When approaching the topic of Christianity, one treads with caution. Not only because so many of those we know on a social basis are Christian, but because depriving our people of spiritual hope as the atheists intend would be destructive.
However, it is impossible to ignore the ongoing failure of Christianity, which also not only failed to protect our people, but kicked off centuries of warfare, removal of monarchs, book burning, censorship, and witch hunts.
To put it simply, as a group the Indo-Europeans have lost faith in Christianity. The numbers keep going up, but that is the usual statistical lie that finds some group somewhere and measures them, then draws broad inferences backward.
Christianity keeps growing, of course, but only in the third world. Across Europe, many people are technically Christian in name only, attending church periodically without belief, or have become “spiritual not religious” which means no attendance and no particular religious value except a belief in the goodness of the universe.
History will probably record Christianity as the first modern faith in that it was written down for if not the masses, at least the local priests to read and understand.
To do that, it needed to be moralistic, or to preach a good/evil binary morality that could be used to shape ordinary people into “enlightened” ones, just like cogs at a factory: cut them out of whole steel, mill them, program them with the right data, and send them off to do good instead of evil.
In this sense, like Buddhism it is a thoroughly bureaucratic religion, designed to assembly-line mass process individuals toward awakening or enlightenment so that they can function in a mercantile society.
If you read the Bible as literature, it starts to make sense, because then you stop taking passages in an absolute context like your average dummy on the internet, and see them as related parts. None of them are advice, just revelations.
But stop your average Christian on the street and ask what the religion is about, and you get the same comedy that comes from the voters. A thousand answers, all wrong or partially right at best, will flood your ears.
As a written religion, it provides advice, but any one part conflicts with the rest, or at least seems to until you read the whole story. Does God say devote your life to the poor, or focus on making yourself whole?
No one knows because the text contradicts itself, at least until taken as a whole, and like any good bureaucratic document, it therefore offers lots of rules and regulations that can be quoted, but never a plan (other than “wait for Jesus to come back and fix everything”).
In fact, if it has an Achilles Heel, it is its metaphysical dualism or at least interpretation that way, which says that Heaven has different rules than Earth, and the rules of Heaven are better, so ignore Earth — let it burn! — while waiting for deliverance in Heaven.
If you wanted to design a doctrine to be paralytic, nothing could be better than this. Generations of round-headed dummies have made excuses for the utter failure of their civilization while pinning their hopes on Jesus coming to save them.
The religion also skirts the line between reality and metaphor by telling us about real people, not distant gods, and insisting that what happened to them was true. This leads morons to insist that the whole book is the Word of God and absolute, which just makes them idiots of the first order.
We called them fundamentalists back in the day, and the distinction makes sense: if you believe that this book, written by humans and passed down over the centuries, is the inerrant Word and Law of God, then you are a moron. It is a book written by men.
Even more, we can point out where it was derived from Greek, Buddhist, Zorastrian, Jewish, Babylonian, Mithraic, and Nordic texts. It alludes to what came before the way blues artists borrow riffs and melodies: part in tribute, but also building on and re-orienting what came before.
It cannot be the Word of God or absolute Truth for this reason; like anything else, it was created by humans and reflects human projections. It attempts to describe patterns seen by its authors in reality which cannot be proven or disproven.
Yes, if you think Christianity is idiotic, wait until you hear about atheism. This moronic belief system holds that since we cannot prove whether God exists (or disprove it) we can then assert that we have disproven it by default. You cannot be stupider than an atheist, asserting what he cannot know by using a religion he does not believe!
Since we are insulting people: the Left, who make a simplified version of Christian morality based on equality but incorporate atheism into it, must be the stupidest of the mentally defective stupid, having chosen to take the worst of the religion they hate and make it into a pathologically controlling, obsessive ideology.
Now, if one were a Christian who approached their religion as the Word of Man and not the Word of God, acknowledged its origins in other thought, and recognized that metaphysical dualism may be a dodgy doctrine, they might have a chance of rising above the tumult.
However, the religion faces a challenge, which is that people always interpret things as convenient for them, so if you give them a simple concept and a complex one, they will latch on en masse to the simple one.
This means that your average Christian will come up with some statement about Christianity like “God is love” or “love thy neighbor” because these are social expressions that like all social things, flatter the ego.
Christianity has been losing ground for a couple of centuries because of the collision with two things: science and mass politics.
In the case of science, awareness of genetics began almost two hundred years ago and really picked up with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, both of whom were genetic determinists.
What is a genetic determinist? Someone who acknowledges that the blueprint controls the person, and their wiggle room is closer to a fifth of their choices in sum and far less than the majority.
Your abilities, tendencies, intelligence level, desires, and even aesthetics are inborn, like your lifespan, and your genetics determine who you are. This presents a challenge to Christianity.
First, it can no longer assume that all souls are equal, because some people are clearly smarter and more capable than others.
Even more, it means that a written religion will be interpreted widely differently based on intelligence, which means that the more numerous stupid will win out every time.
Further, it assaults our knowledge of “truth,” since while a truth may reside in a human head, it cannot be shared among multiple human heads in its original form.
This assaults the very notion of the Word of God. If the words are understood differently, then the Word of God becomes perverted the instant it touches air. No intelligent god would allow that!
Science pointed out that genetics, not “free will,” determines who we are. Then, we saw proof of that in mass politics, where the herd picks the dumbest, laziest, and least ambitious answer every time.
You can figure out how a vote is going to go by the simple question: which option forces people to change the least? They pick lazily until the crisis is upon them, then they pick radically, because they recognize change is coming and want someone else to deal with it, radically.
When history looks back on Nietzsche, they will see him as having introduced a simple question: now that we know that we are not free wills, but mechanical beings like all other life, can there be divinity?
The original conception of divinity was more naturalistic. Before Christianity, we had nature-gods that spoke through the essences of animals, locations, natural forces, and people. We were our categories and niches.
Then in came the idea of the personal god and the divinity of all people, basically a precursor to The Enlightenment™ and a hangover from the fall of Athens and Rome.
For that model to exist, its adherents said, people need to be equal at birth, created with souls with the same rationality, and therefore, equally viable. This required the hand of the divine intervening.
Now that we have scientific explanations for these things instead, and we see the Bell Curve on flagrant display every day, the notion of God giving us free will seems ludicrous. Clearly people have differing degrees of will and reason.
It is clear that the old way will not work, but the older way might.
Nietzsche raised the question of how we could survive in a world without God, noting in a complex passage that we had lost faith:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?
Your average Christian never gets to the “And we have killed him.” Instead you get ramblings about the Antichrist, Satan, and probably how rock music is the devil.
The point is that people are not going to believe in dualism in a scientific era. If we have gods these days, they must inhabit our world or an extension of it, but it does not make sense that it has mystical rules that suspend what we know as the logical constraints of existence.
For example, the common pitch on Heaven is that it is a place without conflict, without want, and where peace reigns. Really? Who wants to go there? It sounds like being dead, except conscious, suspended in animation during an eternal second of blissful oblivion.
Similar, we can no longer believe that souls were formed by divine process independent of our bodies. Either our bodies attract specific souls, or only some get souls, because we can see that most of humanity are droid NPCs with the consciousness level of monkeys.
Schopenhauer pointed out that the world operated by mechanical means. Nietzsche tried to re-inject that world with a sense of wonder and delight. Jesus would probably not have had a problem with this, since he was likely not a dualist either.
As Nietzsche said, “There was one true Christian — and he died on the cross.”