So, this Christianity thing? It's a bit rubbish.

[Tostig]

So, this Christianity thing? Nietzsche thought it a bit crap didn't he? Let's take a look at why.

Christianity is essentially nothing more than a bit of the "Pure Spirit" and "the Good in Itself" from Plato, the man who turned truth on its head by denying perspective, on the ramshackle old body of monotheistic belief. This, I think, is obvious to all but those who chose not to see it, and so not worth dwelling on.

Now then, no-one worth listening to will claim that Christianity can be proved, either empirically or a priori. So instead dogmatism is a matter of faith. Now, Darth Wong, I think we can all agree, has more than proven that if one were to be reasonable one would not be a theist. Indeed some more modern forms of religion, like that beloved by our adorably Victorian Dane, are centred on the need not to think, around the continual suicide of religion. Indeed, indulge my reasonableness once more. Is the world-renunciation and will-renunciation of an epiphany more likely to be the symptoms of disguised epilepsy than the effect of the unobservable, immaterial, impossible making itself suddenly observable, material and possible when it wants to? How long is it before we call the "religious mood" a simple neurosis?

So, it is illogical and rubbish, but why do I disapprove specifically of Christianity? Because it is life denying.

What was that? Are you a bit meek, have you failed to become a member of society? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Those who take pride in themselves can't get into heaven!
What was that? Are you a bit poor, have you failed to succeed financially? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Rich people can't get into heaven!
What was that? Are you a bit unlucky in love, have you failed to get a girl? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Those who enjoy a bit of nookie on the side can't get into heaven!

All the things that people might be judged on, personal character, success in terms of society, impact on others, are denied. All Christianity does is replace any ability to make something of oneself with a lie, a white lie perhaps for the herd, but none the less a lie by denying the importance of life.

Indeed Christianity is nothing more than the sacrifice of oneself, and all one might be. Ancient religions require nothing more than the occasional sacrifice to show ones dedication - the loss of goods or occasionally other people. However Christianity requires you to sacrifice the only thing that isn't expendable to God. Having stripped you of your reason it demands control over your every action. No, it goes beyond that, instilling guilt due to your very thoughts.

You do however have to step back and admire the sheer irony with which the Christian system of believe managed to convince us that being the herd was a good idea. Christ, tending to his flock. Bishops with shepherd crooks. Bright, otherwise intelligent people nothing more than chattel, to be bullied to doing the church's bidding! Did they take joy from their scribbling, I wonder, keeping all nobility in line with the news that a greener pasture awaited them at the other side of the abattoir?

But why do I bother to write this. In the modern world people have either turned their back on reason and nobility, instead embracing the unthinking fundamentalism of religion, or have otherwise continued to live under the influence of the "new ideas" of Liberalism and Socialism. If paganism was the sacrifice of others, and Christianity that of oneself, surely modern society is the sacrifice of God itself. For what? For the worship of stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, of nothingness itself. It is value without reason or relief. It crushes the spirit of the weak while keeping back those that might make something of themselves.

You can have your morality in any colour you want, so long as you want it in Plato.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Now then, no-one worth listening to will claim that Christianity can be proved, either empirically or a priori.

Thats a very close-minded perspective, I strongly disagree. I've had many productive discussions with moderate theists - even some with fundamentalist predilections - and the reasoning, though I believe it to be flawed, is well worth listening to. Patient, cordial debate between friends is an immensely beneficial process, and it promotes understanding which, in turn, serves to diminish the volatile effects of close-minded prejudice. The danger here lies in you becoming more dogmatic, more fundamentalist, than your religious counterparts. This is somewhat true of some of Nietzsche's works - glowering rhetoric, in many ways it is hatred literature, but little pellucid philosophical substance beyond that.

So, it is illogical and rubbish, but why do I disapprove specifically of Christianity? Because it is life denying.

Quote:
What was that? Are you a bit meek, have you failed to become a member of society? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Those who take pride in themselves can't get into heaven!
What was that? Are you a bit poor, have you failed to succeed financially? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Rich people can't get into heaven!
What was that? Are you a bit unlucky in love, have you failed to get a girl? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Those who enjoy a bit of nookie on the side can't get into heaven!

I can relate to this, but why is it exclusively applicable to Christianity? Islam and Judaism (mostly) both share this immortal aspect - though admittedly they lack the 'City of God' theology, and the grandiose renaissance depictions that go hand in hand with our vision of a controlling, monopolizing Church.

Indeed Christianity is nothing more than the sacrifice of oneself, and all one might be. Ancient religions require nothing more than the occasional sacrifice to show ones dedication - the loss of goods or occasionally other people. However Christianity requires you to sacrifice the only thing that isn't expendable to God. Having stripped you of your reason it demands control over your every action. No, it goes beyond that, instilling guilt due to your very thoughts.

You do however have to step back and admire the sheer irony with which the Christian system of believe managed to convince us that being the herd was a good idea. Christ, tending to his flock. Bishops with shepherd crooks. Bright, otherwise intelligent people nothing more than chattel, to be bullied to doing the church's bidding! Did they take joy from their scribbling, I wonder, keeping all nobility in line with the news that a greener pasture awaited them at the other side of the abattoir?

This is true in many cases, but I know several Christians who aren't controlled or stripped of their ability to reason - at least, outside of theistic spheres. They take their religion on faith, it makes them content, and buoys them in their daily routine. But they aren't fanatical or racked with guilt, they are content - more so than myself.

It does well to stand back and think how many humans today, in a secular society, exercise their ability to reason. Very few - most foster prejudices, political or metaphysical, that cannot stand up to analysis. Most don't care either way, they cannot divorce themselves from the trivialities that sustain them. Christianity doesn't generally strip people of their ability to think or reason - it merely appears as such. Instead, it takes hold on those who don't scrutinise in the first instance. This is especially true in reference to fundamentalist variants.

But why do I bother to write this. In the modern world people have either turned their back on reason and nobility, instead embracing the unthinking fundamentalism of religion, or have otherwise continued to live under the influence of the "new ideas" of Liberalism and Socialism. If paganism was the sacrifice of others, and Christianity that of oneself, surely modern society is the sacrifice of God itself. For what? For the worship of stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, of nothingness itself. It is value without reason or relief. It crushes the spirit of the weak while keeping back those that might make something of themselves.

The vast majority of people have never been rational. It is dangerous to hark back to a fictional interpretation of history, that we can glimpse only through our clouded mind's eye, and see a glorious intellectual community thriving. The reality is that the average man throughout history has been concerned with practical issues - chief among them survival. We may launch into glowing appraisals of the philosophers of times past, but the vast majority were wealthy and priveleged individuals - they had the capability to sit down and dedicate time and energy to evaluative thought. So I do not believe that today is especially impoverished intellectually when we take time to gaze back into the past with a realistic perspective. We only hear of the intelligent, influential or powerful in history - the ignorant masses remain nameless, but they were there, irrefutably stupid, and we should not ignore them and pursue a contrived appraisal of the past.

You can have your morality in any colour you want, so long as you want it in Plato.

A profound statement, and one I can agree with. The Catholic church in many ways embodied the totalitarian principles enshrined in Plato's warped vision of 'justice'. In The Republic he holds that philosophers (i.e men who agree with Plato's theories) should decide what is good and what is bad, for they know whereas others have but opinions. We can, perhaps, draw parallels with the grandiose claims of the authoritarian clergyman or prophet - he who reinforces his exhortations with alleged knowledge of the divine realm.

[Zenith Darksea]

At first I was somewhat reluctant to dignify this post with a response. If one is going to label theology as unreasonable, then one should at least be reasonable about it, without opening with such emotive, and some might say overly-aggressive, sentiments.. However, I shan't spend too long in sanctimonious pontification.

This, I think, is obvious to all but those who chose not to see it, and so not worth dwelling on.p.

This is an example of how one should strive to be reasonable when one calls someone else unreasonable. Now, what if I were to say, "The existence of God, I think, is obvious to all but those who choose not to see it, and so not worth dwelling upon." I can't imagine anyone letting that line slip by without objecting to it. I, incidentally, object to your assertion here, but you just choose not to see that I am right, so we shan't dwell on it.

Now, Darth Wong, I think we can all agree, has more than proven that if one were to be reasonable one would not be a theist.

Oh no. I, I think we can all agree, have more than proven that if one were to be reasonable one would be a theist.

Indeed, indulge my reasonableness once more.

I'm still waiting for the first time, actually.

Is the world-renunciation and will-renunciation of an epiphany more likely to be the symptoms of disguised epilepsy than the effect of the unobservable, immaterial, impossible making itself suddenly observable, material and possible when it wants to? How long is it before we call the "religious mood" a simple neurosis?

Is the rejection of God and one's duty to humanity more likely to be the symptom of self-centredness and a man's unwillingness to admit responsibility for his actions? How long is it before we call the "a-religious mood" simple selfishness? Surely it is more likely that atheism is the result of a base reluctance to admit one's own responsibility than an intellectual rejection of the logical necessities of the universe?

What was that? Are you a bit meek, have you failed to become a member of society? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Those who take pride in themselves can't get into heaven!
What was that? Are you a bit poor, have you failed to succeed financially? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Rich people can't get into heaven!
What was that? Are you a bit unlucky in love, have you failed to get a girl? Don't worry, you didn't fail! This life is unimportant, you'll win next time! Those who enjoy a bit of nookie on the side can't get into heaven!

I find this to be a particularly distasteful thing to say, and implies a deeply unattractive view of society on your part. You seem to be saying that it is wrong to punish excess and reward hardship - no doubt you think that the 'best citizen' is the one who has an unjustified sense of self-satisfaction, sucks up as much as they can of other people's wealth, and uses women to give them a feeling of status.

All the things that people might be judged on, personal character, success in terms of society, impact on others, are denied.

Please, lying is such a negative thing to do in an argument. Claiming that Christianity does not judge people's personal character, approach to society ('success' is such a subjective word - do you mean the one who can exploit his fellow man the most?) or their impact on others is breath-takingly intellectually dishonest.

However Christianity requires you to sacrifice the only thing that isn't expendable to God. Having stripped you of your reason it demands control over your every action. No, it goes beyond that, instilling guilt due to your very thoughts.

Aww, poor you. Do you have some sort of score to settle here? Because no reasoned debaters would put such a hugely emotive spin on their language without even trying to provide logical support. But I shall answer these points:

1. Stripping people of their reason. This is just wrong. I'm an intellectual university student who questions what he sees around him. I personally chose to become Christian, and nobody told me what to believe.
2. Control over my every action. I speak from personal experience when I say that my every actions are not controlled. Again, this is just wrong.
3. Instilling guilt. Well, if a man commits an offence, it is better for him to feel remorse than to be unrepentant. That is how a healthy society ought to work. 'My very thoughts' - funnily enough, I've never been told that I should be guilty for my thoughts. I try to control my thoughts so that I am a more productive member of society, and disadvantageous thoughts are not helpful in that regard. But I can say that I'm quite happy with my thoughts right now.

Bright, otherwise intelligent people nothing more than chattel, to be bullied to doing the church's bidding! Did they take joy from their scribbling, I wonder, keeping all nobility in line with the news that a greener pasture awaited them at the other side of the abattoir?

This is just mind-numbingly stupid. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian studying Classics at Oxford University. I don't want to puff myself up, but no Churchman has ever tried to suppress my intelligence, and none of your ridiculously emotive, illogical language will convince me otherwise.

Quite frankly, I can't see the point in answering the rest of this turgid drivel that you've written. Perhaps when you calm down, actually look into the facts of people's lives rather than making up your own prejudiced fantasy, I might be more inclined to argue with you. But when I consider such gems as:

Now then, no-one worth listening to will claim that Christianity can be proved

I just don't see why your arguments deserve any more of my precious time. I have to write an essay right now for my university degree, that thing that apparently the Eastern Orthodox Church has prevented me from taking.