Is this true about Christianity?

[Amused]

I forbid you from thinking that you are anything other than a frog.

If you are not now thinking that you are a frog, then it would seem that beliefs aren't so susceptible to commands. If you are now thinking you are a frog, you will not reply, for frogs cannot type.
Either way I win.

A culture cannot discover or practice individualism if it is forbiden by brute force. Russia went from a king of divine right directly into totalitarianism that excluded any and all religion. Again, to say the USSR was Christian in a vain effort to debunk my point is rather silly, don't you think?

So far, you have no evidence to support your "nuh uh!" except denial of facts.

 

[Zebo]

I don't think Russia ever had human rights. Summary executions, show trails, institutionalized torture all that good stuff always existed there and still does same with China same with most places that are not Europe or USA. Then there is Tribalism everywhere else where tribes go to war over insults of one individual. Even in Countries that are Christian like South Korea it's funny to hear them talk.. it's usually always "our" instead of my. Our wife Our country etc. For empowerment of the individual to be so easy to come by and so accidental it's awfully hard to find outside the west.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're the fucking moron that cannot see how the idea of individualism is unique to western, christian civilizations because of the very evolution of chrstianity.

The evolution of Christianity was only an effect, and just one effect among many. Yes it evolved when atheistic thought patterns flowered within the overall philosophic structure. So what? I just made FAERIES evolve FFS.
You're making it out to be central. It is not. "Christianity" just happened to be the name of the most fragile self-contained pattern. It broke, and in its manner of decomposition atheistic thought started rolling. (Atheistic meaning, "Characterized by the absence of gods," not, "the exclusion of gods." A person could believe their car works straightforwardly chemically/thermodynamically/mechanically while believing their remote control works by magic. Their belief in car operation has no gods while their belief regarding remote controls essentially has them at work. That's an atheistic thought pattern lying alongside a theistic one.)

If you break only one answer, you only need to ask again the one question it pertained to; and as you have a presumed good structure all around it you can play fast and loose and just pick whatever's lying around that sounds good.
If you break a thousand answers -- answers that SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BREAKABLE -- now you have a "slightly" bigger problem. That's a 12.0 earthquake to the entire belief structure, down to its very foundation.
That, in the aftermath, much of the negative space was repaired with rubble from the former belief structure isn't particularly relevant. It's not even interesting -- humans have been filling gaps with whatever shit has been lying around since the dawn of time. What IS relevant is that the shaken faith and the gaps remaining allowed for a much better methodology -- one that was rooted so deeply in reality that it could systematically chip away at superstitious beliefs without ever being in any danger of chipping away at itself.

Christianity changed so that it could coexist with the monster that was rising in the negative space. The monster was not an outgrowth of puny Christian thought, it has its OWN foundation that is completely independent, and it is an ingrowth both into Christianity and into realms that man had never before conceived.

That other large self-contained unsupported belief structures weren't so fragile to have had their foundations broken sufficiently for the monster to fully take root is not the same thing as the monster being an outgrowth of faith-based belief structures, with the contradiction being explained by all these "inferior" structures having been deficient in the required central tenet to provide a jumping-off point.
The monster being an outgrowth of nonsense doesn't even have any apparent paths to come into existence. A proto-religion with a serious question as to whether it should exist would self-annihilate. With an established religion that question would never be serious -- it would be a tiny space surrounded by false beliefs that didn't align with "No" and so would be plugged with a "Yes" for expediency's sake.

 

[DominionSeraph]

A culture cannot discover or practice individualism if it is forbiden by brute force.

There is only tyranny if there is individualism. Fear is a method to reinforce compliance -- it would be counterproductive if the mental structure has no entry for noncompliance. (You can train a rat to avoid certain things by getting it to associate them with an electric shock. But electrify the entire cage floor at completely random intervals and the rat will end up associating EVERY movement with shock. You end up with a very psychologically damaged rat. This aligns with the above in that if there is no thought but compliance there cannot be any association between pain and noncompliance, for noncompliance never exists. In the perceptive framework the pain would be random.)

That's Intro to Psych.

 

[Amused]

The evolution of Christianity was only an effect, and just one effect among many. Yes it evolved when atheistic thought patterns flowered within the overall philosophic structure. So what? I just made FAERIES evolve FFS.
You're making it out to be central. It is not. "Christianity" just happened to be the name of the most fragile self-contained pattern. It broke, and in its manner of decomposition atheistic thought started rolling. (Atheistic meaning, "Characterized by the absence of gods," not, "the exclusion of gods." A person could believe their car works straightforwardly chemically/thermodynamically/mechanically while believing their remote control works by magic. Their belief in car operation has no gods while their belief regarding remote controls essentially has them at work. That's an atheistic thought pattern lying alongside a theistic one.)

If you break only one answer, you only need to ask again the one question it pertained to; and as you have a presumed good structure all around it you can play fast and loose and just pick whatever's lying around that sounds good.
If you break a thousand answers -- answers that SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BREAKABLE -- now you have a "slightly" bigger problem. That's a 12.0 earthquake to the entire belief structure, down to its very foundation.
That, in the aftermath, much of the negative space was repaired with rubble from the former belief structure isn't particularly relevant. It's not even interesting -- humans have been filling gaps with whatever shit has been lying around since the dawn of time. What IS relevant is that the shaken faith and the gaps remaining allowed for a much better methodology -- one that was rooted so deeply in reality that it could systematically chip away at superstitious beliefs without ever being in any danger of chipping away at itself.

Christianity changed so that it could coexist with the monster that was rising in the negative space. The monster was not an outgrowth of puny Christian thought, it has its OWN foundation that is completely independent, and it is an ingrowth both into Christianity and into realms that man had never before conceived.

That other large self-contained unsupported belief structures weren't so fragile to have had their foundations broken sufficiently for the monster to fully take root is not the same thing as the monster being an outgrowth of faith-based belief structures, with the contradiction being explained by all these "inferior" structures having been deficient in the required central tenet to provide a jumping-off point.
The monster being an outgrowth of nonsense doesn't even have any apparent paths to come into existence. A proto-religion with a serious question as to whether it should exist would self-annihilate. With an established religion that question would never be serious -- it would be a tiny space surrounded by false beliefs that didn't align with "No" and so would be plugged with a "Yes" for expediency's sake.

:::sigh:::

I'm out.

Just a suggestion: Look and listen to what you write. Far from objective it is filled with hate and condescension for a belief system that, whether you like it or not, changed mankind and is integral to history.

The unique nature of Christianity itself created the singularly unique climate for individualism to arise. That alone explains why the movement is unique only to western Christian civilizations. You cannot escape that fact. You can insult the belief and the believers until you are blue in the face. You can try to explain it away with walls of pointless text, but you cannot make the obvious go away.

I will leave with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

In the English language, the word "individualism" was first introduced, as a pejorative, by the Owenites in the 1830s, although it is unclear if they were influenced by Saint-Simonianism or came up with it independently.[7] A more positive use of the term in Britain came to be used with the writings of James Elishama Smith, who was a millenarian and a Christian Israelite. Although an early Owenite socialist, he eventually rejected its collective idea of property, and found in individualism a "universalism" that allowed for the development of the "original genius." Without individualism, Smith argued, individuals cannot amass property to increase one's happiness.[7] William Maccall, another Unitarian preacher, and probably an acquaintance of Smith, came somewhat later, although influenced by John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle, and German Romanticism, to the same positive conclusions, in his 1847 work "Elements of Individualism".

And:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260869

Examining the religious roots of individualism and collectivism and seeing them as defining alternative conceptions of the person-other relationship reveal a close link between Christianity and the former and between rabbinic Judaism and the latter. Comparisons between these 2 religious formations in the Western world expose a relationship between Christian individualism and an instrumental and monologic understanding of the person-other relationship and a contrasting rabbinic view that offers a formative and dialogic understanding of that relationship. Because the Christian view has been dominant, its understandings have framed the debates on individualism-collectivism and defined the options available for the person-other relationship, providing a somewhat distorted picture of the possibilities for humankind. The dialogic and formative perspective of the rabbinic tradition introduces an alternative portrait of human nature.

The very roots of Modern individualism is tied directly with Christianity and it's evolution.

 

[DominionSeraph]

For empowerment of the individual to be so easy to come by and so accidental it's awfully hard to find outside the west.

Humans form hierarchies, and they apparently work pretty well because the dominant animals learn to give subs their due. So the individualistic tendencies of the subs are taken into account and countered more by trade than tyranny. Because the structure has effective feedback mechanisms by which it regulates the distribution of power, the individuals never have the need to take back all granted power and start anew. (Even lopping off the king's head does not take back all power granted to the position of king. And submission to the Group with the assumption/observation that the Group wants to raise a king would give power to the position of king even if power was temporarily withdrawn.)

We are social animals. That we exhibit social behavior should not be surprising.
Science just gives a trump card from outside the subjective.

Of course, Fundies seem to take the fact that one can trump and use it to assert their religious beliefs trump. That's a problematic delusion as it screws with the social fabric. There's no reasoning with a subjective trump, and as religions claim to describe reality, religious nuts tend to think that their religious "truth" applies to all people.
Let's hear it for unregulated despotism.

Not one of individualism's high points. Made worse when combined with those who are otherwise sheeple.

 

[DominionSeraph]

:::sigh:::

I'm out.

Just a suggestion: Look and listen to what you write. Far from objective it is filled with hate and condescension for a belief system that, whether you like it or not, changed mankind and is integral to history.

It isn't hate -- it is that YOU ARE NOT SLICING IT RIGHT. It's annoying as hell when someone asserts a conclusion with no entry. You seem to be running with, "post hoc," and completely ignoring the causative factors of the Reformation itself. You use "Christianity evolved," but I get the feeling that you are using "evolved" passively, not acknowledging a Christianity that was forced to evolve. If you could acknowledge a social environmental pressure so great as to completely reshape Christianity you should be able to acknowledge that such a pressure can continue to apply leverage.

Christianity was a block to a serious push for individualism. Individualism moved it out of the way.
Religion can only suppress individualism up to a point. After that, the individual shows just who is in charge of its imaginary fantasy lands. That Christianity was also trying to hold back science gave individualism a tail into the objective. Fantasy battling fantasy is one thing; but when the collective fantasy tries to battle individual observation, the individual observer tends to have a pretty solid basis for his resulting offense.
Christianity split to multiple collectives, but the level of subjectivity in the overall worldview was never quite the same. And the precedent was set that Man trumps God.

The unique nature of Christianity itself created the singularly unique climate for individualism to arise. That alone explains why the movement is unique only to western Christian civilizations. You cannot escape that fact

Ah, so:
"Christianity must have a unique nature because individualism is unique to the West and individualism came from Christianity; and now that I've proved Christianity is unique I can tell you why individualism is unique to the West -- because it came from Christianity's uniqueness; and I can tell individualism came from Christianity because they're both unique."

I may not be able to escape facts, but I can step outside a circular argument with no trouble whatsoever.
It doesn't seem that you've yet mastered that particular skill.

I told you you didn't go big enough. You went for the pattern match and didn't check yourself for linearity. That's sloppy -- the internal consistency of a circular argument means it passes internal cross checks.

Try again, but in a line this time. Start from a fact, go through an established method by which it can effect change, and end at a result.

 

[DominionSeraph]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260869

Effect != cause.

That we can contrast a dolphin's streamlining with that of an aircraft external fuel tank doesn't mean that dolphins created water and thus that all such parameters are descended from them.

A dolphin's shape flows from water / Water's properties do not sprout from the shape of a dolphin.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I forbid you from believing that you are anything other than a frog.

If you are not now of the belief that you are a frog, then it would seem that beliefs aren't so susceptible to commands. If you are now thinking you are a frog, you will not reply, for frogs cannot type.
Either way I win.

You are a troll. However if you would have not used the word USSR, i would agree that the Russian orthodox church is on that part of the planet the largest religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

However in communist USSR :Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, tr. Soyuz Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik IPA: [sɐˈjus sɐˈvʲetskʲɪx sətsɨəlʲɪˈstʲitɕɪskʲɪx rʲɪsˈpublʲɪk] ( listen), abbreviated СССР, SSSR), informally known as the Soviet Union (Russian: Советский Союз, tr. Sovietsky Soyuz) or Soviet Russia, was a constitutionally socialist state that existed on the territory of most of the former Russian Empire in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991

Religion was forbidden. Marxism is also against religion because it recognizes the danger a religion can be but does not have to be automatically.

The problem is that because of using the word socialist, the meaning of the word and the word social has now gotten a bad taste to many, while being social is not a bad thing.

 

[Amused]

Effect != cause.

That we can contrast a dolphin's streamlining with that of an aircraft external fuel tank doesn't mean that dolphins created water and thus that all such parameters are descended from them.

A dolphin's shape flows from water / Water's properties do not sprout from the shape of a dolphin.

You're either trolling, or genuinely in denial. Either way, I'm done.

My point is proved, validated and referenced. Your counter consists of nothing but long winded "Nuh uhs!"

 

[Orignal Earl]

Then there is Tribalism everywhere else where tribes go to war over insults of one individual. Even in Countries that are Christian like South Korea it's funny to hear them talk.. it's usually always "our" instead of my. Our wife Our country etc. For empowerment of the individual to be so easy to come by and so accidental it's awfully hard to find outside the west.

It's pretty easy to find in the US too. Plenty of folk from Kentucky etc. have extended large tribes/families, Native Americians will regard 5th cousins immediate family, and certain religions consider everyone brothers and sisters

 

[piasabird]

You people need to take statistics.

Religion gives people hope, therefore all religion is good and all systems without religion are bad. There, did I stretch the logic a little too far?

It is people seeking power over other people that do bad things. Religion is just a Phylosophy. Just like Maxism is a phylosopy. It is always evil men that take advantage of their positions of power that do the killing and murdering. It does not matter if it is the Pope or Hitler. Evil men seek power to control other people. Good Righteous men seek to empower the innocent.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Religion was forbidden.

As was you thinking that you were anything other than a frog.

How did that go, Einstein?

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're either trolling, or genuinely in denial. Either way, I'm done.

My point is proved, validated and referenced. Your counter consists of nothing but long winded "Nuh uhs!"

Your references just consist of Christianity and individualism being referenced together. Your "proof" of causation consists of nothing but a circular argument.
And you continually show that you have no clue how evolution works, completely undermining the implication that you can process an evolutionary system properly.

You have hand-waving and stupidity and you have added to your stupidity by convincing yourself that that constitutes proof.

You're operating at the high school level. You have to do a LOT better than that to impress the likes of me.
Just because you can beat scrubs with your level of ability doesn't mean that you're all that good. That your ability has served you in the past says nothing about how it stacks up against that of your betters.

And I am your better.

So do better. And you're not going to do that by pushing forward. Go back, start over, and don't be such a dumbass the second time around.

 

[Amused]

And I am your better.

Now that's funny.

I certainly bet you think you are.

You keep telling yourself that. It's cheaper than antidepressants, I'm sure.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Now that's funny.

I certainly bet you think you are.

You keep telling yourself that. It's cheaper than antidepressants, I'm sure.

Your relative status itself is of no need to me. In fact, your status right now is of very little use. That you are down in the rabble means I can't use you to provide any fine positioning data on me; and "me" is one of my very favorite subjects.

You seem to be close to rising. This is good. But P&N is not going to provide you the rock which you need to leverage that rise. The average is complete shit and pretty much everyone is clustered near that average.
That I am here doesn't help things much. My impatience overrules my knowledge that people need to learn at their own pace. I expect everyone to be as good as me and react in accordance with that belief.
I make a lousy teacher.
I can't even provide a clear observational example of skill given that no foil exists for me here.

You cannot easily climb from here. The muck below provides no solid directional data -- you will pick and choose based on what you like, not what is good. And my methods have gone through too many levels of refinement for you to be able to trace them through the vast sea of evolutionary pressures. You will short-circuit yourself with simplistic explanations like above because you are not yet high enough for your exploratory tendrils to reach me, and in their lack of contact you will support the belief that there is nothing else there.

If you want to be greater seek out a circle of greatness. A platform of equals and betters provides a foundation from which one might climb.

 

[dali71]

You're operating at the high school level. You have to do a LOT better than that to impress the likes of me.
Just because you can beat scrubs with your level of ability doesn't mean that you're all that good. That your ability has served you in the past says nothing about how it stacks up against that of your betters.

And I am your better.

This is funny, considering it's coming from a college dropout.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Your relative status itself is of no need to me. In fact, your status right now is of very little use. That you are down in the rabble means I can't use you to provide any fine positioning data on me; and "me" is one of my very favorite subjects.

You seem to be close to rising. This is good. But P&N is not going to provide you the rock which you need to leverage that rise. The average is complete shit and pretty much everyone is clustered near that average.
That I am here doesn't help things much. My impatience overrules my knowledge that people need to learn at their own pace. I expect everyone to be as good as me and react in accordance with that belief.
I make a lousy teacher.
I can't even provide a clear observational example of skill given that no foil exists for me here.

You cannot easily climb from here. The muck below provides no solid directional data -- you will pick and choose based on what you like, not what is good. And my methods have gone through too many levels of refinement for you to be able to trace them through the vast sea of evolutionary pressures. You will short-circuit yourself with simplistic explanations like above because you are not yet high enough for your exploratory tendrils to reach me, and in their lack of contact you will support the belief that there is nothing else there.

If you want to be greater seek out a circle of greatness. A platform of equals and betters provides a foundation from which one might climb.

I think I'm going to make you my new kick toy.

 

[werepossum]

I think I'm going to make you my new kick toy.

For some reason that made me laugh out loud, so much so that I forgive you for quoting his drivel and thereby violating the sanctity of my Ignore list. Kudos to you.

 

[spittledip]

For some reason that made me laugh out loud, so much so that I forgive you for quoting his drivel and thereby violating the sanctity of my Ignore list. Kudos to you.

Lol he is on your ignore list too? I only have 3 people on my ignore list and he is one of the ones who made it there.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Christianity wouldn't respec the individual if western civilization didn't cudgel it into doing so. You only have to look at it's history to see that.

 

[Amused]

Christianity wouldn't respec the individual if western civilization didn't cudgel it into doing so. You only have to look at it's history to see that.

Are you using the history of Christianity to judge, or the history of various Churches/nations/kings who have claimed to act in it's name?

 

[Blackjack200]

Are you using the history of Christianity to judge, or the history of various Churches/nations/kings who have claimed to act in it's name?

Is there really a distinction there? Isn't the "history of Christianity" just the sum of all who have acted in its name?

 

[Amused]

Is there really a distinction there? Isn't the "history of Christianity" just the sum of all who have acted in its name?

Yes, and no. Many, including the Catholic church have seized the religion and sought to gain power over men from it.

Hence why the literacy of man brought on the break from not only the Catholic Church, but all national churches and divine right of kings. Once the common man could actually read the bible, he could see that Christianity had none of that in it. It's main theme is quite the opposite: the only way to god is between an individual, and Jesus. Christianity literally takes out the middleman, and makes the individual responsible for his own salvation. The religion itself brought on the break once men could read it for themselves.

As literacy spread around the world, individualism remained unique to western culture. This can be seen as one of the main reasons why. All the other religions still required churches/temples/mosques and the way to god was through clergy/kings/the elite. But not protestantism.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes, and no. Many, including the Catholic church have seized the religion and sought to gain power over men from it.

Hence why the literacy of man brought on the break from not only the Catholic Church, but all national churches and divine right of kings. Once the common man could actually read the bible, he could see that Christianity had none of that in it. It's main theme is quite the opposite: the only way to god is between an individual, and Jesus. Christianity literally takes out the middleman, and makes the individual responsible for his own salvation. The religion itself brought on the break once men could read it for themselves.

As literacy spread around the world, individualism remained unique to western culture. This can be seen as one of the main reasons why. All the other religions still required churches/temples/mosques and the way to god was through clergy/kings/the elite. But not protestantism.

Interesting point, I've heard it argued that it was more the enlightenment that forced this more egaliatian interpretation of Christianity than the more liberal tenets of the religion tolerating the enlightenment. A chicken-egg kind of counterpoint. I'm not really a historian or biblical scholar, so I don't know that I'll get to the bottom of that question, but it's interesting none the less.

I have, incedently, moved away from my view that all religions were roughly equivalent, and I now see Islam as a poison. Perhaps Christianity is on the other end of the spectrum...