Mussolini gave fascism its name, the messages were a chilling reminder of just how confident Italy’s far-right exponents had become. For Berizzi, however, they were not new. Nearly 200 Italian journalists have been receiving police protection in recent years, two dozen of them living and working under escort around the clock. But the veteran correspondent with La Repubblica was the first reporter in Italy — and in Europe — to need 24-hour police protection not because of his reporting on organized crime, traditionally the greatest threat to journalists’ safety in Italy, but because of his investigations of the country’s emboldening extremist and neofascist groups.

“It’s not a record to be proud of,” Berizzi told The Intercept in a recent interview. “It reflects the climate in Italy around those who cover fascists and neofascists, and who more broadly write about hatred, racism, homophobia, antisemitism. … In Italy, fascists have reached a level of intimidation of journalists that is comparable to the mafia’s.”

“This is a party that’s rooted in the fascist tradition,” he added, referring to the Brothers of Italy. “The entire galaxy of the extreme right feels protected and galvanized now.”

The “Right” they define is, in fact, what was formerly a centrist political and social stance, even one tending to the Left. And some point out that they (the progressive-left) have moved substantially so far Left that it makes centrism look like right-radicalism. They paint it that way in any case.

So when they say…

It reflects the climate in Italy around those who cover fascists and neofascists, and who more broadly write about hatred, racism, homophobia, antisemitism. … In Italy, fascists have reached a level of intimidation of journalists that is comparable to the mafia’s.”

…they are saying that any opposition to their plans & projects is tantamount to hatred, racism, homophobia and antisemitism, but in fact with that type of statement they cut off all possibility of discussing, carefully and rationally, the tenets of a fairly standard centrist position.

A similar model for analysis can be applied to the American scene.

The opposition to the Left-Progressive agenda has a valid basis. And things will move to para-democratic action (as the article describes) when even centrist political and social stances are vilified as they clearly are today.

[Immanuel Can]

But it does not explain at all why the legacy news media have so blatantly reversed themselves.

Is this an example?

I get it. Your point is to try to divert the discussion away from the fact that the legacy media have defeated themselves, and turn this into a personal spat. Sorry...not going there.

If the news as the legacy media is now reporting is the opposite of what they so confidently declared a few months ago, then it is they who have defeated themselves. That's obvious.

Now, you can take that point or leave it. But it's the point. I'll leave it there.

[henry quirk]

there is little point in rejecting an old regime unless you have a comprehensible alternative.

In context: the Christian anarchists offered, offer, that alternatve. It's a hard road to walk, though.

-----

Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

Except that priests and presumably god wished for sinners to receive eternal damnation. Except that witches were burned; that unbelievers were put to the sword, and the infidel, savage and pagan were invaded conquered and subdued

Christianity only opposes conformity to impose its own.

Institutional Christianity (no kind of Christianity at all) did this, does this, yes.

-----

My view is we have to define authority anew.

Of course not. What each of us must do is determine the justness of an authority.

An anarchist, and anarchy, when successful, would present a new rule effectively.

Nonsensical. Anarchism (or autarchism) becomes sumthin' else in such a presentation.

We are in a process of total breakdown of agreements.

As I've said up-thread, multiple times, these agreements were, are, illusions. They didn't, don't, never will, exist.

So “bickering” replaces clear-headed work in the arena of (re-)defining values.

Same as it ever was.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, you can take that point or leave it. But it's the point. I'll leave it there.

Go relax Immanuel. Read your Bible in peace. Leave it to me to describe what you would have been able to describe if Providence had not come to bear, in the odd way it did and so incontrovertibly, upon you.

I’ll take it from here . . .

[Sculptor]

there is little point in rejecting an old regime unless you have a comprehensible alternative.

In context: the Christian anarchists offered, offer, that alternatve. It's a hard road to walk, though.

-----

Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

Except that priests and presumably god wished for sinners to receive eternal damnation. Except that witches were burned; that unbelievers were put to the sword, and the infidel, savage and pagan were invaded conquered and subdued

Christianity only opposes conformity to impose its own.

Institutional Christianity (no kind of Christianity at all) did this, does this, yes.

Christianity is a series of Institutions.
Just a matter of scale and success.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, you can take that point or leave it. But it's the point. I'll leave it there.

I’ll take it from here . . .

There's nothing to "take." It's very simple: the legacy media has contradicted the legacy media. Neither you nor I need say more. It's just the fact.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's nothing to "take." It's very simple: the legacy media has contradicted the legacy media. Neither you nor I need say more. It's just the fact.

The legacy media has been, from the very start, always in some degree of self-contradiction.

Yellow-journalism now refers to sensational journalism or 'click-bait'. But it emerged (I suppose principally) when the *powers-that-be* were advocating for the Spanish-American War. That war (involving Cuba and The Philippines) involved one of America's most notable forays into *neo-imperialism* which, by definition, opposes and contradicts America's foundational ideals of self-determination, democratic rule, etc.

From Wiki: Hearst (the Hearst newspapers) became a war hawk after a rebellion broke out in Cuba in 1895. Stories of Cuban virtue and Spanish brutality soon dominated his front page. While the accounts were of dubious accuracy, the newspaper readers of the 19th century did not expect, or necessarily want, his stories to be pure nonfiction. Historian Michael Robertson has said that "Newspaper reporters and readers of the 1890s were much less concerned with distinguishing among fact-based reporting, opinion and literature."

Note that Mark Twain was a strong opponent of these adventures, and indeed they marked a decisive shift in foreign policy that never has abated. Twain wrote in New York Herald, October 15, 1900:

I left these shores, at Vancouver, a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific. It seemed tiresome and tame for it to content itself with he Rockies. Why not spread its wings over the Phillippines, I asked myself? And I thought it would be a real good thing to do

I said to myself, here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which had addressed ourselves.

But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Phillippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. . .

It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.

And in a February 1901 article titled, "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," he wrote:

There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land. . .

True, we have crushed a deceived and confiding people; we have turned against the weak and the friendless who trusted us; we have stamped out a just and intelligent and well-ordered republic; we have stabbed an ally in the back and slapped the face of a guest; we have bought a Shadow from an enemy that hadn't it to sell; we have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit's work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world. . .

And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one--our States do it: we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones.

There is no way, at this point, for "Legacy Media" (media systems generally) to become non-partisan since they are owned by the same structures that comprise the System itself. Possibly the only media that could *tell the truth* would be non-aligned media. A mere drop in the bucket of what is communicated through conventional channels.

Here, it is nicely explained in this clip.