Evola was right about God

kekism

Evola was right about God

Catholicism is the best out of those three (although personally I'm a Protestant). If you like science, Christianity actually makes a lot of things in this world make a lot of sense. A ton of things can be explained simply by using proper science and looking at it through a Christian worldview. I invite anyone to debate/discuss this with me, I'll try to b open-minded.

Buddhism, by the way, is... well... to put it frankly, a ton of rubbish that contradicts itself and doesn't makes any sense. Trust me. I went to a Buddhist monastery as part of a school (I go to a Christian one) excursion, and the people who were there to answer our questions either dodged our questions or explained some random stuff that didn't make any sense without even answering the question. Buddhism is basically glorified atheism, except it doesn't stand up to modern science and quite simply makes no sense.

Mind to elaborate the bit "looking at it through a Christian worldview."?
What is a Christian worldview, and how does it differ from other religious and non-religious worldviews?

Edited 4/26/2018 09:14:32

I will, when I have the time. I need to have dinner now... maybe in an hour or so.

God is dead in the West; that leaves men with few paths.

Christianity, faith in a theistic God which is a being represents a perverse understanding of reality. Without aristocracy and without the function of delivering cultural imperatives, there's no reason to practice it anymore. The Pagan Tradition was broken and thus the initiatory process halted so Neopaganism must be inorganic. The only acceptable faiths for Westerners now are ideologies, philosophies, and personal theologies deduced logically from the Western canon.

First of all, Wulfhere, you wrote lots of fancy words, but gave no evidence whatsoever for your claim. If you want us to take you seriously, give some supporting arguments and evidence. And a question for you: What do you think of Jesus?

Second, to answer your question, Cata Cauda (so that you will take my point seriously), I will use the example of geological features.
Looked at through an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, geological features (such as massive canyons, valleys and the like) are often explained by small amounts of erosion over a massive amount of time (millions, billions of years). Let's specifically use the example of the Grand Canyon. Most atheist scientists would agree that the canyon was formed by the small river slowly wearing away at the rock over eons of time until we get the Canyon we see today. It makes sense, if we look at it through that worldview.

However, if we look at it through a young-earth (creationist estimates are around 6'000 years old) Christian worldview, the formation of these features can be explained using Noah's flood. For those of you who don't know, Noah's flood was a flood, caused by God, which covered the whole earth completely for 40 days, and "flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." (and (see Genesis chapters 6-9).

Now, when you consider the amount of water that would be required to cover the whole earth, and the huge currents that would be rushing about, imagine the huge amount of erosion this would cause. And when God told the waters to drain away, there would have been even massive-er amounts of erosion as the huge torrents surged through the weak points in the land. And God also "sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded." A wind sent by God to dry the entire earth must have been pretty darn strong, and would have itself eroded further the land. Lo and behold, with all this erosion caused by the cataclysmic conditions of a global flood, you have many of the canyons and valleys we have today (which have been eroded further by the creeks and rivers left behind).

Another way of thinking about it is this. You find a destroyed sandcastle on the beach. It looks as if it has been destroyed by water. It could have been a little kid who slowly trickled water from his bucket over a few hours, and it finally destroyed it.
Or it could have been a big wave, which surged up the beach and flattened the castle in 5 seconds.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, looking at the world differently can give you different explanations for how it works/came to be. Some of them make more sense than others, and that's what each person has to decide which for themselves.

DISCLAIMER: the views I have represented here (specifically about young-earth creationism) may not necessarily represent the views of all Christians; we do not agree on all things, and one of the problems I have with Catholics is that they believe that the Bible and evolution can be united, and I think that they cannot).
I also am only a high school student, so if I have not explained something properly or you want more detail, let me know and I will happily oblige in providing extra resources.

Thinking about Cata and Wulf's comment's earlier about the point of religion (or faith, if I may call it that. Faith that there is a higher being than ourselves. To me, religion is more the practise of that faith), I decided to add my opinion.
Firstly, I would like to say I am a very scientific person and very much like to see things verified by facts, or at least strongly supported by evidence.
That said, I think science is looking at this world and asking: What is happening here? How does this work? What causes this?
However, religion and faith is asking: Why? What is the meaning of this?
For example, I look at an awesome sunset and can't help feeling good about it; Why? Science would say, well, it's a big ball of gas burning away a few million kilometres away and because of the curvature of the earth it looks bigger than usual at sunset and it looks red because of the dust refracting light... It answers the how, the what. But it doesn't answer the why. The why does it make me feel good, or why do I like watching the sunset? These are questions only religion can answer. And the answers it gives, are what gives meaning to life.

According to a lot of scientists, the meaning of life, the point of living, is to survive and pass on our genes. We're nothing more than animals. Religion, however, particularly Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), say that life has more meaning than that; we are more than just a species.

Hopefully all that answered your question, Cata, and gives you all something to chew on.

Ooft, bloody US constitution post here. Also it appears another one doesnt understand that this is what is commonly referred to as a "troll thread"


Also thelegend, just for you information, you cant exactly use that as evidence (flood thing), despite what you believe (and im not saying anything you are saying is necessarily wrong and i am christian too). The reason is like this

Say i have a maths equations

x + y = 11

If you go into the maths equation with the idea that x must = 7 because it fits in with your worldview, then you will logically conclude y = 4, however, there are infinite possibilities for the variables, making any argument using this kind of logic kinda invalid in terms of making your point.

Edited 4/26/2018 13:40:58

>christianity can explain a lot of things in science
>opens bible
>talking snake in first chapter

kk

I am confused by legend. He makes it sound like Catholics are the progressive branch of christianity. In reality, THEY are the ones who still discriminate against females and gay males. Not protestants.

Edited 4/26/2018 16:33:06

@thelegend

also, is it possible to be catholic and scientologist? or would i be excommunicated right away?

i'm attracted to the traditional nature and sense of community that catholicism offers, but i've been reading this scientology handbook i received free from the scientology website, and it makes a pretty good pitch.

Edited 4/26/2018 19:24:31

Well, I will answer questions one by one.
First, my friend Thessalos. I don't remember saying that I was using the flood as evidence for Christianity, but I do remember saying that I was using it as evidence to support my claim that looking at the world through different worldviews gives different answers. Your maths equation, for example. I would argue that atheistic evolutionists are doing the exact same thing as I did, and I thought I made that clear. If evolutionists assume that the world came about by assuming that the forces of nature they see today were more or less exactly the same for all time, then of course they will assume that the world took long ages to form.
Creationists, however, assume that the world processes were not always the same (like a catastrophic global flood). This worldview will explain the world today, without the need for eons of time.
So basically, I wasn't giving evidence for Christianity, I was simply explaining how different worldviews explain things differently.

Second, OxtheAutist. Again, if you look at things through a Christian perspective, a talking snake isn't really that weird, when you consider the snake was actually an evil spirit. And there's another time in the Bible when an animal talks, but this time, it was God making the donkey talk. And again, when you compare it to other miracles in the Bible, it really isn't that absurd. However, if you want me to explain some other things in science as a Christian creationist, then hit me up.
Kretoma, next time, please say something intelligent. Personally I agree with you about the Catholics being a little bit backwards in some aspects, however your comment was extremely cheeky, if I understand correctly, by saying that evolution is "progressive". I will debate tht with you, if you wish.

Finally, buffalo. I don't really know all that much about scientology, so I'll have to do some research. However, I would definitely say that science and Christianity are definitely compatible. If you're serious about finding stuff out, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, Case for a Creator and Case for Faith books. They will show you the evidence for Christianity and creationism, but leave you in the end to make the verdict yourself.

@thelegend - you mentioned self-contradictions of Buddhism, but did not give specifics: I invite you to do so, and although I am no expert I am reasonably well versed in this subject so might be able to think it out. From the standpoint of science, Christianity does not have a good track record: the imprisonment of Galileo for example (At a time when a decent portion of the non-western world was comfortable not only with the idea of a sphere earth (In Sanskrit for example, the "Earth" is often referred to as "Earth-ball") as well as the symmetry of the solar system with the sun at it's center).

I would like to point out that Christianity has quite a few self-contradictions of it's own, as I perceive them to be at least. Let me point one point which I consider to be self-contradiction within Christianity: "God" is supposed to be merciful, kind, and fair. Also, there is no concept of rebirth. So, how is it fair that one child is born with disabilities and another is born healthy? Does it mean "God" is unjust/unfair or unkind?..

**

Let me make it clear what defines a "consistent philosophy", and to define what philosophy is - i feel that most people dont understand this very simple thing:: Consider a collection of points - each point represents a statement, which can either be true or false or independent of our logical system. Furthermore, these points form an inference diagram - the truth of some points implies the truth of other points. Science assigns some of these points as "true" or "false" or "independent" in a self-consistent manner. Definition: Philosophy is an assignment for a sub-collection of these points as "true", "false" or "independent". A *consistent philosophy* is a philosophy such that (1) that the natural restriction map to science agrees with the assignment made my science (2) the assignment is consistent with the implications of the inference diagram.

Remark: As long as one follows a consistent philosophy, tautologically nobody can tell you your philosophy is wrong.

**

EDIT (other remarks): Under my definition of philosophy, atheism is the minimal consistent philosophy. The restriction map here is simply the identity map and therefore the philosophy is tautologically consistent (so it is an acceptable world-view). However, atheists must recognize that while their philosophy is consistent, it does not exclude the possibility for a more complete philosophy (with richer structure) whose image under the restriction map is precisely their philosophy. Such a philosophy would also be an acceptable world view. In fact, any revolutionary shift in scientific thinking has been because someone conjectured a consistent "richer philosophy" which restricted to the minimal philosophy.

90

Edited 4/26/2018 22:42:44

I am confused by legend. He makes it sound like Catholics are the progressive branch of christianity. In reality, THEY are the ones who still discriminate against females and gay males. Not protestants.

Protestants, too.

also I believe Catholicism as a whole was generally more tolerant to syncreticism.

Personally, I think you'll find that the Dune canon (Frank Herbert only) has no such contradictions. It also gives your life greater meaning to strive towards bringing about the Kwisatz Haderach. The Buddha ain't coming back. Jesus's second coming is whenever he feels like it. But the Kwisatz Haderach, the Shortening of the Way, he will come about through our work to create a sophisticated breeding program and achieve widespread space colonization with lots of psychoactive drugs along the way. Isn't that what meaning actually is, in the grand scheme of things?

I subscribe to it, and it's worked out very well for me. It's also open to gays as long as they're willing to renounce any technology more advanced than a calculator (I'm not using a computer to type this, the Spice just gives me superpowers).

Also there's some pretty considerable tax benefits involved.

Edited 4/26/2018 23:33:33

@90 you are misrepresenting what God does. God doesnt give the child a disability, which is the result of a fallen world according to christianity, and according to christianity, all people ave a disability of some kind