rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

I think a religion should not be universal. Whites should have a religion for Whites only, blacks a religion for blacks only etc, like the Jews.

Don't debate me.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Quote: (01-04-2019 03:30 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

I think a religion should not be universal. Whites should have a religion for Whites only, blacks a religion for blacks only etc, like the Jews.

Jews also have different sects and different traditions depending on country and ethnicity - Reform vs. Orthodox vs. Conservative, Ethiopean practices vs. Ashkenazi vs. Mizrachi, Moroccan, Yemenese, American, Israeli, Chabad, Messiahtic, Kabbalist etc.

While they all mostly get along, each of those sects thinks the other is misguided or has perverted the religion, Ashkenazi sometimes do not see Mizrahi "Kosher" certificates as valid, orthodox make it very difficult for converts whereas reform accept anyone and have female/gay rabbis etc.)

Focus on different verses of the bible, separate traditions, different rabbis and customs. Religion is never simple.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Quote: (01-04-2019 04:37 AM)RWIsrael Wrote:  

Focus on different verses of the bible, separate traditions, different rabbis and customs. Religion is never simple.

Religions are like arse-holes. Everybody has one.

I'm including cults like Scientology, Freemasonry, Budhism etc as they're all a deep part of the "Western World" now.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

I've been spending too much time lately on /pol/ and seeing how many people think Christianity is a made up religion to replace pagan beliefs, there's still a couple things I don't understand in that.
First of all, assume it is so, why the huge measures to kill christianity now?
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Depends on how cucked either of them are. Neither “Paganism” or “Christianity” are monoliths, neither fully resemble their original forms in their current incarnations, and both contain under their umbrella many competing and very often adversarial sects.

Further, within even each sect, there are factions that can be every bit as fractious as the sects, with one faction leaning more traditional while the other seeks to appease the wider society as happened, for example, with the Presbyterian Church in the US when the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) broke away from the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) because, unlike the PCUSA, the PCA was unwilling to condone gay marriage and gay clergy in order to appease the wider society which, in the US, is composed mainly of people who are not sincerely religious but simply cobble together their own flimsy mythologies based on whatever is socially popular at the time and whatever most frees them to pursue whatever desire they have.

If the choice is between Russian Orthodoxy and Wicca, which is notoriously overrun by feminists, soy boys, and LGBTetc. types (I experimented with Wicca at one time and attended a Wiccan service while in the Army and can confirm this based on my experience), then I’d say the former. However, if the choice is between Episcapalianism (with its female leadership and Atheist bishops - look up “John Shelby Spong”) and a sect of Rodnovery, Asatru, Heathenry, Candomblé, Shenism, Shinto, Tengrism, or some other organized Pagan religion which does not allow women to hold authority over men and mandates or at least strongly encourages traditional gender roles as they existed prior to the invention of hormonal birth control, then I’d prefer any of the latter to dominate society.

With each year I gain and each new experience I acquire, the more I wonder whether or not universalism is a sane idea. I am working my way through a book now titled God Is Not One by Stephe Prothero and, while he is a male feminist New England academic, he makes a good case for the various religions of the world essentially revolving around different gods and having different goals. All begin from roughly the same point which is their agreement that something is innately lacking or amiss in the world and/or humanity as it exists in its natural and untouched state. From their, they diverge in pursuance of whatever they each hold to be a solution or at least worthy goal given the foundational truth which they all recognize.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

C.S. Lewis describes Christianity pretty well in his essay, The Grand Miracle.

Quote:Quote:

One is very often asked as present whether we could not have a Christianity stripped, or, as people who ask it say, “freed” from its miraculous elements, a Christianity with the miraculous elements suppressed. Now, it seems to me that precisely the one religion in the world, or at least the only one I know, with which you could not do that is Christianity. In a religion like Buddhism, if you took away the miracles attributed to Gautama Buddha in some very late sources, there would be no loss; in fact, the religion would get on very much better without them because in that case the miracles largely contradict the teaching. Or even in the case of a religion like Mohammedanism, nothing essential would be altered if you took away the miracles. You could have a great prophet preaching his dogmas without bringing in any miracles; they are only in the nature of a digression, or illuminated capitals.

But you cannot possibly do that with Christianity, because the Christian story is precisely the story of one grand miracle, the Christian assertion being that what is beyond all space and time, which is uncreated, eternal, came into Nature, into human nature, descended into His own universe, and rose again, bringing Nature up with Him. It is precisely one great miracle. If you take that away there is nothing specifically Christian left. There may be many admirable human things which Christianity shares with all other systems in the world, but there would be nothing specifically Christian.

Conversely, once you have accepted that, then you will see that all well-established Christian miracles are part of it. That they all either prepare for, or exhibit, or result from the Incarnation. Just like every natural event exhibits the total character of the natural universe at a particular point in space of time, so every miracle exhibits the character of the Incarnation.

Now, if one asks whether that central grand miracle in Christianity is itself probable or improbable, of course, quite clearly you cannot be applying Hume’s kind of probability. You cannot mean a probability based on statistics according to which the more often a thing has happened, the more likely it is to happen again (the more often you get indigestion from eating a certain food, the more probable it is, if you eat it again, that you will again have indigestion).

Certainly the Incarnation cannot be probable in that sense. It is of its very nature to have happened only once. But then it is of the very nature of the history of this world to have happened only once; and if the Incarnation happened at all, it is the central chapter of that history. It is improbable in the same way in which the whole of nature is improbable, because it is only there once, and will happen only once. So one must apply to it a quite different kind of standard.

I think we are rather in this position. Supposing you had before you a manuscript of some great work, either a symphony or a novel. There then comes to you a person, saying, “Here is a new bit of the manuscript that I found; it is the central passage of that symphony, or the central chapter of that novel. The text is incomplete without it. I have got the missing passage which is really the center of the whole work.”

The only thing you could do would be to put this new piece of the manuscript in that central position, and then see how it reacted on the whole of the rest of the work. If it constantly brought out new meanings from the whole of the rest of the work, if it made you notice things in the rest of the work which you had not noticed before, then I think you would decide that it was authentic. On the other hand, if it failed to do that, then, however attractive it was in itself, you would reject it.

Now, what is the missing chapter in this case, the chapter which Christians are offering? The story of the Incarnation is the story of a descent and resurrection. When I say “resurrection” here, I am not referring simply to the first few hours, or the first few weeks of the Resurrection. I am talking of this whole, huge pattern of descent, down, down, and then up again. What we ordinarily call the Resurrection being just, so to speak, the point at which it turns.

Think what that descent is. The coming down, not only into humanity, but into those nine months which precede human birth, in which they tell us we all recapitulate strange prehuman , subhuman forms of life, and going lower still into being a corpse, a thing which, if this ascending movement had not begun, would presently have passed out of the organic altogether, and have gone back into the inorganic, as all corpses do.

One has a picture of someone going right down and dredging the sea bottom. One has a picture of a strong man trying to lift a very big, complicated burden. He stoops down and gets himself right under it so that he himself disappears; and then he straightens his back and moves off with the whole thing swaying on his shoulders.

Or else one has the picture of a diver, stripping off garment after garment, making himself naked, then flashing for a moment in the air, and then down through the green, and warm, and sunlit water into the pitch-black, cold, freezing water, down into the mud and slime, then up again, his lungs almost bursting, back again to the green and warm and sunlit water, and then at last out into the sunshine, holding in his hand the dripping thing he went down to get. This thing is human nature; but, associated with it, all Nature, the new universe.

Now, as soon as you have thought of this, this pattern of the huge dive down to the bottom, into the depths of the universe and coming up again into the light, everyone will see at once how that is imitated and echoed by the principles of the natural world; the descent of the seed into the soil, and its rising again in the plants.

There are also all sorts of things in our own spiritual life where a thing has to be killed, and broken, in order that it may then become bright, and strong, and splendid. The analogy is obvious.

In that sense the doctrine fits in very well, so well in fact that immediately there comes the suspicion, Is it not fitting in a great deal too well? In other words, does not the Christian story show this pattern of descent and reascent because that is part of all the nature religions of the world? We have read about it in The Golden Boughs. We all know about Adonis, and the stories of the rest of those rather tedious people; is not this one more instance of the same thing, “the dying god”? Well, yes it is. That is what makes the question subtle.

What the anthropological critic of Christianity is always saying is perfectly true. Christ is a figure of that sort. And here comes a very curious thing. When I first, after childhood, read the Gospels, I was full of that stuff about the dying god, The Golden Bough, and so on. It was to me then a very poetic, and mysterious, and quickening idea; and when I turned to the Gospels never will I forget my disappointment and repulsion at finding hardly anything about it at all. The metaphor of the seed dropping into the ground in this connection occurs (I think) twice in the New Testament,[2] and for the rest hardly any notice is taken; it seemed to me extraordinary. You had a dying God, Who was always representative of the corn: you see Him holding the corn, that is, bread, in His hand, and saying, “This is My Body,”[3] and from my point of view, as I then was, He did not seem to realize what He was saying. Surely there, if anywhere, this connection between the Christian story and the corn must have come out; the whole context is crying out for it. But everything goes on as if the principal actor, and still more, those about Him, were totally ignorant of what they were doing.

It is as if you got very good evidence concerning the sea serpent, but the men who brought this good evidence seemed never to have heard of sea serpents. Or to put it in another way, why was it that the only case of the “dying god” which might conceivably have been historical occurred among a people (and the only people in the whole Mediterranean world) who had not got any trace of this nature religion, and indeed seemed to know nothing about it? Why is it among them the thing suddenly appears to happen?

The principal actor, humanly speaking, hardly seems to know of the repercussions His words (and sufferings) would have in any pagan mind. Well, that is almost inexplicable, except on one hypothesis. How if the corn king is not mentioned in that book, because He is here of whom the corn king was an image? How if the representation is absent because here, at last, the thing represented is present? If the shadows are absent because the thing of which they were shadows is here?

The corn itself is in its far-off way an imitation of the supernatural reality; the thing dying, and coming to life again, descending, and reascending beyond all Nature. The principle is there in Nature because it was first there in God Himself. Thus one is getting in behind the nature religions, and behind Nature to Someone Who is not explained by, but explains, not, indeed, the nature religions directly, but that whole characteristic behavior of Nature on which nature religions were based. Well, that is one way in which it surprised me. It seemed to fit in a very peculiar way, showing me something about Nature more fully than I had seen it before, while itself remaining quite outside and above the nature religions.

Then another thing. We, with our modern democratic and arithmetical presuppositions would so have liked and expected all men to start equal in their search for God. One has the picture of great centripetal roads coming from all directions, with well-disposed people, all meaning the same thing, and getting closer and closer together. How shockingly opposite to that is the Christian story!

One people picked out of the whole earth; that people purged and proved again and again. Some are lost in the desert before they reach Palestine; some stay in Babylon; some becoming indifferent. The whole thing narrows and narrows, until at last it comes down to a little point, small as the point of a spear-a Jewish girl at her prayers. That is what the whole of human nature has narrowed down to before the Incarnation takes place. Very unlike what we expected, but, of course, not in the least unlike what seems, in general, as shown by Nature, to be God’s way of working.

The universe is quite a shockingly selective, undemocratic place out of apparently infinite space, a relatively tiny proportion occupied by matter of any kind. Of the stars perhaps only one has planets: of the planets only one is at all likely to sustain organic life. Of the animals only one species is rational. Selection as seen in Nature, and the appalling waste which it involves, appears a horrible and an unjust thing by human standards.

But the selectiveness in the Christian story is not quite like that. The people who are selected are, in a sense, unfairly selected for a supreme honor; but it is also a supreme burden. The people of Israel come to realize that it is their woes which are saving the world. Even in human society, though, one sees how this inequality furnishes an opportunity for every kind of tyranny and servility.

Yet, on the other hand, one also sees that it furnishes an opportunity for some of the very best things we can think of — humility, and kindness, and the immense pleasures of admiration. (I cannot conceive how one would get through the boredom of a world in which you never met anyone more clever, or more beautiful, or stronger than yourself. The very crowds who go after the football celebrities and film stars know better than to desire that kind of equality!)

What the story of the Incarnation seems to be doing is to flash a new light on a principle in Nature, and to show for the first time that this principle of inequality in Nature is neither good nor bad. It is a common theme running through both the goodness and badness of the natural world, and I begin to see how it can survive as a supreme beauty in a redeemed universe.

And with that I have unconsciously passed over to the third point. I have said that the selectiveness was not unfair in the way in which we first suspect, because those selected for the great honor are also selected for the great suffering, and their suffering heals others. In the Incarnation we get, of course, this idea of vicariousness of one person profiting by the earning of another person. In its highest form that is the very center of Christianity. And we also find this same vicariousness to be a characteristic, or, as the musician would put it, a leitmotif of Nature.

It is a law of the natural universe that no being can exist on its own resources. Everyone, everything, is hopelessly indebted to everyone and everything else. In the universe, as we now see it, this is the source of many of the greatest horrors: all the horrors of carnivorousness, and the worse horrors of the parasites, those horrible animals that live under the skin of other animals, and so on.

And yet, suddenly seeing it in the light of the Christian story, one realizes that vicariousness is not in itself bad; that all these animals, and insects, and horrors are merely that principle of vicariousness twisted in one way. For when you think it out, nearly everything good in Nature also comes from vicariousness. After all, the child, both before and after birth, lives on its mother, just as the parasite lives on its host, the one being a horror, the other being the source of almost every natural goodness in the world. It all depends upon what you do with this principle.

So that I find in that third way also, that what is implied by the Incarnation just fits in exactly with what I have seen in Nature, and (this is the important point) each time it gives it a new twist. If I accept this supposed missing chapter, the Incarnation, I find it begins to illuminate the whole of the rest of the manuscript. It lights up Nature’s pattern of death and rebirth; and, secondly, her selectiveness; and, thirdly, her vicariousness.

I would have bolded and highlighted, but you really have to absorb every word.
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2014...c-s-lewis/

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

^CS Lewis was possibly the most persuasive Christian apologist of the past 500 years. I wonder what he would now think of his Anglican Church.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

^^Did not make the 60-minute cutoff to edit:

With each year I gain and each new experience I acquire, the more I wonder whether or not universalism and trying to get all humans on the same page is a realistic idea. I am working my way through a book now titled God Is Not One by Stephen Prothero and, while he is a male feminist New England academic, he makes a respectable case for the various religions of the world essentially revolving around different gods and having different goals which are very often if not always in conflict with each other.

For example, the primary objective of Christianity, at least originally, is salvation from sin (including and especially original sin, our innate awfulness that only God can wash away through grace as we are incapable of removing it by ourselves), which is seen to be essentially the root of all pain and sorrow, whereas Buddhism posits that the primary objective of humankind is the attainment of Nirvana/moksha (the end of reincarnation) through one’s own efforts alone (as there is no ultimate higher power - any gods which may exist in this or other realms are mortal just as we are, even if their lifespans may be much longer, and are finite, being subject to all the same karmic laws that we are as opposed to being the originator of the law as is God in Christianity and Islam) and has no concept of original sin, divine law (karmic law is simple cause and effect whereas divine law is intelligent and revealed), or even a Creator in the Abrahamic sense as the universe in Buddhism is eternal and uncreated.

The goal of Buddhism is not to make God happy or keep his Law because there is no “capital G” God (or at least no mention is made of one and Gautama famously evaded the question of whether such a thing existed as though to hint that it does not) but rather to free yourself from rebirth and personal identity itself so that you may make yourself happy (even if everyone you left is still miserable and suffering horribly). As they have different gods (also understood in this case as “ideals” or “Truth”) and different objectives, things are seen as holy in one which would be abominable in the other.

For instance, in Buddhism (as well as Hinduism, which Buddhism came from), the most honored and respected way of attaining the goal of enlightenment (moksha) has, since the beginning, been for a man to abandon, completely and forever, his worldly life (to include his wife and children, his country, his species, his planet, his name, and anyone who might need his help or protection at that moment) to become a monk or ascetic and live separate from society in order to dedicate himself entirely to the systematic annihilation of his own identity (annata) and sever permanently any attachment or tie he had to anyone or anything else in life as well as to extinguish his desire for them, as desire (including the desire for morality, love, and even existence), not sin, is seen as the root of all pain and sorrow.

Such a thing would not only not be honored but would generally be considered highly immoral (as it could be viewed as a complete abandonment of any responsibility or moral duty) by Christian standards. Basically, what Buddhists seek in Nirvana is something analogous or identical to what a Christian might call the “death of the soul.” Indeed, “annata” means “no soul/there is no soul.”

Different gods, different goals.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

If you do some research, you will find that much of the current SJW movement is being led by left wing Christians. They are very self-righteous and puritanical about their ideas. They have just redefined their version of evil. The Judeo-Christian psychology sets people up for this.

This is an interesting book written by a philosopher that goes in depth into the deep underlying metaphysical and psychological differences between Christianity and Paganism.

"On being a pagan" by Alain de Benoist

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Pagan-Alain...ng+a+pagan

Rico... Sauve....
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Quote: (09-15-2018 02:47 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

People should follow science. It works.

...

^Come on, you know what I mean. People should follow reason, facts and evidence. They work.

Not necessarily. Following reason alone without any faith in some kind of ideal(s) has historically been the quickest way to plunge whole sections of the planet into chaos and mayhem. If you are smart, you can reason or logic your way into any conceivable position so long as you have no higher ideal for it to come into conflict with.

There is nothing innately irrational or illogical about wantonly murdering innocent children, suppressing dissidents, or imposing a heavy-handed Communist dictatorship on a billion people as long as you can profit from doing so and manage to face no Earthly consequences for it. Likewise, there is nothing irrational or unscientific about the methods that leftist media outlets (globally and in all decades of the past century and a half) use to slander opposition and mislead the dim-witted masses into doing all of those things I just mentioned, again provided that they stand to profit and do not stand to face Earthly consequences (for those who have no supernatural belief, the possibility of supernatural consequences do not factor into the decision making process).

In fact, if there is no supernatural realm, conscious existence beyond this life, or higher authority which we are ultimately answerable to, then it would be entirely irrational (if your goal is to maximize your ability to indulge in the pleasures of this world - what else would it be?) not to engage in any and all manner of victimizing and abuse of others that can benefit you personally and which you can get away with at least until you die of natural causes or in some other preferred fashion of your choosing as, if you never again experience conscious existence after your physical body shuts down, then you need not even worry about what anyone will think of you after you are gone because you will never have to face or even know about them. You need only be a competent enough manipulator to build and maintain a coalition of powerful allies around yourself so that you are protected from the wrath and vengeance of anyone you have crossed.

Science, logic, and reason are tools that we may or may not choose to utilize in the pursuit of knowledge and the discovery of the un-invented (at least by us) truth which already exists whether or not we have any understanding or even awareness of it. To say that we should follow or believe exclusively in any one or even all of them is akin to saying that we should put our faith in a hammer or screwdriver and look to it alone for moral wisdom and guidance as well as for the fulfillment of those of our desires which cannot possibly be satisfied in this world through purely materialistic means.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

They all rely on the other as the main selling point for their particular doctrine.

It's very much of a game of simply believing in what brand you think is best.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

One relies on the truth of the human person, and best shows it to you through the life of the God-man, who exists before all ages. Since the truth of the human person naturally relies on that fact that it has been given this gift of eternal life to be with God, all glory and praise is due to the God-man who defeated death, the last enemy, to show us the way to this life. This is not paganism; however as humans of course some can carry elements of the truth with many other factors --- in fact this is what confuses most of the discerning minds even here on rvf.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Are you guys familiar with Ben Klassen and his Creativity movement?






Don't debate me.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Quote: (01-24-2019 10:16 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

If you do some research, you will find that much of the current SJW movement is being led by left wing Christians. They are very self-righteous and puritanical about their ideas. They have just redefined their version of evil. The Judeo-Christian psychology sets people up for this.

This is an interesting book written by a philosopher that goes in depth into the deep underlying metaphysical and psychological differences between Christianity and Paganism.

"On being a pagan" by Alain de Benoist

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Pagan-Alain...ng+a+pagan

The left leaning Christians are just the spiritual successors of the Puritans. Notice most of the super Poz'd left leaning Churches like the United Methodists are splinters from the Anglicans.

When Henry made his own church he should have went all the way with Harems, hookers, and blackjack.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Some peoples seem to be able to live just fine without any religion. East Asians seem to be that way. For better or for worse, Westerners seem to need some kind of religion. So what shall it be? Christianity or Paganism?

It doesn't matter. It doesn't make sense to talk about religion from any position but the position of power. Why do people believe in a given religion? Because they do what they're told to. Power legitimates faith, not the other way around. If you want to found a new religion, seize power and force people to follow it.

There isn't some inherent property in things like 'Christianity' or 'Atheism' that makes them vulnerable or resistant to Leftism. It isn't useful to think about Leftism as if it's some sort of virus that is hijacking other beliefs. All belief systems used in the service of Democracy will become Leftist. Likewise, all belief systems used in the service of power will become Rightist, for lack of a better term.

We don't need to choose between Christianity or Paganism. Christianity in the service of power will be Paganised. All that matters is that the religion reconciles men to death and exalts the race.
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Jay dyer did several videos on this:






Skip to 9:00







His video on Christ as Logos:



Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

There are two types of religion: religion that requires beliefs, and religions that are based on practice.

Christianity and Islam are religions that require their followers to adopt specific exclusionary beliefs in order to be saved. Practice based religions like Buddhism or Yoga don't require you to believe but are methods of purifying the mind. Even religions like Judaism aren't belief based. You just have to be a member of the tribe and perform certain rituals. The Hellenistic philosophers, Socrates, and Pythagoreans could be included in the category of purifying the mind. It is also possible to reform Christianity and give up the cultish, exclusivist beliefs and concentrate on purification. The Quakers come close to this.

I believe that the future belongs to the religions that focus on practice and not beliefs. The belief systems have been discredited by our increased knowledge, and the world won't go backwards. One of the problems of beliefs, is that everyone has their own version of what to believe but insist that they have the only truth. The history of the incredible violence that was created in a fractured Christian world can't be ignored. The revealed "truth" has been proven ambiguous and confusing, and not a clearly stated pronouncement of some god. Also, the notion that one is only moral if one believes in or repeats a magical formula perverts morality. A fundamentalist Christian will assert that a non Christian who is virtuous is inherently bad, while a corrupt Christian is saved by their beliefs. This is an ethical system which is arbitrary and not based on truth. An ethical system which uplifts humanity will be based on character like was practiced by the ancient philosophers.

Of the religions, Hinduism could be the wave of the future. It provides a general framework that allows for multiple paths to the top of the mountain. It recognizes that people have different personalities and allows the individual to choose the yoga that he is most suited for. It doesn't require everyone to wear that same sized shoes. They focus on a person's ability to master his own mind through practice. Yoga and meditation are being scientifically investigated, and there is already concrete evidence that meditation does change the brain. Scientific studies have even shown that cognitive therapy (which was inspired by study of the Hellenistic philosophers) is more effective than the pseudo-science of psychotherapy.


Stoicism

https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/

Yoga Meditation

https://www.swamij.com/witnessing.htm

Virtue Ethics

http://www.sophia-project.org/ethics.html

Rico... Sauve....
Reply

Paganism vs. Christianity: What should the Western world follow?

Quote: (04-07-2019 11:33 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

A fundamentalist Christian will assert that a non Christian who is virtuous is inherently bad, while a corrupt Christian is saved by their beliefs. This is an ethical system which is arbitrary and not based on truth.

A christian that asserts any of these things is clearly mistaken or ignorant.

Romans 2:12-15
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another[Image: wink.gif]

Quote: (04-07-2019 11:33 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

the notion that one is only moral if one believes in or repeats a magical formula perverts morality

Correct, but it's the dumb dialectic between faith and works. There are no works without faith; and faith without works is meaningless. You always act on something. And if you believe in something, you act according to it. This goes for moral beliefs as anything else.

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I tried yoga and mediation, but it's not for me. But the practices in themselves, if stripped of their religious history, don't seem to conflict with the Christian faith. I believe it can be helpful for some people.

What I don't see is how 'turtles all the way down' is a solid framework for anything, and this is the end result of every belief system not based in creation ex nihilo. And the only belief system that solves this problem by affirming creation ex nihilo is Christianity (and Karaite Judaism, which is unfulfilled Christianity). This is the least ambiguous and confusing origin story there is.

Quote: (04-07-2019 11:33 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

The history of the incredible violence that was created in a fractured Christian world

What does this even mean?

Quote: (04-07-2019 11:33 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

Hinduism (...) recognizes that people have different personalities

Somehow I don't think this is exclusive to Hinduism...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)