Subnostr

I view Christianity like this.

I used to be a devout Roman Catholic. Taught Sunday school. My friends were raped by priests and bishops. I lost my faith in the Church. I found my faith in myself. When I examine the core of my beliefs and at the foundation of Christianity itself. They are still the same with, or without the Bible "fairy tales" as you put it.

My philosophy that I live by is Stoicism. My moral foundation is Christianity. They compliment each other and keep one another in check to ensure that I am always doing my best to truly be a good person.

People are both good and bad. Nothing is cut and dry. You have weak people who will toss away their philosophy and morals at the drop of a hat. Then you have stronger people who find the inner courage and strength to stick to their guns no matter what challenges they face.

People have to develop their own belief structure. Whether it is with the help of a bible, a journal from an ancient roman emperor, both, or neither. Judge people on an individual basis for what they do. Not be a reductionist that is unable, or unwilling to do the hard work of diversifying their own perspectives. Which is how you unjustly label Christians now.

anonymous 10mo ago

Sure. I get it. For me, I don't see the "moral foundation" in christianity. These people who wanted to "prove" christianity is superior also seemed more eager to demonstrate evil than good.

I am not so much reductionist as that I am pointing out that I seem to consistently find intelligence taking precedence over religion when good examples are involved. I also noticed that religion tends to want to hijack the "good examples" as reference case for religion, while the "bad examples" are always condemned to the individual.

I found the last few years a proof that religion doesn't contribute meaningfully more than anything else. That's simply my experience expressed.

I think it would be a lot more meaningful for people to question what morality is on its own, i.e. without persistent insistent ubiquitous presence of religion, than the mindless deferrence to religion that clearly fails on many occasions.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

TheLegendaryMan 10mo ago

Everyone has different experiences in life that leads them to different conclusions. Some people need the foundations and moral un-ambiguity that comes with having true faith. Others can live moral virtuous lives without them. The hard part for each and everyone of us is not to keep our minds closed and make definitive blanket conclusions on any person based on religion. There are exceptions to every rule and there is always ways to change how we think and feel based on new experiences.

Failure to question what morality is on its own is challenging purely because detaching ones self from the sum total of their life experiences is practically impossible under normal circumstances. If you were raised to be religious and ask someone to do this it would be akin to cutting off their arms and legs while asking them to do jumping jacks. The key to having an open mind is lowering your expectations of everyone and be pleasantly surprised when someone raises the bar. This is not to say to think down on them, but to give everyone an even level playing field. A starting point. A level 1. So that way you are not missing out on the wisdom and life experiences brought to you by a man of faith, or a woman without any. We all deserve a fair chance to start out without having preconceptions, or judgement placed upon us purely based on what we believe in.

anonymous 10mo ago

I think the key difference for me is: if one claims to prove religious superiority, but do so by many evil actions (lies, deception, misrepresentation, threats) while at the same time setting (unnecessarily) high bar for the other, then you cannot convince me of anything.

It's basically saying "we can be a piece of shit but you have to prove yourself to us". To me, it simply shows a double standard and an godlike ability to misuse excuses.

Anyways, I get your point. I suspect I'm about at the point where we're going in circles.

TheLegendaryMan 10mo ago

Here is a new Legendary Meme made just for you.

I think that you have just encountered one too many assholes in your life and that has made your perspective a little jaded and bias. Whether that is justified is not for me to judge.

My whole point and effort in saying all that I have to you. Is to throw away your preconceptions about religious people in general. Start over fresh. No one has anything they need to prove to someone else. What you need to prove to yourself is that you are capable of allowing others to exceed your expectations without any bias attached to them based on their beliefs.

When you encounter someone with faith on a high horse who demands you prove yourself to them. Then that person should be judged on their actions of being an asshole. Not grouped together with anyone else in their religion who is also a religious asshole.

When you encounter someone with true faith that proves their religious superiority by being the most outstanding, honest, and christ like individual that you have ever met. You allow them the opportunity to be a shining example of what having good faith can do for a person. Regardless of whether, or not you believe in their "fairy tales".

anonymous 10mo ago

Ah, sure, in that case you describe fine. But I'm not writing purely from the perspective of assholes.

Let's take another example: Jordan Peterson. I only recently got to know of him based on some videos. Without going into elaborate claims and opinions, because I can claim only a reasonably limited *impression* on this.

He fairly recently had an conversation with someone and there was a statement that summarized it as "I think you're reading way too much into it. There is only so much depth and symbolism to be found." (Paraphrasing, I forgot exact words. It's a reasonable gist.) Note: this quote had perfectly summarized exactly that which had been bothering me about it too.

That's why I say about intelligence or religion taking precedent over the other. I think Peterson is very intelligent, but I think his interpretations have become his handicap. And let me be clear: I think he would be smarter without his "religious crutch" (I hope I'm using the term correctly.)

I also know a religious guy who you can notice thinks clearly. He holds on to his religious values, but it hasn't held me back from a rational thought through conversation. Including when it involves critical opposing positions. Even if he points back to religion for whatever reason.

I think that's an example where his intelligence takes precedence.

So, no, not *only* assholes.