Getting Christianity on our side!

[jpahmad]

If everything in the Bible is "allegorical", then can't we fashion an FDR interpretation of the bible and start peddling our ideas to Christians? 

 

Here's an example:  "Spare the rod spoil the child"

 

FDR interpretation:  The "rod" is not literally a physical rod, but symbolic of firmness in stating your needs as a parent.  This would translate to not giving in to the inevitable whims of the child and making sure you hold the child to his/her word. When your kid doesn't want to brush his/her teeth, "sparing the rod" would be to let them do whatever they want; kind of like the "un-parenting" trend that is going on currently.

 

Everything in the bible can have an "FDR twist"  therefore making the NAP and UPB in line with Christianity.

 

Is it possible?

 

 

[WasatchMan]

“You can't reason people out of beliefs they weren't reasoned into.” – Stefan Molyneux.

 

As far as "spare the rod spoil the child" goes, that is a sick example, and would be my parody of why this idea is wrong.

[SWMA]

“You can't reason people out of beliefs they weren't reasoned into.” – Stefan Molyneux.

 

As far as "spare the rod spoil the child" goes, that is a sick example, and would be my parody of why this idea is wrong.

Where's that quote from exactly?

 

I personally prefer the Ayn Rand quote "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

It describes accurately what's going on, on several levels.

 

As for "getting" anyone to "our" side - it could only be as something which they are not. You cannot be both christian and fully subscribe to reason. That is because christianity, as any religion or other occult movement, is based on fantasy. Not reality.

 

And it is impossible to sway someone with reason and evidence, if that person has already decided for himself* that reason and evidence are not the (only!) way to gain knowledge, but superstition, wishful thinking and makebelieve are what counts.

 

*most likely the person has not decided that at all, because most people don't even think. They just re-live what others told them of lives. They just re-think what others told them of thought. They just do what others told them to do. And they like it that way. And thats sadly what I have come to think of most people.

[jpahmad]

“You can't reason people out of beliefs they weren't reasoned into.” – Stefan Molyneux.

 

 

 

I not trying to reason with them.  I'm trying to manipulate them.  

[SWMA]

I not trying to reason with them.  I'm trying to manipulate them.  

Pretty sure you can't universalize "It's ok to manipulate".

 

I wrote another post on this and it's not here yet, so keep in mind that when it finally does pop up it was originally written before you posted that, jpahmad.

And as an addendum to my to-come above post: I meant "I prefer it here", as in I find it both more applicable and poignant to the subject of religion and the starting post here itself.

[jpahmad]

 

 

And it is impossible to sway someone with reason and evidence, if that person has already decided for himself* that reason and evidence are not the (only!) way to gain knowledge, but superstition, wishful thinking and makebelieve are what counts.

 

 

 

I never claimed I was trying to reason with them.  I don't know why everyone keeps bringing this up.  I would be only appealing to emotion.  Why can't I interpret the Bible differently and peddle that to people who are too traumatized to give up the fairy tale that is Christianity?

 

By the way, thankfully this happens all the time.  If it were not for different interpretations of the Bible, most Christians would still be taking it literally and slaughtering everyone who is not a Christian.  Hey, who is to say what parts of the scripture are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken allegorically?

 

I say it's my turn to interpret it.

Pretty sure you can't universalize "It's ok to manipulate".

 

 

 

Depends on how you define "manipulate."  We "manipulate" our children for their own good all the time before they are able to reason.  Religious people are kind of like children.  Due to mental/emotional blocks, they can't reason.

[SWMA]

People here are assuming you want to use reason because people here subscribe to reason. And evidence.

 

Oh and please, please go ahead and define "manipulate" in a somewhat useful way that does not result in immorality and is able to be universalized, I am quite a bit curious to see you try.

[PGP]

A wild shot in the dark. I read some quotes from the bible recently relating to the anti-christ. Thessalonians. Seems to me that peaceful parenting and scepticism would be a good anti-dote to whatever potential anti-christ the world vomits forth. I am thinking of politicians and their friends in business. 

[jpahmad]

 

Oh and please, please go ahead and define "manipulate" in a somewhat useful way that does not result in immorality and is able to be universalized, I am quite a bit curious to see you try.

 

SWMA, why the condescension and hostility?  

 

 

anyway,

 

 

ma·nip·u·late

məˈnipyəˌlāt/

verb

 

1. 1.

   handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

   "he manipulated the dials of the set"

   synonyms:

   operate, work; More

    

    

    

    

A wild shot in the dark. I read some quotes from the bible recently relating to the anti-christ. Thessalonians. Seems to me that peaceful parenting and scepticism would be a good anti-dote to whatever potential anti-christ the world vomits forth. I am thinking of politicians and their friends in business. 

 

 

Agree, I think we you could convince any Christian, using the scripture, and interpreting it "allegorically", of the value of peaceful parenting and the NAP.  Here's the best part, you don't have to even use reason.  You can't go wrong as long as you can convince them that it's "sanctioned" by scripture.  Why not?

[J. D. Stembal]

Religion is the mortal enemy of philosophy. We should be actively railing against irrationality, not embracing it. Twisting the NAP so that Christianity doesn't violate it is approaching the problem entirely the wrong way.

 

Give up your gods and embrace philosophy, not the other way around. Ostracize those who cling to irrationality.

[SWMA]

SWMA, why the condescension and hostility?  

 

 

anyway,

 

 

ma·nip·u·late

məˈnipyəˌlāt/

verb

 

1. 1.

   handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

   "he manipulated the dials of the set"

   synonyms:

   operate, work; More

    

    

    

    

 

 

Agree, I think we you could convince any Christian, using the scripture, and interpreting it "allegorically", of the value of peaceful parenting and the NAP.  Here's the best part, you don't have to even use reason.  You can't go wrong as long as you can convince them that it's "sanctioned" by scripture.  Why not?

I am sorry if you felt that was hostile and or condescending, it was not meant in this way. And the meaning you quoted there is surely not the one you mean it in this case. This meaning is not applicable to "manipulate humans"(which you proposed to be done), it is not "useful" in our context we have right here. And even if you stretch it to "well technically" then it sure is still neither moral nor universalizable (though those last two might be synonymous here).

 

So I find you quoting that as if it answered my question, which obviously pertained to this very topic, to be intellectually dishonest. It may have to do with you thinking I was being hostile, so I have no ill thoughts of you because of it.

 

If you disagree with my assessment then please allow me to rephrase:

How would you define "to manipulate another human being" in a useful(!) way which can be universalized as something not morally wrong.

[Donnadogsoth]

A fine topic for Easter!

 

The OP is talking in terms recognisable to Philo of Alexandria who reinterpreted the Old Testament 2K ago.

 

Christianity is certainly compatible with reason; I defy anyone to tell me what non-Christian civilisation could accomplish that Christian civilisation couldn't.

 

But to get at the OP, the question is whether the concept of a Christian anarchocapitalist society is coherent, and I think it is.  Christianity is founded on the commandments to love God and love one's neighbour.  Anarchocapitalism prevents neither, and therefore by first blush has nothing preventing adoption by Christianity.

[WasatchMan]

I defy anyone to tell me what non-Christian civilisation could accomplish that Christian civilisation couldn't.

 

Is your claim really that a philosophical civilization couldn't accomplish more than Christian civilization?  I think it is pretty self evident that rationality will always accomplish more than superstition.

[shirgall]

What is in conflict is the methodologies: empiricism requires only accepting claims that have verifiable evidence without contradiction producing a testable framework. Faith requires accepting some claims that have no verifiable evidence and that discard contradictions on the basis of some extra-natural and untestable framework. In another thread I showed that accepting all faith claims without discrimination produces no framework at all, but that all justifications for faith frameworks require someone to construct a framework and insist that only it is correct. A lot of blood has been spilled on this last point. Pointless bloodshed at its root.

 

There is no cohabitation with philosophy and religion under the same roof. There is only a tension of polite relations so long as there are forbidden topics of discussion. This is the tension of my marriage, and it's no cakewalk. It's not impossible. Take good the good, defer or ignore the bad. Wing the rest. Accept the fact that you are living a not-entirely-philosophical life and be done with it. I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher.

[jpahmad]

 

There is no cohabitation with philosophy and religion under the same roof. There is only a tension of polite relations so long as there are forbidden topics of discussion. This is the tension of my marriage, and it's no cakewalk. It's not impossible. Take good the good, defer or ignore the bad. Wing the rest. Accept the fact that you are living a not-entirely-philosophical life and be done with it. I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher.

 

Yes, I am making a pragmatic argument.  Irrationality can not be reconciled with rationality.  But, given the options, and in accordance with one of Stefan's recent podcasts (An atheist apologizes to Christians)  I think it would be well worth while to perhaps explore a different interpretation of the scripture.  What harm could be done?  Interpretation of scripture has been evolving since the middle ages.  Why not just keep going until it aligns as closely as possible with philosophical principles?

Pretty soon the Pope will  endorse all sorts of things that were previously considered devious or sinful.  Given enough time, everything will be permissible under scripture. Let's just speed up the process.

[shirgall]

Yes, I am making a pragmatic argument.  Irrationality can not be reconciled with rationality.  But, given the options, and in accordance with one of Stefan's recent podcasts (An atheist apologizes to Christians)  I think it would be well worth while to perhaps explore a different interpretation of the scripture.  What harm could be done?  Interpretation of scripture has been evolving since the middle ages.  Why not just keep going until it aligns as closely as possible with philosophical principles?

Pretty soon the Pope will  endorse all sorts of things that were previously considered devious or sinful.  Given enough time, everything will be permissible under scripture. Let's just speed up the process.

 

Any prose can be overanalyzed to produce wisdom where none had been intended (Nostradamus springs to mind). It can be enjoyable, but at some point you have to consider if the effort is worth it. We can recognize virtue, whatever the motivation, but we don't give accolades and applause to those who produce virtue without intending it. 

[jpahmad]

Any prose can be overanalyzed to produce wisdom where none had been intended (Nostradamus springs to mind).

 

True, I don't know if it would be worth the effort.  But I do know many "Christians" who interpret things in their own way, to the point of being very complimentary to my own values.  Since Martin Luther, this seems to be the progression of things.  

[DCLugi]

SWMA, why the condescension and hostility?  

 

 

anyway,

 

 

ma·nip·u·late

məˈnipyəˌlāt/

verb

 

1. 1.

   handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

   "he manipulated the dials of the set"

   synonyms:

   operate, work; More

    

    

    

    

 

 

Agree, I think we you could convince any Christian, using the scripture, and interpreting it "allegorically", of the value of peaceful parenting and the NAP.  Here's the best part, you don't have to even use reason.  You can't go wrong as long as you can convince them that it's "sanctioned" by scripture.  Why not?

To control someone skillfully is perhaps useful for children who are not yet capable of reason but the goal is to allow their capacity for reason to grow. I would argue that people who are too traumatized to reason will never be "on our side" but you could make the case for wanting them to be less harmful to society.

[jpahmad]

To control someone skillfully is perhaps useful for children who are not yet capable of reason but the goal is to allow their capacity for reason to grow. I would argue that people who are too traumatized to reason will never be "on our side" but you could make the case for wanting them to be less harmful to society.

 

That's the case I'm trying to make

[Matt D]

If everything in the Bible is "allegorical", then can't we fashion an FDR interpretation of the bible and start peddling our ideas to Christians? 

 

Here's an example:  "Spare the rod spoil the child"

 

FDR interpretation:  The "rod" is not literally a physical rod, but symbolic of firmness in stating your needs as a parent.  This would translate to not giving in to the inevitable whims of the child and making sure you hold the child to his/her word. When your kid doesn't want to brush his/her teeth, "sparing the rod" would be to let them do whatever they want; kind of like the "un-parenting" trend that is going on currently.

 

Everything in the bible can have an "FDR twist"  therefore making the NAP and UPB in line with Christianity.

 

Is it possible?

 

Can you explain more about what you mean by bringing Christians to our side? Is the goal to convince Christians to raise their children better? To have more support against the state?...

[shirgall]

Can you explain more about what you mean by bringing Christians to our side? Is the goal to convince Christians to raise their children better? To have more support against the state?...

 

We need to unite against our common enemy, the Judean People's Front!

[jpahmad]

Can you explain more about what you mean by bringing Christians to our side? Is the goal to convince Christians to raise their children better? To have more support against the state?...

 

 

Basically yes.  And, just to re-iterate the intention of this post, approaching the problem from a pragmatic standpoint, I would like to see a regression to the state of affairs the United States experiences throughout the later half of the 19th century; minimal government, solid family structure, and work ethic.  Believe it or not, Christianity was a big part of that structure.  Then, of course, we could eventually eliminate superstition all-together.  But, pick your battles.  Stefan is right.  We're all going to hell in a hand basket as long as the family unit continues to degenerate.  I propose to join forces with Christianity in order to fight the state.  

[Donnadogsoth]

Is your claim really that a philosophical civilization couldn't accomplish more than Christian civilization?  I think it is pretty self evident that rationality will always accomplish more than superstition.

 

"Superstition" isn't the essence of Christianity, the concept of dedicating one's life to higher principle is, specifically the concept of creativity characterising mankind as being in the image of the Creator.  Any "Christian" civililsation that lacks that dedication to principled creativity can be characterised as mere "superstition".

[WasatchMan]

"Superstition" isn't the essence of Christianity, the concept of dedicating one's life to higher principle is, specifically the concept of creativity characterising mankind as being in the image of the Creator.  Any "Christian" civililsation that lacks that dedication to principled creativity can be characterised as mere "superstition".

 

How is dedicating one's life to "the concept of creativity characterizing mankind as being in the image of the Creator" not just another way of saying a dedication to superstition?

[J. D. Stembal]

Basically yes.  And, just to re-iterate the intention of this post, approaching the problem from a pragmatic standpoint, I would like to see a regression to the state of affairs the United States experiences throughout the later half of the 19th century; minimal government, solid family structure, and work ethic.  Believe it or not, Christianity was a big part of that structure.  Then, of course, we could eventually eliminate superstition all-together.  But, pick your battles.  Stefan is right.  We're all going to hell in a hand basket as long as the family unit continues to degenerate.  I propose to join forces with Christianity in order to fight the state.  

 

How is reverting to late 18th Century thought pragmatic? If we join with Christians to usurp the state, we will likely restore a monarchy with a self-proclaimed incarnate of Jesus as the figurehead.

 

Why does the cause of anarchy need practical assistance from irrational people? Is there evidence of a religious movement forming a stateless society?

 

I contend that it is practically impossible to raise children peacefully and endorse religion at the same time because children are rational by nature, and require repeated manipulation and abuse to be convinced of a deity. Therefore, logically, a religious community can never be peaceful to their children while believing in a god, or achieve a stateless society while believing in a god.

 

Eliminate the superstition permanently by not endorsing religious beliefs in the family.

[shirgall]

How is reverting to late 18th Century thought pragmatic?

 

 

One 18th Century thought that has merit is Freedom of Religion.

[jpahmad]

How is reverting to late 18th Century thought pragmatic? If we join with Christians to usurp the state, we will likely restore a monarchy with a self-proclaimed incarnate of Jesus as the figurehead.

 

 

 

 I don't recall there being a monarchy in 19th century America.  Do you?

 

 

 

 

Why does the cause of anarchy need practical assistance from irrational people? Is there evidence of a religious movement forming a stateless society?

 

 

 

Did I say stateless?  I said "minimal state."  It was the progeny of Martin Luther's personal revelations that started the "freedom club" and led to the new world.  All these people, who laid the foundation for the industrial revolution, were irrational people.  "Irrational" minded people, in the form of protestants and other post-Luther Christian secs.  They were the ones who forged ahead through all the barbaric medieval ruins of the old world and started something promising.  

 

There isn't evidence of religious movements forming a stateless society, but there certainly is evidence of religious movements forming the most free societies the world has ever known.  

I contend that it is practically impossible to raise children peacefully and endorse religion at the same time because children are rational by nature, and require repeated manipulation and abuse to be convinced of a deity. 

 

 

There is empirical evidence to the contrary.  My mother endorsed religion (Catholicism).  She married a Muslim and gave birth to me and my siblings.  I never went to church/mosque nor was asked to.  I was raised peacefully.   I'm an atheist/anarchist.  My mother is still a Christian as far as she is concerned.  My father claims he is still  Muslim.  The subject of religion never comes up in any discussions because it seems to have no relevance in our family life.  Try to figure that out.  Maybe you would argue that neither of them really "endorse" their religions.  Or, you could say that they just threw out the bad and kept the good.  I would argue the latter.  

 

Eliminate the superstition permanently by not endorsing religious beliefs in the family.

 

And how has this technique worked out for you?

[J. D. Stembal]

What did your parents tell you when you questioned the existence of god? I cannot believe you simply neglected to broach the subject because it had no relevance to the family.

 

If your parents did not endorse their respective religions, what do you seek to achieve by endorsing religion to the philosophical FDR community now?

[jpahmad]

What did your parents tell you when you questioned the existence of god?

 

 

They told me that nobody really knows what the truth is.  

 

 

 I cannot believe you simply neglected to broach the subject because it had no relevance to the family.

 

 

So you don't believe me.  It really was of no relevance to my life as a child.  So, I didn't "neglect" anything.

 

 

what do you seek to achieve by endorsing religion to the philosophical FDR community now?

 

Endorse?  I guess the whole purpose of this post has either just blown over your head or you are choosing to ignore it.  I stated in my first post and in subsequent posts what I am seeking to achieve.  

[shirgall]

They told me that nobody really knows what the truth is. 

 

Don't you just hate how much cultural marxism has set back the human race? People have discovered many many truths, and saved them up so that future generations don't have to rediscover them... but when their items of faith are questioned they resort to crapping all over all of that history to shore up their delusions.

 

Degrading the concept of "truth" only serves those who wish to control others and their fellow travellers.

[jpahmad]

Don't you just hate how much cultural marxism has set back the human race? People have discovered many many truths, and saved them up so that future generations don't have to rediscover them... but when their items of faith are questioned they resort to crapping all over all of that history to shore up their delusions.

 

Degrading the concept of "truth" only serves those who wish to control others and their fellow travellers.

 

Well, they were referring to the truth about what happens when you die.  Nobody knows.  Which is the truth.  

[J. D. Stembal]

They told me that nobody really knows what the truth is.

 

We know the truth; religion is violent, manipulative and irrational. Indoctrinating children in religion is evil.

 

So you don't believe me.  It really was of no relevance to my life as a child.  So, I didn't "neglect" anything.

 

I admit that I am incredulous. Perhaps I am projecting my childhood experience onto you.

 

I was baptized by the church and circumcised by a pediatrician. Both are clearly religious rituals. I may have not been successfully indoctrinated in the faith of Christianity by my parents, but I was certainly harmed and socialized by it at a very early age, a time that I cannot actively recall. I don't remember talking to my parents about God. I was told that Santa Claus was a real person, so in an indirect way, I was indoctrinated to believe in a falsehood, but it backfired. Children are natural skeptics. I doubted the validity of religion, and so I knew I could not trust my parents with philosophic or religious topics.

 

Our parents lied to us.

 

Endorse?  I guess the whole purpose of this post has either just blown over your head or you are choosing to ignore it.  I stated in my first post and in subsequent posts what I am seeking to achieve.  

 

From the OP:

 

Everything in the bible can have an "FDR twist"  therefore making the NAP and UPB in line with Christianity.

 

Your stated goal is to make ethical proofs more palatable to irrational people. What if the religious don't want to give up their faith? That's their decision. Let them have God if they want, but they cannot have NAP and UPB at the same time. Religion precludes philosophy entirely.

 

Are you making an appeal to consequence and authority in reply #22?

 

Stefan is right. We're all going to hell in a hand basket as long as the family unit continues to degenerate.  I propose to join forces with Christianity in order to fight the state.

 

Will we go to hell if we do not join with organized religion? How is the cure that you propose any better than the disease? Have you heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Palestine, and Holy Wars? It would be much more principled to stick to our guns of philosophy than to use the bugbear of the State to scare people into aligning with Jesus.

 

God and the State are the manifestation of the same evil, involuntary servitude, or slavery. See Stefan Molyneux's The Story of Your Enslavement to follow the evolution of slavery to the present day. Christians trumpet that they were responsible for the end of slavery, but bible scripture actually endorses it as a religious virtue.

 

Ephesians 6:5-8 Bondservants and Masters

(A bondservant is a worker that is not paid wages.)

 

⁵ Bondservants,^[a] obey your earthly masters^[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, ⁶ not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, ⁷ rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, ⁸ knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant^[c] or is free.

 

Ephesians 6:5-8 is an analogy. We should be servants to Christ as we are servants to our secular masters, which is the State. Libertarian Christians should be singing the praises of the Federal Reserve, since this is the financial tool through which we were turned into modern serfs. Serfdom to Christ, and our secular masters, is "doing the will of God from the heart." We pay the masters, and in return, we receive love from a non-existent entity.

 

It's ironic that you invoked Proverbs 13:24 as an example of interpreting scripture since this is how many parents transfer religion and the State to their children. If children don't believe in God, beat them and they will submit to your power. In Christian thought, childhood is a form of servitude to a master who doles out equal parts love and wrath. It may have not been true of your parents, but it is true of the majority. Children are born rational and must be broken by faith. It was true of my parents, who can scarcely be labelled devout Christians.

 

I couldn't find any statistics on Christian spanking rates in the U.S., but this Ontario website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin3.htm) discusses spanking from the viewpoint of the "open-minded" religious conservative, and suggests that excessive spanking is abuse. However, this misses the point.

 

The reason so many Christians spank is because their children are not willing to believe in Jesus or his ethereal father. There are biblical scholars who claim that using the rod as physical discipline is just one interpretation of scripture, but I contend that it is the only interpretation of holy scripture that makes sense. Consider the violent history of the Christian world, and the willful genocide of humanity by God in the tales of the Old Testament.

 

I recommend Lloyd Demause's The Origins of War in Child Abuse, particularly Chapter Nine, for descriptions of how Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Aztecs have used savage abuse to instill violence and fear in the next generation. This is the pedigree in which we were raised.

 

http://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-9-bipolar-christianity-how-torturing-sinful-children-produced-holy-wars/

[Donnadogsoth]

How is dedicating one's life to "the concept of creativity characterizing mankind as being in the image of the Creator" not just another way of saying a dedication to superstition?

 

Superstition is an unreasoning belief.  Creativity is a scientific fact and a perfectly reasonable belief.

[shirgall]

Well, they were referring to the truth about what happens when you die.  Nobody knows.  Which is the truth.  

 

But the question was about the existence of god, not what is essentially "what do you feel when you can't feel anymore?"

Superstition is an unreasoning belief.  Creativity is a scientific fact and a perfectly reasonable belief.

 

Defining "creativity" as an otherwise undefinable aspect of the Creator is not a reasoning belief.

[jpahmad]

But the question was about the existence of god, not what is essentially "what do you feel when you can't feel anymore?"

 

 

Honestly Shirgall, that question  never came up at family discussions.  We were pretty secular in our behavior.  Religion played no role.  We were all too busy growing up and living life.  

We know the truth; religion is violent, manipulative and irrational. Indoctrinating children in religion is evil.

 

 

That wasn't the question they were addressing.  I was remembering a specific time when I had asked my mother something along the lines of "what happens when you die."

 

I admit that I am incredulous. Perhaps I am projecting my childhood experience onto you.

 

 

Perhaps.  I know I am lucky, having the kind of up-bringing that I did.

 

I was baptized by the church and circumcised by a pediatrician. Both are clearly religious rituals. I may have not been successfully indoctrinated in the faith of Christianity by my parents, but I was certainly harmed and socialized by it at a very early age, a time that I cannot actively recall. I don't remember talking to my parents about God. I was told that Santa Claus was a real person, so in an indirect way, I was indoctrinated to believe in a falsehood, but it backfired. Children are natural skeptics. I doubted the validity of religion, and so I knew I could not trust my parents with philosophic or religious topics.

 

Our parents lied to us.

 

 

So, by your tone of voice, textually speaking, it seems as though you are not fond of your parents.  Is this correct?