The ever-diminishing role of Christianity in our society is pretty interesting, and of course, is tied into all of this stuff about Marxism. It’s a pretty difficult subject to discuss dispassionately, which is what is required, and is necessary for rational thought to move forward.
I've read that Harvard was originally mandated to be “Protectors of the Truth.” And at the time, they felt they could actually identify truth, because during that age, they used the Bible as an anchor of “Absolute Truth” to identify what was true and what was not.
When Hegel came out with “The Truth is Relative”, it set the whole system into the toilet because it got rid of the “anchor” of Absolute Truth. The concept of God is “black and white.” God’s word is “Truth.”
However, of course, we are able to recognize that truth often does change, or, truth often is relative.
And herein lies the entire problem, I think. Human nature, and the need to control it.
In many ways, I agree with Hegel & Marx that indeed, the Truth is Relative. But, from a position of what works for a civilization? Well… that must have elements of an Absolute Truth to it, or cultural hegemony will never arise, and civilization will never occur.
The human brain is enormously malleable, and it naturally tends to lean towards “Relative Truth.” We often use our brains to justify what we would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Jail is full of innocent people. Morality is forever malleable unless attached to an absolute truth.
From an anthropological sense, human beings naturally create religions. Every civilization that has ever existed has adhered to some form of religion. It seems to be a necessity for the human condition. And, look at how different morality can develop in different ways. Think about the typical movie scene of the virgin tied to a stone slab, about to be sacrificed to the Volcano God. The people that lived in such civilizations thought nothing immoral of such a situation, yet, when other civilizations encountered them, they were horrified by their “lack of morality.”
Morality can go in many different ways, and indicates that indeed, from a big perspective, “truth is relative.”
But even if it is, it is not a good thing for civilization to not have any absolutes. It’s for similar reasons that we have the Rule of Law and a Legal/Court system. You and I can argue and argue, and both of us will create a belief system for ourselves, justifying our position to ourselves, and creating a reality in each of our own minds – which will forever contradict the other’s view of reality. Therefore we must have a court system to decide, hopefully with impartiality, what is right and what is not. An absolute. Without it, things would never function.
A civilization needs a religion in the same way.
And all things considered, Christianity was not the worst one we could have wound up with. The way I look at it is, when everyone points out how hypocritical and evil it has been in the past… well, that is not Christianity per se, but rather, it is the nature of humans that is trying break free from the bounds that Christianity tried to place upon them. It doesn’t matter whether Christian or Marxist or Muslim or the Jedi Knights, it is human nature to try and manipulate and force one’s will upon others. In that sense, Christianity has been not too bad, because it is firmly based in the concept of Absolute Truth and can be used to pull us back from the brink of La La Land when we get a little too insane. It is an anchor. I think the history of the West would have been a lot worse without the Bible than it was with it.
If you want to know why most Communist countries abolish Christianity, it's because it is firmly rooted in the concept of “Absolute Truth” which is directly at odds with dialectical manipulation. The Bible zaps it into oblivion as the two cannot exist in the same philosophical space. The Bible is timeless... it doesn't change with the times nor the political environment. How we interpret parts of it might alter with the times, but the book itself stays the same - and that generates certain "goalposts" that stay constant in our society throughout the ages. Things can only be manipulated so far before the Bible starts to constrain them.
It is for this reason as well that far-left politics is so adamant about Evolution. And again, one has to look at the Evolution debate a bit dispassionately.
Marx and Engels were extremely excited when Darwin came out with his theory because it was the “science” that supported their political philosophy – namely, that the Truth is Relative. Evolution indicates that the truth is forever changing. What was true yesterday, is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today, does not neccessarily have to be true tomorrow.
This was great for Marx because he is preaching the political philosophy that man’s condition can be “altered”, basically by use of force. One can therefore “force an evolutionary direction” upon mankind. Kinda like how an arborist prunes a tree to control how it grows and shapes itself.
Whether one believes in Evolution or not, this very important political aspect rarely gets mentioned in the debate, but it is core to the importance of a lot of philosophy about “truth.”
This is why the left gets angry so quickly whenever someone begins to discuss intelligent design. If intelligent design were to be proven, it would indicate a “plan,” which would indicate the existence of Absolute Truth… and the entire political philosophy of the left would fall to bits. They need evolution to be true for more reasons than what they claim… so does the Creationist side… the Intelligent Design side doesn’t, however, because it is much more dispassionate, in my humble opinion. It is unfair to lump Intelligent Design in with Creationism, and yet politically, that is often how it is dismissed.
Much of anthropology has been shattered by the insistence of adherence to this as well, and anyone trying to suggest that those “primitive” people from the past were perhaps a helluva lot smarter than we give them credit for is automatically drummed out of the discussion and called a loon. And yet, the ancient Sumerians had the knowledge to “weld” gemstones together, which is something we still can’t replicate today, and is just one example amongst dozens of mysteries regarding the ancients' knowledge.
The religion debate is interesting, because it is about Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth.
If a society always tends to “create” a religion, would you rather have one based in Absolutes, or would you prefer one that is forever malleable?
It has elements that come down to the similar situation as, would you rather live under a government that was ruled by whim and emotion (Democracy), or would you rather live under the Rule of Law? (Republic)
Previous Index Next
I've read that Harvard was originally mandated to be “Protectors of the Truth.” And at the time, they felt they could actually identify truth, because during that age, they used the Bible as an anchor of “Absolute Truth” to identify what was true and what was not.
When Hegel came out with “The Truth is Relative”, it set the whole system into the toilet because it got rid of the “anchor” of Absolute Truth. The concept of God is “black and white.” God’s word is “Truth.”
However, of course, we are able to recognize that truth often does change, or, truth often is relative.
And herein lies the entire problem, I think. Human nature, and the need to control it.
In many ways, I agree with Hegel & Marx that indeed, the Truth is Relative. But, from a position of what works for a civilization? Well… that must have elements of an Absolute Truth to it, or cultural hegemony will never arise, and civilization will never occur.
The human brain is enormously malleable, and it naturally tends to lean towards “Relative Truth.” We often use our brains to justify what we would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Jail is full of innocent people. Morality is forever malleable unless attached to an absolute truth.
From an anthropological sense, human beings naturally create religions. Every civilization that has ever existed has adhered to some form of religion. It seems to be a necessity for the human condition. And, look at how different morality can develop in different ways. Think about the typical movie scene of the virgin tied to a stone slab, about to be sacrificed to the Volcano God. The people that lived in such civilizations thought nothing immoral of such a situation, yet, when other civilizations encountered them, they were horrified by their “lack of morality.”
Morality can go in many different ways, and indicates that indeed, from a big perspective, “truth is relative.”
But even if it is, it is not a good thing for civilization to not have any absolutes. It’s for similar reasons that we have the Rule of Law and a Legal/Court system. You and I can argue and argue, and both of us will create a belief system for ourselves, justifying our position to ourselves, and creating a reality in each of our own minds – which will forever contradict the other’s view of reality. Therefore we must have a court system to decide, hopefully with impartiality, what is right and what is not. An absolute. Without it, things would never function.
A civilization needs a religion in the same way.
And all things considered, Christianity was not the worst one we could have wound up with. The way I look at it is, when everyone points out how hypocritical and evil it has been in the past… well, that is not Christianity per se, but rather, it is the nature of humans that is trying break free from the bounds that Christianity tried to place upon them. It doesn’t matter whether Christian or Marxist or Muslim or the Jedi Knights, it is human nature to try and manipulate and force one’s will upon others. In that sense, Christianity has been not too bad, because it is firmly based in the concept of Absolute Truth and can be used to pull us back from the brink of La La Land when we get a little too insane. It is an anchor. I think the history of the West would have been a lot worse without the Bible than it was with it.
If you want to know why most Communist countries abolish Christianity, it's because it is firmly rooted in the concept of “Absolute Truth” which is directly at odds with dialectical manipulation. The Bible zaps it into oblivion as the two cannot exist in the same philosophical space. The Bible is timeless... it doesn't change with the times nor the political environment. How we interpret parts of it might alter with the times, but the book itself stays the same - and that generates certain "goalposts" that stay constant in our society throughout the ages. Things can only be manipulated so far before the Bible starts to constrain them.
It is for this reason as well that far-left politics is so adamant about Evolution. And again, one has to look at the Evolution debate a bit dispassionately.
Marx and Engels were extremely excited when Darwin came out with his theory because it was the “science” that supported their political philosophy – namely, that the Truth is Relative. Evolution indicates that the truth is forever changing. What was true yesterday, is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today, does not neccessarily have to be true tomorrow.
This was great for Marx because he is preaching the political philosophy that man’s condition can be “altered”, basically by use of force. One can therefore “force an evolutionary direction” upon mankind. Kinda like how an arborist prunes a tree to control how it grows and shapes itself.
Whether one believes in Evolution or not, this very important political aspect rarely gets mentioned in the debate, but it is core to the importance of a lot of philosophy about “truth.”
This is why the left gets angry so quickly whenever someone begins to discuss intelligent design. If intelligent design were to be proven, it would indicate a “plan,” which would indicate the existence of Absolute Truth… and the entire political philosophy of the left would fall to bits. They need evolution to be true for more reasons than what they claim… so does the Creationist side… the Intelligent Design side doesn’t, however, because it is much more dispassionate, in my humble opinion. It is unfair to lump Intelligent Design in with Creationism, and yet politically, that is often how it is dismissed.
Much of anthropology has been shattered by the insistence of adherence to this as well, and anyone trying to suggest that those “primitive” people from the past were perhaps a helluva lot smarter than we give them credit for is automatically drummed out of the discussion and called a loon. And yet, the ancient Sumerians had the knowledge to “weld” gemstones together, which is something we still can’t replicate today, and is just one example amongst dozens of mysteries regarding the ancients' knowledge.
The religion debate is interesting, because it is about Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth.
If a society always tends to “create” a religion, would you rather have one based in Absolutes, or would you prefer one that is forever malleable?
It has elements that come down to the similar situation as, would you rather live under a government that was ruled by whim and emotion (Democracy), or would you rather live under the Rule of Law? (Republic)
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
