In fact, I'm starting to feel conservative is something of a misnomer with regards to many of my positions, especially with regards to economics, but there's no better label. — Agustino

Liberal, conservative, centrist, radical, socialist, fascist -- all the political terms that serve for facile quick identification fail once you try to get below their surface. Maybe this has been true for a very long time -- but I think it is a later 20th and 21st century problem. Part of the problem is abuse of terms, part of it misuse, and part of it is actual changes in political thinking.

Liberal, conservative, centrist, radical, socialist, fascist -- all the political terms that serve for facile quick identification fail once you try to get below their surface. Maybe this has been true for a very long time -- but I think it is a later 20th and 21st century problem. Part of the problem is abuse of terms, part of it misuse, and part of it is actual changes in political thinking. — Bitter Crank

I think the problem is just that the terms are old. They carry a lot of baggage with them, which doesn't much reflect the world today. For example, conservative ideology developed as a response to a particular historical occurrence - the French Revolution - and obviously the problems we're dealing with today aren't the same at all. I think we need "fresh" terms.

Worship is one of the first and most ancient actions of mankind. From the very beginning, man was religious. Man had a connection with the transcendent, which was obvious and evident - very different from all the rest of the animals. Cave paintings indicate this, early worship rituals indicate this. Man was on his knees worshipping divinity from the very earliest moments of recorded history. No civilisation exists without the concept of divinity. It is absolutely essential that what being human is. — Agustino

Which cave paintings indicate that early man had a connection with the transcendent?

Seems to me like most cave paintings indicate they had a connection with the land and animals they hunted...

What about Buddhist and Jainist societies? Didn't some of them operate without the concept of a supreme god? Furthermore, it might be worth noting that the religions of old share the singular attribute of motivating their aderents to go out and conquer/convert other people to their religion.. If atheist communities did sprout up in the old world, it would have only been a matter of time before some ideologue rolls into town and lays down the bullshit. Old world atheists would have had no scientific basis or the critical thinking skills to refute religious claims, and so really what you might be referring to is a learned or innate desire for awareness.

People want to be aware; they want to know things. Perhaps the existence of science and reason in the world of today explains why fewer and fewer people are exhibiting "desire for god"... They found much more salient answers in science...

I never spoke of spiritual health. I spoke of an innate desire for the divine. — Agustino

O.K, what evidence do you have that innate desire for the divine is a natural human drive? (hint: alluding to cave paintings isn't satisfactory).

And? What's your point? Babies are born with certain desires, including the desire for food, the desire for water and momma's breast, etc. They're even born with desires that don't manifest right away, like the desire for intimacy. — Agustino

Strictly speaking, babies exhibit fixed action responses which are hard-wired into them. It's not that the baby wants to be fed or want's a breast (they don't know what breasts are pre-tit), it's that the pain of hunger makes it cry. When a baby suckles a tit for the first time, it does so automatically and without knowing what's going on, why it's doing it, or why it feels good. Like a baby chicken who instinctively pecks at the ground, these fixed action responses do not equate to actual conscious desires. Pelvic thrusting is another fixed action response: some humans and animals might try to hump something but have absolutely no clue why they're doing it, only that it feels good and natural at the time. This isn't an instinctive desire for intimacy, it's actually hard-wired impulses which work directly on pain and pleasure centers while hijacking motor controls. An actual desire for intimacy (especially for something specific) is something you need to learn.

Desires we learn are different than instinctive fixed action responses. To say that we are born with a desire for a relationship with god would be like saying a baby is born with a desire to play Magic: The Gathering"; it has no clue what you're talking about.

Actually, statistically speaking, parents are quite successful at that. Christianity for example is losing a net 1.5 million adherents a year based on conversion data, but overall it is growing because of birth rate. Of course there are exceptions. And it's not indoctrination, it's simply introducing the child to things he would not otherwise be introduced to. Most of religious growth happens not because of conversions, but rather because of giving birth to new children, just so you know. — Agustino

I'm aware of this, but I'm suggesting that the success with which parents can indoctrinate their children will decline due to developing factrors (namely freedom of thought and access to more view-points through social media). I'm suggesting that looking only at conversion and birth trends isn't enough to carry your predictions very far into the future (indeed, birth and conversion rates tend to fluctuate from decade to decade).

It's also worth noting that while Christianity might be growing, if it's losing the proportion of it's share of the population then we might as well describe it as becoming less globally significant.

Yes it is absolutely a conflict for who will dictate the direction of society. If you haven't realised this until now, I don't know what to say. It's a battle for the soul of man. — Agustino

I don't believe in souls, I believe in the freedom from religion. That means a religion cannot possibly, under the standards of all western constitutions, win the right to "dictate the direction of society". You would need to overthrow the foundations of the west to achieve this. Planning any coup d'etats by chance?

Yes, I am quite sure of that in fact. Man does not live on bread alone. — Agustino

Actually man can live on bread alone presuming the bread (*and water) has sufficient nutritional values.

How does what you're doing here not amount to scare-mongering over irreligion and promiscuity?

Right, I guess broken marriages are an increase in the standard of living. Never knew. :-} — Agustino

My father grew up in a good unbroken Christian home and had absolutely nothing, while I grew up in a broken Christian home, and while I was still very poor, had a much higher standard of living. The shoes that went on my feet tended to fit, I had an endless supply of second-hand clothes to wear, and from time to time my family could afford to send me on a school trip or take me to the movies. At 14 my father became a shoe-shine so he could buy clothes, and he hasn't stopped working since. He's turning 60 in a few days.

In general human happiness tends to even out, but when you're very poor there's more sources of pain and suffering, the avoidance of which can be just as meaningful as happiness itself. (For instance, your child's life is saved thanks to a new and affordable vaccine (thanks modernity!).

Prove it. Stats actually show the opposite. People are more depressed and upset than ever, so I don't know what kind of pot you're smoking.

For example http://college.usatoday.com/2016/10/22/depression-is-at-an-all-time-high-for-college-students/ .

It seems that this is a mere repetition of your axiom that the better technology and comfort available, the better lives people will live. Despite the evidence, you just have to believe that, because that's what your atheism hinges on. Give people bread, pussy and "freedom" - and they'll be happy. Where's the evidence to back it up? Once again, my axiom which is better supported by evidence is that man does not live on bread alone, contrary to your own vile materialism. — Agustino

College students are upset about stuff? COLOR ME SURPRISED!

I can play rhetorical games too! This one is called "spot the trend"!:



Seems like a pretty solid correlation with GDP and satisfaction in life. Not necessarily because money makes people happy, but rather because poverty and the oppression that tends to come with it (including religious oppression) tends to make them distinctly unhappy

No, you're actually not. You're less free than ever to choose. You are only given the illusion of freedom of choice. That's like telling a slave you're perfectly free to run away, you'll just get shot when you do. For example, how are you free to get married and have a life-long marriage when divorce rate is 50%+?

There is no pure freedom. There is freedom to do something. You're less free to be moral today than before. You're less free to be happy today than before. — Agustino

Curiouser and curioser...

I wonder if the rise in divorce rates has something to do with an increase in freedom (namely the freedom to change your mind about marriage). I also wonder if this has something to do with the gains that women have made in terms of personal rights within the last century... *Shrug* Who knows!

But I should tell you that you're absolutely free to get married and stay married, so long as you continue to love your partner and she you. If you fail at marriage you can thank your inability to properly select a life-long mate or your own inability to live up to whatever standards are expected of you from the mates you do choose.

Being forced to stay in a marriage with an abusive partner is one modern notion of hell on earth. Just a few weeks ago some guy robbed a bank to escape his wife through arrest. They took pity on him for that reason though and let him go... The poor sod...

But you are probably right though. Unhappy college students is such an unnatural omen that it must mean the end is nigh...

HA!

Religion should also be taught in schools again. I studied religion in school, and looking back it was probably one of the most interesting classes I had to take at that young age. — Agustino

What do you mean taught in schools? You mean like, we teach the kids all the doctrines and parables of Christianity and tell them that's what's moral?

Or do you mean something along the lines of "comparative religion" where we look at the differences between religions without trying to make one of them seem like the best? Whose version of religious history do we teach? Surely not the young earth creationist version...

Much more interesting than math, — Agustino

This scares me a bit. Religion might be more interesting than math, but without math our civilization would be nothing. We would never have had the industrial revolution, and we would likely be living countrified lives under this or that monarch (who god clearly has blessed more than ourselves). If we were even semi-blessed, then from time to time our local land-lord would come around and demand we fight with him, so at least we might get to enjoy the glory of death in battle or the brief enjoyable praise we may receive if we win and don't die.

You're not exactly suggesting that we don't also teach math, but to our current society math is indispensable while religion is not.

history, and other bullshit. — Agustino

Religion vs History. Who do you think will win?

Seriously though, you really think that kids ought to spend more of the time we set aside to learn real world stuff like math and history and other bullshit to instead learn about their favorite religion?

In addition to learning religion I learned a lot of math and history and other bullshit myself. So when you for instance make the claim like "desire for god has been there since the beginning", I can actually try to reconcile that claim with known historical facts. For instance:

The monotheism of the Abrahamic religions extends back until some point when the Jews became monotheists (CIRCA 8th century BCE). The greater world at this time was pagan and filled with shrines to lesser gods. As we go back farther religions become more primitive and their deities more animistic, until we are in an ancient tribal setting where whatever they believe is down to the schizophrenic shaman who has the village spirit-market cornered (with the help of his trusty hallucinogenic powder!). In fact, of all the customs common to all human cultures, there are only two I know of which are universal: 1) burial of the dead (or some alternative ceremony), and 2) The use of intoxicants for recreation and enlightenment. No matter which tribe you pull up you can find an example of them getting high by any means (whether they need to ferment the saliva of elders into alcohol, get toad-based poison into their blood stream, or process a plant in a certain way and shoot the powder up their nostrils, they will find a way to inebriate).

I know you won't like to hear this at all, but spiritual enlightenment is essentially just another kind of mental stimulation that humans fancy, in the end, because it makes them feel good. It's really not very different from other modes of though which offer different rewards but all of them geared towards the same inexorable goal: happiness. You suggesting (part in parcel) that this life is not for enjoyment is in fact the method by which you've wound up trying to enjoy this life.

America is a nation founded first and foremost on God. That is why, even on your dollar bills, it is written "In God We Trust". It doesn't say "In The People We Trust"... And quite the contrary, America would count as a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy. — Agustino

When America declared it's independence, it mentioned the freedom of man given to them by a god of nature, but beyond that everything in America's founding pertains to the will of the people. They purposefully left god out of the constitution and enshrined freedom of and from religion to ensure that one religion would not be able to hold the reigns of the government or government favor.

When people say America isn't a democracy it's just the cutest thing ever. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. It is known...

P.S, here is the mission statement of the website from the shitty article you linked: "The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." I don't want to risk wasting time on this. If you want to read it and communicate the evidence it might contain for your claims, I welcome you to do so.

I don't think I am at all. I think I'm right on time. — Agustino

"A wizard is never late, nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to. “

Once we renounce political correctness, atheism/hedonism will have no means of defence anymore.

...

What defence will someone like this have from being shouted off and kicked out of civilised society? She should be ashamed of herself (certainly not proud), and the rest of us should shun any dealings with her. Society needs to govern itself by showing individuals that they are not above the necessities of decent behaviour, and if they are, then they will be kicked out, or at least labelled and treated adequately. If she wants to be a prostitute, she should be absolutely free to be one. — Agustino

Ye gods man!, she was clearly joking!

She cannot possibly believe she could make good on a promise to enthusiastically fellate the millions of men who voted for Hillary Clinton... Did she at least add in the caveat that she would not have to deliver if she didn't win? (that's for the lawyers to debate I suppose).

You're totally right though. society should hold the position that women have the right to be prostitutes but then consequently should immediately shun them for being ungodly and unclean because we think they're vile sinners (even as we make use of their services). We like our women pregnant, bound with a ring, barefoot, and in the kitchen, don't we? ;)

But in regards to your sudden and surprising valuation of "decency", just how decent do you think it is to accuse the rest of the world of sin and degeneracy for merely enjoying themselves and not worshiping your god? You're all vinegar and no honey; mostly stick and only a few carrot shavings. I recommend adapting this strategy if you aim for more success in religio-poltical spheres (unless you want to just play oldies to a crowd of regulars).

Sorry, but since when is castrating gays a Christian position? Where in the Bible does it say that if you find a homosexual you are to chop his balls off? Where in the Catechism, or the ecumenic councils, or any other official church position (either Orthodox or Catholic) do you find such nonsense?

You Sir, don't even know what you're talking about. — Agustino

Castrating gays has been a christian position since they decided that putting them to death was a bit too harsh.

Alan Turing, the man who basically invented the programmable computer (and subsequently may have won WW2 for us by using it to decrypt the Enigma machia), was imprisoned and chemically castrated on suspicion of homosexuality. This was in 1952. Not long after his "treatment" he committed suicide...

Leviticus 20:13:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This says gays should be put to death and it's their own guilty fault. This is part of the christian doctrine...

Belief in a transcendent order.
• Charity (real love, not the bullshit leftist version of it).
• Belief in the purpose and meaning of life.
• Duty (life is not here to enjoy it).
• Courage.
• Respect for tradition, culture and continuity.
• The sanctity of marriage.
• Chastity.
• Devotion and selflessness. — Agustino

(responded to in order)

There are more charitable organizations and socially helpful efforts than ever before

Belief in the value of life hasn't gone anywhere, it's only the highfalutin arbitrary claims of the ultimate which are beginning to subside in the west.

What is our duty? To worship god in pursuit of the next life?

Courage hasn't gone anywhere

We're better off with some traditions dying out, like the idea that women are there to serve men for instance (a Christian value).

The rise in divorce rates will bring down society? How?

How does the loss of chastity trigger the collapse of society?

Devotion is just another word for duty really, and selflessness another word for charity, of which there seems to be more than ever before.

You can read more on a similar topic here. — Agustino

I cannot possibly submit to any reading you suggest (in this case on principle as I refuse to treat what is in all likelihood conservative and partisan literature that gets randomly hurled at me as something warranting rebuke). It's not that I won't read articles upon request, it's just that the blatantly partisan slant of what you've been suggesting makes this far too tedious as a means of carrying on this debate.

If you want to pick out the relevant bits that demonstrate your point (including at least a brief explanation/example evidence) then I would happily respond to anything and everything you have to say.

No, I actually said we're going to be more prosperous than ever once religion takes over, not now. — Agustino

But we're already more prosperous than ever... Aren't we?

I'm confused. I thought that you suggested millennials (hipsters) will get tired of their hedonic delights and turn to religion for hardcore metaphysical fulfillment, but now you're clarifying and saying that their hedonic delights will simply come to and end and then they will realize that spiritual enlightenment is more reliable or better?

Which is it, are we going to drown in a world of hedonism and material wealth/delight until we reach for god to find meaning, or are we going to live in a world of suffering where we realize our hedonic delights are what got us there? Pick one.

All the modernism and secularism that corrodes Christianity will, eventually, corrode Islam and other religions as well. When corrosion will begin to affect any particular group of believers is difficult to predict.

One of the factors affecting Christianity in some areas (definitely in North America, possibly Europe) is ethnic affiliation. 75 to 100 years ago (and further back) ethnicity tended to be closely related to one's religious affiliation. Germans in midwestern states were mostly Catholic or Lutheran, depending on the part of Germany they came from. The Irish, Italians, and French were generally Catholic. Other western Europeans scattered among (including Germans) Methodist, Presbyterian, and what used to be the Congregational (now United Church of Christ). Jewish congregations tended to be ethnically affiliated too.

In the 1960s and 70s, ethnicity faded and became a lot less important to Europe-originated people. With fading ethnicity, came a fading allegiance to ethnic churches, and in many cases, to churches at all. What faded here was not so much theology as ethnic loyalty.

Now, what I just said applies to places where ethnicity and religion were closely connected, In many parts of the US this connection isn't obvious.

Anybody have opinions on why Buddhism is declining (if it is)? Is it theistic competition? Is it ethnicity factors? what?

Still strong after about 2500 years. Don't think it is going anywhere. Saw a projection that has its numbers going up until 2030, then declining somewhat to 2050. Not sure how one would figure numbers 30 years in advance for that type of thing. Anyway, in the West it doesn't seem to be a "bring your family to services" type of thing. I would think the influence of its ideas and practices far outweigh the number of people sitting in the pews, or on the cushion, as it were.

Thanks for your thoughts. Very helpful. Should get credit for 5 posts on the length alone. ;)

Anybody have opinions on why Buddhism is declining (if it is)? Is it theistic competition? Is it ethnicity factors? what? — Bitter Crank

I think it's birth-rate mainly. Birth rate seems to be the driving factor for religious growth. And apparently Buddhism isn't very successful in Communist China. I mean if most of China was Buddhist, then Buddhism would be quite possibly the world's second largest religion.

Which cave paintings indicate that early man had a connection with the transcendent? — VagabondSpectre

It seems you do have a tendency to ask bullshit questions. I'm sure you could research this yourself if you actually cared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion
http://www.historytoday.com/rw-brockway/prehistoric-cave-paintings-and-religion
https://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2006/python-english.html

Seems to me like most cave paintings indicate they had a connection with the land and animals they hunted... — VagabondSpectre

The connection was a religious one, unlike the connection other animals had with the land and the creatures they hunted.

What about Buddhist and Jainist societies? Didn't some of them operate without the concept of a supreme god? — VagabondSpectre

Nope, that's absolutely not what I said. I said humans had a connection with the transcendent and a desire for the divine. I'm sure Buddhists and Jainists have that too, no concept of a supreme God needed.

Furthermore, it might be worth noting that the religions of old share the singular attribute of motivating their aderents to go out and conquer/convert other people to their religion.. — VagabondSpectre

You have any proof for this nonsense? Religions have not generally aimed at conquering and converting, especially in the very ancient times.

O.K, what evidence do you have that innate desire for the divine is a natural human drive? (hint: alluding to cave paintings isn't satisfactory). — VagabondSpectre

Study human history. Compare it to animal history. You can clearly see that whatever other differences, one clear difference is that humans have a NATURAL drive towards the divine, while animals don't.

I can play rhetorical games too! This one is called "spot the trend"!: — VagabondSpectre

First of all that comparison is inadequate, because each country/region has a different culture/tradition and some of the poorest countries are badly affected by diseases and wars. So their GDP/capita isn't the only factor playing a role in their happiness. Moreso, if you look at Latin America, they are generally poorer, but happier. What accounts for that happiness is largely their traditional orientation, including religion, because yes, Latin Americans are on the whole quite religious, especially when compared to the West.

I wonder if the rise in divorce rates has something to do with an increase in freedom (namely the freedom to change your mind about marriage) — VagabondSpectre

In my eyes, that's not an increase in freedom. That's an increase in freedom to not be committed and devoted, an increase in freedom to be a selfish snitch. I don't want that kind of freedom, you can keep it for yourself. Your kids will pay the price by their broken family.

I also wonder if this has something to do with the gains that women have made in terms of personal rights within the last century... *Shrug* Who knows! — VagabondSpectre

LOL! Who needs personal rights and freedoms if they can't even enjoy them? If you can't even have a family because divorce rates are so high, who needs this freedom? What will we do with it? Wipe our buttoms? You're talking as if freedom was a good in itself.

But I should tell you that you're absolutely free to get married and stay married, so long as you continue to love your partner and she you. — VagabondSpectre

Well leave me out of discussion, I'm a smart guy. Let's talk about your average man, who isn't that well-educated, isn't aware of all the social trends, doesn't know what kind of women to look for, etc. He's the one who will pay the price, not people like me. And if you tell him that he's absolutely free to get married and stay married, that's like telling a black slave 100 years ago he's absolutely free to run away and live on his own! It's fucking bullshit, and we both know it's bullshit. The social environment isn't conducive, on the whole, towards life-long marriage. Most people cannot escape their social environment, nor should it be expected of them to do so.

If you fail at marriage you can thank your inability to properly select a life-long mate or your own inability to live up to whatever standards are expected of you from the mates you do choose. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, if he dies while trying to escape, the slave can thank his inability to run faster or his inability to live up to whatever standards he set for himself. Great one mate >:O

Being forced to stay in a marriage with an abusive partner is one modern notion of hell on earth. — VagabondSpectre

Define abusive. If, for example, your wife doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, that doesn't count as abusive. Please remember that.

You mean like, we teach the kids all the doctrines and parables of Christianity and tell them that's what's moral? — VagabondSpectre

No, I mean introducing the local religion to children in school, and discussing the concepts involved, whether they be moral, about the afterlife, or otherwise. It seems that the only kind of religious education you can think of is one where people are told "This is what you have to believe. Now believe it". Your imagination is quite poor.

This scares me a bit. Religion might be more interesting than math, but without math our civilization would be nothing. — VagabondSpectre

And does it seem to you we have achieved that much? Man does not live on bread alone.

So when you for instance make the claim like "desire for god has been there since the beginning" — VagabondSpectre

Nope, that's not what I said. Again, get your facts straight mate. Seems like you can't even understand what I'm telling you.

No matter which tribe you pull up you can find an example of them getting high by any means (whether they need to ferment the saliva of elders into alcohol, get toad-based poison into their blood stream, or process a plant in a certain way and shoot the powder up their nostrils, they will find a way to inebriate). — VagabondSpectre

This is false.

I know you won't like to hear this at all, but spiritual enlightenment is essentially just another kind of mental stimulation that humans fancy, in the end, because it makes them feel good. — VagabondSpectre

That's according to whom? According to you? Because as far as I know, most people who believe in spiritual enlightenment (take Wayfarer on this forum) would disagree with you.

It's really not very different from other modes of though which offer different rewards but all of them geared towards the same inexorable goal: happiness. You suggesting (part in parcel) that this life is not for enjoyment is in fact the method by which you've wound up trying to enjoy this life. — VagabondSpectre

Happiness and pleasure are not the same.

When America declared it's independence, it mentioned the freedom of man given to them by a god of nature, but beyond that everything in America's founding pertains to the will of the people. — VagabondSpectre

:s Riiiiiight, a bunch of (mostly) Christians mentioned that freedom is given to man by a God of NATURE! I don't know where you're making this stuff up from, but you may like to provide some sources.

Ye gods man!, she was clearly joking! — VagabondSpectre

Right, so I suppose if someone at a party jokes about how he'd like to fuck your wife, that's alright no? He was just joking! Or even better, your wife jokes about giving them a blowjob. That's very "decent". Or your mother jokes about giving a blowjob to a random guy. That's certainly what people should be doing, so long as they're just joking right?

You're totally right though. society should hold the position that women have the right to be prostitutes but then consequently should immediately shun them for being ungodly and unclean because we think they're vile sinners (even as we make use of their services). — VagabondSpectre

Society should discourage vice and sin, even if only for the bad social effects it has (including by the way rising divorce rates).

We like our women pregnant, bound with a ring, barefoot, and in the kitchen, don't we? ;) — VagabondSpectre

I don't know who taught you this bullshit, but no. We like our women strong, decent, moral, and upstanding, not running around promising blowjobs.

merely enjoying themselves — VagabondSpectre

Why do you suppose they should be enjoying themselves?

You're all vinegar and no honey; mostly stick and only a few carrot shavings. I recommend adapting this strategy if you aim for more success in religio-poltical spheres (unless you want to just play oldies to a crowd of regulars). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I wouldn't deceive people with a carrot like you seem to like doing. A carrot that never satisfies them and just makes them hungrier.

I don't want to risk wasting time on this. If you want to read it and communicate the evidence it might contain for your claims, I welcome you to do so. — VagabondSpectre

No, I don't have to satisfy your laziness and inability to read a source provided to you because you think it's not good without even reading it. :-}

Castrating gays has been a christian position since they decided that putting them to death was a bit too harsh. — VagabondSpectre

No, it was a British position, not a Christian one. The law was written by the British government, not the Church.

Leviticus 20:13:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This says gays should be put to death and it's their own guilty fault. This is part of the christian doctrine... — VagabondSpectre

Actually, again you are bullshitting. The part in Leviticus that you're quoting is part of God's Mosaic Covenant with the Jews at one particular time in history. What does this have to do with Christianity today? The Mosaic Covenant wasn't just a religion, but a state as well. Jewish religious leaders would prescribe the laws as well. Us Christians read that as instructive history (for example you can understand from that that homosexual sex is sinful, and the punishment for sin is death).

There are more charitable organizations and socially helpful efforts than ever before — VagabondSpectre

What does that have to do with the virtue of Charity again?

Belief in the value of life hasn't gone anywhere, it's only the highfalutin arbitrary claims of the ultimate which are beginning to subside in the west. — VagabondSpectre

I didn't mention anything about the value of life - again I don't know where you're taking this crap from.

What is our duty? To worship god in pursuit of the next life? — VagabondSpectre

To live virtuously in a way that honours God.

Courage hasn't gone anywhere — VagabondSpectre

One second you say courage hasn't gone anywhere, the other you talk about the millions of teens who can't do anything better but stay glued to social media. Makes much sense.

We're better off with some traditions dying out, like the idea that women are there to serve men for instance (a Christian value). — VagabondSpectre

Well serve is the wrong word. Women are there to help men, among other things.

The rise in divorce rates will bring down society? How? — VagabondSpectre

Seriously? By destroying families? By making children suffer? By increasing conflicts? By increasing harmful emotions like jealousy, anger, hatred?

How does the loss of chastity trigger the collapse of society? — VagabondSpectre

Same as above.

and selflessness another word for charity, of which there seems to be more than ever before. — VagabondSpectre

It seems to me you don't understand what charity is.

I cannot possibly submit to any reading you suggest (in this case on principle as I refuse to treat what is in all likelihood conservative and partisan literature that gets randomly hurled at me as something warranting rebuke — VagabondSpectre

Right, you want to remain stuck in your narrow self-chosen prison. I see.

If you want to pick out the relevant bits that demonstrate your point (including at least a brief explanation/example evidence) then I would happily respond to anything and everything you have to say. — VagabondSpectre

If you're going to be lazy, there's no point in having a conversation.

But we're already more prosperous than ever... Aren't we? — VagabondSpectre

No, we aren't. Again, man does not live on bread alone. More bread doesn't mean more prosperous.

That's pretty interesting actually... I wonder what ethnic trends will dominate in the west in the future (I.E: will mullato's eventually be the majority?). I think ethnic clustering (so to speak) can probably help explain quite a number of differences between demographics; it's a matter of group-culture.

I have a theory about the decline in bhuddism: Islam and Christianity are conquering religions which prior to modernity had secured a sufficiently large and spread out global nucleus of adherents. The corrosive effects of modernity on religion might be impacting Buddhism more severely simply because Buddhists have a much smaller community over which to diffuse certain pressures (I.E, the size of your local religious community might incentivize you to stay in it if it is a very big community).

It's sort of an immune system analogy; Christianity and Islam might simply better situated to cope with the pressures facing them as a function of diversity and mass. Obviously this won't explain everything, but it might be one contributing factor.

A desire for the transcendent may exist innately in the species, but if VagabondSpectre didn't disprove it, you haven't proved it either.

My guess is that the stone age painters in caves (25,000 years ago, +/-) were doing it for some sort of magical purpose. The circumstances of the workplace - deep in the cave, very poorly illuminated, etc.) would suggest something more than casual sketching on a warm afternoon in the park. BUT this is a guess, or wishful thinking -- not a fact.

Was it magic or transcendent religion? It matters which NOW, because we distinguish between the two. (Magic is religion you don't like, religion is magic you do like.)

We don't know whether a religious impulse is innate today, because culture is self-perpetuating and it becomes impossible to disambiguate the innate from the learned. My guess is that it is innate, but...

In the end, it doesn't matter. Whether learned or innate, tending-toward-transcendent thinking and acting is abundant. Can tending-toward-transcendent thinking and acting be extinguished? I suppose it could -- given intense isolation of children, which would amount to extreme child abuse. A few isolated children who were deaf managed to come up with a simple sign-language among themselves.

The 25000 year old paintings were the product of culture, not just some previously uncultured innate urge. If tending-toward-transcendent thinking and acting behavior is innate, we would find its roots in a period which has left nothing but stone tools and chipped stone behind.

(Magic is religion you don't like, religion is magic you do like.) — Bitter Crank

I actually don't think it matters. Magic is transcendent.

The 25000 year old paintings were the product of culture, not just some previously uncultured innate urge. If tending-toward-transcendent thinking and acting behavior is innate, we would find its roots in a period which has left nothing but stone tools and chipped stone behind. — Bitter Crank

From the Wiki article:
"130,000 years ago – Earliest undisputed evidence for intentional burial. Neanderthals bury their dead at sites such as Krapina in Croatia"
"300,000 years ago – first (disputed) evidence of intentional burial of the dead. Sites such as Atapuerca in Spain, which has bones of over 32 individuals in a pit within a cave"

It seems to me that burying one's dead does suggest a strong impulse towards the transcendent, and that is earlier than 25000 years ago. The fact is clear that the human being is entirely different from all other animals, and not just because of reason.

I have read about what seem to be deliberate, and ritualized burials among Neanderthals--who, as it happens, are mostly not us--but the evidence I read was very fragmentary. There seemed to have been flowers and other plants placed in the grave -- this was, just from recollection about 45,000 years back. 45,000 years didn't leave much of the bouquets, if that's what they were, behind.

A better example of "primitive" mentality is the skeleton of a severely and congenitally deformed adult from way back then. This person would have required quite a bit of care to have made it to adulthood. Accidental survival for this stone-age someone is highly unlikely. Clearly a family/tribe cared to take care of this person.

It seems you do have a tendency to ask bullshit questions. I'm sure you could research this yourself if you actually cared. — Agustino

I'm sure you would make your own arguments if you actually cared. And then I might actually respond to them. As it stands though, I'm not at all interested in being sent around the internet at the speed of your google searches; read your own source material and compose an actual argument... Please...

— VagabondSpectre

The connection was a religious one, unlike the connection other animals had with the land and the creatures they hunted. — Agustino

So you say it's a religious connection. That's your conclusion. What are your premises and evidence?

Nope, that's absolutely not what I said. I said humans had a connection with the transcendent and a desire for the divine. I'm sure Buddhists and Jainists have that too, no concept of a supreme God needed. — Agustino

Alright well now you're going to need to rigorously define "divine" and "transcendent". I thought you were talking about god but I guess you were talking about something even more vague...

You have any proof for this nonsense? Religions have not generally aimed at conquering and converting, especially in the very ancient times. — Agustino

Actually religions, at least the successful one's, did tend to aim for conquest and conversion. The Religions that were successful at this tend to be the most popular religions of today. I'm sure you know that Islam was "spread by the sword" during a certain period of time, but how do you feel about the Christian crusades or evangelical missionary works? In very ancient times there was no conquering monotheistic god to speak of, that shit came after the end of paganism in Rome.

Study human history. Compare it to animal history. You can clearly see that whatever other differences, one clear difference is that humans have a NATURAL drive towards the divine, while animals don't. — Agustino

Strictly speaking, non-human animals aren't capable of thought sophisticated enough to entertain the idea of a creator god. Maybe if they were smart enough some of them would become god-obsessed, and maybe some wouldn't. But just because some humans do claim to have a drive towards the divine doesn't mean that it's innate, hard wired, or common to all humans. Some humans have a drive to smear feces on the walls, but it's not a natural human drive.

If you want to describe a natural human drive, try something that is actually common to all humans or demonstrably inherent in human psychology.

First of all that comparison is inadequate, because each country/region has a different culture/tradition and some of the poorest countries are badly affected by diseases and wars. So their GDP/capita isn't the only factor playing a role in their happiness. Moreso, if you look at Latin America, they are generally poorer, but happier. What accounts for that happiness is largely their traditional orientation, including religion, because yes, Latin Americans are on the whole quite religious, especially when compared to the West. — Agustino

What's that? There are these magical things called "other factors"!? HOLY CAUSATION BATMAN!

You start by saying correlation based on a single factor doesn't amount to causation, but then you go right ahead and state that the single factor of religiosity is the causative force behind the raised cluster of Hispanic countries.

Who would have thought that there was more than a single factor in the world? POMO and sex will end civilization. Irreligion leads to unhappiness, and the singular and universal human need for "the divine" is the reason why; other factors be damned.

I don't see any reason why your haphazard interpretation of the graph should be any more worthy of consideration than my haphazard interpretation (except that mine boasts a tighter correlation). But this was my whole point. Throwing a graph in someone's face amounts to a rhetorical game unless you're able and willing to make a strong conclusion from it through actual analysis, explanation, and argumentation. I call it "rhetorical" because without dissection it amounts to a persuasive tool that appeals only to authority of the publisher and not the strength of the evidence.

The three links you posted about cave paintings for instance: The wiki article talks mostly about burial ceremonies, shamans, and animism (are these things transcendent or divine?) and describes how these tendencies began to emerge maybe around 300,000 years ago. It doesn't say that everyone was religious, it says that this is when the first behaviors even describable as religious started to emerge. We might have worried about fertility and hunting, but it doesn't say we were all concerned with a next life or a string-pulling god or an experience of "the transcendent".

The wiki description of paleo-religious setting is exactly what I described though; there were groups of people who A), bury the dead, and B), may have had a shaman (who most likely gets them high) and would have been the arbiter of whatever the fuck it is they might have believed. Not all tribes would have believed the same or even necessarily similar things though. Some of them might have had no sophisticated metaphysical beliefs pertaining to "the transcendent and the divine" of any kind. This is why I refuse to investigate a source you yourself won't take the time to quote (to provide your argument in a concise manner). In this case it backs up what I've previously said while not at all backing up what you have said (that "desire for the transcendent or divine is natural to all humans").

-- Just because we dig up one ancient cave-shaman doesn't mean we should then go ahead and conclude "the desire for the divine was inherent at the beginning". What's equally likely is that something about being incredibly superstitious confers some kind of survival/reproduction advantage, and so superstition wielding groups tended to spread (just like how a vigorous policy of conversion (I.E: christian missionary work) is beneficial for the spread of the religion), and so that's why superstitiousness is a common (but not universal) human trait.--

The second link from "historytoday.com" is behind some kind of subscription wall...

The third link shows the existence of an animistic python worshiping cult and shaman from 70k years ago. What did it mean to them though? Was the snake divine? Was the snake their transcendent link to something? Maybe they hoped the python would devour their enemies or help to ensure a good crop harvest. Who knows? It's just another shaman preaching random beliefs, and we don't even know what they were. Not every group had a shaman and not ever shaman would have preached metaphysical truth (some of them would have been primarily medicine men who share wisdom and provide leadership, which might be important in some harsh environments).

If you want to hold it in your head that religious belief is somehow an important aspect of human cognition, I won't actually hold it against you. Not all humans have the same desires or think in similar ways. Religious belief might actually be intrinsic to your mind and if that's what makes you happy then go for it. But I must disagree on the strongest possible grounds that "desire for the transcendent or divine" is common to all humans, or that "it was there from the beginning".

In my eyes, that's not an increase in freedom. That's an increase in freedom to not be committed and devoted, an increase in freedom to be a selfish snitch. I don't want that kind of freedom, you can keep it for yourself. Your kids will pay the price by their broken family. — Agustino

What do you mean "snitch"? Is that like, where the woman or the man complains to the judge that their spouse cheated on them?

LOL! Who needs personal rights and freedoms if they can't even enjoy them? If you can't even have a family because divorce rates are so high, who needs this freedom? What will we do with it? Wipe our buttoms? You're talking as if freedom was a good in itself. — Agustino

You're talking about marriage as if it's good in itself. Sometimes marriage is not good and in the old world where divorce rates were low, spousal abuse was prevalent.

If two people get married and then get divorced, it's not the fault of some societal divorce rate that demanded they be separated. You're griping about the behavior of free humans as it's some terrible force that is going to destroy you. I really don't get it: the freedom to divorce is actually the un-freedom to stay married???????

There's no law that says a certain number of people must be divorced, that's just a behavioral trend....

Well leave me out of discussion, I'm a smart guy. Let's talk about your average man, who isn't that well-educated, isn't aware of all the social trends, doesn't know what kind of women to look for, etc. He's the one who will pay the price, not people like me. And if you tell him that he's absolutely free to get married and stay married, that's like telling a black slave 100 years ago he's absolutely free to run away and live on his own! It's fucking bullshit, and we both know it's bullshit. The social environment isn't conducive, on the whole, towards life-long marriage. Most people cannot escape their social environment, nor should it be expected of them to do so. — Agustino

O.K, so, the whole "that's like telling a slave" argument is beyond ridiculous. If you're legally a slave and are physically restrained from doing something, this is different then being free to try something and to fail.

If we apply this brand of logic to, for example, your economic views, then we can see that statistically most people are not wealthy or well off. Telling someone that they're free to get rich in the free market is like telling a slave that they're free to escape, because statistically they will fail..... Right?

Yes, if he dies while trying to escape, the slave can thank his inability to run faster or his inability to live up to whatever standards he set for himself. Great one mate >:O — Agustino

Each to his need, each to his ability? Is that what you're trying to say?

Define abusive. If, for example, your wife doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, that doesn't count as abusive. Please remember that. — Agustino

Abusive would be forcing your spouse to have sex when they don't want to. Uh... Please remember that?

No, I mean introducing the local religion to children in school, and discussing the concepts involved, whether they be moral, about the afterlife, or otherwise. It seems that the only kind of religious education you can think of is one where people are told "This is what you have to believe. Now believe it". Your imagination is quite poor. — Agustino

What if the class decides that the local religion is irrational and immoral?

And does it seem to you we have achieved that much? Man does not live on bread alone. — Agustino

Yes we have achieved that much. See: modernity.

Also, arguments do not live on vague metaphors alone. The bread bit does nothing for me.

Nope, that's not what I said. Again, get your facts straight mate. Seems like you can't even understand what I'm telling you. — Agustino

Forgive me for not being able to keep your meaningless terms straight. You have yet to define the transcendent or the divine. I thought we were talking about desire for god.

This is false. — Agustino

It's just as plausible as your assertion that all humans have "an innate desire for the divine" (did I get that right?).

That's according to whom? According to you? Because as far as I know, most people who believe in spiritual enlightenment (take Wayfarer on this forum) would disagree with you. — Agustino

Yes that's according to me. (Sorry Wayfarer!). It's by your own words that I reason this though; you speak of a coming desire for the divine or the transcendent where hedonic pleasure won't be sufficient. You even referred to it as a natural human drive; something psychological. So even by your own admission and description, you are just following the natural drives that your mind is geared toward, and following what it is geared toward makes you happy.

Happiness and pleasure are not the same. — Agustino

Happiness is different for different people, but we can all agree that pain and pleasure have at least some relationship with it.

:s Riiiiiight, a bunch of (mostly) Christians mentioned that freedom is given to man by a God of NATURE! I don't know where you're making this stuff up from, but you may like to provide some sources. — Agustino

The declaration of independence states "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.". But the constitution of America (the thing that founds and grounds the legal framework of the entire state) does not mention god and establishes freedom from religion in the 1st amendment. My sources are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of America.

Why did they explicitly make it so that no religion could ever become a state religion (or gain favored legal status over another religion) if America was to be founded on Christianity?

Right, so I suppose if someone at a party jokes about how he'd like to fuck your wife, that's alright no? He was just joking! Or even better, your wife jokes about giving them a blowjob. That's very "decent". Or your mother jokes about giving a blowjob to a random guy. That's certainly what people should be doing, so long as they're just joking right? — Agustino

Do you know what a false moral equivalence is? It's when you try to compare two things and say that one is just as bad as the other when in reality the two things are entirely different. Joking about fucking someone's wife is different than joking about offering blowjobs, which is also different than your wife joking about offering blowjobs. You make it sound like any joke which is vaguely offensive to anyone's sensibilities is a bad joke. You sure you haven't been drinking that political correctness cool-aid?

Society should discourage vice and sin, even if only for the bad social effects it has (including by the way rising divorce rates). — Agustino

What exactly do you mean by "discourage"? Are you really just saying that society should adopt and promote your own moral standards?

In short, who determines what "sin" is?

I don't know who taught you this bullshit, but no. We like our women strong, decent, moral, and upstanding, not running around promising blowjobs. — Agustino

So you like your women with successful professional careers, the ability to choose if and when they have children, and the freedom to marry another woman if they so choose?

No you're right... How dare that woman offer blowjobs... The end is nigh.

Yes, I wouldn't deceive people with a carrot like you seem to like doing. A carrot that never satisfies them and just makes them hungrier. — Agustino

That's because I sell actual carrots. You just allude to this magical invisible carrot that will satisfy you forever. You peddle the promise of ultimate gratification, ultimate fulfillment, while I offer a basic but genuine staple of human life: enjoyment.

If you want to beat me in sales, it's not too late to change products...

No, I don't have to satisfy your laziness and inability to read a source provided to you because you think it's not good without even reading it. :-} — Agustino

It's very amusing how you're able to turn "please selectively quote or reference your own sources to compose an argument" into "you're too lazy to read any and all sources i provide and construct my argument for me? Pshaw I say! PSHAW!"

No, it was a British position, not a Christian one. The law was written by the British government, not the Church. — Agustino

The law was written by the British government but it was informed by prevailing religious views amongst it's people. The bible describes homosexuality as abominable and would have definitely contributed to why Christians have had such lasting negative positions towards homosexuals (we can look at the lynching of gays in America as an anecdotal starting point).

One value of democracy is not that it absolutely prevents arbitrary (and wrongful) religious moral standards from holding sway in society, it's more so that it permits us to escape those religious moral standards, as a society, as the people change and progress more quickly than their religious doctrines.

Actually, again you are bullshitting. The part in Leviticus that you're quoting is part of God's Mosaic Covenant with the Jews at one particular time in history. What does this have to do with Christianity today? The Mosaic Covenant wasn't just a religion, but a state as well. Jewish religious leaders would prescribe the laws as well. Us Christians read that as instructive history (for example you can understand from that that homosexual sex is sinful, and the punishment for sin is death). — Agustino

I mean, this is a nice try disturbing mental back-flip and all, but Jesus himself stated that the ancient laws were still good. And it's not as if it makes much sense that god went into extraordinary detail about the moral standards expected of the Jews but then later on changed his mind about what is moral. You might not be sent to hell for it thanks to Jesus, but sin is sin right?

What I don't get is what you mean by "instructive history". I know you believe homosexuality is sinful, but do you also believe that they should be put to death for it?

What does that have to do with the virtue of Charity again? — Agustino

You suggested we've abandoned charity. We clearly have not.

To live virtuously in a way that honours God. — Agustino

If only there was a God to be found that we could waste time honoring...

One second you say courage hasn't gone anywhere, the other you talk about the millions of teens who can't do anything better but stay glued to social media. Makes much sense. — Agustino

You're going to have to be a bit more specific. Teens glued to social media has nothing to do with courage. Perhaps you think yourself courageous for not being glued to social media, or for living the good Christian life-style, and maybe in some ways you are, but teens glued to social media vs being religious is not what comes to mind when I think of the kind of courage it takes to perpetuate human society...

Well serve is the wrong word. Women are there to help men, among other things. — Agustino

HA! Why can't women just be there without some necessary role of subservience to men? You do realize that most modern Christians side with me on this right?

Seriously? By destroying families? By making children suffer? By increasing conflicts? By increasing harmful emotions like jealousy, anger, hatred? — Agustino

Sometimes divorce is easier on the children than the destructive relationship of the parents were it to be maintained.

Regarding promiscuity, how often is it the cause of divorce? I wonder if something like a rise in the cost of living (which subsequently now on average has both parents working full-time jobs to make ends meet) might have an effect on their relationship or if the subsequent time spent apart might even be a factor contributing to promiscuity itself.... I wonder...

It seems to me you don't understand what charity is. — Agustino

It seems you no longer understand your own point here: you tried to say that we've abandoned these values (selflessness and charity among others) and that's why the west will collapse. Me pointing out that we still have these things contradicts your premise that we've abandoned them.

P.S, if you are truly selfless then give away all of your posessions. W.W.J.D?

Right, you want to remain stuck in your narrow self-chosen prison. I see. — Agustino

Actually I refuse to enter the fun-house maze of corridors and distorted mirrors you've tried to beckon me into. All you need to do is quote the bit in the source material that you think makes your point. It's so easy, you don't even need to paraphrase it.

If you're going to be lazy, there's no point in having a conversation. — Agustino

That's how I feel when you hurl a link at me and say "read it" as your only argument or rebuttal to a specific point.

No, we aren't. Again, man does not live on bread alone. More bread doesn't mean more prosperous. — Agustino

Yes because according to you prosperity is a function of religiosity.

Man actually needs something other than bread to live on. I agree: they need a circus; games.

Bread and circuses kept the roman masses appeased for centuries, long after they'd lost their precious republic.

"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses".

It wasn't religion that they'd lost, it was a sound grasp of the fundamental principles of democracy and why it's important to participate in it, and their ability to do so. Circuses and games then became the highlights of roman life.

When the bread train slowed, and the now poor masses then felt the extreme squeeze of poverty and societal neglect, Christianity was born.

Had there been more bread and better circuses, nobody would have noticed the crucifixion of one carpenter.

I'm sure you would make your own arguments if you actually cared. And then I might actually respond to them. As it stands though, I'm not at all interested in being sent around the internet at the speed of your google searches; read your own source material and compose an actual argument... Please... — VagabondSpectre

:s :-}

So you say it's a religious connection. That's your conclusion. What are your premises and evidence? — VagabondSpectre

The fact that they buried their dead, the religious paintings, the fact that they had rituals, shamans, and all the other stuff we can now identify as being associated with a religious impulse.

I thought you were talking about god but I guess you were talking about something even more vague... — VagabondSpectre

Yes, you thought that because your reading comprehension skills are very poor. I was very clear that I'm talking about the divine/transcendent. As for what the divine/transcendent refers to, it refers to anything spiritual, anything which shows evidence of pushing beyond the merely material realm. Burying one's dead for example is a sign of respect for them. If they had no spiritual impulse, they wouldn't give a shit about burying the dead and showing respect to them, because why would they? They are dead, they're no more, what's the point of respecting someone who doesn't exist anymore?

I'm sure you know that Islam was "spread by the sword" during a certain period of time, but how do you feel about the Christian crusades or evangelical missionary works? In very ancient times there was no conquering monotheistic god to speak of, that shit came after the end of paganism in Rome. — VagabondSpectre

No, these religions were successful because they gained, rather quickly, a critical level of followers. Even if there were no Crusades, Christianity would still be a huge religion. As would, by the way, Islam. Sharing the religion, not necessarily through conquest, is part of ALL religions, pretty much. A follower of a religion has something good, he is likely to want to share it.

In very ancient times there was no conquering monotheistic god to speak of, that shit came after the end of paganism in Rome. — VagabondSpectre

Exactly, and religions still existed and flourished without it :) My point isn't about the idea of One God, but of the transcendent.

Yes that's according to me. (Sorry Wayfarer!). It's by your own words that I reason this though; you speak of a coming desire for the divine or the transcendent where hedonic pleasure won't be sufficient. You even referred to it as a natural human drive; something psychological. So even by your own admission and description, you are just following the natural drives that your mind is geared toward, and following what it is geared toward makes you happy. — VagabondSpectre

Hedonic pleasure is never good, not that it won't be sufficient. Hedonic pleasure is any pleasure which is made into the highest good, and isn't aligned in its proper place.

Happiness is different for different people, but we can all agree that pain and pleasure have at least some relationship with it. — VagabondSpectre

That depends what you mean by "pleasure".

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them — VagabondSpectre

Right, it seems they made a distinction between the natural laws (including what is known in philosophy as natural morality) and God, who is above those laws.

Why did they explicitly make it so that no religion could ever become a state religion (or gain favored legal status over another religion) if America was to be founded on Christianity? — VagabondSpectre

Because people of other religions were free to make their home in the US? Because religion is different from government? :s This position by the way is a very Christian one - render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

Joking about fucking someone's wife is different than joking about offering blowjobs, which is also different than your wife joking about offering blowjobs. — VagabondSpectre

First of all, "joking" about that when millions of young girls are watching and looking at you as their model is completely unacceptable. Second of all, Madonna has been married in the past, and more importantly she has 6 children, so yes, I think her joking about that is just as terrible as your wife joking about that would be.

You make it sound like any joke which is vaguely offensive to anyone's sensibilities is a bad joke. You sure you haven't been drinking that political correctness cool-aid? — VagabondSpectre

No, that's not what I've suggested. I've suggested that demeaning sexual jokes of a vulgar kind have no place in the public arena.

In short, who determines what "sin" is? — VagabondSpectre

Tradition, reason, natural moral laws.

So you like your women with successful professional careers, the ability to choose if and when they have children, and the freedom to marry another woman if they so choose? — VagabondSpectre

Women should absolutely be able to have successful professional careers if that's what they want. Women should choose ALONG WITH THEIR HUSBANDS when to have children, and they should be "free" to live with other women, but not marry them, as marriage is a religious institution and is hence bound by religious laws which define it as being the union between a man and a woman.

No you're right... How dare that woman offer blowjobs... The end is nigh. — VagabondSpectre

Promiscuity whether it comes from men or women, is indeed a serious moral problem of the modern world.

That's because I sell actual carrots. You just allude to this magical invisible carrot that will satisfy you forever. You peddle the promise of ultimate gratification, ultimate fulfillment, while I offer a basic but genuine staple of human life: enjoyment.

If you want to beat me in sales, it's not too late to change products... — VagabondSpectre

Religion has already beaten you in sales, by FAR! You better pick it up faster if you ever want to catch up.

The law was written by the British government but it was informed by prevailing religious views amongst it's people. The bible describes homosexuality as abominable and would have definitely contributed to why Christians have had such lasting negative positions towards homosexuals (we can look at the lynching of gays in America as an anecdotal starting point). — VagabondSpectre

Number one, the Bible did not actually describe homosexuality as abominable, but rather homosexual sex. That's an entirely different thing. Number two, there is a difference between religion and government, which is biblically supported.

One value of democracy is not that it absolutely prevents arbitrary (and wrongful) religious moral standards from holding sway in society, it's more so that it permits us to escape those religious moral standards, as a society, as the people change and progress more quickly than their religious doctrines. — VagabondSpectre

Well only a madman would call rising divorce rates well into 50%+, and rising promiscuity and sexual immorality as progress. You are aware that poor men and women, the most vulnerable in society, and their children, suffer the most out of these developments right? Many women in today's world, especially if they come from a poorer background, cannot find a man who respects and values them.

but Jesus himself stated that the ancient laws were still good. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, but only with reference to the Mosaic Covenant. Christians don't have a Mosaic Covenant with God.

And it's not as if it makes much sense that god went into extraordinary detail about the moral standards expected of the Jews but then later on changed his mind about what is moral. — VagabondSpectre

It absolutely does, because first of all those additional laws were meant to be advice for the Jewish people at that particular time in history, not forever. The essential, unchanging laws are represented by the 10 Commandments, the Noahide laws and natural morality.

I know you believe homosexuality is sinful, but do you also believe that they should be put to death for it? — VagabondSpectre

No I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe homosexual sex is a sin. The two are different. One is being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while the other is engaging in sex with members of the same gender. The act itself is punishment enough (I'm a virtue ethicist). In addition, it's not up to us to punish people for sin, so long as that sin doesn't cause any other social sins which impact others. God will render justice unto the end - as promised, the punishment for sin will be death, regardless of what that sin is. But the vengeance will belong to God, not to human beings. "The vengeance is mine, saith the Lord".

You suggested we've abandoned charity. We clearly have not. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, the fact that there's millions of charity organisations doesn't mean we haven't abandoned charity. The existence of such organisations has little to do with the virtue of charity.

HA! Why can't women just be there without some necessary role of subservience to men? — VagabondSpectre

Who told you women are subservient? I just told you that the Bible says that women are helpers to men. Helpers are not servants or slaves. Helpers have an equal position to the one helped, or higher.

You do realize that most modern Christians side with me on this right? — VagabondSpectre

:s if by that you mean that Christians don't believe that women are slaves to men, of course! We absolutely don't believe that. Women are highly valued in Christianity.

Regarding promiscuity, how often is it the cause of divorce? I wonder if something like a rise in the cost of living (which subsequently now on average has both parents working full-time jobs to make ends meet) might have an effect on their relationship or if the subsequent time spent apart might even be a factor contributing to promiscuity itself.... I wonder... — VagabondSpectre

Very often. Promiscuity prior to marriage is also very important, because old habits die hard. If you don't prepare to respect and save yourself for your spouse (or at least do your best to), then clearly you're not going to be able to keep your marriage intact either.

Economic factors do have a role to play, but it's not fundamental. If people were virtuous, they would not be promiscuous, regardless of external circumstances. It's an excuse that many like to use to justify their sin.

P.S, if you are truly selfless then give away all of your posessions. W.W.J.D? — VagabondSpectre

I would, if I thought that's actually the way of doing the most good.

Yes because according to you prosperity is a function of religiosity. — VagabondSpectre

Not only a function of spiritual well-being, but that's also very relevant.

Man actually needs something other than bread to live on. I agree: they need a circus; games. — VagabondSpectre

Bread and circus is just a means of controlling and enslaving a peoples. Not a way of maximising their well-being. And don't forget that the Romans were religious, by the way.

The fact that they buried their dead, the religious paintings, the fact that they had rituals, shamans, and all the other stuff we can now identify as being associated with a religious impulse. — Agustino

We should not just assume that ALL of them had shamans and rituals just because we've found that SOME of them did.

Also, which cave-paintings are distinctly spiritual or religious? Is a half-man half antelope really a sign of religious impulse?

Burying the dead is very practical if you don't want disease and vermin to run rampant or to be given a constant and hideous reminder of your own mortality. That said, different cultures used different rituals; the only thing they all have in common is that they disposed of the dead. Some of them did it by just leaving a corpse up on a mountainside for the birds to consume, some did it by burning the body, and some did it by burial. Burial of the dead is interesting because it is so very common, but it can be done without meaning behind the ritual and should not be taken as necessarily an innate expression of human religious thinking because it's also the most obvious way of dealing with a rotting corpse; it's common sense. The building of tombs might be as much an expression by wanting permanence in the material world and in the memory of the living as much as it is a statement about a next life.

Yes, you thought that because your reading comprehension skills are very poor. I was very clear that I'm talking about the divine/transcendent. As for what the divine/transcendent refers to, it refers to anything spiritual, anything which shows evidence of pushing beyond the merely material realm. Burying one's dead for example is a sign of respect for them. If they had no spiritual impulse, they wouldn't give a shit about burying the dead and showing respect to them, because why would they? They are dead, they're no more, what's the point of respecting someone who doesn't exist anymore? — Agustino

You've been anything but clear. Remember when you said "So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning", right after saying "The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind."? Then when I brought up Jainism and Buddhism you decided that desire for god was never included in your original position, and instead "anything spiritual" is what you meant. You accuse my reading and comprehension skills of being poor only as a means to cover the sloppy ordering of your own ideas.

Even now you recede further into vagueness: "divine/transcendent refers to anything spiritual, anything which shows evidence of pushing beyond the merely material realm.". Anything beyond the material realm? In this case I'm not sure how burying dead corpses or remembering the person as they lived is in anyway necessarily beyond the physical. Strictly speaking we celebrate the lives of those who die for our own reasons as much for spiritual ones (I.E: mourning as opposed to ensuring they pass safely to the next world)

No, these religions were successful because they gained, rather quickly, a critical level of followers. Even if there were no Crusades, Christianity would still be a huge religion. As would, by the way, Islam. Sharing the religion, not necessarily through conquest, is part of ALL religions, pretty much. A follower of a religion has something good, he is likely to want to share it. — Agustino

If Christianity and Islam didn't at some point gain through attempts at conversion and conquest, maybe some other religion might have become dominant. Zoroastrianism? Perhaps the Egyptian gods?

If Constantine didn't make Christianity the official religion of Rome, it might have been lost to time like so many other religions. Would Christianity still have spread if it didn't benefit from the ability to travel on the roads built by roman conquest?

Exactly, and religions still existed and flourished without it :) My point isn't about the idea of One God, but of the transcendent. — Agustino

My point in this case was that the popular religions were the one's with conquest behind them. For instance, when a Roman general would strut back into town with a fortune in loot, he would most likely build a shrine or donate a large portion of it to his favorite cult, or else would invest in games or public works (like a bath house) in order to gain the praise and support of the masses. The bigger shrines generally have more successful generals to thank.

Hedonic pleasure is never good, not that it won't be sufficient. Hedonic pleasure is any pleasure which is made into the highest good, and isn't aligned in its proper place. — Agustino

I don't quite understand what you mean, and if I do I think it irrational; I don't equate specific pleasures with the highest good, but I do incorporate pleasure itself (as a whole) into what for me is the highest good (happiness).

It seems like you're saying that if I value pleasure above god or some other spiritual nonsense then I'm engaging in hedonism. Really all your saying is that deriving happiness from anything other than the transcendent is hedonism.

That depends what you mean by "pleasure". — Agustino

Well what do you mean by pleasure?

I mean comfort and the avoidance of pain. For instance, if you were to lose your right hand in an accident, the pain would affect your happiness, as would the ease with which you carry on in life thanks to the disability.

Right, it seems they made a distinction between the natural laws (including what is known in philosophy as natural morality) and God, who is above those laws. — Agustino

They made a distinction that they have the right to self governance. They said: "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" meaning that the laws of nature and the god of that nature entitle them to self governance. They did not however establish any kind of specific religious authority or what the laws of god actually are beyond permitting self-governance. And in the constitution, they not only did not mention god, but they established the separation of church and state.

All I said was that the founding of America was based on the rights and will of the people, not some arbitrary religious values. This is really uncontroversial stuff. The monarchs of old who claimed divine connection could be said to be religiously founded states, but not America.

Because people of other religions were free to make their home in the US? Because religion is different from government? :s This position by the way is a very Christian one - render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. — Agustino

It's also a christian position that the king is unto his subjects as god is unto all of man kind. (you're a King James reader right?)

But it seems you're now agreeing with me. America and it's government is different than religion; it wasn't founded on religion. America was distinctly founded on ideals of freedom, including the freedom to be irreligious.

First of all, "joking" about that when millions of young girls are watching and looking at you as their model is completely unacceptable. Second of all, Madonna has been married in the past, and more importantly she has 6 children, so yes, I think her joking about that is just as terrible as your wife joking about that would be. — Agustino

The only people who stand to suffer emotional harm from this are her children, and if her children really cannot tolerate her making a joke, then that's between Madonna and her children.

She is not the model for millions of young girls, she's 58 (no offense Madonna, you look sexy as ever but the kids have their new trends and all). Even if she was, then it's up to parents to censure and censor what media their child consumes.

But with the entire Western world of promiscuity laid before you, you choose to use Madonna joking about blowjobs as a point of contention??? You could have at least chosen someone like Miley Cyrus or something. Maybe some degree of sexualization is harmful for society, but you would be hard pressed to come up with good, specific, and useful answers in that regard.

--Blowjobs outside of the marriage bed are not to be feared--

No, that's not what I've suggested. I've suggested that demeaning sexual jokes of a vulgar kind have no place in the public arena. — Agustino

It depends on the sensibility/sensitivity of the public. If that kind of humor really has no place in the public then the public will naturally sanction her. The argument you have against vulgar humor is your own sensitivity and appealing to traditional cultural and religious values.

Tradition, reason, natural moral laws. — Agustino

Natural moral laws are a bit controversial, although there's some merit in some of it's postulates. Reason is a great source of morality.

But tradition? How can something be moral or immoral (sin or not sin) just because it happens to be a traditional position?

Some traditional positions are distinctly immoral, need I list some?

If you want a reason based morality, then do away with your wanton and fallacious appeals to tradition.

Women should absolutely be able to have successful professional careers if that's what they want. Women should choose ALONG WITH THEIR HUSBANDS when to have children, and they should be "free" to live with other women, but not marry them, as marriage is a religious institution and is hence bound by religious laws which define it as being the union between a man and a woman. — Agustino

Thinking you have the right to legally forbid something that doesn't harm you on the grounds that it belongs to your religion is blatantly immoral per the standards of modern Western society. Marriage confers economic privileges which should not be denied to gays. You should not even have the right to forbid them from calling it "marriage", because all you're basing that on are your god's morals and your hurt feelings...

I don't understand why gay marriage upsets the religious so much. If they aren't hurting you, what's your problem? Does it make baby Jesus weep or something?

And just to clarify, if a women decides they want to have no kids, should the man married to her (who wants kids) have the right to decide for her? Wouldn't divorce be more appropriate?

Promiscuity whether it comes from men or women, is indeed a serious moral problem of the modern world. — Agustino

A serious problem? Why? Because it leads to divorce? Why is that a serious problem? Because it hurts the kids????

What hurts more, being trapped in a dysfunctional household or living with a single parent?

Religion has already beaten you in sales, by FAR! You better pick it up faster if you ever want to catch up. — Agustino

If we look at the number of religious folk (in the west) who actually attend religious functions and behave in a religious manner, they're pretty much all behaving like secular atheists. Now-a-days people are much more concerned with real carrots than they are metaphysical ones.

Number one, the Bible did not actually describe homosexuality as abominable, but rather homosexual sex. That's an entirely different thing. Number two, there is a difference between religion and government, which is biblically supported. — Agustino

Whether the act or the person was described as abominable makes very little difference. It still says gays should be put to death.

Well only a madman would call rising divorce rates well into 50%+, and rising promiscuity and sexual immorality as progress. You are aware that poor men and women, the most vulnerable in society, and their children, suffer the most out of these developments right? Many women in today's world, especially if they come from a poorer background, cannot find a man who respects and values them. — Agustino

The poor suffer more when social welfare programs are de-funded than they do from divorce. But again, here you somehow equate freedom to divorce with the un-freedom to stay married. When marriages fail we might be causing more harm by forcing them to live together. The host of factors which contribute to divorce (and the negative effects some divorces might have on children) extends well beyond promiscuity and irreligion as causative drivers.

Sure, but only with reference to the Mosaic Covenant. Christians don't have a Mosaic Covenant with God. — Agustino

So your god has a double standard then? The chosen people are given the long form god-morality but the Christians, being less, are given the Morality-for-Dummies version?

It absolutely does, because first of all those additional laws were meant to be advice for the Jewish people at that particular time in history, not forever. The essential, unchanging laws are represented by the 10 Commandments, the Noahide laws and natural morality. — Agustino

So, it's not sinful to disobey the laws of the Mosiac covenant if you're not Jewish or lived outside a certain time period? (or sin depends on who and when you are?).

Forgive me but it seems odd that god should give very very specific set of "moral advice" to a group of "his chosen" and then somehow later on some people decide "oh well those moral laws don't apply to us". What changed regarding the morality of homosexuals being put to death for instance? (also, the idea that it was "advice" is kind of off. It was an agreement between god and the jews; a kind of contract)

Let's look at the Noahide laws though...

Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat from a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws. — God?

So you believe in theocracy?

No I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe homosexual sex is a sin. The two are different. One is being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while the other is engaging in sex with members of the same gender. The act itself is punishment enough (I'm a virtue ethicist). In addition, it's not up to us to punish people for sin, so long as that sin doesn't cause any other social sins which impact others. God will render justice unto the end - as promised, the punishment for sin will be death, regardless of what that sin is. But the vengeance will belong to God, not to human beings. "The vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". — Agustino

So essentially you would put it to homosexuals like this: "Listen, I know you're attracted to the same sex, but if you can just resist the drive to carry out your biological urges then you will be granted entrance into this ultimate and dope eternal afterlife which will dwarf whatever carnal pleasure you are in search of. Furthermore if you don't heed my warning then god is going to send you to hell to suffer forever and ever and ever."

Does that sound about right?

Yeah, the fact that there's millions of charity organisations doesn't mean we haven't abandoned charity. The existence of such organisations has little to do with the virtue of charity. — Agustino

But your point was that we have abandoned charity and therefore the west will collapse. It really doesn't seem like we've actually abandoned charity. Can you explain why we have in light of the millions of charity organizations which exist?

Who told you women are subservient? I just told you that the Bible says that women are helpers to men. Helpers are not servants or slaves. Helpers have an equal position to the one helped, or higher. — Agustino

Are men helpers to women? We are all just a bunch o' happy helpy helpers?

What do you actually mean by "helpers to men"?

:s if by that you mean that Christians don't believe that women are slaves to men, of course! We absolutely don't believe that. Women are highly valued in Christianity. — Agustino

Are they valued more than men even?

Why do we have to ascribe value based on sex? That's sexism...

Very often. Promiscuity prior to marriage is also very important, because old habits die hard. If you don't prepare to respect and save yourself for your spouse (or at least do your best to), then clearly you're not going to be able to keep your marriage intact either.

Economic factors do have a role to play, but it's not fundamental. If people were virtuous, they would not be promiscuous, regardless of external circumstances. It's an excuse that many like to use to justify their sin. — Agustino

Not everyone wants to be perfectly virtuous and not everyone shares your opinion about what is virtuous.

I wonder if you think it equally compromising for a woman to engage in per-marital sex as for a man to do so. Just curious...

Not only a function of spiritual well-being, but that's also very relevant. — Agustino

Well what else is there? According to you actual bread and actual carrots are valueless...

Bread and circus is just a means of controlling and enslaving a peoples. Not a way of maximising their well-being. And don't forget that the Romans were religious, by the way. — Agustino

Some Romans would argue that religion is just another way of controlling and enslaving a people, and has very little to do with maximizing good other than providing a source for social organization (even if irrational in it's basis)

Personally I would argue that religion is not essential to human life, while things like bread and carrots are. Yes yes, man does not live on bread alone, but that's just a platitude you keep restating which has no more rational strength than me stating the opposite.

I remain unconvinced that any religion, including Christianity, enables people to live significantly better lives. — Heister Eggcart

But you couldn't know this unless you actually became a Christian.

Because most religious folks are more concerned with issues of an afterlife instead of, "spending [their] heaven doing good on earth." — Heister Eggcart

It could be that concern for the afterlife (salvation) is the best way to do good on earth.

But you couldn't know this unless you actually became a Christian. — Thorongil

Must I become a Christian in order for me to judge self-professed Christians' actions? Surely a "Christian" who fails to act morally is living a worse life, no? Additionally, must I be a Christian in order to understand what justifies a person being a Christian or not? Do I need to be an Islamist Jihadi in order to fully realize what it means to be a Islamist Jihadi? Perhaps I'm missing out on some truth by not being an Islamist. And if I'm not missing out, wouldn't your denying such a possibility be adequate judgement enough for whether being an Islamist is prohibitive of living a better life? If so, why can you judge Islamism and I can't judge Christianity?

Also, I'm not denying that I may live a better, more moral life by being a Christian, but that, as I said, religion isn't a foolproof system that ensures you, me, or anyone else from living poorer lives.

It could be that concern for the afterlife (salvation) is the best way to do good on earth. — Thorongil

Only if you equate salvation to a life-after.

Also, I'm not denying that I may live a better, more moral life by being a Christian, but that, as I said, religion isn't a foolproof system that ensures you, me, or anyone else from living poorer lives. — Heister Eggcart

Alright, that's what I had in mind. I realize you can judge the morality of others who claim to be Christian, but I'm interested in whether one, as an individual, may live a better life by being a Christian. It seems to me that it's possible, so then the question becomes why or why not one should become one.

I'm still waiting for you analysis of this Eggcartus:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/78859

I remember you just talking in that post. What exactly do you want me to respond to?

Right, I was just talking :-} :P :

• Do you say that these strains of Buddhism produce more of what you've identified as "the better life" than Christianity?
• Which are these strains of Buddhism, and can you offer some examples of people who exemplify this better life?
• What's your take on the coming disappearance of Buddhism as per the statistics I've presented? — Agustino

I asked you these three questions.

Right, I was just talking — Agustino

You do a lot of that. I'm not the only poster who could tell you that.

• Do you say that these strains of Buddhism produce more of what you've identified as "the better life" than Christianity? — Agustino

More moral people? Perhaps. A lot of Buddhist asceticism enables the good, just as Christian asceticism can and does.

• Which are these strains of Buddhism, and can you offer some examples of people who exemplify this better life? — Agustino

Again, a "better life" means one that is more moral than what came before. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morally upright people. I shouldn't have to name you Buddhists, including Buddha himself, for you to see how others can live good lives.

• What's your take on the coming disappearance of Buddhism as per the statistics I've presented? — Agustino

How many "Buddhists" really want to come to terms with the basic tenant, "life is suffering"? Few.

You do a lot of that. I'm not the only poster who could tell you that. — Heister Eggcart

Well, I don't know about that, but statistically, you are the only one ;)

Again, a "better life" means one that is more moral than what came before. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morally upright people. I shouldn't have to name you Buddhists, including Buddha himself, for you to see how others can live good lives. — Heister Eggcart

Ehmmm... Number one, I think you should read the darn question again lol... :P

Number two, I've never suggested in this thread that people of other religions cannot live good lives, so I don't see why you're bringing that one up.

Number three, you yourself said previously that "certain strains" of Buddhism lead to a better life - so I'm asking you, what strains of Buddhism are you talking about? What Buddhists have you read about or know (excluding Buddha for now, because we're talking about the followers of a religion not its founders) that are so living?

How many "Buddhists" really want to come to terms with the basic tenant, "life is suffering"? Few. — Heister Eggcart

Sure enough, but what the hell does this have to do with the question I've asked? :s >:O Do you just mean to suggest that Buddhism is losing adherents because not many people want to accept that "life is suffering"?

Ehmmm... Number one, I think you should read the darn question again lol... — Agustino

One moment, let me get my pen and paper and tally up how many moral people each religion has produced...is that what you're asking? Cause I can't do that. And neither can you.

Number two, I've never suggested in this thread that people of other religions cannot live good lives, so I don't see why you're bringing that one up. — Agustino

Well I believe that's how I was defining a "better life." One that is more moral. My position is merely that a person can live a more moral life by being either a Buddhist or a Christian.

Number three, you yourself said previously that "certain strains" of Buddhism lead to a better life - so I'm asking you, what strains of Buddhism are you talking about? What Buddhists have you read about or know (excluding Buddha for now, because we're talking about the followers of a religion not its founders) that are so living? — Agustino

This is essentially a thread in itself. I'd be happy to respond if you flesh out the question here. It's like asking the same about Christianity. Saying "Catholic>Methodist" doesn't really tell anyone anything.

Sure enough, but what the hell does this have to do with the question I've asked? :s >:O Do you just mean to suggest that Buddhism is losing adherents because not many people want to accept that "life is suffering"? — Agustino

Simplistically speaking, yes. I think many religious people like to skip steps, Buddhists included. "Is life suffering? Meh, I'll just pull out my yoga mat." "Is salvation contingent upon faith and good works? Meh, I'll just believe and do whatever the fuck I want!"

Just small but important point, to repeat what I posted before. Buddhism is most definitely not going away. Currently around 5 million adherents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country
And this projection has them not disappearing. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/buddhists/
Buddhists are on six continents, and it would not be surprising if some Antarctican researchers were followers too. It might be interesting if Islam and Christianity could armwrestle for the heavyweight title, but it is not the only show in town. Thanks. Carry on!

One moment, let me get my pen and paper and tally up how many moral people each religion has produced...is that what you're asking? Cause I can't do that. And neither can you. — Heister Eggcart

No, that's not what I'm asking. When you first popped around the forum, I remember you accused me of talking to you as if you were a peasant. Now it seems you've become the big boy and are talking to me as if I'm an idiot >:O

This is essentially a thread in itself. I'd be happy to respond if you flesh out the question here. It's like asking the same about Christianity. Saying "Catholic>Methodist" doesn't really tell anyone anything. — Heister Eggcart

The only reason I'm asking you is because you yourself have referred to certain strains of Buddhism. These are your own words. You didn't refer to Buddhism as a whole, but to certain strains. After Christianity of which I know the most because I am a Christian, Buddhism is the religion that takes second place in terms of my knowledge. So what strains are you referring to? Zen Buddhism? The Thai Forest tradition? Tibetan Buddhism? It's not that hard to answer, since you yourself were thinking of certain strains when you wrote that, not of Buddhism as a whole. So I presume you don't think highly of all forms of Buddhism, but only some, just like for example you don't think that well of certain Christian denominations.

Study human history. Compare it to animal history. You can clearly see that whatever other differences, one clear difference is that humans have a NATURAL drive towards the divine, while animals don't. — Agustino

Noam Chomsky's book Why Us? is about the sudden emergence of rationality and language (and presumably self-awareness and myth-making along with it) in the form of the genus h. sapiens, about 100,000 years ago. He observes that there is a radical discontinuity between animal communication and symbolic-rational language. (I know that is not the topic of this thread, but bear with me.)

I think the case can be made that the emergence of h. sapiens is the subject of the mythological retelling of the 'myth of the fall'. The myth of the fall re-tells the emergence into self-consciousness, self-awareness, and indeed 'the self', for which a sense of oneself and things that you can gain, or loose, would become a reality; and language and rationality are intrinsic to that. Even though some animals seem to recognise death I think that overall the emergence of self-consciousness, language, tool-use and ownership marks the beginning of the self and thereby the 'knowledge of good and evil'. Why? Because prior to this stage of development, animal consciousness has no real sense of loss, of death, of alternative futures, the way things could be. So it is that the Apple is of the tree of 'the knowledge of good and evil' which coincides with the beginning of shame (the fig leaf) and the beginning of individual judgement - what I like, or think is good, and what I don't.

All ancient religious rituals, then, sought to reconcile the isolated self with the primal 'mother' or 'father' - various conceptions of deity fall under both - through returning part of what we have to the Gods (or to the ancestors) through rituals of sacrifice and atonement -animal sacrifice, the throwing of treasured possessions into the graves of departed loved ones, and so on. These are rites of atonement, i.e. at-one-ment, which aim to heal the separation and resultant existential angst which is an inevitable aspect of individual existence.

What the Christian faith offers in this context is the 'end of all sacrifice', i.e. the one supreme sacrifice by the 'source of all that is' of that which He loves most, namely, his 'Son', whereby those who believe in Him for once and for all overcome the dreadful existential anxiety of existence and are re-united with 'God in Heaven' for all eternity.

What makes this increasingly incomprehensible to the post-industrial, post-modern culture, is that the very notion of 'sacrifice', 'atonement' and 'redemption' are no longer intelligible - at least not in the way they were to pastoral cultures who were steeped in the belief of ritual sacrifice and atonement. So I think that increasingly, many of those who preach, or believe in, 'the Word' no longer understand the symbolism or the 'psycho-drama' behind the story, as the allegories, tropes and images that it is embedded in, are so remote from today's culture ('sheep?'. Although at the end of the day, that might not be so important as actually living a life which is unconditionally committed to sacrifice, compassion, service to the poor, and the other elements of the Christian faith - praxis over theoria as it were.)

Another observation is that western secular culture has become so anti-religious, that while it no longer really understands what it is rejecting, the antipathy to what it understands as 'religion' is such that it undermines any possibility of apprehending the larger truth which the symbolic forms of religion are supposed to convey. This manifests as the reflex rejection of certain ideas, ways of thought, modes of being, because they 'sound religious'. Instead we unconsciously take our cue from the generally materialist cultural milieu in which we're situated, which will automatically seek scientific, sociological, cultural or political explanations, rather than anything that sounds like it might be religious. That results in certain subtle, deep, but unmistakeable taboos, when it comes to particular lines of thought (an early insight into which I gained through Alan Watt's last book, The Book: On the Taboo against Knowing who you are).

What the Christian faith offers in this context is the 'end of all sacrifice', i.e. the one supreme sacrifice by the 'source of all that is' of that which He loves most — Wayfarer

But the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice. This is precisely the point of the Gospels. Unlike all other myths, Jesus Christ was innocent. The sacrifice wasn't necessary. He was not guilty. Read more here (I've started to adapt your tactic to send you to other sources ;) - see, I'm learning from you):
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/truth-versus-the-crowd-in-the-work-of-rene-girard/

The sacrifice wasn't necessary. — Agustino

How was it not necessary?