What is your religion?

submitted by Ponderer from (self.debatealtright)

I'm closest to agnostic, but I've dabbled in Christianity and have an interest in paganism and alternative faiths. Ideally I'd like to discover or create a new form of spirituality.

Christianity interests me, but comes with a lot of damaging philosophies baked-in. I like the history of paganism, but it feels too arbitrary to be revived as a modern religion. But that's just my opinion, of course.

How about you?

all 79 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Catholic. As dismayed as any Traditionalist with the current state of the faith, the faithful and the Rock itself but know we've been through low periods before.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your faith is openly anti-white, its priests practice homosexuality en masse and allies with globalism. Yet, you continue to believe in this church.

How is this any different than Q-people who still believe that Trump is the chosen one and will ride in to save America?

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The faith isn't anti-white that's absurd. Also its homosexuals in the church who are engaged in pederasty and protecting others from scrutiny and consequences. This is what homosexuals do if given the chance. That is the fault of them not the faith -- though the institution does have a lot to answer for.

As for the ridiculous QAnon comparison call me when that particular fad has created and maintained an institution for 2000 years of turbulent human history.

[–]TheJamesRocket 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

My worldview happens to bear alot in common with Cosmicism. Its very hard to handle some days, knowing how small and temporary our existence is. And grasping the extreme evil of the Globalists makes it even worse. Knowing that I share a planet with these bastards takes quite a toll on me. I used to believe in the just-world hypothesis, but that was years ago. Seeing them get away with their crimes again and again has shown me how foolish I was.

The events of last year (with the covid hysteria, the summer riots, the election fraud, and the prospect of Neofeudalism) were the last straw for me. This caused me to finally lose faith in humanity. The monumental ignorance and stupidity of the average person had given the Globalists a real chance at bringing their insane vision to life. I no longer see most humans as actual people, I see them as biological robots who follow their programming.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I no longer see most humans as actual people, I see them as biological robots who follow their programming.

There's an infographic about lemmings that describes this. Can't link it, but you'll know it when you see it.

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's an interesting link, thanks. H.P. Lovecraft is one of my favorite authors, and I didn't know there was a name for his worldview.

I think it would be interesting to refine Cosmicism a bit and turn it into a more fleshed-out worldview or religion. However, it would probably need to posit some positive (or at least neutral) cosmic forces to counterbalance the malevolent worldly forces we see today.

Something like "yeah, you think the powers that be are bad, but don't worry, eventually Cthulhu will show up and eat them." Except instead of Cthulhu it's time, or decay, or the laws of reality, or the Kali Yuga, or something like that.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would never promote my belief system to society at large. I would not wish to see it adopted by ordinary people. If they knew what kind of Universe they were actually born into, the vast majority would become clinically depressed, and many would give up hope. I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the fact is, human beings did not evolve to see reality as it truly is. We are meant to function within a relatively narrow window of perception, and whenever we look outside the confines of that perceptual window, we are overcome with a sense of existential dread.

These feelings are present in me too, but they don't affect me to the same extent as a normal person. I have been walking my spiritual path for a long time, so I've learned alot of coping skills along the way. I can deal with these emotions fairly well most of the time. But believe me, it is not a happy or healthy view of the world, and it does impair me in some ways. I have trouble living freely in the moment, and I spent alot of time stuck in my own head. I have lots of angst about the future of humanity, especially with everything thats happening now.

I do believe that the Globalists will eventually be defeated, but that won't come at the hands of supernatural forces. They will be destroyed because their ideology is fundamentally false, self-contradictory, and unsustainable. When an organisation bases their strategy on a false map of reality, they will inevitably run into serious problems at a certain point.

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm curious about your ideas, whether they're negative or not.

I do believe that the Globalists will eventually be defeated

This is already more optimistic than my current views. I think there is a slim chance they will eventually collapse, but its by no means guaranteed. So anything you tell me would probably give me a more positive outlook if anything.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, I seem to have missed your comment. I will respond to your question now.

I'm curious about your ideas, whether they're negative or not.

Many aspects of reality (as we perceive it) can be described in dualistic terms: Good and evil, light and dark, order and chaos, pleasure and pain, life and death, etc. It is like the yin and yang described by Taoism. At this point in the history of the Universe, I believe that the forces of chaos and death vastly outweigh the forces of order and life. This is a deeply unpleasant conclusion to reach, but it seems to be true. There are many lines of evidence you can use to confirm this.

Consider the Fermi paradox. Why is it that we can look in any direction in our vast and ancient Universe, and yet we can see no other signs of alien civilisation? There are enough stars and planets in existence that should have formed the nurserys of many intelligent species, and enough time has passed to enable them to colonise entire Galaxys. And yet we see no sign of any Type III civilisations on the Kardashev scale. This is evidence that the Universe is a far more hostile place than we realise. Despite hundreds of billions of Galaxys each containing hundreds of billions of stars, we are apparently the only civilisation in existence. This revelation is chilling. It means that the odds of an intelligent species evolving is astronomically small. Humanity just happened to beat the odds.

But even though we appear to be alone in the Universe, there is an opportunity before us. A hope, a dream, an obligation. We can spread through space, colonise our own Galaxy and become a Type III civilisation. We can change the Cosmic balance, subtly altering the yin and the yang. We can ensure that the forces of order overturn the forces of chaos, that light overcomes the darkness, that life overcomes death. Humanity can walk on the path of divinity and fill the Universe with something worthwhile. And who knows, at some point in the distant future, they may even be able to alter reality itself and do things that we cannot even fathom.

This is already more optimistic than my current views. I think there is a slim chance they will eventually collapse, but its by no means guaranteed. So anything you tell me would probably give me a more positive outlook if anything.

Its not that complicated. The Globalists require the military and economic might of the United States to enforce their world order. But at the same time, they are weakening and hollowing out the U.S. with all different manners of social engineering. Thus, it is only a matter of time before the U.S. either collapses, or loses so much power that it is incapable of fulfilling its role as world police. By that point, the Globalists will become very vulnerable. They will no longer have the hard power of the United States to enforce their world order. They can be defeated with relative ease by a strong nation like Russia or China. It is simple geopolitics.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Doesn't that miss the point behind Cosmicism? It sounds like you have a more positive outlook on life, and like Pantheism is more for you.

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't necessarily say so. Reading some of Lovecraft's works, many of the characters who acknowledge the existence of powerful eldritch beings aren't exactly demoralized. Some seem quite enthusiastic about it.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It is a nihilist view. William Pierce's Cosmotheism is much better.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I am a pessimist, not a nihilist. I believe in truth and virtue, even though society tramples on both of these things.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting. What are your thoughts on Parmenides' "On Nature"?

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You should make a full post about that, I'd like to hear more.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I honestly don't know that much about it. Here is a description -

Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts there is an internal meaning and purpose in life and in the cosmos. There is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one. And what our true identity is this: we are the cosmos, made self-aware and self-conscious by evolution. Our undeniable human purpose, is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious individuals, and also as a self-aware species, and thereby to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal awareness, and towards the ever-higher perfection of consciousness and being.

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks!

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Ethno nationalist and Sedevacantist catholic.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Your faith is openly anti-white, its priests practice homosexuality en masse and allies with globalism. Yet, you continue to believe in this church.

How is this any different than Q-people who still believe that Trump is the chosen one and will ride in to save America?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The United States Public Library system is also pretty anti white and pro LGBT and child grooming. That doesn't mean I oppose libraries though. It doesn't mean that libraries aren't a big part of European history.

[–]TheJamesRocket 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Your faith is openly anti-white, its priests practice homosexuality en masse and allies with globalism. Yet, you continue to believe in this church.

I am not a Christian, but I am not an Atheist either. I have no axe to grind with the Catholics, as long as they recognise that their leaders are promoting things that are totally contrary to the Bible. u/send_nasty_stuff is a sedevacantist. They believe that the Pope (in fact, all modern Popes) is an illegitimate leader who has corrupted the Papacy and the Church. They are of the opinion that the Papal officials are basically heretics. So as far as Christians go, they are pretty red pilled.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

as long as they recognise that their leaders are promoting things that are totally contrary to the Bible.

It's not just their leaders, it's Catholic doctrine itself. But a reasoning person would see their leaders engaging in child rape and drug fueled homosexual orgies as a negative indicator.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah we all see it as a negative mate. We can also distinguish between the acts of the fallen and wicked people who are corrupting the faith and the faith itself. It actually doesn't matter what you believe in there's always going to be awful people who believe the same thing and give it a bad name.

Look at all the passionate Neitzsche enthusiasts on this board. Is Foucalt an argument against Fred's ideas? He was a kiddy fiddler and a queer too. Oops I guess everything Fred said is just wrong now!

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The behavior of their leaders is a blaring indicator they're well aware that Catholic Doctrine is contrary to the bible they presumably claim to follow.

This has nothing to do with guilt by association.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm genuinely lost now. Who's the 'they' in this statement. Also in what way in your mind does catholic doctrine contradict the bible? Also are you somehow under the impression that pederasty is catholic doctrine and not a severe violation of it? Am I reading that right?

(BTW catholic doctrine exists as an interpretive and somewhat evolving addition to scripture. This is the way its meant to be its not actually a criticism. Catholicism has never been, never will be and never should be an exercise in sola scriptura interpretation which is funny because that's another thing that isn't in the bible either! No where does it say 'these words and these words alone are how you derive truth'.)

[–][deleted]  (30 children)

[deleted]

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

    I think Atheism is the necessary conclusion when looking at this mechanical, meaningless world.

    Atheism doesn't answer anything. It is quite clear humans need some form of religion and it is not just for morality reasons.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    It is quite clear humans need some form of religion and it is not just for morality reasons.

    Do we need religion like the Aztecs, who saw no shame in ripping out beating hearts to appease the sun? Or what about the Japanese fighter pilot in WW2, who thought crashing his plane deliberately would grant him a spot in the afterlife?

    There are hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the correct one or have spoken with god, yet it's impossible to verify any of these claims of what happens when we do die.

    Maybe you mean culture, which every human society seems to invent in complete isolation, in which case. I agree. But there's no reason to think that a belief in a higher being is somehow necessary for our species. In fact, if you believe in the theory of evolution, you must admit our species has existed for millions of years, taking on different ape forms before reaching Homo Sapien level. Yet what religion did any of these creatures believe in? I doubt they cared about god as they were banging two rocks together to make fire.

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    There is no reason to take such a dull nihilistic view of the universe when existence remains such a mystery and likely always will. The "rational" scientific view cannot explain existence without becoming irrational.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    It's one thing to learn about the origins of the universe. That's exactly what science is for and has a done a great job with it.

    But it's another to apply a clearly man-made concept like god, to somehow dedicate our entire lives to without ever meeting him or her.

    And I'm not saying this to be biased. Again, I reached this conclusion because EVERY religion makes the same claims. Go back in time and ask the Aztecs if human sacrifice ceremonies are necessary and they'll say "yes". Ask a radical muslim if blowing himself up will make Allah happy and he will say "yes". We might not be able to prove these guys wrong, but blindly accepting this stuff as normal has only lead to more suffering and holds back humanity as a whole.

    Human beings should not really be concerned if god exists or not. If he's an all powerful being like all these religions claim, he can reveal himself at any time. But until then, we are still just more evolved apes who live on a spinning rock in outer space. Our great great ancestors never read bibles or stuck feathers on their head, thinking it would achieve something. They existed for millions of years doing what every other creature on Earth did. Survive.

    Edit: If anything, rather than push the belief in god, I'm more interested in Aliens. Assuming there is more intelligent life in this universe, it would not make sense why any Earth religion would have the answers, but Aliens living in another galaxy could have completely contradicting beliefs.

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    Religion can be non dogmatic.

    A lot of what you think science has figured out about the origins of the universe will turn out to be wrong and it is unlikely that our current conceptions of science could ever give an answer to the origins of existence. They have to say it just happened and no one knows why or claim there is an infinite multiverse which is self defeating because in a truly infinite multiverse there would be universes with what we considered supernatural aspects including gods.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    The scientific model was created to take contradicting evidence into account. Religion offers no similar safety nets.

    It's no skin off my bones if the theory of gravity turned out to be wrong. Or how about when Pluto was no longer considered a planet? The changes were very simple but more importantly, innocent lives did not have their blood spilled to gain acceptance.

    When it comes to religion, we literally have followers who claim the bible is the absolute word of god, and that god can never makes mistakes. That type of reasoning is far too dangerous for any civilized society, because any lunatic or mass murderer can justify their actions by holding up a holy book and saying god is ok with them.

    Am I saying that every Christian or religious person is a lunatic? No, and there are in fact millions of normal people. But it's stands to reason that their entire belief system is built on denying evidence. And the fallout can be seen throughout history.

    That's why I feel it's better to not make any positive claims of any gods existing. If he's real, let him reveal himself to us first. Turn off the invisibility mode and speak directly to us humans like he supposedly had done all the time in the past.

    Edit: Or perhaps god is real but he never interacts with his creations because he wants us to enjoy life instead. I'm fine with that explanation and nothing about my life even changes. We're born, we eat, we reproduce, and then we die forever. Just like every other creature on this planet.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    I am only going to respond to a couple of the things you have said here, because addressing all of your points is too much effort.

    The scientific model was created to take contradicting evidence into account. Religion offers no similar safety nets.

    The "scientific model" studies material phenomena through experimentation. Its application is extremely narrow and can only assist us with understanding the properties of different forms of matter. It is completely useless for any other purpose. Any comparisons between "science" and religion, which today likewise has similarly limited but completely different horizons, is entirely inappropriate.

    That's why I feel it's better to not make any positive claims of any gods existing. If he's real, let him reveal himself to us first. Turn off the invisibility mode and speak directly to us humans like he supposedly had done all the time in the past.

    Why would any god need to reveal himself to you? He doesn't need you. What would it matter to a god if humans are making "positive claims" or "negative claims" about his existence?

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    The "scientific model" studies material phenomena through experimentation. Its application is extremely narrow and can only assist us with understanding the properties of different forms of matter. It is completely useless for any other purpose.

    If I wanted to believe you're a real person, and not some highly advance forum A.I, how do you think I would do it? I would look for evidence that says your words were typed by a human, that the account "NeoRail" is tied to a person in real life. I would also try and confirm the post is tied to you sitting at a computer or mobile device and typing it at a certain time. There's a 99.9% chance that any of these outcomes will prove you are a human and not a machine. If there is a .1% chance that I was wrong, then I would still have a better explanation of who you actually are, instead of pretending that I'm talking to air.

    It is completely useless for any other purpose. Any comparisons between "science" and religion, which today likewise has similarly limited but completely different horizons, is entirely inappropriate.

    Religion takes the "no evidence required to believe" to the extreme, and expects its followers to not only believe a god exists, but also talking snakes are real, ripping out beating hearts from prisoners keeps the sun going, or crashing planes into buildings will send you to heaven. Yet I'm suppose to believe this type of behavior is either normal, rational, or even necessary for human beings?

    I'm fine with having different cultures and ceremonies that serve a purpose of bringing humans together or forming unique communities, but we can do away with the supernatural shit that is basically a license to murder others.

    Why would any god need to reveal himself to you? He doesn't need you.

    You see what I find funny about this last statement? It means god is an asshole. If he doesn't even have the decency to actually show any kind of love or appreciation for his creations, it makes him look no different to some interstellar Stalin. And the resemblance is uncanny. He takes credit for everything, demands worship at all times, and he damns you to hell (gulag) if you dare question him. No thanks.

    What would it matter to a god if humans are making "positive claims" or "negative claims" about his existence?

    See above. The problem of evil has been talked about for thousands of years, and it still holds true. We're expected to worship some invincible man who is watching us all suffer right now, but has no plans of even explaining to us why did even he let it happen? If I was a baby who was born with cancer, I sure as hell wouldn't want to worship god. Since it's considered more important the baby dies in pain, then know what's even going on.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    If I wanted to believe you're a real person, and not some highly advance forum A.I, how do you think I would do it?

    Personally, I would just use my intuition. Strictly speaking, you can't actually obtain any evidence about this anyway.

    Religion takes the "no evidence required to believe" to the extreme, and expects its followers to not only believe a god exists, but also talking snakes are real, ripping out beating hearts from prisoners keeps the sun going, or crashing planes into buildings will send you to heaven. Yet I'm suppose to believe this type of behavior is either normal, rational, or even necessary for human beings?

    This is a blatant strawman. There are religions that are not even concerned with gods at all.

    You see what I find funny about this last statement? It means god is an asshole. If he doesn't even have the decency to actually show any kind of love or appreciation for his creations, it makes him look no different to some interstellar Stalin. And the resemblance is uncanny. He takes credit for everything, demands worship at all times, and he damns you to hell (gulag) if you dare question him. No thanks.

    If you are taking Christianity as your reference point, the rebuttal here is to point out that this is a matter of freedom of choice and you personally choosing what you want to grow closer to. If you want to grow closer to God, then you will experience his presence, his love and eventually heaven. If you want to go the opposite direction, then you will go to a place where you will never find god, this place being hell. Those who seek God seem to be able to find him fairly reliably - there is a whole genre of literature that revolves around the mystical experiences of Catholic and Orthodox saints and monks. Those people seek God and find him. You, on the other hand, demand that God should reach out to you personally and not just that, but that he should reach out to you on your terms too. That is a large difference in approach.

    See above. The problem of evil has been talked about for thousands of years, and it still holds true. We're expected to worship some invincible man who is watching us all suffer right now, but has no plans of even explaining to us why did even he let it happen? If I was a baby who was born with cancer, I sure as hell wouldn't want to worship god. Since it's considered more important the baby dies in pain, then know what's even going on.

    That is a completely different topic that I have little desire to get drawn into discussing, especially if we are going to be looking at this from a Christian perspective only. I will limit myself to pointing out that Christianity itself describes this world as full of suffering, all of which is the result of the fall of man.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Technically wouldn't a god be interacting through their creations? Like an unseen vibrational energy source that creates an inner connectedness of all creatures?

    I genuinely cannot fathom atheism. I consider myself relatively blackpilled about the ultimate future of humanity, but to think that there's not something more when every process of each creature plays out like a miraculous little machine-- I don't get it.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    In my last statement, my analogy of god is almost like a spectator watching a movie or playing a video game. The spectator knows the people exist, but the people in the movie or games have no idea who is watching them. Or if you've ever heard of the 1990s cartoon called "Reboot" it also has the same idea. It's a show about people who live inside a computer, and they play games against the humans controlling them, but they never actually see his face or know exactly what the human looks like.

    I genuinely cannot fathom atheism. I consider myself relatively blackpilled about the ultimate future of humanity, but to think that there's not something more when every process of each creature plays out like a miraculous little machine-- I don't get it.

    I rather entertain the idea that there are other intelligent species out there like Aliens, who either created us or had similar origins, than follow some Earth religion that was probably made up by some person who was high on drugs. Just imagine, tomorrow a UFO crashes into Earth and the first thing we ask the space traveler is "Do you guys have Jesus on your planet?" If they answer no, that's thousands of years of history being debunked in a second.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Based and Nietzschepilled.

    [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Returning to religion is throwing up the Red Pill and trading it for the Blue Pill because the truth was too terrible.

    In some cases, yes; but not necessarily.

    I think a quasi-religion could be constructed that brings together the strengths of spirituality without its weaknesses (e.g. blind faith in something with no evidence). You suggest this yourself when it comes to the Greco-Roman religion.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Yes, that makes sense.

      I'm not a Christian for that reason. It feels too much like a cope; I could never get around how fake it felt.

      Also, I could never call a God merciful who tolerated the existence of Hell.

      [–]peaceful✞ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      God isn't merciful to those who reject Jesus, but everyone is given that free choice.

      [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"

      [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      First two Delphic Maxims - "Know Thyself" and "Nothing in excess." Strong, flexible, and Aristotelian. I wish it had time to adapt to a changing world instead of getting outcompeted by a religion that preyed on some of man's neglected needs.

      You might find this book of interest

      https://archive.org/details/aryanhouseholdit00heariala

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_deity#Hearn_(1878)

      [–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I'm increasingly convinced that we made a bad turn rejecting the Greco-Roman religion for Christianity.

      Did we, though? Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire in 380 AD by Theodosius. It thus became the official religion for all the tribes of Europe that were united under Roman rule. Italia, Grecia, Dacia, Hispania, Gaul, and Britannia all adopted Christianity. Only Germania and Scandinavia remained under their Pagan religions, and even they eventually adopted Christianity after the fall of the Roman empire. This was the religion that united Europe together during the dark ages, when it faced an existential threat from the Islamic caliphate, and repeated barbarian invasions. If Christianity was a weak religion, Europe would not have been able to overcome these challenges.

      Christianity is the religion that shifted us from a power-based morality to a weakness-based morality, and the moral discourse has been left poisoned since then.

      Contrarywise, we must ask what the repercussions were from the Wests rejection of Christianity. The people may have gained freedom to act however they wanted, but this came with an enormous societal cost. Moral relativism became the new belief system, basically, people could do whatever they wanted without regard of consequence. The problem is, most people are ruled by their base desires and have no moral inhibitions that would restrain them.

      Since we no longer had a code of ethics that would discourage or prevent degenerate behaviour, society was overwhelmed with perversion. We witnessed total degeneracy: The hook up culture, the drug culture, materialism, nihilism, race mixing, homosexuality, transsexualism, etc. In retrospect, it seems clear that our ethics were not based on some abstract universal principles (as Atheists mistakenly believe), but were in fact largely derived from our religion. When we tossed out Christianity, we tossed out our entire code of ethics too.

      [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      This was the religion that united Europe together during the dark ages

      The liberal European Union today has also united Europe. What is important is on what terms this unity is achieved.

      when it faced an existential threat from the Islamic caliphate

      It is very difficult to imagine Islam existing without Christianity.

      Contrarywise, we must ask what the repercussions were from the Wests rejection of Christianity.

      A lot of people are making this argument, but I think it would be a very good question to ask if the social situation in the West today is a result of rejecting Christianity specifically or of rejecting religion more broadly. It is also a good to ask why this rejection occurred in the first place.

      [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I think Atheism is the necessary conclusion when looking at this mechanical, meaningless world.

      The meaninglessness of existence as always is a value judgement or subjective opinion which can't be proved one way or the other but isn't the mechanistic aspect of the Universe itself proof it is the creation of an intelligence?

      I may be misunderstanding your use of the term in this context but personally for me that was one of the reasons I started to believe in at the very least a Deistic type of God based on the fact that the Universe is so finely tuned and for lack of a better term 'mechanical'.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Adjust one or more of the four fundamental forces and literally the formation of atoms becomes impossible. Seems pretty fine tuned to me.

        You didn't address my point though.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Show me a group of atheists that ever stood up against degeneracy, LGBT, Jews, Fractional reserve banking or invading savages. In fact show me a group of atheists that ever organized any large historic collective action. inB4 communism.

        [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Agnostic. Will LARP for whatever religion is best for whites tho

        [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Atheist.

        And for good reason. Every pro-diversity person I've ever met all believes god created every race equal, and they have a religious duty to bring them all to our nations and convert them.

        And because of this, I really hope there's no afterlife. I don't want to spend an eternity with my enemies who admitted to making life on Earth insufferable. Fuck, that's far worse than any Hell I've read about.

        Hitler also had the right idea about religion. Unless the core beliefs are nationalism, religion will make a population "soft" and "compassionate" for outside groups. Brazil is a prime example of this. It's a mixed-raced violent cesspit, but because the criminals wear crosses around their necks, they're still considered saints. Nah, the hell with that bullshit.

        [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        I worship slavic girls

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Svetlana respecter.

        [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        Alhamdulillah. The road to paradise goes through Natasha's titties.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I know you are joking but just in case noobs mis read you:

        Worshiping women of any race is the same as worshiping Jews.

        You should be on guard to women not of your race.

        You should be a steward of women in your race.

        You should be a leader and captain to your wife and reward her when she follows your lead.

        You should be a father to your daughters.

        Any society that doesn't create strong men and protect a mans right to be a leader to his wife and offspring is bound to collapse.

        All women of European dissident will disappear from the earth if we start worshiping them. Women gravitate towards men that lead them. Worship is a submissive position and repulsive women instinctively. Women do not fuck submissive men un ironically.

        edit. FML catbox.moe is down again. Does anybody know an alternative webm uploaded site?

        [–]Alan_Crowe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        Ideally I'd like to discover or create a new form of spirituality.

        Really? The five marks of a Holy Book could be an interesting starting point for creating your own humble and provisional spirituality.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

        That's an interesting site.

        It seems a bit contradictory in that it says men should never write a holy book, since that is God's job, but the page has presumably been written by a man(?)

        But I agree with the general point that any true religion should consist of observations of nature and natural law, rather than proclamations made up by a human mind.

        [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        But I agree with the general point that any true religion should consist of observations of nature and natural law, rather than proclamations made up by a human mind.

        Religion deals with the supernatural, not with the natural or the purely rational. What you are describing would not be a religion at all.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I feel like religions take natural things and make them supernatural, so that they do not have to face the hard scientific facts about these natural things.

        [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        That would be pantheism or something related to it, although worship of nature typically goes hand in hand with scientism, rather than fighting against it.

        As far as I am concerned, there is basically zero overlap between the area of interest of religion and that of modern materialistic science. I do not think a genuine religion should be engaging with scientific matters too much.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I'm not sure I agree. Many deeply religious people might dispute there is a natural/supernatural distinction at all.

        I agree that a system that's purely descriptive would probably not be a religion. But something that deals with subjective beliefs, and informs the believer about what they should do with their lives and what is truly meaningful, would have at least some similarities with religion.

        [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Many deeply religious people might dispute there is a natural/supernatural distinction at all.

        This can be a valid perspective, but this is also an entirely different thing from reducing everything to nature alone.

        I agree that a system that's purely descriptive would probably not be a religion. But something that deals with subjective beliefs, and informs the believer about what they should do with their lives and what is truly meaningful, would have at least some similarities with religion.

        I think what you are referring to here is much closer to myth in the secular sense, rather than religion. Religion does deal with the things you mentioned, but its approach to those things is informed by a metaphysical position. If we take some types of Buddhism as an example, there are indeed rules for personal conduct, a value system and spiritual practices, but all of this is justified on a supernatural basis, specifically attaining enlightenment.

        [–]Alan_Crowe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I agree that it is a little bit contradictory. It proclaims a mystical insight: if God had really given us a Holy Book, it would be awesome. There would be none of those arguments: "This is the Holy Book!", "No, you are wrong. That is the Holy Book."

        But then what? What would humility in the face of God's Silence look like. Society needs a rule book, so there is clearly a problem. One way is to make the rule book explicitly the unaided work of man, and to embrace the implication that it will fail the test of time and need updating in the light of experience.

        We might anticipate this and invent the conservatism of the archive. Write down your rules. Write down why you have chosen them. Write down what your critics say will go wrong. Write down what your critics say we should do instead. Keep it all safe in the archive for 100 years.

        When things don't go according to plan, dig through the archive. Did you stick to your rules? Really? In a way that is faithful to the reasons why they were supposed to work? What about the critics? Did things go wrong in the way that they predicted, or in some other way?

        If the critics predicted the exact way that things would go wrong, they win. Dig out their suggestions and give them a try. If the critics predicted different screw-ups than actually happened, cry. Nobody knows anything. But at least you have an archive. What it was like. What people thought. How it actually turned out. That is a basis for working out what to do next.

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Like most Belgians I was raised Catholic, but only culturally. I've always been an atheist. Almost no one here is still truly Catholic.

        [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'm a fundamentalist Christian, specifically my theological views align most with Baptism. This ties in quite a bit with my more-or-less theocratic views on law.

        [–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        What damaging philosophies are baked into Christianity? For me it's the belief part that's a problem. You're meant to believe that some guy named Jesus is the son of God, and that a host is in some way the body of Jesus. And on the subject of hosts: you're meant to believe in a whole host of other things that do not speak to reason. On top of that, belief is what Christianity is all about; everything hangs on it. This is a problem for many of the deeper people. But that's not its philosophy. In terms of the values it propagates, Christianity is actually quite great (just like any religion that originated during the Antiquity).

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        An idea that many Christians have is that they do not have the ability to save themselves, therefore they require the blood and sacrifice and love of Jesus Christ. Now, I've heard this described in many ways, with various biblical literature used to support their varied views, but I always thought as a kid that it sounded a bit like blood sacrifice.

        Like some sort of occult ritual. Then, look at the belief that comes from that: humans are weak, inherently sinful, we must be destroyed, we must be saved, we need God, Jesus, Daddy, Mommy, anything that isn't us to come and solve our problems.

        Too many good Christians will justify their lack of care and attention towards the dark occult because "Jesus saves, what could we do that he couldn't do? He is strong, and we are weak." That's just something that I have observed having grown up in the church.

        What was that old Bible song they used to make me sing? The one where they go "they are weak but he is strong, yes Jesus loves me because the Bible tells me so."

        Something weird happened to that religion, it should be obvious to anyone who cares to look. I like more Christians than non-Christians, but still. I don't look to them to acknowledge the dark occult, most of them deny its modern existence.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        This is a good post, and I agree with pretty much everything. What do you mean by the "dark occult" though?

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        The Hydra. The Evil Onion. Satanists, worshippers of Ba'al, the true keepers of the secrets of Yahweh, those who venerate the Sumerian mythos, those who venerate the "aliens are the gods" conspiracy. There are a lot of almost harmless groups who believe in similar things to the Powers That Should Not Be, but I speak of the whole ancient priest class which never wanted to be pushed out by the different monarchies and cultures who pushed them out a long time ago.

        It has many heads, and they all pretend to hate each other in public, but they work behind the scenes. They have many layers, the outer layers are unassuming and quite accepted by society, the inner layers are more fringe and questionable, the core is a rotten black mess of ancient dogmas and something unhuman.

        I'll stick with the evil onion analogy for now. On the outer layer, you have totally public, accepted, legal groups such as the Masonic Lodge (which has many layers by itself, these being the various "degrees" or ranks one must climb), where good hardworking people supposedly go to network and help their communities and businesses. There are more things like this nowadays with colleges and universities offering internships which are basically just "help wanted" from the CIA and elsewhere.

        You also have the religions, usually with one sub-group operating most of the evil. Christianity has Catholics, which has the Jesuits, these being the operators of evil in that layer. Christianity also has Mormonism and other weird off-branch cults like the Latter Day saints who are somehow operating more smoothly compared to other more reasonable sects. Judaism has the Zionistic Talmudists, this makes up most of their various religious philosophies, but some sects like the Hasidic Jews are not so Zionistic. Islam has the Sunni and furthermore there are groups such as the Islamic Brotherhood. There is a Church of Satan, which Mark Passio (who was once a member of the Church) will denounce for lying about their beliefs being some sort of social critic and a joke, and that it is darker at the core and works with other pseudo New-Age cults. But, the Church is legally active. They even have an abortion ritual: https://saidit.net/s/politics/comments/69cb/this_is_on_the_front_page_of_rpolitics/

        Now, these are all philosophical, religious, or business groups. How is this apart of the Evil Onion one might ask.

        The dark occult will use these groups to seek out new members for their little club. These are their intern programs, one might say. They use many rings to hide themselves, because they enjoy hedonistic lifestyles which were once normalized in the past, in certain societies they once dominated. I don't know a lot about their personal beliefs, except that abhor honest people and hardworking do-gooders, they hate united ethnic cultures unless they are united behind one of their Hydra-heads, they worship themselves and some sort of dark entity tied to ancient religions and possibly aliens, and they care nothing for this world and for innocent people. There are a lot of books that can be read on this subject, and I can compile a list of some of them in a PM if you want. It will take some time, as I am busy with work and such.

        They are the Sith. What more can be said? People like u/Jesus and u/Tom_Bombadil do a much better job than I ever could at locating members of the cult, most of which are "Jewish". Trump and Biden are probably patsies, crisis actors used to manipulate the public, but maybe those are the Sith right there. Personally, I think the true Sith are people like Jeffery Epstein, where they no longer work "real" jobs any more and don't have to pretend to be something that they are not. These people have their own little islands and mountain resorts, children at their beck and call, and they do nothing but manage their massive empire of blackmailing, back-stabbing, perverts.

        The Bible talks about these people, but for some reason, the average Christian thinks it isn't real. I am not even religious, but the evidence is loud and clear once one understands the philosophies of the inner-rings.

        [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Jesuits were good pious people before Marranos and crypto-Jews took over. The rejection of Christ and his teachings is the inverse of God which is satanism, which is liberty for Satan's sake, which is satanic naturalism.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        I admittedly do not know much about the Jesuits beyond the funding that goes into specific schools which is all Jesuit-owned and operated. However, I know that some rot got into the Catholic Church, and the modern evidence of this appears to the Jesuits.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Christopher Hollis book on the Jesuits is a good overview.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I disagree with the internalized guilt it promotes. I feel like people either take it seriously, allowing others to walk all over them, or they are more sociopathic/ignorant and inflict guilt on others while not following it themselves.

        I do agree that "cultural Christianity" is way better than most alternatives though.

        [–]Hates__PeachPeach Leftists Hate 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I don't adhere to any organized religion. I don't accept Christianity because Left-liberalism is for me a secularized Christian heresy, one having stripped out God, the afterlife, sin, morality, etc., leaving behind only things I oppose, like the universalist nonsense and guilt culture. It is obvious that the figures pivotal to the rise of liberalism were surrounded everywhere by Christianity given the times and places they were in. It is also obvious that ideologies are influenced by existing ideologies, whether these influences are positive (the ideology is a branch or splinter that maintains most of an existing ideology, e.g. socialism is simply radical liberalism, claiming that liberalism is well-intentioned but cannot sufficiently realize what it intends to realize) or negative (the ideology is a rejection of an existing ideology, for example, in the sense that the 'Dissident-Right' big tent shares in common an explicit rejection of 'progressivism'). Thus even those who believed themselves to be less or anti-Christian would still be working within branches of Christianity to various extents, supporting some parts of it and criticizing others. Left-liberalism simply comes out of that process, accepting Christian values in some regards while replacing the rest with far worse things, e.g. 'original sin' with 'White privilege', the saints with the 'oppressed' like Saint Trayvon and Saint Floyd. 'Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice', as stated by Pelosi, doesn't sound much different from the usual Christian 'Jesus died for your sins'. Jesus was crucified because the world is sinful; Floyd was 'sacrificed' because the world is unjust.

        However, I'm largely theistic on metaphysics, and find atheism to be utter absurdity. Atheists themselves seem to constantly want a pat on the back; not for doing or believing, but for not doing or not believing. And how hard is it not to do or believe in something? You believe in... nothing... great achievement, man, you should be real proud of yourself. It's like sitting on a couch stuffing one's face full of Cheetos for hours on end in front of the Talmudvision and thinking: 'This is so productive!'

        In conclusion, I find atheists (especially the radical, pompous, sneering and snivelling provocateurs who actively push their belief in nothing while being constantly self-congratulatory and self-promoting: 'I'm so smart, anyone who is religious is so superstitious and dumb!') to be utter blowhards, and am theistic while non-religious. I believe that religious folks and atheists are both wrong, but that the former are much less harmful than the latter (by which I mean, for example, that Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are far better than communism or anarchism). There is obviously that one tribe whose religion is worse even than the atheist creeds, of course, being the exception to the rule.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I don't accept Christianity because Left-liberalism is for me a secularized Christian heresy

        I feel the same way.

        I believe that religious folks and atheists are both wrong, but that the former are much less harmful than the latter (by which I mean, for example, that Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are far better than communism or anarchism).

        I also agree on this as well.

        [–]Salos60000Pragmatic European Nationalism 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Secular Christianity except I believe that God's influence/involvement with the realm's he has created after the biblical texts was mainly to observe. I also believe in reincarnation, basically when you die you get a choice either to return and live another life in the world or heaven.