How to fight "Christianity"

[death metal black metal]

First, you need to see why people value religion -- it's a life philosophy and cultural center -- and join it and convert it to your ways, not reject it and try to fight something necessary:

According to the latest American research, parents with no religious affiliation are losing the battle to indoctrinate their children. A majority of those surveyed who grew up in atheist or agnostic households, or where there was no particular religious attachment, later chose to join a religion.

The New York Times sees it as a retrograde step, labelling the process "defecting to faith" and noting that in comparison only 13 per cent of those raised as Protestants and 14 per cent of cradle Catholics later severed connections.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25449815-7583,00.html

The problem with metal is that it's half-rock, and half-Crowdism; the best bands purge as much of this as possible.

Rock and Crowdism have two things in common: their origin in the lowest common denominator of human perception and behavior.

Religion, philosophy, militarism, and art are a rising above from this entertainment-oriented, revolutionary culture.

Metalized Christianity would be a big improvement.

[Devamitra]

Although I would give my vote to rock and rebellion over Christianity, I see the normals' form of atheism as the rejection of the "numinous", multiple subconscious symbols and even parts of the psychology and the brain itself. In other words, being Christian is much preferable (and more "metal") to being a blind follower of the crowd, that much is obvious. There can be no change for the better without awareness and the question is what is better for the awareness? As the other topic about Christianity pointed out, attending churches probably isn't. If we are talking about something far from the conventions of Christianity, I fail (even while having many self professed Christians as friends) to see why use that designation. Despite the lowlife and decadence involved with rock, it succeeded in many ways in the development of awareness about topics from ecology to esotericism, classical ideas, culture, virtue...

Nietzsche already explained pretty well why Christianity can not communicate virtue.

[Heydrich]

I'm rather flummoxed by this idea as well.  It is true that liberalism and egalitarianism, for instance, have certainly made inroads into greater Christianity where once it was decidedly unwelcome, at least in many denomenations. But both those overriding ideas, once you alter or repackage a few aspects here and there(such as the secular "tolerance and human rights" orthodoxy being "moralized"  to make homosexuality or feminism more palatable) they actually align themselves with Christian teaching quite nicely. Alas, Judeo-Christianity is the first real fully-codified liberalism to be unleashed upon the world. And they all exalt the meek and ineffective, embrace slave-morality, look down upon the unapologetically strong and noble, coddle defectives, endorse cowardice, etc. 

Everything properly Metal runs completely counter to all this! Whether from the dogmatic perspective or the humanitarian, Metal and Christianity are oil and water. For lack of a batter example, it puts me in mind of trying to Christainize Satanism or some such. How could it possibly work? How could one convert something so diametrically opposed to all you espouse and wish to share with others?   

It is no surprise that young people continue to fall-back upon moldy old religions and such, as their proudly atheistic, bleeding-heart parents and all their post counter-culture ilk failed to build up anything substantial for their children in place of the old religions. Moaning and groaning about Darfur, "poverty," gay marriage, global- warming and mistreated "immigrants," does not a coherent cultural foundation make. 

On second though - have I taken the original post too literally?

[NHA]

...

Agreed, but i think what hes trying to say, is that its more effective to passive-aggressively manipulate people into doing what you want, than to outright fight them - basicly the American government's modus operandi.

Good luck turning something so conservative as religion on its head though heh.

[Abyssal]

Although I would give my vote to rock and rebellion over Christianity, I see the normals' form of atheism as the rejection of the "numinous", multiple subconscious symbols and even parts of the psychology and the brain itself.

True. Most people's rejection of Christianity is not isolated to Christianity - it's a rejection of all that is larger than their ego. Anything rigorous or transcendent is basically threatening to these people. Philosophical materialism and secular relativism offers them a comfortable void in which they can construct a reality which is pleasurable and unthreatening.

Nietzsche already explained pretty well why Christianity can not communicate virtue.

False. Nietzsche explained why bourgeois liberalism using Christianity as a crutch cannot communicate virtue. In his attacks on Christianity, Nietzsche cherry picks the worst parts and ignores everything else. I used to employ all the same arguments. I now see them as childish and feel embarassed about my prior attitudes. I let Nietzsche and myself off the hook, though, because we live in a period in which the weakest elements of the religion are the most celebrated by its adherents. Just as DMBM proposed in his initial post to manipulate Christianity for his own ideological purpose, so people of very different ideological focus have been doing for hundreds of years.

Instead of simply deciding to "convert" Christianity to your own position, perhaps a more fruitful endeavor might be to examine it more thoroughly and find out if there is anything one might learn from it.

[Heydrich]

I used to employ all the same arguments. I now see them as childish and feel embarassed about my prior attitudes. I let Nietzsche and myself off the hook, though, because we live in a period in which the weakest elements of the religion are the most celebrated by its adherents. Just as DMBM proposed in his initial post to manipulate Christianity for his own ideological purpose, so people of very different ideological focus have been doing for hundreds of years.

Instead of simply deciding to "convert" Christianity to your own position, perhaps a more fruitful endeavor might be to examine it more thoroughly and find out if there is anything one might learn from it.

If you don't mind, why don't you inaugurate the exercise - I am quite curious as to what you apparently now find worth learning in Christianity after previously rejecting it, or which are the stronger elements to which you refer.     

[death metal black metal]

Good luck turning something so conservative as religion on its head though heh.

One will have better luck doing that than fighting it head-on. You don't attack the passive; then they cry and mobilize the crowd against you. Then you taste the dick of the revengeful.

I also don't think religion is conservative. I think it's a language that is used to express an ongoing dialogue. After all, even Christianity has extreme liberal and extreme conservative aspects together; it's a battlefield, not a declaration of victory.

In his attacks on Christianity, Nietzsche cherry picks the worst parts and ignores everything else.

Are you sure? Nietzsche said that if Christianity had not existed, someone would have mentioned it. Remember he spoke in cryptogram to avoid being misinterpreted, quite successfully, because a bullshit Nietzschean stands out quite clearly.

I'm rather flummoxed by this idea as well.  It is true that liberalism and egalitarianism, for instance, have certainly made inroads into greater Christianity where once it was decidedly unwelcome, at least in many denomenations. But both those overriding ideas, once you alter or repackage a few aspects here and there(such as the secular "tolerance and human rights" orthodoxy being "moralized"  to make homosexuality or feminism more palatable) they actually align themselves with Christian teaching quite nicely. Alas, Judeo-Christianity is the first real fully-codified liberalism to be unleashed upon the world.

Good point. Yet, like Nietzsche, it encodes both extremes in itself. One of the best ways to subvert an enemy is to redefine his argument; one of the best ways to gain power is to neutralize both extremes, and redefine the language of argument.

For example, if a third party arose that had both left and right aspects, but interpreted the left as a rightist and the right as a leftist, it would bring both groups together, wouldn't it?

Although I would give my vote to rock and rebellion over Christianity, I see the normals' form of atheism as the rejection of the "numinous", multiple subconscious symbols and even parts of the psychology and the brain itself. In other words, being Christian is much preferable (and more "metal") to being a blind follower of the crowd, that much is obvious.

The big secret is that Christianity is a big house; most Christians follow Crowdism, because most people follow Crowdism.

99% of people follow Crowdism = 99% of Christians are Crowdists

I'm rather flummoxed by this idea as well.  It is true that liberalism and egalitarianism, for instance, have certainly made inroads into greater Christianity where once it was decidedly unwelcome, at least in many denomenations.

I think it's the other way around: Jesus Christ was half-educated, kind of a dipshit hippie, and so about half of what he said was Crowdist blather to market himself, and the rest was anti-Roman revolutionary rhetoric.

Christianity was always liberal.

But the philosophical ideas of Christianity -- borrowed from Greeks, Hindus and Europeans -- remain the same without Christ. In fact, I don't think anyone in Christianity really gives a damn about Christ. Half of them turn to his liberal side, half turn to his judgmental side. Christ himself probably considered himself a devout Jew of the Kahanist type, and designed a superior meme to fight the Romans. His liberalism is the marketing. His message is the revolution.

And that brings us back to liberalism. Who invented it? It invented itself. When people reach a certain intelligence, they start doing things in public to convince others they're good -- while hiding their real motives. At that point, they discover the superior meme: inclusiveness, or competitive altruism. They say, "I don't want good for myself, I want good for ALL people so EVERYONE can have EQUAL justice." What does that sentence mean? It means they want to use the Crowd, to motivate the Crowd, and to have that gang of halfwit monkeys carry out their bidding under the justification of innocence, peace, fraternity, equality, etc. It's just marketing. No one invented liberalism. It's as inherent as lying or murder. It's an idea that at a certain point seems like a shortcut to getting what you want, while minimizing risk to yourself.

So then we turn to religion... do I have Christianity? When it is camouflage for Crowdism, yes. But the real enemy is Crowdism. How do I fight Crowdism? By taking to all social institutions, government and religion and science, and uniting them around an idea that is anti-Crowdism -- a difficult meme to construct, because Crowdism is anti-reality; how do you be anti-anti-reality? You make reality have a sexier meme, which is that of adventure and fantasy, a selfless exploration of the great and beautiful. This is why Nietzsche turned to aesthetics, Schopenhauer spoke of the contemplative infinite, and Johannes Eckhart saw God in death and the mundane more than in visions of Heaven. Kant, although he made some brutal noumenal mistakes, also tried with his concept of radical evil.

The point is, gents and ladies, if you really want to cut through the bullshit -- get to the root of the Hydra: denial of reality so the self can refuse to challenge itself. Know its method: inclusivity, as a means to guaranteeing by rule of law that the individual can secede from reality. Know its manifestations -- liberalism, populist Christianity, and oversocialization. It's all the same evil, because evil is simply anti-good. And if adaptation to reality -- the one inherent good for all organisms -- is good, then evil is anti-reality. The people who call themselves "good" call reality "evil." And that is all you need to know.

So whether you adopt the vocabulary of science or philosophy, Christianity or Buddhism, finance or heavy metal... it's all the same struggle: escape social illusion and get back to reality, by finding a way to make reality an adventure of greatness.

Although I would give my vote to rock and rebellion over Christianity,

Ah, but that's the thing. Rock and rebellion is a kept mistress. It presents no threat because it is an anti-philosophy completely compatible with liberalism and hence Crowdism.

Nietzsche's point about Christianity being nihilistic: moving past fatalism for a moment, think of it this way -- if no values exist, one must choose what values one desires -- this fits into his aestheticism. In doing so, one determines the content of one's soul. That alone tells us where an individual stands, and what he or she is made of. Nihilism is necessary for choice.

Keep in mind also that metal sensu Black Sabbath was against rock 'n roll and its quest for personal convenience and hedonism. While all the hippies were preaching free love, equality, and peace, and using that justification as a cover for callow intoxication, reckless sexual behavior and subversion of rule of law to make the individual more important than ever before -- hippies invented the real consumerism -- Black Sabbath were preaching horror movies: the individual as helpless until he gets aggressive and vicious, society as useless and parasitic, and nature as competition for supremacy, the real adventure being in conquering fear and neurosis to find the simplest possible solution to something technology and religion can't fix for us.

If anything, metal is about this view, and it's bigger than the callow Christian-versus-unChristian debate: assert reality, the bigger non-anthrocentric picture, and history as a laboratory of science, and nihilism as a means to choosing -- not justifying, not proving -- the type of future we need. After all, smarter people will pick a different future than idiots, and the two will never convince each other through arguments, because the dummies will just falsify the argumentative process.

Metal will never be Christian; metal's truth can be spoken through Christianity. Per Romanticism, the genre is nationalistic, naturalism, holistic, idealistic, occultist and aestheticist. But if Christianity is one language, and heavy music another, they can speak the same truth. I believe Schopenhauer and Eckhart found a way to express that truth in Christianity. Boycott Christian metal; support subversive, anti-liberal, anti-Crowdist Christianity.

[NHA]

Good luck turning something so conservative as religion on its head though heh.

I also don't think religion is conservative. I think it's a language that is used to express an ongoing dialogue. After all, even Christianity has extreme liberal and extreme conservative aspects together; it's a battlefield, not a declaration of victory.

I meant conservative with a lower case 'c' ; in the non political sense of the word (sorry for the ambiguity).

I agree fighting it head on is pointless, but you have to understand how most of the population interprets Christianity.

As i see it, there are two points of view on it:

1.) Christianity is a form of philosophy that aims to personify its abstract concepts in the form of deities and parables.
or
2.) Christianity is divine revelation from an infallible God who sets clear guidelines of what is right and wrong.

Most Christians probably agree with both, but lean heavily towards #2. From that perspective, its total bullshit to try bend things to suite your purposes.

[istaros]

Vast majority lean heavily towards, if not entirely on, #2. So that should make them easier to manipulate. Is there anything more gullible than a literalist?

[death metal black metal]

The vast majority take that interpretation of any philosophy.

I think IQ determines philosophy, more than anything else.

The really smart guys like Schopenhauer end up transcendental idealists... I'd put Nietzsche in this category as well for his pragmatic idealism and a transcendental ideologue outlook.

The real battle is against Crowdism. We should summon every voice, translate our ideas for it, and direct them all toward a new goal.

I think that new goal has to include realism but also a positive, creative goal so we have something to strive for.

[Svmmoned]

Christianity was always liberal.

Exactly. Its ideal is crafted from such elements as liberalism, humanism, anti-authoritarism, broad heritage from judaism - anthropocentrism, revolutionarism etc. And because of that, it's condemned to fail as its foundational characterics will resurface from time to time, despite all those noble exceptions provided by medieval church, few of their thinkers and really many sane christians today (I tend to perceive that as a form of sentimentalism, which, when confronted with reality, always unfortunately makes them run to their comfortable dogmas).

[Abyssal]

I used to employ all the same arguments. I now see them as childish and feel embarassed about my prior attitudes. I let Nietzsche and myself off the hook, though, because we live in a period in which the weakest elements of the religion are the most celebrated by its adherents. Just as DMBM proposed in his initial post to manipulate Christianity for his own ideological purpose, so people of very different ideological focus have been doing for hundreds of years.

Instead of simply deciding to "convert" Christianity to your own position, perhaps a more fruitful endeavor might be to examine it more thoroughly and find out if there is anything one might learn from it.

If you don't mind, why don't you inaugurate the exercise - I am quite curious as to what you apparently now find worth learning in Christianity after previously rejecting it, or which are the stronger elements to which you refer.     

It's hard for me to reduce everything I've gained from it to a few bullet points, but I have learned much of humility, of the inseparability of love, knowledge and being, of 'monism', of the value of action and the silliness of becoming too obsessed with temporal goals and control. From the bible in particular, I've learned a lot about understanding how apparent contradiction is a way of demonstrating the symbolic and relative nature of language.

The truth is less that I've "learned" these things from Christianity and more that I've found them affirmed within it. They're things I've been learning my entire life. The point is more that everything I've ever learned and found to be truly crucial I have also found echoed and encoded within Judeo-Christianity, amongst other places.

[death metal black metal]

I think all religion is the same, and varies with the intelligence that one uses to approach it. The external category of the religion is less important than its interpretation. However, modern people like external categories because it lessens personal responsibility, and affirms that we all behave equally and the religion is what shapes us.

• 70-100 IQ points: pantheism
• 101-125 IQ points: dualism
• 126-150 IQ points: pragmatic idealism
• 151-180 IQ points: transcendental idealism

(For a thorough explanation of the high intelligence cases and their approach to religion, which is a subset of philosophy, try Cosmic Consciousness and Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue.

No matter who you are, or what religion you're in, this is the belief you'll create.

For example, Schopenhauer and Eckhart were dudes in the 160-180 range, and they made Christianity into transcendental idealism. So did Emerson.

What's the solution to Christianity?

Get in there and spread some knowledge that makes it less of the 70-100 IQ point religion, and more of the higher. You will slowly induce the stupid to learn, and stop the spread of ideas from the stupid.

If we'd let Eckhart and Schopenhauer and Emerson modernize Christianity, we would not be fighting it now. We're basically fighting Christianity and liberalism as a proxy for smashing Crowdism.

[Time Curator 23]

70-100 IQ points: pantheism

That's odd. I've always respected the ideas of pantheism / panentheism / animism. They all seem to be pretty non-dualistic: the terrestrial (physical) world, idea world, spiritual world, etc. are not only linked, they're all of the same essence. Anyway, great points, great thread.

[ASBO]

Pantheism rapidly becomes dualism and superstition because one starts seeing the whole world as alive, and having a will outside its parts.

Idealism fixes this by showing us that our thoughts and the world act in similar ways, so neither has a will that's conscious, only a dumb process of proliferation, divergence and filtration -- natural selection.

You can "feel" natural selection in your thoughts. When you run into a new situation, your head floods with ideas, and then they get compared to one another like a bubble sort, with the winners of each comparison facing each other until you're down to a handful, at which point the one that seems to "fit" best is selected.