An Open Letter to Atheists

[tldr]

​

 

[Professor]

​

Easy answer - Christian values are Human values, have become Godly & Devilish values to the point of mostly overriding God, bar the hopeful reassuring bit.

 

[Professor]

What a complicated and sophisticated OP, what is to be specifically considered?

Surely Gods existence is true for some people but also untrue for others.

So as an ex-atheist I can confidently say that God certainly exists in the minds of some men/women but not others - agnostics, atheists etc

Of course the term God is quite ambiguous and originates from a time when we didn't know the world and universe as we do today. Back then God filled in the unknown and gave us reason.

Today we Know the Reason and have made ourselves God.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Indeed, and that's where good ole common sense comes in. There is a world of difference related to the historicity between the vedas and the gospels . I recommend Fr John Hardon's books on comparative religion

Is it a coincidence that out of all the religions, the one you say is the only true one is also the one you were raised in Sir?

 

[Idi O'Min]

Is it a coincidence that out of all the religions, the one you say is the only true one is also the one you were raised in Sir?

I used to think the same. Now I see God actually became human to put an end to 'religion' and all confusion. And to free us from the bonds of sin. He gave us His mother on the cross too.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

He sounds like a strange dude to me Sham.

 

[Idi O'Min]

He sounds like a strange dude to me Sham.

Who? Plunkettsghost or God?

 

[Professor]

One cannot blame atheists for some of their doubts. Calling God a "He" is a world away from being a universal creator, but it is significant and not to be ignored . . .

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Who? Plunkettsghost or God?

Didn't know there was a difference (at least in Plunkett's head).

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

One cannot blame atheists for some of their doubts. Calling God a "He" is a world away from being a universal creator, but it is significant and not to be ignored . . .

Yeah, he should be called "they" or "trans-inclusive non-binary Creator."

You sure you wouldn't feel more at home over on Gaychat Love?

 

[scolairebocht]

In the aforementioned book each being proved by the proofs is simply called X, and then you consolidate the Xs and the end of the proofs.

 

[Professor]

Yeah, he should be called "they" or "trans-inclusive non-binary Creator."

You sure you wouldn't feel more at home over on Gaychat Love?

It should be called It.

What makes God a "He" Myles?

 

[Tiger]

I only recently heard about an interesting phenomenon were millions of Muslims claim that Jesus appears to them in their dreams and instructs them to speak to someone who can guide them in converting. When they follow the instructions, they appear to be legitimate to what was said in the dream.

This phenomenon doesn’t just happen with Muslims, there are people of all religions claiming the same thing





https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-keep-dreaming-of-Jesus-even-though-I-am-Muslim

https://www2.cbn.com/news/cwn/missi...s-dreams-levels-we-have-never-seen-1400-years

 

[tldr]

Easy answer - Christian values are Human values, have become Godly & Devilish values to the point of mostly overriding God, bar the hopeful reassuring bit.

Holland is a bit obscure (although I don't think he realises it) when he talks about the bifurcation of the religious and the secular.

Now, I await correction, but I think that the secular could also be described as the materium where mechanical forces predominate. This is why we describe scientism as a reductionist approach - it reduces the human to a biological mechanism.

Christianity also revealed the individual as universally applicable, which has had a profound impact on how we understand what it is we are - it ensouled all the peoples of the earth with the equal potential for dignity in the plane above the mundane. Here we find the difference between above and below the salt not in asset classes but in the adherence to the call to personal holiness. Thus, the possible observation that one of the highest social rank is a scumbag if they are ethically corrupt, and that someone with frugal means is noble in bearing if they abide by these same ethics.

So, the ceremonies around the communion with God are distinct to the things of Caesar. Nevertheless, to be Christian, one's conduct should be pursued according to Christian ethics - the proper expression of one's faith in matters profane. The point that Holland is making is that, in the late Modern era, it is these ethics that are trying to be sustained without Christianity through Communism or Progressivism etc.

Humanism, then, is merely an articulation of Christian values in the material sphere, Secular Humanism posits human intelligence as the highest form of being in the universe placing us (and particularly the most clever or powerful of us) at its centre. The Ego becomes Superego displacing an absent God in a disenchanted world as the connection to the Divine atrophies

He also talks about the falling away of the infrastructure of Christianity back into the savagery of paganism. Can Christian ethics be sustained without the root stock? Here's a piece about that. It runs for a number of minutes and gains momentum along the way.

​

It should be noted that the barbarians - particularly the Germanic tribes - admired Roman Law and sought to preserve it after the empire fell so it can't be said that the Romans were singularly brutal (although it had been Christianised by then in fairness). Instead they were merely an example of the way things were across every society at the time, although at a higher level of sophistication.

Now, returning to the present danger - here are some thoughts from the mighty Harari.

View: https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1771773593162031240
​

Do you see the fate that so many are alarmed about? There are some that are trying to change the civilisational coding to enable a free hand to pursue their own manias at the price of the reduction of the rest of us. And the carrot for the donkey of acquiescence is the illusion of existential supremacy.

 

[scolairebocht]

Very interesting, you can see the way Harriri is working his way around to thrashing nationalism, as the globalist agenda has to do. Also the importance of humans, over other species, is a very Christian concept, without Christianity the specialness about humans is apt to fray.

 

[Professor]

Do you see

Thanks for the wonderful post, I had a few points in regard to a quick skimming of Hollands original vid, but you have served up a banquet of thought here to study and learn anew.
I've briefly read some of the earlier famous christian philosophers some years ago and now coupled with this new post of yours is going to take a while to understand accurately and adequately enough to engage in a satisfactory reply/conversation. Cheers

What originally came to mind when Holland was comparing Humanist V Christian values I thought "Hold on a minute" what are these christian values? - Did he say?? Because as he continued to talk all I could think of was "Which Christians"?? Meaning that I'm aware that there are thousands of different christian sects in existence and many are quite opposed to the doctrine of other Christians.

Look, I appreciate the good things he had to say but I'm also aware of the darker sides of some sects such as early Spanish Dominicans, church of jesus of latter day saints, CNK of the KKK etc and the powers they wield from their doctrines. Sorry for hitting on the low points but they are a questionable part of Christianity.

In addition there is the question of Blasphemy and all it entails especially in the context of applying the doctrine to those outside the church, and in too I guess.
Another one is how an invading countries church will enforce their spirituality, doctrine and rules on an other population, even cancelling banning prohibiting the local religions in the occupied territories.

So, I didn't even get a chance to consider much outside of just how different to itself is Christianity.

Oh and there's Christian Humanism to consider as well . . .

 

[tldr]

Thanks for the wonderful post, I had a few points in regard to a quick skimming of Hollands original vid, but you have served up a banquet of thought here to study and learn anew.
I've briefly read some of the earlier famous christian philosophers some years ago and now coupled with this new post of yours is going to take a while to understand accurately and adequately enough to engage in a satisfactory reply/conversation. Cheers

What originally came to mind when Holland was comparing Humanist V Christian values I thought "Hold on a minute" what are these christian values? - Did he say?? Because as he continued to talk all I could think of was "Which Christians"?? Meaning that I'm aware that there are thousands of different christian sects in existence and many are quite opposed to the doctrine of other Christians.

Look, I appreciate the good things he had to say but I'm also aware of the darker sides of some sects such as early Spanish Dominicans, church of jesus of latter day saints, CNK of the KKK etc and the powers they wield from their doctrines. Sorry for hitting on the low points but they are a questionable part of Christianity.

In addition there is the question of Blasphemy and all it entails especially in the context of applying the doctrine to those outside the church, and in too I guess.
Another one is how an invading countries church will enforce their spirituality, doctrine and rules on an other population, even cancelling banning prohibiting the local religions in the occupied territories.

So, I didn't even get a chance to consider much outside of just how different to itself is Christianity.

Oh and there's Christian Humanism to consider as well . . .

Difficult time to discuss the political segregation of those granted the dignity of Christian status precipitated by the fragmentation of Christianity into different circles of 'elect'. We've seen this in secularism but it has generally been a result of material or ideological distinctions - racialism, for example, is a thoroughly secular notion "based on science".

That's a heavily compressed couple of sentences that doesn't make a lot of sense, so forgive me for them but there's a little skirting around that question that needs to be done presently.

More directly to the point I was trying to articulate from Holland is the following observation from Shellenberger in conversation with Peterson. This is an example of the new coding - or rather the collapse of a previously higher operating ethical field into a baser one. If you listen on, Peterson drops a Tsarbomba about the repercussions of the universal franchise which is quite the most fissile material I've seen him address. It would make for an interesting topic in the Oxford Union.

Specifically, this is a conversation about the perverse vandalisation and surgical infantilisation of youths through "gender affirming care". Shellenberger has the receipts and has picked through them like an archivist in 1990s Russia. The reason it's posted here isn't to do specifically with tranny chopping but to do with the repercussions of a post-Christian ethical environment. This is exactly what Hariri is talking about enacting - there are to be no guardians of scientific whim. It slows down due to an ad but there's plenty there for anyone interested in the subject.

​

Here's another interesting bit about toddlers - I've won't link to the fissile bit as it may attract the attention of the censors and the crew in FR24 will get ever more alarmed at the smell of paint stripper in the air.

Remember the first social institutions that the Soviets targetted were the Christian Churches and one of the principal reasons that the Nazis were obsessed with Jews was an attempt to undermine the Christian faith so their neo-Paganism could become the unopposed Weltanschauung of their perfectly evolved chosen race. This undermining wasn't simply an effort to contaminate by association but also to incriminate society in acts that were unthinkable to the Christian sense.

I recommend Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski. It's a revelation.

 

[Professor]

Difficult time to discuss . . . . . . . That's a heavily compressed couple of sentences that doesn't make a lot of sense, so forgive me for them but there's a little skirting around that question that needs to be done presently. . . . etc etc

Please pardon the edit above. Another great, interesting and worthy presentation you treat us to, good to see and it deserves proper attention to understand in context and engage with.

Have been so busy in concentrating on totally unrelated stuff which I must actively seek to park away for a while and then take the chance to study the subject matter you recommend and allude to.

Cheers

 

[Mad as Fish]

I only recently heard about an interesting phenomenon were millions of Muslims claim that Jesus appears to them in their dreams and instructs them to speak to someone who can guide them in converting. When they follow the instructions, they appear to be legitimate to what was said in the dream.

This phenomenon doesn’t just happen with Muslims, there are people of all religions claiming the same thing





https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-keep-dreaming-of-Jesus-even-though-I-am-Muslim

https://www2.cbn.com/news/cwn/missi...s-dreams-levels-we-have-never-seen-1400-years

Does he appear in the dreams of atheists as well?

 

[Tiger]

Does he appear in the dreams of atheists as well?

Perhaps? But I’d imagine it’s rare if it happens at all.

A quick google search shows some people claiming it.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/comments/14z3kxk/as_an_atheist_i_have_had_a_dream_of_jesus/


https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-when-an-atheist-saw-Jesus-in-their-dream

https://revwords.com/encounter-god-akiane-kramarik/

From a theological standpoint, it could be argued that receptivity would make people of any faith more fertile ground than atheists. I would speculate that if Jesus was appearing to people in dreams, that various factors such as faith (belief in a higher power), spiritual readiness might play a part in a divine plan.

“Seek and you will find” sort of a thing.

There is a theological perspective that proposes spiritual blindness, where individuals are unable or unwilling to recognise spiritual truths even when presented with them.

It would also make sense that God respects the free will of individuals to choose whether to believe in Him or not, and therefore may not impose spiritual experiences upon those who have consciously rejected belief in Jesus.