I think normative psychological profiles are preferred socially in part because they expose the individual to control from the group (or the leader of the group). For instance, take the idea of depression. Is it that we care as a group that people are happy for the intrinsic sake, or do we care that people are engaged enough to work (follow orders) and behave (follow rules)? I think this engagement in rules and orders creates the interface for using pleasure and pain (the carrot and the stick) to manipulate others.Christianity, and all of the Abrahamic religions in general, is mythological normative psychology. >Guilt as a persistent internal state — Unlike shame (social, external), guilt operates when alone. It functions as a 24/7 internal monitor that doesn't require a witness. This is architecturally superior for control compared to honor-based systems.>The confessional interface — The act of confession creates a disclosure relationship with an authority figure who then has leverage. It also habituates the believer to the idea that internal states are subject to external audit.>Infinite debt structure — Original sin (or its functional equivalents) creates a baseline condition of unworthiness that can never be fully repaid. This keeps the compliance lever permanently loaded — you can never be done earning approval.>Universalism — Abrahamic traditions tend toward universal claims, which means the normative framework applies to everyone by definition. You can't opt out by being from a different tribe. This closes the exit that polytheistic or ethnic-religious systems leave open.
>What Christianity does with the Gnostic insight is take the diagnosis and redirect the solution back into the system. It acknowledges:> - The world is wrong and fallen> - The normative order is not the final order> - There is something higher than current social reality> - The individual has a relationship to ultimate truth that bypasses ordinary authority>All of that is Gnostic in structure. But then it routes every one of those recognitions back through institutional compliance. Access to the higher truth requires the church. The fallen world will be corrected by God, not by your awareness. The individual's relationship to ultimate truth is mediated by correct belief and pastoral authority. The genuine liberation impulse gets captured and redirected before it can threaten the structure.>This is architecturally elegant as a control system because it's inoculative. By providing a controlled version of the liberation narrative, it preempts the real one. People who feel the wrongness of the world, who sense the cage, get handed an explanation that validates the feeling while directing the response toward compliance.
>>42233970ALL faith is authoritarian and fundamentally about control
A book of laws and rules isYou must think you're very smart
>>42233974What other non-abrahamic systems even count as "faiths" or "religions"? It seems fairly unique. Granted, there were probably some systems in the old world that would qualify but they no longer exist because they were replaced... by abrahamic stuff.
Bump
Control? No on the contrary it frees you from the Matrix of this earthly world in which we live
>>42235361How? Did you read the post?
>>42235361Christianity essentially glorifies the demiurge, so it's doing the opposite of freeing you. It's telling you to be comfortable with your chains.Perhaps a deeper question question though is if it was always like this. There's something about earliest Christianity that seems to differ from all of the documents that we get from Rome that purport to talk about it.
>>42235544>There's something about earliest Christianity that seems to differ from all of the documents that we get from Rome that purport to talk about it.Early Christianity was EXTREMELY fragmented. You had Gnosticism, Docetism, Marcionism, Sabellianism, Montanism, Arianism, and Pelagianism, just to name a few. The Catholic church to this day still teaches in RCIA classes that all these groups were heretical, but Christianity was never really formalized until the 300s. The Catholics seem to intentionally ignore the fact that because there is so little theological framework in the New Testament, you had all these various groups trying to make sense of it all. There was never even an established canon until 383 when Pope Damasus commissioned the Latin Vulgate. Up until then, even the clergy in charge of official Roman Christianity couldn't agree on certain books, especially Revelation. And most of the stories about Christian persecution by the Romans are either exaggerated or completely made up, because they THRIVED on victim mentality and had a weird obsession with martyrdom.
Whether you believe Jesus was real or not take the story at face value. Jesus was a man of extraordinary spiritual power and wisdom. It seems to me extremely unlikely that Jesus would be killed/allow himself to be killed. That just doesn't track, wise men are not easily killed, nor would they allow themselves to be sacrificed (what a ridiculous notion). I think the big lie is the very symbol they use. Jesus was never killed/sacrificed, the likeliest explanation is he did his work and then left. The sacrifice narrative was fabricated afterwards.
>>42233970how many christians actually worship god? how many just worship the church?well it doesn't matter bacause one of the basic commandments requires you to worship the manmade church.>thou shall not worship man>thou shall worship whatever some man in a priest suit says and maybe sometimes also god see the problem? if you want to be christian but not go to church because you feel it is rotten to the core you are not a true christian because you don't go to church.christianity is a slave religion. ever wondered why elites worship everything but christ? because they are masters not slaves
>>42235771>It seems to me extremely unlikely that Jesus would be killed/allow himself to be killedWhat if one aspect of the wisdom is that civilization requires sacrifice to continue? It requires an externalized evil structure just like an externalized 'good' structure, so the sacrifice is the resolution of the externalized evil.>>42235659>gnosticismI think it's wrong to say this is one movement. It's a concept, and different movements claimed the term.I think all of this boils down to: the system or archetypes can be discovered internally or projected externally. The complexity of this problem is just that both aspects are ultimately useful and worth thinking over. However from an epistemological perspective, it's still worth asking which came first or is the truer origin for the metaphor? For instance, did we look externally, discover truth, and then project that inwards, or did we discover truth inwardly and then project it outwards. Given the specificity of the archetypes and complexity of the whole system, it seems that there's logically only one direction this could have gone: from internal to external. However, conceivably schizos could have first seen externally what was truly internal, and I believe that leaders too can be schizo.>>42233970What makes this whole thing a control structure IS precisely this thing: that the internal is projected outwards. It forces you to live in a world directed by internal mind logic that cannot be escaped or changed on your own. It takes the will to power away from the individual because they believe their internal mind state is the result of external forces instead of literally their own mind.tl;dr — Christians don't truly believe they have the power of independent thought. They ultimately believe their thought itself derives from an external force. That is the ultimate form of mind control.
>>42236034>What if one aspect of the wisdom is that civilization requires sacrifice to continue? It requires an externalized evil structure just like an externalized 'good' structure, so the sacrifice is the resolution of the externalized evil.Don't mistake observable instances of civilization as the rule of civilizations. I don't see any fundamental need for sacrifice to create civilization, being just the cooperative union of men. Two men working together for their common good is the foundation of civilization, no sacrifice required.But yeah, if you think about it sacrifice is a strong literary element for people to gather around. I wouldn't say its noble or desirable, likely some ideologues in the past thought it a useful tool to tie dimwits together.
>>42236119I'm not saying you need human sacrifice or even goat sacrifice. I'm just saying sacrifice is a result of an imperfect mind pursuing justice/truth. You will hit a point where it is unclear what is truth and what is hallucinated, and at that point those who wish for order may have to sacrifice their own lives (or even something much less, like their ego) to do it.I would hazard a guess that the ancient depictions of sacrifice were ego-based, as it makes no logical sense to assume without evidence that physical sacrifice actually makes anything better. I think the concept of sacrifice relates to imperfection. Not in the sense of "sin" as an act, but an inherent imperfect (sort of like an "original sin"?). There was no original act of sin. That is absurd, unless speaking in the most figurative of metaphors. Humans are imperfect (part rational, but also part animal/chaos). Information is also imperfect. Everything is imperfect, and so to even out the odd equation, you need a sacrifice.
>>42233970The fundamental flaw in Christianity is that it's immoral for somebody else to take your punishment for youEspecially if they're Innocentand especially if they're literally Godhow are you "saved" by that? >you're a huge piece of shit that deserves to go to hell but don't worry a perfect innocent man already suffered on your behalf so you're good to go dude!you christians really feel good about that?
>>42236270The funny thing is that it makes sense from a symbolic perspective, but why would you fall into such a delusional mindset that you would mistake symbol for truth?I think the simplest resolution to this problem is that Jesus DID NOT represent a spiritual sacrifice to Jehovah or whatever the fuck his name is. We have clocked a royal family that could be some weird combination of the last Seleucids, the last Ptolemies, etc, and they're living in Syria with a super famous queen who donated greatly to Israel, and meanwhile her sons literally convert in adulthood to so-called Judaism, immediately before leading a revolt against Rome ("Jewish"-Roman wars of 66 AD). This is Izates II and Monobazus of Adiabene, who are Jesus and James, or one of whom is Theudas and the father of whom is Judas of Gallilee.We have to realize something. This thing called "Mithraism" floods into Rome around 2000 years ago from somewhere in the east. Its exact origin hasn't been located, but we're pretty sure its Anatolia if not Persia. At the same time, Rome has just conquered these eastern lands and is taking control over their finances, beginning to tax them, beginning to appoint tax collectors. There's a lot of new wealth being created, or transferred at least.We also talk about these "Jews" from this time, and yet Judaism as we know it wasn't even invented. We also have Jesus talking about "synagogues of satan" (and why is this word specifically translated as "synagogue"?) that are largely located in Anatolia (look up his letters and check your map). In other words, Jesus is saying synagogues in Anatolia — this is the viper's nest. NOT Judea.We also find Judaism and Masonry to somehow be intertwined. All the symbolism is the same.I think Judaism = Mithraism. Jesus is a figure with noble blood who dies in a war. This is not a passive figure. After he dies, tragically, his friends hallucinate his continued existence and attribute many events to him.
>>42236258>You will hit a point where it is unclear what is truth and what is hallucinatedWill you tho? At that point you reach the "all is truth/all is hallucinated" and you toss aside concepts such as truth and hallucination.>I think the concept of sacrifice relates to imperfection.We have to talk about it in a kind of higher minded way because in religious belief, like Christian belief, sacrifice is seen as a self-washing of sin/ill and self liberation. They use sacrifice to wash themselves of ill feeling and thought, to forgive themselves (of their self inflicted ills lol). In a day-to-day concept, they use it to define and understand their pained daily toiling existence (of whom they are the source). In their regard, sacrifice is an emotion and thought invoked to deal with the natural consequences of a life of suffering and toil, brought down upon themselves through their own self inflicted top-down control based theology.If you really think about it from a clear minded view, why should you sacrifice anything? Sacrifice, truly understood, is simply an excess loss. You might say you sacrificed your time for something or someone; but you were willing to put in that time. That wasn't a real sacrifice, it was a conscious choice you made. And being forced to choose the loss of two options, we consider that loss a "sacrifice", yet you made that conscious choice to preserve one option over the other. In this view, I can only regard the word sacrifice and its meaning as an excess, the excess loss of something which is unnecessary, whether of time or things. Kind of like fear. Fear is an excess emotion. The recognition of danger, and acting or avoiding it, is natural movement. Fear is excess acting or avoidance.
>>42236308In other words, Jesus was initiated into a high priest role in Mithraism despite Mithraists wanting to take the group in a different (namely, pro-Roman) direction. Jesus is rebelling against the "priesthood", particularly if the Roman elite are taken to be officers of the Mithraic society as well. Caesar's family is from Anatolia (Ascanius/Ashkenaz is from near Hyrcania, or Wolf Country).At the same time, this military leader actually does have a following among the people. From their perspective, they are rebelling simply against Rome and against the right to be taxed. There were many revolts against taxation at this time. People talk about Judas of Gallilee, but there was a very curious tax revolt in Cappadocia at the same time. Was it Archelaus? I need to look it up again.
>>42233970Atheism --> Religion --> ChristianityIt is always the same: jews come here to bash "religion," but only call out Christianity. It is obvious that the enemy of all evil is Christ, because that is always their target. Evil is lame. It cannot create, it cannot evolve, it cannot hide.
>>42236321>Will you tho? At that point you reach the "all is truth/all is hallucinated" and you toss aside concepts such as truth and hallucination.I will completely agree that an objective truth exists. I am saying there are practical limits to its pursuit. That doesn't mean we stop pursuing. That means there will come a point where a decision has to be made: arbitrary order or arbitrary chaos? This is where conservatives and liberals divide. Both believe that you simply must have a bias towards one or the other, otherwise society can't function, but I'm pretty sure both biases have always existed, will always exist, and should always exist. There's an uncomfortable grey area that some people operate in, which is neither good nor bad. Order nor chaos. At least when you have a clear enemy, you can focus all of your efforts on defeating said enemy, in whatever form it comes in. But when the sides are not clear, success is a matter of discrimination. It is funny (and sad) when you think about how democracy has been systematically used to eliminate discrimination of all forms in the population when it was once the only thing keeping people together. Now, keep in mind also, I'm not talking about race theory, which seems to have emerged as a result of British aristocrat pirates who organized the slave trade and spread psyops about this shit as well in the 1800s (as a way to stir a revolution and balkanization). My point is, some things are judgement calls. And what is the role of a judge in an ancient society? He weighs the social cost of every action. Of course bias creeps into the equation, but the essential idea is what benefits the tribe? And what if you have to do something that is "wrong" technically but actually leads to a better overall outcome? Is that not a form of sacrifice?>If you really think about it from a clear minded view, why should you sacrifice anything?I agree. It's based on hallucination and greed.
>>42236322I think Mithraism is the Phoenician religion. It's the same bull sacrifice as the Minoans at Crete. Minos is Menes of Egypt. This is the precursor culture to bronze age Greece, Egypt, and Canaan."The West" is Mithraism. The East would be Indo-Iranian and/or Mesopotamian. I think Phoenicians are closer to Mesopotamians, because we are taking about a naval and riparian culture (they come from the same basis). This is how the founders of agriculture are simultaneously the founders of naval navigation (including astronomy as myth, aka astrology).
>>42236341But other religions get shit on all the time here stop pretending you’re a special victim it’s womanish
