Old religion vs New religion

Do we need a new religion? Koanic is of the opinion that the bible contains all the holy scripture we need. Nick Steves is likely of similar opinion, saying that instead of reinventing the wheel it is easier to reinstate a formal Christian church and limit the power of religion instead of inventing a new one.

I say religion changes. Religion, being a vector of human consciousness, changes, must change, as human consciousness changes. With change in environment comes change in religious demand, which is met by prophets. Jesus was a wise prophet even if he overkilled with his holiness which served as fertile ground for today’s protestant-progressive spin-offs in which everyone is holier than Jesus. We no longer have true Christianity, only false idols. What happened to Moses when he came down the mountain has now happened to Jesus, only Jesus is no longer around to correct the mess. So it is up to us. But we are in bad shape.

We may condemn heretics for misinterpreting biblical teachings, but it is an uphill battle, for not only are we fighting heretics like Scott Aaronson, we are also fighting entryists like Dalrock. Like Jewish brahmins, Christian brahmins engage in interpretation fights around ancient texts that are never resolved by wisdom and hence are only resolved by power. He who is darkly enlightened says ‘I have come to bring the sword. Deus Vult!’ But he is neutered by entryist who says ‘No no no turn the other cheek.’

So the bible no longer suffices on its own. It is a book filled with wisdom, but its wisdom falls short in explaining what to do with thousands of Muslim immigrants living in our lands, with an elite that is involved in Satanic rituals, with men who are retreating into solitary mancaves, with women who enjoy more power than ever yet have never been more helpless. To solve this mess, to give people hope after modern society crumbles, we need new scripture. For new scripture, need new prophet. Jim is the Solomon of our time (I’m sorry Jim, as Tolstoy wrote: Napoleon’s army was as much bound by Napoleon as Napoleon was bound by his army).

An upside of modernity is that it has never been easier to create new scripture. Computers + internet = instant scripture. The downside is we have too much information. Need to condense.

As for the question How To Holify? Holifying happens in retrospect, so it is a problem that solves itself. But we can nudge the process forward. The bible tells stories of people’s lives. New scripture should follow the same script, but perhaps it should focus on life on the internet. An internet religion.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Old religion vs New religion

  1. You have to read more into the history of the church prior to the reformation and realize that personal scriptural interpretation is not a thing. Interpretation of scripture is something that is solely entrusted to the church, not individuals. Since the Church is not progressive, the interpretation does not change. You can’t just pick up a bible and declare yourself a priest, which is what the protestants effectively did. Dalrock is a protestant from what I can gather, so he’s going to come up short on a lot things.

    I just don’t see any new actual religion cropping up that people will actually follow and dedicate their lives to, thus forming cohesive tribes and communities. And even if one does, I doubt we have enough time to retool society accordingly before Islam does its thing.

    1. The Church, any church, is the sum of its participants. The church IS personal (or collective) scriptural interpretation, we just like it to be accurate interpretation. With the pope kissing refugees’ feet and Zippy outholying Spandrell on grounds of being catholic, the catholic church seems dead to me. If a new Church wants to rise in its place by copying the old Church, how does the new Church prevent a repeat of history?

      Your second point is negotiation. I don’t mind negotiation. I don’t know what is possible and whatnot. I do think new religions pop up all the time. If the old Church did it with new scripture, why can’t we?

      1. Also, Catholics also need to drop the celibate priesthood thing and allow wise, educated family men to lead parishes again.. which is also the ancient tradition.

        If you want to be celibate and dedicate your life to God and prayer, that’s what monasticism is for.

  2. A Church might be the sum of its participants, but it still needs to be hierarchical.

    Although I am not Catholic, I see the problems with them are twofold.

    First, they have no real institutional power in the public square. The institutions they do have are private, voluntary and thus need to stay financially solvent or they go away. The second, which might be related to the first is an unwillingness to purge their own heretics.

    For example, I’ve heard many stories about Catholic schools being afraid to teach real, meaty doctrine because of pushback from parents who are just looking to avoid public schools. They have to be willing to tell people it’s going to be done our way or else you can take your tuition dollars somewhere else.

    More often than not I think the problem isn’t scripture itself, it’s mustering up the courage to actually teach and practice it the way it was clearly meant.

    “I do think new religions pop up all the time. If the old Church did it with new scripture, why can’t we?”

    Yes, they do pop up, but they are typically weird offshoots of existing ones and seem to die out rather quickly or stay in small isolated sects.

    It will be extremely difficult to convince significant numbers of people to follow your new religion unless you can convince them you are working miracles. Otherwise they will write you off as a snake oil salesman or just another self help author.

        1. The masses will form myths and the upper caste will play along, but the upper caste will know the miracle stories are fake, just as we know the Jesus miracles were fake. Science has nullified magic for high IQ people.

          1. Like I said, even the masses will be skeptics in this contemporary age. Some kind of highly persuasive mechanism will be required to convince them the actual, real truth has now finally been ‘found’.

            When that persuasive mechanism amounts to some guy saying “trust me”, a few people might say “ok” but most will say “bullshit”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s