Does anyone take their religion seriously?

[abcdavid01]

Materialism and legalism are different things.

I don't think see much of a difference tbh. Makes me think of Libertarianism, whose founders were Jews if that means anything. Fedora capitalism. Bowtie wearers. These are all Righstuff ideas. Following very logical and constructed rationality lacks spirit. It can't see a higher truth. Following the letter of the law and not its intent. Also makes me think of autism. People on 4chan use autism as an insult for a certain kind of thinking and it's pretty accurate.

The more superstitious a culture is, the more messed up and less developed it is. This is why Moses commanded the Israelites not to "practice divination, tell fortunes, interpret omens, practice sorcery, cast spells, consult a medium or a familiar spirit, or inquire of the dead" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).

Christianity peaked when it felt compelled to follow the law (as proof of faith) and when it didn't focus on superstitions. If Christianity could return to some system like Calvin's that causes Christians to follow moral laws, then I would agree with you. But show me such a form of Christianity today? I can't find it.

There's truth to this and it's a similar argument to what a Nietzschean would say. But trying to destroy superstition is an impossible goal and I'd even say inadvisable because it goes against human nature. Rather than making futile attempts to suppress human nature, I'd rather try to give it a positive direction in religion. So I think humans need to be superstitious in church so they aren't superstitious in a whorehouse. I can't see humans ever really being without superstition. All this focus on human nature by Reactionaries is what Marx called us out on in the Manifesto.

[fschmidt]

abcdavid, it's all about balance. Too much materialism and legalism is as bad as too little materialism and legalism. One needs balance. Jesus had balance in that he defended basic Torah law but rejected excess legalism.

The same applies to superstition. Moses provided balance by having the superstitious pray to God instead of doing other nonsense. But Moses never required superstition in his religion, unlike Christianity. So Moses's religion had an imposed upper limit on superstition but no lower limit. I think this is ideal.

The Old Testament laws can be followed in 2 ways; through understanding or through obedience. Unfortunately most people do not have the intelligence to follow moral law through understanding, so obedience is needed. But the Old Testament certainly does allow for following the law through understanding. Unfortunately rabbinic Judaism ruined this with the Talmud, which is why I will join the Karaites. The Protestants between 1600 and 1800 also followed basic Old Testament law in a balanced way.

[abcdavid01]

To worship is to be human. Nowadays there's just a lot of idolatry going on. So I'll take my irrational Christianity over worshipping a set of laws. Actually I learned a lot of this from that site you sent me, The Right Stuff. Really I can't thank you enough for directing me there.

Would you be prepared to make a decision to kill or die over a doctrinal point of the Christian religion in the way that contemporary modernity death-cultists do and previous Christians did? Would you see the issue in such a way that you had no other viable choice, as they do/did? That would be the true test of whether you are a Christian.

Alright, I'll say this: Christianity gave me a new lease on life. Christ reached out his hand and saved me. So I figure I owe him one. He saved my life once, so if he ever asked for it back in return I'd like to think I'd offer it. That's what being reborn is all about. But you never really can say until you're actually tested though.

[abcdavid01]

abcdavid, it's all about balance. Too much materialism and legalism is as bad as too little materialism and legalism. One needs balance. Jesus had balance in that he defended basic Torah law but rejected excess legalism.

The same applies to superstition. Moses provided balance by having the superstitious pray to God instead of doing other nonsense. But Moses never required superstition in his religion, unlike Christianity. So Moses's religion had an imposed upper limit on superstition but no lower limit. I think this is ideal.

The Old Testament laws can be followed in 2 ways; through understanding or through obedience. Unfortunately most people do not have the intelligence to follow moral law through understanding, so obedience is needed. But the Old Testament certainly does allow for following the law through understanding. Unfortunately rabbinic Judaism ruined this with the Talmud, which is why I will join the Karaites. The Protestants between 1600 and 1800 also followed basic Old Testament law in a balanced way.

You say "the superstitious" as if it's a separate group of humanity. I'd say if anyone claims they aren't superstitious then they're just lying to themselves and need to be more humble before God. You're right about the need for balance though. I don't see Judaism as having it. You said Orthodox doesn't have it and obviously (I know too from experience) Reform Judaism doesn't have it. So that eliminates almost all Judaism except maybe your little group. But I'd like to save The West and for me that just means waiting it out until Liberalism goes into an inevitable collapse. It'll be soon because it has literally nothing new to contribute to philosophy. It's tired and boring. I don't see why an opposition won't just grow organically though and come in as a replacement. That there are even websites like this, though imperfect, is testament to that fact. I'm just waiting for the day when nature returns.

[fschmidt]

You say "the superstitious" as if it's a separate group of humanity. I'd say if anyone claims they aren't superstitious then they're just lying to themselves and need to be more humble before God.

All human attributes are in a continuum, so if I say "the superstitious" or "the moral" or "the strong", I just mean those with a lot of that attribute. No one has 100% or 0% of these attributes. But my level of superstition is very low, too low to qualify as a Christian.

But I'd like to save The West and for me that just means waiting it out until Liberalism goes into an inevitable collapse. It'll be soon because it has literally nothing new to contribute to philosophy. It's tired and boring. I don't see why an opposition won't just grow organically though and come in as a replacement. That there are even websites like this, though imperfect, is testament to that fact. I'm just waiting for the day when nature returns.

Give me one historical example of a culture as far gone as The West that revived? If you can't, what makes you think it will be different this time?

Nothing is more irrelevant to history than philosophy. Liberalism is not boring to average people, it seduced the id. It promises free sex to men, which it fails to deliver, but men are too stupid to understand this and blame themselves. It promises safety and support to women, which it fails to deliver, but women are too stupid to undertand this. Liberalism will last until The West collapses, which will be a long time from now.

If you are waiting for nature to return, I can save you some time. Move to any third world country and you will have your nature. It has pluses and minuses. Just ask those guys here who moved to such countries.

Regarding religion, I know that debate never changes anyone's mind. Only direct experience does. So start attending church every Sunday. In a year, when you give up on Christianity, we can talk again about Karaite Judaism.

[abcdavid01]

Well like all smart men my level of superstition is low too. Doesn't stop me from Christianity though. Even if I were to give what I think are historical examples you'd just say it isn't good enough because your standards are so exacting. That's why you're wanting to join a small sect and I'm looking at larger society. You're a pessimist and I'm an optimist. When I mean Liberalism is boring I mean that among intellectual circles. For history to move forward something will have to replace it because Liberalism has no new ideas.That makes it weak and susceptible. Philosophers are the true kings. Although philosophers themselves have no power, their ideas influence the governments and revolutionaries that make history. Again, I think I care too much about The West though. That's why even though I think Islam has good attributes, I'd not want it to take over Western Europe.