My Religion

[Pedro I Rengel]

I have had this pretty much developed for a while, and I haven't talked about it because I basically don't think it's anybody's problem. My view is oldschool: my religion ain't none your goddamn business. But I figure maybe now's the time to lay out a bit what my travel has been.

For lack of a better word, I consider myself, in the simplest of terms, a Roman Catholic. Catholic bothers me deeply, because it seems to mean something like universal. I am definitely not a universalist. But it is the most straight historical connection to the Roman religion.

To get wordy, I am an Anti-Christian Originalist Roman Catholic.

I believe in God, Dios, Deus, Zeus. And all of the pantheon. I, like my Roman forebears, also honestly believe in the Greek religion even maybe a little bit more than the actual Roman one. But I accept the Roman one as a judicious choice, like my forbears.

I find these Gods are not symbolic or representative of anything, or allegorical. I find they are literal, and that any honest person, at least any honest person of Roman descent, will admit to directly feeling their prescence. Venus, Zeus, Baccus, many others.

I am a reactionary. Down to my bone marrow, I am a reactionary. I am so much of a reactionary that I consider Christianity to be a revolutionary new idea that must be overcome. And I am also fairly original in making very little distinction between it and communism.

Belief in God is equal to belief in freedom. Because with Gods above us, no man can direct us. Or wo- OK maybe woman yes.

I would dearly like to see the Church reformed, and rectify the old rites. But I am not holding my breath. Still, in all its absurdity, I have loyalty to the Church, because it is the Church of Rome.

Like my Roman forebears, I am also simply generally vaguely polytheistic, and am fairly promiscuous as to religious observances and deities I admit in terms of whether they are strictly Roman or nay.

I won't go much deeper, as again, it is nobody's problem, but just so it is known that this exists.

I think that, if you are a protestant, you honestly don't have these Roman feelings and are correct in rejecting our church, and I curse the Christian rebels for forcing our beliefs on you. Don't let the poison invade you, drop the Christ and seek your own feelings, to find your own Gods once more.

It is only in remembering and honoring the past, that we might be able to break the deadlock of the present and build the new future. Discover all the things yet to discover, develop the yet undeveloped, give birth to Nietzsche's philosophers of tomorrow, end the feeling of alienation that torments the communist. Open the doors nice and wide to science.

I am a conservative and a rancid reactionary of the realest type, and I will fight to the death to keep the world out of the hands of those that hate it and would burn it.

Because life is good.

At the bottom of all true religious feeling lies that beautiful secret.

Life is good. My mateys.

[iambiguous]

I have had this pretty much developed for a while, and I haven't talked about it because I basically don't think it's anybody's problem.

Well, if you practiced your religion in a context such that what you believed was pertinent only to yourself, sure.

But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.

As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.

As Michael Shermer noted:

In the past 10,000 years, humans have devised roughly 100,000 religions based on roughly 2,500 gods. So the only difference between myself and the believers is that I am skeptical of 2,500 gods whereas they are skeptical of 2,499 gods. We're only one God away from total agreement.

You know, if he can demonstrate this.

Then the part that some are particularly adept at avoiding. The part embedded in this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a belief in God and religion.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this religious belief expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about God and religion; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this faith in God and religion with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their faith in God and religion with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own faith in God and religion as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original spiritual quest for God and religion has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Some clearly being more fanatical about it than others.

But once you conclude that "life is good", it becomes that way only given your own spiritual, and moral and political prejudices. Rooted in dasein I suspect far more so than God.

[Pedro I Rengel]

As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.

You first.

Memes and genes.

[Pedro I Rengel]

But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.

Well it's you, with your demonstrated communist bias, that wants to do this.

Communism, of course, being simply a particularly fanatical version of Evangelism.

[Pedro I Rengel]

But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.

Well it's you, with your demonstrated communist bias, that wants to do this.

Communism, of course, being simply a particularly fanatical version of Evangelism.

Which is why you all commie bastards, "fragmented self" rhetoric or no, are my business.

And I'm all out of bubblegum.

[iambiguous]

As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.

You first.

Memes and genes.

Religious memes are everywhere. Historically, culturally, experientially. If you don't believe me ask Satyr. Or for that matter phoneutria.

As for genes, allow me to paraphrase myself:

As for genes here, it is obvious that the biological evolution of life on earth has culminated so far in us. A species able to choose either to believe in God and religion or not to. But: is there an understanding of human biology that would enable us to decide whether a belief in God and religion is rational or irrational? Or is that far more likely to be embodied in the manner in which I construe the "self" here as a subjective/subjunctive existential contraption rooted in dasein?

Also, you did not respond at all to the points I raised above.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You respond to my points first, which I raised far before you.

As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.

Genes and memes.

Go.

[iambiguous]

But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.

Well it's you, with your demonstrated communist bias, that wants to do this.

Communism, of course, being simply a particularly fanatical version of Evangelism.

Which is why you all commie bastards, "fragmented self" rhetoric or no, are my business.

And I'm all out of bubblegum.

Even on his own thread, he can't resist being himself.

Derailing it in other words.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not obligated to convince anyone of anything because I am not an objectivist fanatic like you.

But you are.

Genes and memes.

Pull up your pants boy.

[iambiguous]

You respond to my points first, which I raised far before you.

Genes and memes.

Go.

Okay:

Religious memes are everywhere. Historically, culturally, experientially. If you don't believe me ask Satyr. Or for that matter phoneutria.

As for genes, allow me to paraphrase myself:

As for genes here, it is obvious that the biological evolution of life on earth has culminated so far in us. A species able to choose either to believe in God and religion or not to. But: is there an understanding of human biology that would enable us to decide whether a belief in God and religion is rational or irrational? Or is that far more likely to be embodied in the manner in which I construe the "self" here as a subjective/subjunctive existential contraption rooted in dasein?

Note to others:

How am I not responding to God and religion above in terms of memes and genes?

What exactly is he looking for here?

[iambiguous]

I'm not obligated to convince anyone of anything because I am not an objectivist fanatic like you.

But you are.

Genes and memes.

Pull up your pants boy.

Note to phoneutria:

Just out of curiosity, how would you defend him here?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Okay:

Religious memes are everywhere.

No, mi friend. You are postulating an objectivist world view. The gene meme paradigm. Not religious memes.

Have some balls, and explain yourself. You know, like you are forced to convince all rational men and women (don't know why you wrote men and men).

[Pedro I Rengel]

You know, since you intend to impose your communist agenda on the rest of us, and this gene meme thing is evidently the objectivist theory that serves as backdrop.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You respond to my points first, which I raised far before you.

As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.

Genes and memes.

Go.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Pussy.

[iambiguous]

Okay:

Religious memes are everywhere.

No, mi friend. You are postulating an objectivist world view. The gene meme paradigm. Not religious memes.

Have some balls, and explain yourself. You know, like you are forced to convince all rational men and women (don't know why you wrote men and men).

Some start here: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1064-gene-meme

"Modernity, as a continuance of the universal Christian dogma, is a Meme which wishes to incorporate divergent genetic lines, peoples carrying different values, principles, ideas and ideals, into one uniform, stable, whole."

Not sure why it's a capital Meme, but I'm sure he has his reasons.

Me? My point is only to note the existence of religious memes and to suggest that they are rooted existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts that evolve over time and across space in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

And here you are complaining that I'm not satisfying you in regard to this one point while you refuse altogether to comment on any of the many points that I raise above.

[iambiguous]

Pussy.

Galore!

But let's leave her out of it. And get back to you actually responding to the points I have raised on this thread.

How about this: pretend it's about the role of women in chess.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not asking anybody else. It is not anybody else, here and now, postulating memes and genes as a paradigm of objective truth.

It is you.

Or do you take orders or direction from whoever you are quoting?

[iambiguous]

I'm not asking anybody else. It is not anybody else, here and now, postulating memes and genes as a paradigm of objective truth.

It is you.

Or do you take orders or direction from whoever you are quoting?

How about women who have beat you at chess responding to the points I raised above? Quote them, okay?

[promethean75]

I had no idea pedro was catholic. I will now know and refer to him as Father Vivian O'blivion.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not asking anybody else. It is not anybody else, here and now, postulating memes and genes as a paradigm of objective truth.

It is you.

Or do you take orders or direction from whoever you are quoting?

How about women who have beat you at chess responding to the points I raised above? Quote them, okay?

Actually a woman has never beat me at chess.

Probably because I am smart enough not to play them.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I had no idea pedro was catholic. I will now know and refer to him as Father Vivian O'blivion.

Goddamnit. I was wondering whether to write about it.

Ah fuck it.

You godless commie.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I can't stand Zappa.

What the fuck is he so happy about?

[Pedro I Rengel]

I had no idea pedro was catholic. I will now know and refer to him as Father Vivian O'blivion.

All South Americans are Catholics at heart.

What they don't realize is that the Jesus part is optional.

A lot of Jesus worship is worship of other Gods in disguise anyway.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I have to find a better term. Catholic is really grinding my gears.