I see arguments of this form from Christian Nationalists a lot:
1. If we were Christian, we would ban {a bunch of things like feminism}.
2. We really want to ban those things since they're bad.
3. Therefore, we should force Christianity on folks.
This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Further, we don't need to force this religion to ban bad things. Christianity, as history has shown, also brings its own bad things.
You're arguing against straw men claims that CN's never make.
Christian nationalism is not a theocracy, nor does it advocate for one. It advocates for basing law on a Christian moral framework because laws are simply moral "ought" claims, not just "I want because .. feels".
We supposedly already have that, since the legal system is based on the Byzantine Justinian Code, but that's being dismantled at record pace as you're seeing in real time.
As the 20th century experiments in communism and the current day West clearly demonstrates, moral frameworks cannot be derived from secularism.
That’s different than forcing belief or church attendance which is absurd.
The biggest single indictment of this is the fact that under secular morality, literally no Western society is able to reproduce itself.
The other part that is often missed is that this is largely Orthodox Christian in origin.
Protestanism has failed. Catholicism is failing before our very eyes. Both are considered heresies from the Ortho perspective, and this 1000-year argument is now at the "I told you so" stage.
Orthodoxy is based in Byzantium Empire, & since it's fall, has thrived on a decentralized model of church nationalism - Greek, Russian, Syriac etc.. that shares power with the state.
Not a theocracy.
"moral frameworks cannot be derived from secularism."
Say it again!
You 'can't run a society off of subjective morality. There must be some objective standard or we're wasting our time.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh How is Christian ethics not subjective? Unless you already believe the metaphysics, it's just as made up and subjective as any secular ethics.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh No, it doesn't. Nietzche predicted EVERYTHING, and identified Christianity as the CAUSE. Further, the social gospel movement FOUNDED progressivism. This whole situation is the fault of Christian values!
You're conflating Christian values with human nature.
Nowhere in the bible does it say to give women rights and let people be gay.
It says the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.
Christian values are not the cause of progressivism and if you look deeply enough you will clearly see that the social engineers pushing progressivism were satanic/atheist.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh The Bible also says to not mix linens and avoid shellfish, but people don't exactly follow all the rules. Christians have always picked and chose what's convenient. So this doesn't mean much. Christians founded progressivism and their slave morality values continue to fuel the movement. You're only looking at the outside paint and not the engine.
@philosophy @UncleIroh I'm wasn't picking and choosing I made a point and you moved the goalpost.
I said "Nowhere in the bible does it say to give women rights and let people be gay."
You conveniently skipped that part though lol
And yes people don't follow all the rules but you judge Christianity based off it's principles, not the people.
If we judged religions off people we'd have scrapped it long ago.
Also progressivism has satanic orgins not christian.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh I didn't ignore that. That's exactly what I was responding to. Christians conveniently pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow all the time. They don't care about mixing linens or eating shellfish either...they're just taking "love your neighbor (even if he's gay)" over "don't be gay."
"Also progressivism has satanic orgins not christian."
No, it doesn't. It started in the late 19th century with the social gospel movement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
Again you judge a religion off it's principles, not the people. People are flawed and make mistakes
For the record I don't eat shellfish.
Christianity doesn't promote the woman over theman. Satanits do
Christianity doesn't support LGBT, Luciferians do.
Christianity doesn't support pedophilia, but Luciferians do!
"they're just taking "love your neighbor (even if he's gay)" over "don't be gay.""
This is CLEARLY disingenuous.
Love your neighbor just means don't be an asshole.
It has NOTHING to do with LGBT.
The bible CLEARLY states that all gay people should be killed.
You shouldn't say a whole religion should be jettisonned when you don't understand what you're removing.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh This is exactly the argument liberal Christians make: that "love your neighbor" supercedes anything in the Old Testament. You're the one being disingenuous if you don't recognize this.
"This is exactly the argument liberal Christians make:"
That had nothing to do with what I was saying, though.
You're talking to me, so address my points and not normie Christians who have never read the bible.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh And yet it has everything to do with the overall point. Being Christian has nothing to do with getting the results you want. There's a TON of Christians out there who pick and choose what they want to follow in the Bible, and there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. Adopting Christianity, therefore, doesn't even guarantee we'll get rid of feminism, nor does it mean Christianity didn't give rise to feminism.
I'm losing my patience here as I think you're intentionally ignoring my points.
"There's a TON of Christians out there who pick and choose what they want to follow in the Bible"
AGAIN: people don't follow all the rules but you judge Christianity based off it's principles, not the people.
"Adopting Christianity, therefore, doesn't even guarantee we'll get rid of feminism"
There are no guarantees, but its a pretty safe bet
@basedbagel @UncleIroh You're losing patience because my points are completely countering everything you say but you're not seeing it. You're seeing YOUR version of Christianity: Christianity de jure. You're seeing its history through this bias, rather than seeing Christianity de facto, as it is. Christians, as they are, pick and choose what they want to follow. They justify progressivism through "love your neighbor." How much of the OT to follow is an argument as old as Christianity itself.
"You're seeing YOUR version of Christianity"
NO I AM NOT.
This is not a videogame or windows.
There are no versions of Christianity.
There is scripture and there are humans who twist words to serve their own ends as they have done from antiquity.
To sit here and pretend otherwise is asinine
@basedbagel @UncleIroh This is simply low level thinking. You think there's a "right way" to interpret Christianity and a "wrong way." But what determines the correct way? The people that say there's a right way?
This is the entire problem with this conversation and why it's REALLY tedious for me. You're stuck in Blue/level 4 Spiral Dynamics thinking. For every "right way" you have, another group has their "right way."
@basedbagel @UncleIroh "There are no versions of Christianity.
There is scripture and there are humans who twist words to serve their own ends as they have done from antiquity. "
And don't tell me you're not saying there's a "right way," because that's exactly what this quote is saying. "My group's interpretation of the Bible is the CORRECT one. Other people are twisting words."
It's so ludicrously lacking in self-awareness.
"don't tell me you're not saying there's a "right way," because that's exactly what this quote is saying."
How are you gonna quote me and then straw man me lol?
put the straw man down and address my actual point.
There is a book called the bible that me and a few people happen to live by.
Alot of people find the twist the bible to their own ends, which is WRONG. Get it now?
I'm not lacking in self awareness you're clearly lacking in reading comprehension.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh Ok, you're clearly lacking in self-awareness and my original diagnosis of level 4 thinking is dead on. This confirms it.
That's not a straw man at all. You're saying that YOUR understanding of the Bible is correct (or maybe, your group's). Other groups say you're the one twisting the scripture. How do you determine who's right? An epistemology answering the question would be level 5 thinking.
Lacking awareness of this problem is really clear in what you're saying.
> Blue/level 4 Spiral Dynamics thinking
What kind of new-age faggotry is this nonsense?
On second thoughts, don't bother. I can guarantee it lays claim to metaphysics without admitting it.
@philosophy Forget about it @UncleIroh He has no interest in good faith discussion.
I conceded the good points he made while he ignored and strawmanned mine because he has a clear agenda and made up his mind already.
This is you last chance to address my points:
1. Christianity is a patriarchal religion so it couldn't have caused feminism. Feminism = Satanism. NOT Christianity
2. Just because people twist/misinterpret the bible doesn't mean we should scrap it all.
It's funny you prove my point without realizing. Moral relitivsm can't work because people will just make up their own subjective morality to suit their current goals (like women) leading to chaos
@basedbagel @UncleIroh You accuse me of not arguing in bad faith, but then turn around and say I'm arguing for moral relativism.
I've addressed your points. You're just so stuck in one mode you're not seeing how what I said addresses them. Christianity is not inherently patriarchal: early feminists made reference to a lot of NT scripture to justify their position.
Your entire argument rests on "my interpretation is correct and their's isn't." This is why Christianity is such a mess.
@philosophy @UncleIroh I don't know why you secular people bring this stuff up knowing GOOD AND WELL you had your mind made up and had no interest in honest conversation.
"Christians, as they are, pick and choose what they want to follow."
You have said this multiple times and I addressed it.
Will you address my points about how progressivism aligns perfectly with satanism and how feminism in DIAMETRICALLY opposed to patriarchal religions like Christianity?
"nor does it mean Christianity didn't give rise to feminism."
This is FALSE.
Christianity is as patriarchal religion which diametrically OPPOSES feminism.
Why do you think feminists always bitch about the patriarchy?
Because Patriarchy implies male hedgemony.
Correct.
Feminism can be summarized as "Daddy is a big meanie-head because he won't let me be a slut and kill my babies"
It really does boil down to that. Secular enlightenment/progressive laws always go in the direction of "I want more unaccountable sex and degeneracy".
Always.
Correct. Progressivism is literally built on top of a mixture of gnostic, occult and satanic cults and beliefs. Feminism depends on it.
Transhumanism and Dataism are just 2 of the modern day inheritors of that tradition.
Once again, Rachel Wilson's book is a great primer on this:
https://www.amazon.com/Occult-Feminism-Secret-History-Liberation/dp/B09NGXZKHB
@UncleIroh @basedbagel You're only seeing the modern outer shell. The inside, the foundation, is Christian slave morality...victim mentality.
Your lack of historical understanding is clear. Do some reading first.
@basedbagel @philosophy @UncleIroh Doesn't "Master vs Slave" morality have something to do with it? I understand the Social Gospel movement was indeed the catalyst for Progressive ideology?
@sardonicsmile @philosophy @UncleIroh
Yes and no. The social gospel movement is women using social engineering to twist the bible to benefit them i.e. give them rights
Classic.
Nietzsche was a real-life loser who rage-quit normal life after he was cucked by his friend over the woman he simped for. He then later contracted syphilis via his degenerate addiction to homosexual prostitutes, as 2 biographies lay out.
Don't get me wrong, he was a genius thinker, but the exact opposite of what he preached in real life.
I won't be basing any moral framework off him.
Your conclusion is based purely off Western heresies.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel OK, I don't care. This is ad hominem garbage. The man predicted everything. He's the only man in history I'd call a legitimate prophet. And he identified the common theme as Christian slave morality. That's the cause. That whole religion needs to be jettisoned. Buddhism is literally and outright superior, if only for not relying on a bunch of metaphysical nonsense to have any weight.
Not adhom, these are wholly relevant facts that anyone seeking a moral foundation needs to consider seriously.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel It's LITERALLY an ad hominem. "Nietzsche was a bad person so his predictions aren't relevant."
Yes, they are relevant. Christianity's slave morality is the foundation of modern progressivism. I'm not advocating for Nietzsche's solutions, I'm only saying his identification of the problem is absolutely correct. If it's not, then explain how he predicted the entire modern Western world's situation?
> LITERALLY an ad hominem.
No, if something being said is true, then it's not technically an ad hominem fallacy, even if it's negative.
In this case, not only are they true, they are centrally relevant to the argument you make.
Descriptively he gets a lot right. Prescriptively he is entirely wrong, as the modern day meaning crisis & suicide rates demonstrate.
Dostoyevksy, on Orthodox Christian, got far more right.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel What? You clearly don't understand what an ad hominem is. It doesn't matter if the ad hominem is true; the kind of person Nietzsche was is irrelevant to his being right.
I'm only talking about his descriptive side anyways. That's all that's even necessary for this conversation: Christian slave morality is the foundation of all the problems we have. That slave morality is used to justify all the victimhood and need to tax "the privileged."
@basedbagel @UncleIroh "I suppose if you don't believe in any higher power and that we randomly ended up here for no reason then yeah it would seem subjective to you."
This is no small point. Unless you're already Christian, then Christian values are not objective. I wish Christians would stop making this claim that they are lol.
Now you're getting it. Yes, of course I believe in the metaphysics. And the epistemology, ontology and of course the ethics.
So do secularists but they're usually either too dumb or dishonest to admit/see it.
They use words like best, good, progress, sufering without realizing that these are massive metaphysical claims. They want these words to do the load-bearing of their worldview without any metaphysical justification.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel Well, and here's why Buddhism is outright superior. It has a metaphysics but its central claims have nothing to do with shit humans made up and then want to claim are objective (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics all fall under that). There's nothing false required in Buddhism. Christianity rests on nonsense that a 10 year old that figures out there is no Santa Clause can see through, because it's the same thing if it doesn't have social force behind it.
Buddhism is nihilistic. It has contributed a lot to the mechanics of introspection and has a good set of virtue ethics. However, it all comes to naught since it is ultimately grounded in material cause and effect consequentialism via the bullshit concept of karma.
No great empire was or could ever be built on the literal self-negation of Buddhism.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel Buddhism is not nihilistic. Nihilism is the idea there is no purpose to life. Buddhism establishes a clear purpose, which is enlightenment. It's literally the opposite of nihilistic. Further, karma is not the end "thing" of Buddhism. Enlightenment is.
This shit is old. You're arguing for a specific conclusion you want and trying to form facts surrounding it. This is such a common theme with conversations with Christians: they warp every other worldview, deliberately.
Buddhism's purpose to "lived life" is work towards enlightenment such that rebirth no longer happens.
Life itself according to them is proof of our defilement by attachment.
The logical conclusion of their worldview is a world where humans no longer physically exist because they have transcended to a unification with an enlightened universal Oneness.
Buddhism is self-negation and nihilism. GTFO with that nonsense.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel By this argument, Christianity is self-negation and nihilism just as much. Its goal is to get to heaven, and its logical conclusion is that after the rapture, humans will no longer physically exist on Earth.
It's abundantly clear that you really don't understand Christianity at all.
Not even a bit.
Christ is the living God and we are His children. We are given life's blessing and commanded to bring forth more life in His name.
Christianity is the MOST life-affirming religion as can be seen by historical birth-rates. The religious give birth to far more children than secularists, who murder and sterlize theirs, as is their Satanic wont.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel My entire point is you don't understand Buddhism, and I used your exact argument against you. You fell for it perfectly. I know full well I've twisted Christianity using word magic; my point is that you did the exact same thing with Buddhism.
This is the most consistent experience I have of Christians: you never understand other worldviews. Your misunderstanding is very deliberate, biased, and tiresome.
My account of Buddhism is accurate, truthful and entirely consistent with their stated consequentialist beliefs.
Whatever gotcha you think you have scored lives in your head.
Show me where the Christianity touched you ..
If you were as rational as you like to believe you are and stopped indulging in hate-boner straw-man arguments, and actually studied this stuff in good faith, even you .. yes even you, could understand.
Jesus patiently awaits.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel The second picture sort of makes my point. Christian values are so seeped into our culture that they have to be the foundation for all our current issues. They're too baked in not to be.
I don't really have a hate boner for Christianity. I love Bernadette Roberts and put her in my top 2 spiritual authors.
Look, I'm certainly indulging in some aggressive conversation tonight. I'll grant that. (continued)
@UncleIroh @basedbagel But the bottom line I have with Christianity is that it's based on a bunch of metaphysical nonsense that's completely unnecessary. You can have a morality without it. In fact, the focus on the metaphysics really detracts from the whole thing.
Not only that, but there's superior options. Buddhism is based on the truth as you can see for yourself, not based on a "trust me bro" epistemology. There's simply superior options here.
@philosophy @UncleIroh @basedbagel what you are referring to is called dispensational premillenialism. It is a surprisingly modern interpretation adopted by American baptists due to the idea being promoted in the Schofield reference bible. >99% of Christians do not, and have never believed in this.
Appreciate the added clarification. I couldn't recall the precise heresy he was referring to.
Rapture theology/premillennialism is not the defacto view of Christianity and is rather recent and mostly American. It isn't a cycle though where souls escape via one-way valve or are otherwise trapped in reincarnation.
@philosophy @UncleIroh
I suppose if you don't believe in any higher power and that we randomly ended up here for no reason then yeah it would seem subjective to you.
However don't you find it interesting that the west's moral decay directly correlates to when they moved away from Christian values?