all 28 comments

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

When I was about 19 in college this girl asked me where I went to church. I told her that I didn't go to church and didn't really have any religious beliefs. She told me that I had to pick one and I told her I had freedom of religion. She countered that I had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion and I had to pick one. I ended the conversation right then with a "fuck you" and walked away. Her name was Karen.

[–]Cornfed[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The girl was probably right.

[–]trident765 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What about Evagelical Protestantism? My neighbors were Independent Baptists and they seemed ok. They were quiet, polite, friendly, took their religion very seriously, and genuinely believed everyone except members of their religion was going to hell. I would say they are universalist as well, because they kept trying to convert my family to their religion. They were against degeneracy to the point that they forbid their children from watching TV or movies, except for a few Bible shows they hand picked, and they homeschooled their children. The kids turned out ok as far as I know, except the son appears to be an incel, who got badly friendzoned and cucked by a fat slut he met at Bible college.

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

I read that such upbringing might predispose one more to becoming a future incel. Not helping is the culture, including the church, that seems to implicitly say that men's sexuality is more sinful and perverted than women's.

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

In the main they would tend to be just as problematic as other Protestants for the reasons given in the OP, if not even more so. Arguably they were the original SJWs.

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

Are you referring to the "puritan" rules culture?

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

Not sure what you mean.

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

It's an important issue you're raising, but I think you're quick to dismiss religions, especially Islam and Hinduism. Are you assessing Islam based on Muslim migrants coming to the West? I think that wouldn't be a fair assessment. They seem to be doing a good job resisting modernism in the Middle East.

How is Hinduism not universalist? It has, historically, not been as unified as Abrahimic religions, but it's in the process of being unified under Hindu Nationalism, and movements like ISCKCON have adherents worldwide, in the millions. There's also Sikhi.

To me, the issue is that religions are filled with superstitions. But if you take those out, it becomes dry and will lose the beneficial effects such as maintaining contentment and integrity in individuals, installing social cohesion, scalability. I wonder if some kind of middle ground can be found between enlightenment ideals and traditional monotheism. Belief in God isn't a superstition unto itself. The question is how much the existence of God, without any superstitious overlays, really implies. I plan to flesh out this question and develop an alternative that's in accordance with reason. Although lately I've been wondering if "religion" is even the right word for something like that.

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

I think I'm agnostic about the questions about God and the Heavens or which doctrines are true vs. not true in the objective sense. I do believe that Jesus Christ was a real figure who performed works and died, rose up to Heaven, but pretty much outside of that I don't care much about what the conclusion is. I am more familiar with me and people's subjective judgement of God's actions.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don't deny or devalue religion in general as a basic foundation for good civilizations, but it seems like every religion has at least one of those negative characteristics of some kind. I can't swallow the idea of dualism - the concept that our bodies and natural physical existence must be disconnected from our spiritual existence. It's the whole "physical = corrupt/sinful, spirit = good" kind of mentality and all that. I don't think living as just a spirit being that can't interact with matter is appealing to me any bit.

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

Is extreme dualism really a big deal for Christianity? Historically extreme dualists have been regarded as heretical, such as in the cases of the Manicheans and the Cathars.

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

To answer your question though, Christianity has a strong history of ascetic culture, to the point that it implicitly feels that sexuality is inherently "unfit" for the spirit (Matthew 22:30 is a favorite reference for these types). I think the kind of mentality is where that doctrine is rooted.

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

There is a lot of nonsense in current lamestream Christianity. Now that all the churches have been thoroughly discredited but the Christian tradition survives, it is the ideal moment to clean house and start a sensible Christian movement.

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

I meant "dualism" in the context of the idea that the physical body and inner being are separable, with a strong ascetic theme. Heck, Christianity itself is pretty intrinsically absolute self-denial, which contains asceticism.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So it doesn't speak to you, but how does that make it negative from an objective point of view? Most of the religions that embrace the body are quite modern and hedonistic. Maybe look into tantra, though.

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

I didn't mean necessarily from an objective POV. But, God also created our bodies and called all of the creation good.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes. The Old Testament was written before the Axial age, when people were more focused on this world. But Christianity takes away from this message. By the time it develops, you have Paul who hates the body and what not.

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

But what do you think and feel about Paul hating the body and everything? Do you agree with Paul on that?

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

I find it difficult. It's a view that's very much in line with my own propensities. I've always felt like physicality unto itself introduces a level of superficiality. For example, somebody can be clumsy, and they will be judged for that. We can have deeper interactions if we focus on personality alone. That's what I always loved about the Internet: it lets us interact based on text alone, so that our intellectual parts can come to the forefront. You can get to know someone in a unique way through the Internet. It's also why I detested so much that people were trying to make the Internet like real life, where your actions are tied to your real name and a photo is more or less required. (This is even enforced socially, where people become suspicious if you don't include a photo of yourself.)

As you can see, I care about a deeper life in the here and now, and I agree with Paul insofar as the view promises that. But Paul's view was somewhat different and predicated on the belief in an afterlife: he hates his human body and longs for a perfected body after death. This is problematic because it cannot be falsified and reason doesn't apply to it. Instead, it has more to do with feeling to me. If I try to summarize Paul, it will sound silly, but that's very different from what you get out of it when you actually read scriptures. The state of mind it puts you in when you do can be beneficial even if you don't believe in it in any literal way. That's as far as my answer goes; I haven't really made up my mind about it.

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Islam today is much like medieval Catholicism which must have appeared to be a hopeless mess at the time. An Islamic reformation is entirely possible, and this would include re-evaluating Hadiths based on common sense. But this is only a choice for a committed Muslim to try. For the rest of us, Islam is useless.

Christianity has more potential since the lessons of the Reformation can be re-applied. To me the obvious choice would be a new form of Anabaptism that rejects non-violence. The Anabaptists are already way ahead of other religions, and a new improved denomination of Anabaptism would have great potential.

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

A lot of Christianity had a long history of taking non-violence literally, to the point where the historically Christian Western countries are struggling to protect and defend themselves against invasion of other cultures and un-Western ideas, and most "religious" groups today have been co-opted to resemble more of the one dominant global religion just dressed in religious language. For the enemies to be able to successfully subvert even the religion itself does say a lot for me sometimes. I don't know about you.

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

Do the Anabaptists have any intellectual foundation other than the New Testament? If they reject all of the post-Biblical scholarship as paganism and don't have anything to replace it, then this isn't much to go on.

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

post-Biblical scholarship

What is this? What do you mean?

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

The writings of the early Church fathers and scholastic philosophers, for example.

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

Isn't "extra-Biblical" a better term, then? Since a lot of it has its origin in ancient Greek philosophy.

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

Sorry, I don't know. I would be interested in the answer if you find it.

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

From what I read online, Anabaptists believe the Bible alone is authoritative as interpreted by a given congregation, which is no good IMO.

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

as interpreted by a given congregation

It's good if their assessment is accurate. That particular phrase leaves a lot of room for variations that can't be valid.