Christianity

[Imadrongo]

Debating whether or not these attacks are fair and justified is a perfectly valid train of thought.

Is any attack not fair or unjustified? Unless you are stooping to argue politics I'm sure everyone here will agree: no.

If you want to further discuss Christianity without having tons of nonsense you might start by defining what you mean. To start, do you mean what Jesus did or what the Church does?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil,

Is any attack not fair or unjustified? Unless you are stooping to argue politics I'm sure everyone here will agree: no.

Is this a double- or a triple- negative? (I would like to remind you that in your last post in the Truth/Non-Delusion thread, you intentionally misread Ryan's writing so you could attack him personally.)

If you want to further discuss Christianity without having tons of nonsense you might start by defining what you mean.

Ah! You have finally stepped onto the definition boat.

By Christianity, I do not refer to the superstitions of common people, which are always stupid, regardless of religion. If I had to give a perfect example of someone who epitomizes Christianity, I would use Kierkegaard. Since the religion that Kierkegaard represents is every bit as complex as Buddhism, using a definition is less helpful than an example. (If someone asked me to define Buddhism, I would tell them to read the Diamond Sutra; I would not think any definition could do justice to Buddha's thoughts.)

The primary differences between the religion of educated Christians (which also includes Augustine, Aquinas, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, many of the Founding Fathers of America; and, with a few provisos, Friedrich Nietzsche) and that of superstitious rednecks is that there is no anthropomorphic God (rather, a pantheist God is favoured by intelligencia), Jesus is treated as a very wise philosopher and not as a deity, and no stress is placed on ritual. I would expect that an educated Christian would have -- at the very least -- read the writings of Plato. Plato has had such a large influence on Christianity that I could not consider someone who had merely read the Bible to know enough about his religion to be considered much of a Christian.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

By Christianity, I do not refer to the superstitions of common people, which are always stupid, regardless of religion.

This is generally what Christianity refers to.

If I had to give a perfect example of someone who epitomizes Christianity, I would use Kierkegaard. Since the religion that Kierkegaard represents is every bit as complex as Buddhism, using a definition is less helpful than an example.

Can't you find a different name for your philosophy? We can go back to QRS if you want, Christianity is taken.

Relating to first post of this thread: not many people are critiquing your version of 'Christianity'. They are all critiquing the religion of the church goers who call themselves Christians.

... educated Christians (which also includes Augustine, Aquinas, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, many of the Founding Fathers of America; and, with a few provisos, Friedrich Nietzsche)

Wow. Please list people who remotely agree with each other next time.

Mill -- whatever brings about most utility ought to be done (utilitarianism).
Kant -- tries to give morality a metaphysical rooting.
Nietzsche -- openly criticizes utilitarianism (calls Mill a plebeian), openly attacks Kant, his thing-in-itself, metaphysicals, denies morality (calls himself the immoralist), attacks Jesus (calls himself The Antichrist), attacks the Buddha, etc.
Founding fathers -- they weren't philosophers last I checked. Are you just adding this in because it gives you some upper hand in arguing politics?

A few provisos on Nietzsche? He doesn't only attack the modern church Christians. He goes on to launch an attack against Jesus and Buddha who he also considers equal in their teachings -- equally wrong. He calls Jesus "the idiot" along with Dostoevsky. Your provisos are: 1) only Zarathustra is a valid book of Nietzsche, even though he wrote like 10 others. 2) Zarathustra must not be interpreted with Nietzsche's other works, it must be taken alone and you must read your meaning into it.

The primary differences between the religion of educated Christians and that of superstitious rednecks is that there is no anthropomorphic God (rather, a pantheist God is favoured by intelligencia)...

Yes, and instead of worshiping the anthropomorphic God you guys worship nothingness and your inability to know anything outside of your consciousness.

... Jesus is treated as a very wise philosopher and not as a deity, and no stress is placed on ritual.

Yet somehow morality hangs in there and both you guys and the modern day church embrace it.

I would expect that an educated Christian would have -- at the very least -- read the writings of Plato. Plato has had such a large influence on Christianity that I could not consider someone who had merely read the Bible to know enough about his religion to be considered much of a Christian.

Barely any modern Christians these days read Plato or care to. Their religion is based around the Bible. Yours is based on separate texts and interprets a portion of the Bible as wisdom.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil,

This is generally what Christianity refers to.

No, only what knee-jerk atheists like yourself refer to idiocy when they use the word Christianity.

Can't you find a different name for your philosophy? We can go back to QRS if you want, Christianity is taken.

I have used "Neo-Cynicism" for some time now. My respect for Diogenes goes far beyond my respect for the moderators, Kevin Solway, Jesus Christ, and even Socrates.

Relating to first post of this thread: not many people are critiquing your version of 'Christianity'. They are all critiquing the religion of the church goers who call themselves Christians.

They are not criticizing Christianity, then. They are criticizing idiocy. I can call myself a "Tibetan monk" all I want, but unless I live in Tibet and happen to be a monk, I am not a Tibetan monk.

Wow. Please list people who remotely agree with each other next time.

They don't even agree with each other in that they are all Christians (Kierkegaard, who was so eagerly lapped up by Christianity at the turn of the century, refused to call himself Christian). This should make you wonder: what is a Christian?

It is not having identical beliefs to every other Christian.

Mill -- whatever brings about most utility ought to be done (utilitarianism).

J.S. Mill was openly Christian. In "On Liberty" he defends atheists from his fellow Christians. In "Utilitarianism" he tries to prove that utilitarianism does not go against Christian precepts.

Utility is happiness, btw.

Kant -- tries to give morality a metaphysical rooting.

Kant -- can not be summarized in eight words.

Nietzsche -- openly criticizes utilitarianism (calls Mill a plebeian), openly attacks Kant, his thing-in-itself, metaphysicals, denies morality (calls himself the immoralist), attacks Jesus (calls himself The Antichrist), attacks the Buddha, etc.

Nietzsche is the least understood of philosophers, particularly by people who are not themselves philosophers. Much of his writing is designed to humanize idols. He constantly tries to bring a human face to things that people mindlessly adore and mindlessly hate -- the Anti-Christ is an excellent example of him doing this in the extreme. At root, the Anti-Christ is not that much different than the Church, in how his ideals are spread.

A few provisos on Nietzsche?

Yes, it only takes a few provisos to insist that Nietzsche is a Christian writer. He never escaped his upbringing, and despite all his criticisms against the hypocricy of the contemporary Church, he lived no differently than a priest. He behaved in a thoroughly Christian manner throughout his life, despite all his writings (and what are writings to someone who studies belief systems?).

Like someone claiming to be a Tibetan monk, Nietzsche could call himself whatever the fuck he wanted, but only gullible people believe all his self-imposed labels.

Yes, and instead of worshiping the anthropomorphic God you guys worship nothingness and your inability to know anything outside of your consciousness.

"You guys"? Last time I checked, I am one person.

Yet somehow morality hangs in there and both you guys and the modern day church embrace it.

See above.

Barely any modern Christians these days read Plato or care to. Their religion is based around the Bible. Yours is based on separate texts and interprets a portion of the Bible as wisdom.

I do not need to be a Christian to defend Christianity both from the morons who claim to be Christians, and the morons who attack it unreasonably.

If I were religious, I would choose Christianity over Judaism and Islam, since it is the most enlightened of the three Abrahamic religions. Buddhism is superior to Christianity, but Buddhists, like Christians, rarely have any interest in matching the achievements of their namesake. Taoism is respectable, but it would be hard to consider it a religion. Rather, it is an old philosophic school.

But all these religions suffer from the same problem: perfect truth is not considered as important as maintaining delusions that are considered necessary for civilization. Since I perceive this as a problem, I cannot be religious.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

NM: This is generally what Christianity refers to.

TS: No, only what knee-jerk atheists like yourself refer to idiocy when they use the word Christianity.

I only do it because 99% of others do and to purposely confuse by using non-standard definitions would be idiotic and tedious.

Nietzsche is the least understood of philosophers, particularly by people who are not themselves philosophers.

So would that be me or you? You have read his 1 cryptic poetic book, I have read 9 of his books thus far, not to mention you have been reading in your Buddha meaning from the start.

Much of his writing is designed to humanize idols. He constantly tries to bring a human face to things that people hate -- the Anti-Christ is an excellent example of him doing this in the extreme. At root, the Anti-Christ is not that much different than the Church, in how his ideals are spread.

Rofl. You don't realize that to Nietzsche the Anti-Christ has no ideals. That is what he is fighting against. Ideals are what "deny life" by placing some other ideal world as higher value than the imperfect world we are living in.

despite all his criticisms against the hypocricy of the contemporary Church, he lived no differently than a priest.

Incorrect. You should read The Gay Science as well as Genealogy of Morals. In the former he discusses (amongst much other) his condition as one of saying "yes" so adamantly to his goal that he has no room for other things and in the latter he writes 1/3 of the book solely about the ascetic ideal and the priest. Oh wait... only Zarathustra is a credible book by Nietzsche.... haha.

He behaved in a thoroughly Christian manner throughout his life, despite all his writings

A thoroughly Christian way to behave would be not to strive to advocate the downfall of Christianity in writing. Just because one physically lives in the same conditions as you do doesn't mean they agree with you.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I'm curious: how did you establish how much of Nietzsche's writings I've read?

From what I can tell, you have only read Nietzsche's writings. However, without familiarity with the philosophers he refers to, that's kinda useless. I'd say you'd need to pick up some Plato, la Rochefoucauld, Schopenhauer, Kant, Mill, Buddha -- and maybe some Greek tragedies. I remember he criticized Newton, but I was never interested enough in physics to see why he leveled these criticisms. Same with Darwin and biology, but I assume it's because "eternal recurrence" is a metaphysical claim that completely trumps the mis-guided belief of people who mis-interpret Darwin: the claim that species advance to greater and greater forms of life.

Perhaps grabbing a few of the post-modernists that he inspired would be helpful, as well. I'd recommend Foucault, and to a lesser extent, Derrida.

Fuck, I hate braggarts.

You should read The Gay Science as well as Genealogy of Morals.

What, again? I don't like re-reading books, and with Nietzsche, as interesting as his writing style is, most of his books are only worth reading once -- if that.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

I'm curious: how did you establish how much of Nietzsche's writings I've read?

I already know David tells people Zarathustra is the only accurate description of his beliefs. I assumed you wouldn't bother reading others.

Fuck, I hate bragging.

No you don't. And being "well read" doesn't make you right. As for myself I've only read some work of about 1/2 those authors but most are queued on the reading list.

NM: You should read The Gay Science as well as Genealogy of Morals.

TS: What, again? I don't like re-reading books, and with Nietzsche, as interesting as his writing style is, most of his books are only worth reading once -- if that.

You appear to have misinterpreted Nietzsche in general in the first place. Perhaps a second reading with an open mind (ie, put morality, Christianity, Buddhism aside).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil,

I already know David tells people Zarathustra is the only accurate description of his beliefs. I assumed you wouldn't bother reading others.

Nobody agrees with everything David says. He's wise, but he's not omniscient.

And being "well read" doesn't make you right. As for myself I've only read some work of about 1/2 those authors but most are queued on the reading list.

Why would you queue up these writers if you didn't think there was some value to actually reading them?

You appear to have misinterpreted Nietzsche in general in the first place.

Are you trying to create a Nietzsche debate? I really, really, really, don't want to have to go through this again. He's fun to talk about when you are angsty and 17 years old.

When you finally understand him, and at some point in your life you probably will, he stops being interesting.

Perhaps a second reading with an open mind (ie, put morality, Christianity, Buddhism aside).

See above. Arguing about the "best way to read Nietzsche" is ridiculous. Go read other philosophers. He's not the best, nor the most inspiring.

[Imadrongo]

Why would you queue up these writers if you didn't think there was some value to actually reading them?

Oh there is value. The main value is so I know better what is going on when later philosophers talk about the previous ones. At the same time though most of the older thinkers are pretty easy to grasp in this day and age.

NM: You appear to have misinterpreted Nietzsche in general in the first place.

TS: Are you trying to create a Nietzsche debate? I really, really, really, don't want to have to go through this again. He's fun to talk about when you are angsty and 17 years old.

Arguing about the "best way to read Nietzsche" is ridiculous. Go read other philosophers. He's not the best, nor the most inspiring.

I am skeptical. I am really wondering how you interpret Nietzsche when he is constantly making comments against every area of the core of your philosophy. The more I read the more anti-[morality/metaphysics/Jesus/Buddha] I see. I would make start making a list again but last time I did that I was told that only Thus Spake Zarathustra was an inspired and valid book.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil,

The main value is so I know better what is going on when later philosophers talk about the previous ones. At the same time though most of the older thinkers are pretty easy to grasp in this day and age.

The value of reading older philosophers should also be to determine whether or not the claims they make are accurate. Some modern philosophers have, for instance, completely thrown off all post-Kantian philosophy as a mistake.

(By the way, I haven't seen this fallacy in the flesh for so long that I forget what it's called. The age of a claim has no bearing on its validity.)

I am skeptical.

About what? Niezsche not being the best philosopher?

I am really wondering how you interpret Nietzsche when he is constantly making comments against every area of the core of your philosophy.

Since Nietzsche was the first philosopher I gave serious consideration to, many of my claims are claims against his. I have dealt with his thought for long enough to know where he made mistakes. He himself refers to this tendency.

It should not surprise you that I disagree with him on points that I feel he was incorrect on. One of those points is what his status is in relation to other philosophers. He had no insight into his own Christianity, and was thus unable to escape it.

The more I read the more anti-[morality/metaphysics/Jesus/Buddha] I see.

He was not anti-moral; rather, he tried to determine the non-moral origins of morality. He thought that discovering the origins of a moral claim was an argument against the morality. He thought wrong, however.

He also had a considerable bias: he refused to consider that some moralities may have moral origins. He was not as objective and descriptive as some would like to think -- he himself understood that he could not rest until he found the immorality at the end of every moral claim.

Be careful with Jesus: his claims against Christianity were more often directed at Paul, who he considered the founder of the religion. His claims against Buddha were based on second-hand knowledge, since I believe his only exposure to Buddhism was through Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer is a relatively poor thinker (and also insufferably arrogant).

As to metaphysics, I also advise caution. He criticized metaphysicians more than he criticized metaphysics.

I would make start making a list again but last time I did that I was told that only Thus Spake Zarathustra was an inspired and valid book.

"Human, All Too Human" was more interesting, imho. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is an attempt at autobiography, though. It seems to have been his only attempt to take a complete accounting of his beliefs.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

The value of reading older philosophers should also be to determine whether or not the claims they make are accurate. Some modern philosophers have, for instance, completely thrown off all post-Kantian philosophy as a mistake.

Well that too. However most early philosophical ideas are pretty simple to grasp these days. People who throw off post-Kantian philosophy as a mistake don't interest me. They are probably holding some higher validity of morality as a presupposition which is called being sentimental rather than rational.

It should not surprise you that I disagree with him on points that I feel he was incorrect on. One of those points is what his status is in relation to other philosophers. He had no insight into his own Christianity, and was thus unable to escape it.

This is because he had no Christianity. Living in isolation writing books doesn't mean you are a Christian. That was his will to power, not his morality or ascetic ideal, both of which he openly attacks.

He was not anti-moral; rather, he tried to determine the non-moral origins of morality. He thought that discovering the origins of a moral claim was an argument against the morality. He thought wrong, however.

This is what he did in Human, All too Human. Starting with his next book, Daybreak, he began to criticize morality itself rather than simply denying that any action was actually moral. He sought to discover the orgins of morality itself in his following works because this was an attack on Kant who claimed that moral actions were rooted in some higher value outside our world. Nietzsche ended up taking out Kant here by reasoning about how moral actions can come about without any supernatural. It is interesting though. Kant claimed we couldn't know the nature of anything outside our world (this thing-in-itself) but still ascribed morality to it. Nietzsche denied both knowing anything outside our world and that morality was anything more than a natural phenomenon.

He also had a considerable bias: he refused to consider that some moralities may have moral origins. He was not as objective and descriptive as some would like to think -- he himself understood that he could not rest until he found the immorality at the end of every moral claim.

How else could he do it? He denies metaphysics. The only way to move on from Kant's claim that morality is rooted in something deeper than the natural world is to account for all morality by natural means.

Be careful with Jesus: his claims against Christianity were more often directed at Paul, who he considered the founder of the religion.

I realize. He thinks lowly of Paul and highly of Jesus, but he still doesn't agree with Jesus and ultimately he comes to oppose Jesus (who represents nihilism to him) as the Anti-Christ. I remember him specifically stating that Jesus would have been Lao Tzu if he was born in a different time and place.

His claims against Buddha were based on second-hand knowledge, since I believe his only exposure to Buddhism was through Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer is a relatively poor thinker (and also insufferably arrogant).

He understands him well though. The Buddha is just the passive nihilism he is trying to fight against. Nietzsche wants the greatest affirmation of life, not to call everything an illusion and worship nothingness.

As to metaphysics, I also advise caution. He criticized metaphysicians more than he criticized metaphysics.

Oh really? I haven't seen him use metaphysics at all himself. He states explicitly at some point that there is no absolute truth. He attacks "otherworldliness" for demeaning the value of our own world.

[1ntel]

My argument is that the Christian conception of God is only similar in name to the Greco-Roman conception of gods. Monotheism is so far removed from polytheism that there is no identity between the two.

Could you be anymore complex?

Monotheism is so far removed from polytheism that there is no identity between the two.

One believes in one deity, the other in two or more... (I guess).

it is an argument against monotheists who are not pantheists.

How so?

His motive appears to have been to prevent the slaughter of Christians by the highly superstitious Romans.

Oh? (Sorry, no knowledge of this.)

If anyone is presently deceived by Saint Augustine

Maybe, not deceived, more like: unable to grasp his full meaning.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

neil,

People who throw off post-Kantian philosophy as a mistake don't interest me. They are probably holding some higher validity of morality as a presupposition which is called being sentimental rather than rational.

Kant tried to look for a higher validity of morality. Throwing off post-Kantian philosophy is usually a rejection both of this, and the trend that followed this: the belief that since Kant failed, there is no reason to be moral. People who throw off post-Kantianism are often merely throwing off various breeds of postmodernism (which, as you can see, simultaneously reject both absolute and subjective moralities) in favour of philosophies that have had room to breathe and develop.

If they don't interest you, well:

In the midst of serious discourse in the Craneum, Diogenes realised no one was listening. So he instead began to whistle and dance about to attract attention. Immediately, people flocked round him. Diogenes stopped and said, "You idiots, you are not interested to stop and pay attention to wisdom, yet you rush up to observe a foolish display."

This is because he had no Christianity. Living in isolation writing books doesn't mean you are a Christian. That was his will to power, not his morality or ascetic ideal, both of which he openly attacks.

This is preposterous. A Christian is perfectly capable of attacking Christianity. Theologians do it all the time. In the early 20th century, there was even a movement of Christianity that followed in the footsteps of Nietzsche.

Whenever Nietzsche gives himself a label, I suspect that he is doing it for a reason other than pride. To believe him unequivocally is foolish.

Nietzsche denied both knowing anything outside our world and that morality was anything more than a natural phenomenon.

If that was all Nietzsche did, he was hardly original. These thoughts go back to the origins of philosophy.

No, I'd go deeper than that. The purpose of Human, All Too Human, is the project of his entire writing career: to humanize idols. Part of this project is to show how greatly humans can rise, and part of it is to show that no matter how high a human rises, he is still only human, and subject to human error.

He denies metaphysics.

If he actually did so, he wrote something moronic.

...but he still doesn't agree with Jesus and ultimately he comes to oppose Jesus (who represents nihilism to him) as the Anti-Christ.

This, again, shows the similarities between the Church and the Anti-Christ. The non-moral basis of morality and all that. I have already mentioned this.

I remember him specifically stating that Jesus would have been Lao Tzu if he was born in a different time and place.

He also lamented that Jesus died too soon, and that he would have changed his mind had he lived longer. It's a given: people who think change their minds frequently.

If Jesus had been born Lao Tzu, he would have been Lao Tzu.

He understands him well though. The Buddha is just the passive nihilism he is trying to fight against. Nietzsche wants the greatest affirmation of life, not to call everything an illusion and worship nothingness.

If Nietzsche thought that of Buddha, then he did not understand him at all. And, to my knowledge, Nietzsche did not have correct knowledge of Buddhism. Nor do you, if you say that Nietzsche understood Buddha well.

He states explicitly at some point that there is no absolute truth.

I recall him stating it once in parody. "Everyone has his own truths, therefore there is no truth!"

Otherwise, I do not recall Nietzsche stating that there is no absolute truth. Since it so closely matches your own opinion, it would be unreasonable for me to take your word on it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

1ntel,

Could you be anymore complex?
...One believes in one deity, the other in two or more... (I guess).

Correct. Mono means "one", poly means "many".

The conceptual leap from many to one is huge, though. One God is an entirely different thing than many. Calling it a God is almost a misnomer when there is only one.

How so?

Pantheists do not give God human characteristics. They make the word God identical to the word "Everything" (Pan means "All"), or "Totality", or "Being", or "Existence", or "Tao", or "Reality".

When an atheist argues that sometimes people use the word God to mean some guy in the sky with a lot of human qualities like intelligence and so on, this is not an argument against the pantheist God. It is an argument against a polytheist God, like Zeus or Apollo.

If a monotheist (one God) believes that his god is some kind of person, just like any run-of-the-mill superstitious polytheist, then this argument works. It does not work against a monotheist who is also a pantheist, since his God is not given any human-like qualities.

The thing is, most Christian writings can be interpreted in both ways: you can believe that God is a person, or you can believe in God in the pantheist sense. I believe that this double meaning is intentional. The first is for children, the second is for adults.

Oh? (Sorry, no knowledge of this.)

Christianity was for a long time blamed for the fall of Rome. As well, during the decline of Rome, they were often slaughtered -- although since their patron is a martyr, this usually caused more people to be Christian.

After Rome fell, the Church Fathers (of whom Saint Augustine is one) helped formalize Christianity and protect future Christians from the injustices of Romans. The Romans, Augustine argued, were responsible for their own corruption.

Maybe, not deceived, more like: unable to grasp his full meaning.

He is a difficult author. Probably the single most complex philosopher I have read to date, and I honestly regret that I'm stuck reading him in translation. Even the foibles of the translator couldn't mask the fact that this guy was a fantastic writer.

Lao Tzu would probably have a few things to say about the rhetor. Many modern philosophers would likely complain that when he masks his full meaning, he is no different than the worst of modern politicians. These are true claims. Augustine's primary interest is not truth, although he was clearly aware of what the truth was.

It's fascinating to try to judge what motives a very good philosopher would have for lying to most of his readers.

[1ntel]

The conceptual leap from many to one is huge, though. One God is an entirely different thing than many.

The Christian God has three parts, or is made up of three parts. I think this is called the Holy Trinity: The father, the son and the Holy spirit. The sign of the cross - before and after a prayer - is a representation of this. I wonder what it all means.

When an atheist argues that sometimes people use the word God to mean some guy in the sky with a lot of human qualities like intelligence and so on, this is not an argument against the pantheist God. It is an argument against a polytheist God, like Zeus or Apollo.

Yes, something clearly made-up. It's a symbol, which helps people in their understanding. So, for Evil, we have a symbol of a snake, or Lucifer.

The thing is, most Christian writings can be interpreted in both ways: you can believe that God is a person, or you can believe in God in the pantheist sense. I believe that this double meaning is intentional. The first is for children, the second is for adults.

That's how it works. Why did Jesus speak in parables? [Same meaning, only a different story...Would it not be easier to get the meaning across without the extra?]

Christianity was for a long time blamed for the fall of Rome. As well, during the decline of Rome, they were often slaughtered -- although since their patron is a martyr, this usually caused more people to be Christian.

Does a fish symbol have anything to do with this?

Many modern philosophers would likely complain that when he masks his full meaning

What's the point of "masking" one's meaning, for what purpose? ...Power is knowledge.

Augustine's primary interest is not truth, although he was clearly aware of what the truth was.

What was his primary interest?

It's fascinating to try to judge what motives a very good philosopher would have for lying to most of his readers.

If you know, fine. If you don't, you're out of luck!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

1ntel,

The Christian God has three parts, or is made up of three parts. I think this is called the Holy Trinity: The father, the son and the Holy spirit. The sign of the cross - before and after a prayer - is a representation of this. I wonder what it all means.

As to the Three Parts of God: it smacks of polytheism. I would say that the Trinity is the part of the religion that is supposed to sound so ridiculous that it pushes people away from religious thought and into independent thought; very few people are gullible enough to believe gibberish. Just like the minions of Xenu, the Trinity is not supposed to make sense.

As to the cross: I similarly find it silly that the symbol of the Catholic church is the weapon used to murder Christ. Couldn't they have picked an icon from his life? Like, I heard he was a carpenter. They could have picked an adze or whatever they called drills in those days. And I'm working from thoughts I had in my morning shower. I didn't have 2000 years to settle on the most inappropriate symbol imaginable.

That's how it works. Why did Jesus speak in parables? [Same meaning, only a different story...Would it not be easier to get the meaning across without the extra?]

My suggestion is that so many people are superstious and unthinking that they require a particular treatment if they are to behave morally. People who are not superstious and who enjoy thinking do not require parables in the first place.

Does a fish symbol have anything to do with this?

No clue. Your knowledge of Catholicism is probably more thorough than mine.

What's the point of "masking" one's meaning, for what purpose? ...Power is knowledge.

That was my first thought: Augustine was trying to weaken Christianity before it got out of hand. My second thought is that he was trying to prevent the murders of any more Christians. Both are applications of the "power is knowledge" principle.

What was his primary interest?

See above for what I suspect were his motives.

[Pincho Paxton]

There are people called Christians who will just believe in The Bible, and God. They have a brain that accepts faith, and don't question it. I will take all of these people with me at the age of 1 year old to a planet that I have built near to the edge of the Milky Way. I have taken many millions of years to build this planet, and I have given it a history. I have decided that a Space Whale created the Universe, and I have written a book all about it. I have put names in the book, and I have told the readers that it was wriiten by a group of wise men that could communicate with the whale by interpreting its deep bellowing sounds from space. I have sent out the message that this Whale must be believed, you must have Faith in the Whale.

Will these babies grow to accept this message?

You decide.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pincho: knee-jerk atheism does not resolve anything. Since you like the word "maybe", how about you try this on for size: maybe you should learn a little bit about the subject matter before you speak.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho: knee-jerk atheism does not resolve anything. Since you like the word "maybe", how about you try this on for size: maybe you should learn a little bit about the subject matter before you speak.

Sorry.. I though the subject matter was Christianity. It must have been the title that was misleading.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pincho: the subject matter is indeed Christianity. Through your post, you showed absolutely no insight into the religion whatsoever, so I (rightfully) assumed that you have never bothered to read any texts by Christian philosophers or theologians, nor any passages from the Bible, nor have you any historical knowledge of the growth of the religion. You seemed completely fixated on the behaviour of rednecks, and by your knee-jerk reaction to their superstitions and delusions, you invented your own.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

Please grow up. Find a new name for your philosophy rather than discussing it under the name of Christianity. As I said earlier, nobody is attacking 'your' type of Christianity, they are talking about what the rest of the world calls Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, for two posts in a row I thought you had taken your foot out of your mouth. I see now it was only so you could stick the other one in.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho: the subject matter is indeed Christianity. Through your post, you showed absolutely no insight into the religion whatsoever, so I (rightfully) assumed that you have never bothered to read any texts by Christian philosophers or theologians, nor any passages from the Bible, nor have you any historical knowledge of the growth of the religion. You seemed completely fixated on the behaviour of rednecks, and by your knee-jerk reaction to their superstitions and delusions, you invented your own.

Then you presumed something from nothing. I did not have to cover all of this information in my post. I think that most people as children believed in God. It was taught to us at school, and I used to pray when something bad happened. The only diffence is that I questioned it. And it is the fact that christians do not really question Christianity that makes them different. That is why I posted that you could put Christians on another planet, and they would not question any faith at all. You could tell them anything you like, and just add the word faith to the end of it.

[Imadrongo]

Neil, for two posts in a row I thought you had taken your foot out of your mouth. I see now it was only so you could stick the other one in.

I presume this phrase takes on some hidden meaning depending on how you have decided to redefine concepts like "foot" and "mouth." Let me guess... "foot" now refers to what normal people call "finger" and "mouth" to "ear"?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pincho,

And it is the fact that christians do not really question Christianity that makes them different.

This is not a criticism of Christianity, but of idiocy. Separate the two in the future.