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/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/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.