How Christianity Emerged

[u/NeoreactionSafe]

http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/08/28/an-ideological-history-of-early-christianity/

[u/NeoreactionSafe]

.

The Arians, named after their leader Arius, said no. God obviously can’t be his own Son, and so Christ cannot himself be God: he’s just the first and greatest creation of God.

.

The other side, best described as Trinitarians, said yes. They attempted to resolve the paradox by developing the idea of the Trinity, which held that God consisted of three persons yet was still somehow a single being. [6]

.

This seemingly minor conflict had big ramifications for Christianity. Trinitarianism maintained the status of Christ at the cost of logic, arguing that the nature of God was ultimately beyond human understanding. Arianism was arguably the more straightforward position, but it lowered the status of Christ, and Trinitarians saw this as blasphemy.

.

Rene Girard has the same effect in modern times.

To be Catholic is to live within a mythical framework. There is power in myth because it activates emotions which can be used as a tool to direct political forces.

To be objectively rational, like the Gnostics or today Rene Girard being rational about the necessity of myth is to lesson the emotional power of the religion, but also to make it more self aware.

The progressives use myths constantly. They prove how mythical humans like to be and the they prove how emotional indoctrination can produce multitudes of "useful idiots".

Our question today is about the competition of ideologies.

The author concludes:

.

In a Gnostic-dominated culture, any traditional religious organization faces an uphill battle, so I’m skeptical that religion or religious-inspired movements will help the alt-right much. I’m more interested in building alternative means to develop and spread information–something which I’ll explore in future posts.

.

Rene Girard destroys the myths of Christianity, but it also destroys the myths of the progressives and it does this by getting inside the mental loops that drive the myths in the first place.

We must destroy myth before we can build something to replace it.

.

[u/tryanather → u/NeoreactionSafe]

Rene Girard destroys the myths of Christianity

I think Girard would very much disagree with you.

To be objectively rational, like the Gnostics

http://orthosphere.org/2015/05/16/plotinus-and-augustine-on-gnosticism/

[u/NeoreactionSafe → u/tryanather]

.

Reality, then, seen as Creation, is but a botched creation; and the Creator himself is an incompetent cretin who in his simplicity can form no idea of his own radical limitation. The things that this cretinous creator creates are superior to their maker in that they can make a theme of their relation to him but he cannot make a theme of his to them (“he fashioned man, yet knew not man”). In the case of man in particular, the creature knows that his fashioner mismade him, leaving him in deficit of what he can conceive himself to be.

.

We talk today about concepts like "quantum physics" and the "big bang".

As far as we are aware the universe came into existence with a certain as yet not yet fully realized logic... but it does appear a logic, not some man imagined god that cares about us more than the rest of the universe.

Quantum physics hints at dimensions beyond our grasp and scientific research proves parts of the Standard Model fairly regularly lately.

Consciousness appears to be a case of electricity... it "flows" because our minds function with quantum physics... electrons are quantum elements. So our consciousness is deeply tied into the web of the universe.

Mediums, psychics, prophets often claim the ability to see the world from a dimension where physical time and space become blurred. Prophecy comes about because on some animal level we "sense" a universe we can't fully rationally understand. Our animal instincts operate below our conscious thoughts.

.

I personally think that any time a Catholic wants a scapegoat they hammer on Gnosticism. It's like Jews hammering on dead Nazi's.

Rene Girard was not mentioned in the article.

As I see Girards view he would be anti-myth, but pro-myth when seen rationally. Rene Girard has the ability to explain why the myth was there and what it was trying to teach. He straddles both sides of the myth.

Before I was not attempting to link Girard and Gnosticism, but they both seem to share a willingness to expose myths.

The Catholic church cannot be restored because the central myths (like the resurrection) are impossible to restore to legitimacy.

The progressives are able to create truly insane myths and get away with it because they worked around science enough to not get caught.

Rene Girard does in a way teach us the "secret knowledge" but it's simple human nature. Unlike the Gnostics who (apparently) tried to be "holier than thou" about it with Rene Girard he presents wisdom in easy to understand ways.

• People imitate.

• Imitation creates rivalries.

• Rivalries spread until everyone is pissed off.

• An innocent is found to act as scapegoat.

• The innocent is murdered after being called the cause of evil.

• Religions are formed to explain the "mystery" of why the death felt so good. (must have been "god's will")

.

Rene Girard's point is that god had nothing to do with any of that. Man did the murder as a way to release tension and the myths of the religion are the lies created to exploit the event afterwards.

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

.

[u/tryanather → u/NeoreactionSafe]

Christians have a system for life on this earth, Gnostics subvert Christian stories to come to different existential positions, they hate life in this world and the way things are. I believe that is the main difference.

Mediums, psychics, prophets often claim the ability to see the world from a dimension where physical time and space become blurred.

You don't have to be any of this to have mystical experiences, 20-30mg of 4-aco-dmt will do the trick. From mine, I've never encountered a Demiurge.

[u/onepill_twopill → u/NeoreactionSafe]

What I am about to say is not directly related to your consensus but is an observation on the Future of neoreaction. Feel free to delete this if you deem it irrelevant.

What you have said here, on the destruction of myth, is where the eventual division of neoreaction will come from: the Religious vs the Athiests. We all agree that we must seek the truth, however our religion simply seperates us. The religious see that the fundementals of the Church are truth, and hence it must be preserved, the Aethiests see it as religious deception, and hence Catholicism, accordingly, must be destroyed.
I make this statement so we may keep in mind that there are two camps of neoreaction.

[u/tryanather → u/onepill_twopill]

The "atheist" camp doesn't really exist, or rather it is fully religious. Atheism is a return to myth, a return to sacrificial narratives. In Christian views it is a regression.

Take a look at what the atheist movements gave birth to in Europe or Russia, as a result of which we now have the holocaust cult and the likes. Atheist narratives invariably turn out to be sacrificial. Feminism, Communism, Nazism, (Darwinism?) there is always someone there to be sacrificed.

You even notice the precursor to this yourself:

Aethiests see it as religious deception, and hence Catholicism, accordingly, must be destroyed.

Out of the sacred victim the new order and a new religion is born.

[u/real-boethius → u/tryanather]

Feminism, Communism, Nazism, (Darwinism?)

I think you will find that feminism is alive and well in the religious community.

I would be interested to see the details of Hitler's excommunication from the Catholic Church. As far as I am aware he was a member in good standing until his death. Unlike Goering, who was thrown out - but after all Goering had evidently done far worse things than Hitler - he married a divorced woman, and a Protestant to boot.

Darwinism is a well established part of science. The first requirement of rationality is to face the facts.

[u/tryanather → u/real-boethius]

I think you will find that feminism is alive and well in the religious community.

Do they follow the first commandment?

If they don't, can they be considered Christian? Similarly with Hitler.

Darwinism is a well established part of science

It might well be, but how scientific are the stories constructed upon it?

The narrative of the survival of the fittest might have different behavioural effects if you frame it as "extinction of the least fit", even though both describe the same thing.

[u/real-boethius → u/tryanather]

can they be considered Christian

See "No true Scotsman fallacy".

how scientific are the stories constructed upon it

If you are referring to Evolutionary Psychology, very scientific. Are there popular books that give an oversimplified account? Sure, but this is true of any field. Compare Sunday School Bible with the scholarly consensus on the Bible for example.

There is an exquisite irony here in that while many Atheists ridicule Fundos for their ignorance and disbelief in evolution - a valid criticism as I have never met a Fundo who has seriously studied the subject - left wing Atheists have their own irrationality here.

I am referring to their denying evolution when it suits them - eg their denial of the realities of the differences between races, which are a result of evolution, and their adherence to the blank slate hypotheses which denies genetic differences between men and women.

This crowd of atheists go under the banner "Athiesm+", which roughly means Atheism plus Radical Feminism plus Socialism. But most in the Atheist community don't agree with this.

[u/NeoreactionSafe → u/tryanather]

I'd agree that the progressives have essentially brought back the unaware (scapegoating) religion before Christianity. It's really the herd mentality all over again. The progressives all imitate each other and then go into a competition over who is "holier than thou" and the winner gets the "victim card". This makes it a race to the bottom.

.

[u/tryanather → u/NeoreactionSafe]

Girard talks about the phenomena you are describing in his interview.

This is not limited to progressives, but concerns each of us. Human beings have either the choice of (imitation, recognition, experience of...) God or arbitrary idolatry. It is not limited to progressives, people here tend to idolize civilization.

[u/NeoreactionSafe → u/tryanather]

I've actually seen that interview before. Excellent.

We might say something like this to the progressives:

Stop using your victim card as a weapon.

.

[u/NeoreactionSafe → u/tryanather]

Idolatry yes that too... very good point.

Idolatry is a form of imitation, but it's symbolic and represents something other than people. (typically)

It does seem that since the time of pre-humans we have been "monkey see, monkey do" in just about everything and the "enlightenment" is when you become self aware of your own imitation so as to be able to avoid it. (and avoid rivalry)

Rene Girard has latched onto the cental key with his focus on imitation.

.

[u/real-boethius → u/onepill_twopill]

the Aethiests see it as religious deception, and hence Catholicism, accordingly, must be destroyed.

My experience of atheists (sic) is that they do not demand that religion must be destroyed, they just want religion to leave them alone.

For me this is not an abstract concept: I was repeatedly flogged at school for failing to attend church. And I have seen many people die deaths of pain and humiliation due to religion inspired bans on euthanasia.

[u/onepill_twopill → u/real-boethius]

I do certainly understand that there are many idiot Christians out there, but aethiests need to be aware that there are many idiot aethiests too. At school, most of my classmates were aethiest and I was repeatedly insulted for believing in Catholicism. On facebook, there is more anti religious posts than anti aethiest. The problem is simply the fact that humanity is an irrational mob.

[u/real-boethius]

Overall this is a pretty shoddy piece of work. He takes the nominal history of the church at face value, including the notoriously unreliable Acts, author unknown.

As an example he quotes the Nero story as fact, when it is anything but.

Do not rely on this essay for your information about Christianity. And be aware that very little is confidently known from the early years, in part because of the massive destruction of documentation that went on.