"For it is the fate of every myth to creep gradually into the narrow confines of an allegedly historical reality and to be treated by some later time as a unique fact with historical claims; and the Greeks themselves were already well down the road towards transforming their whole mythical, youthful dream, ingeniously and arbitrarily, into a historical-pragmatic history of youth. For this is usually how religions die. It happens when the mythical presuppositions of a religion become systematized as a finished sum of historical events under the severe, intellectual gaze of orthodox dogmatism, and people begin to defend anxiously the credibility of the myths while resisting every natural tendency within them to go on living and to throw out new shoots-in other words, when the feeling for myth dies and is replaced by the claim of religion to have historical foundations."
When did you realize that Christianity as a true religion is dead?
>>544701
>All these Christians focusing all their mental energy into gorunding their religious events in history
>All these attempts to gut or hide the mystical parts of their religion in an attempt to make it more presentable
They have no idea but they are destroying it all.
>>544727
Exactly this, the people who come on here swinging and apologizing for Christianity are doing exactly what they shouldn't be doing.
But Christianity (and Judaism) have always claimed to be historically-based religions. So is he saying Christianity was dead and its birth?
>>544849
You are missing the point. Religions are supposed to be there to promote a certain way of life. Right now Christianity is all about believing in the historical birth and resurrection of Jesus. The spirtual side has been neglected. Or if you go to the more 'devote' Christians than being a Christian means voting republican, having conservative political views, and not being gay.
The mystical elements have been demystified and turn into history. There is nothing magical or transcendental about them anymore. For example we can look back the Greek myths (or if you want the Norse myths) and see that they were not something you 'believed in' they were something you lived.
Ironically the neo-pagans that deny all the historical facts of their Gods and treat it like a life-style have a religion that is far more 'alive' than the Christians that literally believe in a 6 day creation. This is basically what Dostoevsky means when he said even if nothing in the bible was a historical event he would still be a Christian.
>>429457
>One of my Buddhist friends says Christianity is much more complex than Buddhism.
in a sense, since there is a crucial split between the one having faith in the sixth that is the reason/imagination and the orthodox who still have what others call mysticism.
Catholicism took the rationalist trend as opposed to Orthodoxy's mysticism. That said, the monastic life that is the main draw between Buddhism and Christianity was largely shut down by the Reformation in Europe. The Reformation was not only anti-clerical but anti-monastic so Europe's contemplative tradition is more older material and thus harder to get into for the Catholic parts of Europe that retained the monastic tradition despite. There was exceptions though. The Imitation of Christ is the standard go-to book for Catholic ascetic, akin to Orthodoxy's Ladder of Divine Ascent. More recently there is Thomas Merton who is a mid-20th century contemplative and fantastic author on both the western tradition and it in comparison to Eastern religions.
>>544912
To add to this it is the very act of making the religion into a historical fact that ends up destroying it. The spiritual message becomes destroyed and it becomes a historical event. Notice how there are so many Christians that think that if something is 'disproven' as being a historical even it fucks up their religion. The religion is not something you live but some distant memory in the past you keep alive.
>>544912
>not being gay
>not a certain way of life
>>544849
Christians who flail around and speak in tongues are more spiritual than William Lane Craig, is basically what the OP is suggesting.
>>547475
More the idea that WLC by trying to make bad historical arguments in favour of Christianity are going to destroy the religion by making it an argument about history, one that will never be won by Christians.
Keep it about faith etc if you really want to defend your religion.
>>547490
Well, exactly, the faith of Bach and Beethoven, and the efforts of Christians to do good things in the world has always been more convincing to me than apologetics.
I agree with you actually. Christians can't win the apologizing game, if anything they make me despise the religion even more. You can't reason me into the unreasonable.
>>547505
>Well, exactly, the faith of Bach and Beethoven, and the efforts of Christians to do good things in the world has always been more convincing to me than apologetics.
That's a bad historical and ideological based apologetics argument as well though. When you consider the Thirty Years War or the Bloody Code or that Hamas do a lot of charity work.
You would do better to just claim it is based on faith and say "you can't reason me out of the unreasonable it is not based on reason, I just believe".
>>547557
>implying catholics are actually spiritual
most aren't at all
>>547557
>>547642
Catholics just focus on the history their church. Just look at the apologetic if them it's always focusing on discussing history, fuck according to that Wolfshiem loser what it means to be a Catholic is to believe in the historical accuracy of apostolic succession.
Their degenerate spirituality might not be as lulzy as anti-evolution Protestants but it's just as destructive of their religion.
>>547700
Fucking nihilism man, it's everywhere.
>>547700
>Catholics just focus on the history their church.
No, that is how they defend their sect as true, not what they "just focus on". You can see based on the Catholic pilgrimages, the dialogue and reaction between the laypeople and the Vatican, and even Catholic media that they are big on supporting the virtuous life and improving the world (at least in their view). No doubt people will look at and even revel in the rich history of the church and its heroes and teachings but they are mainly done so to teach people how to move forward.
Catholic spirituality is far less on the mystical side than Orthodoxy but it is there. I would say that Catholics tend to be more practical in their application of the faith though.
>fuck according to that Wolfshiem loser what it means to be a Catholic is to believe in the historical accuracy of apostolic succession.
I'd recommend not putting words in my mouth.
>>549028
>I'd recommend not putting words in my mouth
But this really is what you beleive. You sugar coat it but looking back at how you responded in arguments being a Christian really does mean believing in apostolic succession.
When Praceton or Outerlimits argued with you, that was the one which all your other arguments hinged on. How do you justify theology? Well the theology comes from the rightful apostles. That's the authority from which the crux of your entire faith rests on. Your Thompson-ism says that the higher truths can only be understood as being divinely revealed, which are ultimately confirmed by the revaluations having some sort of correct signature on them.
You've spent hours on end argueing about the historical accuracy of the priestly lineage. Fuck man the entire basis for Catholism is supposed to be "Jesus founded a church with the Peter as it's leader". That's it. Everything hinges on that historical event, that's how all theology is given authority.
Of course you'd never admit that you are destroying your own damn religion by turning everything into a bureaucracy (although it's not just you, that's what Catholicism is. You are the only religion in the world that actually needs a committee to verify miracles). Much less admit that you had to have such a thing explained to you by Friedrick Nietzsche of all people.
Let me put to it you straight. If tommorow you found that Peter never was the first Pope and Jesus never established a church. Would you still be a Catholic? Would you still be a Christian if we found that Jesus never even existed? Of course not. You proudly brag that you converted from atheism after historical research.
Nietzsche said the Ubermench would still be superior to the Christian God even if he literally existed.
Dostoevsky would still be a Christian even if everything written in the bible never happened.
Catholism would be void without it's history. So it's already nihilist and spiritually dead.
To add to this. If you really want to so how much Christians destroy their own religion look at this thread.
>>548235
The general consensus is one can act, think, and believe everything Christian but if you don't actually believe in the historical events you are not a Christian. How spiritually dead can you fucking get? No wonder you have people turning to weird stuff like Paganism, occultism, and /x/. There might not be an ounce of historical accuracy but they spirtual messages feel more vivid than the stale Christianity. The strange Gnostic story or the Pagan God represents something mystical while Jesus just represents history.
