Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God.
Define your use of strong in this context. Do you mean physical, willpower, influence, or something else?
I mean correct knowledge of these damned facts (discussed upthread) and the ability to do a successful cultural evolutionary strategy which leverages the knowledge of the truth.
If our culture is not living on beyond our own life, then I argue we haven't competed successfully.
For that matter, define religion as well. An hierarchical power structure, simply belief in God, etc?
Religion is any system (aka superstition) that requires an unfalsifiable belief, i.e. it can't be tested in our world.
Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.
It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.
This is what I thought, but is not at all what I've found.
From my experience there are many individuals claiming to be Christians who do not practice what is preached, apparently caused by conceptual misunderstanding or an attraction to the lifestyle in a form over function situation.
Religions typically have many silly rules which do not clearly establish their relevance to the goal of maximizing cultural evolutionary strategy. Judaism for example has 100s of rules in the Torah. Christianity for example tells us to never have sex without marriage, but doesn't explain clearly that the reason for this is because promoting a women's hypergamy is so destructive to a successful cultural evolutationary strategy. IMO, if the Bible was more direct to the point of relating rules to cultural evolutionary strategy and loose the superstition then it would make a lot more sense to smart, strong men.
On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.
And afaics, we don't need an unfalsifiable God for that.
Along with that comes the strength to acknowledge and admit that one is learning and can make mistakes, to not fear looking foolish while discovering the optimal path. Likewise, to be just in supporting others in the process of learning as well as chastising those doing wrong.
I'd prefer to ridicule or laugh at those doing wrong (or even be silent) while utterly obliterating them in the competitive race of cultural evolutionary strategy, not because I wanted to be vindictive but because I've found that the weak can eat me up and devour me (waste my time, etc). Strong men shouldn't need to make any blahblahblah, as their actions (e.g. proliferating their offspring of strong men) will make it so. Religion is weak because it requires a lot of blahblahblah to weak people who will never be entirely on board. A few words are enough for those who are truly trying to improve, as they are motivated to figure out what those words mean.
Nevertheless religion may be entirely necessary because the world will probably always have many more weak people than strong. Jesus said he spent his time with the weak, because that was were the low hanging fruit was where the most good work could be done. Nevertheless, I think still that finding the potential gems in the haystack of the weak will be more efficient with fewer words.
There is a clear distinction in Christianity between giving a helping hand and turning hostile individuals away, just as can be seen with the current immigration differences between Europe and the US where the former has no boundaries and the latter drew a line.
I've found that helping people too much usually destroys them. I believe in rescuing (even weak) people in moments of extreme distress where they could not possibly recover with their own effort alone. But I don't believe in helping weak people who habitually put themselves in extreme distress nearly all of the time, i.e. clearly not even trying to improve. In my view it is acceptable to help those who have an infrequent recurrent extreme distress if they are genuinely trying to figure it out.
What I have seen:
- Failure is forgiven, not excused
- Strength is rewarded when used to build and support
- Respect is for both men and women because we are different, always learning and improving
Before claiming to be Christian I also misunderstood deeply. It's the kind of thing where you need to experience the change to truly understand, similar to your illness.
I agree with those 3 items, but in the way I have explained myself in this thread.
This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods -
Psalm 82:6My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.
I have been pondering the thought of what would a culture of strong men do with weak offspring. Would they outcast them from the group?
I have thought that nature is stochastic thus even weak men are necessarily for resilience, i.e. Taleb's anti-fragility.
Thus we will always have the bell curve and I do think any strong men have to find a way to co-exist with weak mean, even if it is a contentious interaction.
We can learn everything to know about the here and now, which is all well and good - but we still don't know what lies beyond death, and it doesn't seem we will in the immediate future. In that context, unless we can provably know all there is to know, it makes more sense for me to believe than to hold fast to the notion that we might figure everything out here.
I am resigned to that when I die, I cease to exist except for my legacy. I do not feel any urge to know what is unfalsifiable.
We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history
...
Agreed, although I use different terms. We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands -
Ephesians 4:29 
I think the trouble may lie more in the push to "educate" than in being educated and quotas pushing for more minorities/women in STEM - the strong-willed may not necessarily need to get a degree in higher education, whereas those with an inclination to be led might follow paths that are not always beneficial. Exposure to opportunities is one thing, but if a person does not act on it then forcing won't help. On top of that, how many can fathom the implications of their choices in a non-linear reality?
Everyone in this life has a different path; some women may indeed go on to be prominent leaders, although that is certainly not their most common purpose or strength. What's most important is a sense of respect and understanding that we all have stages in our lives where we misunderstood or were misguided and may have caused harm somehow. It's also critical to remind ourselves that there may still remain areas where we are mistaken, which can indeed be humbling. That humility garners more respect in the long run than any amount of blustering.
Reading through some of your posts on Github and ESR's site, there is evident emphasis and enthusiasm very similar to how I used to write. Your reasoning and technical acumen is commendable, so the frustration during explanation is understandable. It can be a major challenge to remain civil and I only learned how to be judicious with my replies due to lack of time, but its made a world of difference in how my words are received. The years you've spent on these forums and in discussion have undoubtedly made an impact, but they've also taken a great deal of time; that constant pressure will have a profound result at some point, especially as you refine your approach.
As you've stated before, doing will have much greater impact than talking. Patience is the hard part in that.
My gruff verbiage in that case is an attempt to be brutally frank. I think to be strong requires significant frankness about the characterization of weakness. Also I wanted to have the maximum impact while being succinct.
Also it is offensive, preemptive, pre-reaction to way Marxists and others who don't understand or agree with damned facts, tend to ridicule us when we try to use milder and calmer language to express these damned facts.
It reflects that at this point we are in a war, and we are losing. We had better get our act in gear with actions. And not JAD's preference for a Trump dictator, because that isn't a viable solution. The solution must be decentralized and it must be an ideological shift in the thinking and actions of strong men. And to maintain that culture with male offspring, I think we require exposing the offspring to harsh realities of life, because words alone are not enough. And thus gruff verbiage may also need to be part of the mix of the education of male offspring.
Show Posts
