Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Hakons]

Well, of course that happens. Secular societies enforce and teach secular attitudes, so people in turn become secular. I would absolutely agree that Christianity faces it's greatest challenge from secularism, and that the trends aren't looking good in secular areas.

So in other words, in societies where Christianity (or more accurately, a Church) doesn't hold the society's religious atmosphere in a tight, violent, state-sanctioned grip (i.e. where there is no state religion, or at least where it is not enforced on the general population), Christianity tends to lose popularity, while almost every other single faith tends to become more popular.

No, that's clearly a ridiculous statement, particularly when Christianity was/is on the ascent in societies where it was under persecution. To characterize Christianity as a religion that can't grow or maintain itself without state support is to be supremely ignorant of how the religion became to be dominant in the first place.

[Conserative Morality]

No, that's clearly a ridiculous statement, particularly when Christianity was/is on the ascent in societies where it was under persecution. To characterize Christianity as a religion that can't grow or maintain itself without state support is to be supremely ignorant of how the religion became to be dominant in the first place.

What states did Christianity thrive under in persecution? I seem to remember them mostly imposing their religion from above, and states that actually persecuted them doing a good job of keeping them out until white folk with guns came around.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

So in other words, in societies where Christianity (or more accurately, a Church) doesn't hold the society's religious atmosphere in a tight, violent, state-sanctioned grip (i.e. where there is no state religion, or at least where it is not enforced on the general population), Christianity tends to lose popularity, while almost every other single faith tends to become more popular.

No, that's clearly a ridiculous statement, particularly when Christianity was/is on the ascent in societies where it was under persecution. To characterize Christianity as a religion that can't grow or maintain itself without state support is to be supremely ignorant of how the religion became to be dominant in the first place.

IIRC, Christianity came to be dominant due to a mixture of successful evangelizing that coincided with socio-cultural shifts in the population of the Roman Empire. Am I missing any other factors? Am I mistaken in the current topic of this discussion? Also, I'd like some recommendations regarding books on the spread of the early Church, if y'all don't mind.

[North German Realm]

No, that's clearly a ridiculous statement, particularly when Christianity was/is on the ascent in societies where it was under persecution. To characterize Christianity as a religion that can't grow or maintain itself without state support is to be supremely ignorant of how the religion became to be dominant in the first place.

What states did Christianity thrive under in persecution? I seem to remember them mostly imposing their religion from above, and states that actually persecuted them doing a good job of keeping them out until white folk with guns came around.

He's probably referring to the state-wide persecution of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm still not sure if it's a myth or not, you know.

[Diopolis]

Yes, atheists do tend to be a group with a lot of religious switching. However, they're not converting to paganism en masse. Atheist converts to Christianity far outstrip converts to paganism.

Press X to doubt

IIRC, the top religion among former irreligious was the Mormons, followed by the Jehovah's witnesses.
So it looks like whoever has the most missionary presence in a given society is who the atheists convert to.

[Conserative Morality]

He's probably referring to the state-wide persecution of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm still not sure if it's a myth or not, you know.

Moderately mythical. There were only two empire-wide persecutions, one under Decian, and one under the Tetrarchy. Under the first, Christians refused to render unto Caesar a simple service and got their just desserts for it. Under the second, they were stripped of legal rights unless they renounced Christianity; ironically, despite Diocletian being the instigator of the frankly stupid policy, it was one of his co-emperors, Galerius, who was the bigger asshole about it.

[Old Tyrannia]

What states did Christianity thrive under in persecution? I seem to remember them mostly imposing their religion from above, and states that actually persecuted them doing a good job of keeping them out until white folk with guns came around.

He's probably referring to the state-wide persecution of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm still not sure if it's a myth or not, you know.

That's conspiracy-theorist level nonsense.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Man, since Dio brought em up I really have to give the Mormons props. I live a good 30-40 minutes out of the city now and I still got a knock on my door a couple months back from some Mormon chicks trying to spread the good word. That's dedication.

[North German Realm]

He's probably referring to the state-wide persecution of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm still not sure if it's a myth or not, you know.

That's conspiracy-theorist level nonsense.

What is? That there was a persecution or that there was no persecution? Your statement is a bit vague.

[Hakons]

What states did Christianity thrive under in persecution? I seem to remember them mostly imposing their religion from above, and states that actually persecuted them doing a good job of keeping them out until white folk with guns came around.

He's probably referring to the state-wide persecution of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm still not sure if it's a myth or not, you know.

There was persecution by Roman governments, but that's not the argument either. You're claiming that the only way Christianity grows is by having the state force behind it, and that is plainly, utterly false in practically everywhere Christianity has grown. Christianity started to grow in areas through evangelization. Yes, it did acquire state power after this in many areas, and this created Christian hegemony in these areas, but to assert that state power is the only means for Christian growth is absurdity.

[Hanafuridake]

So you believe that Zeus, Horus, Odin, etc. are real personal beings?

That's the pretty basic position for us to take, yeah. Obviously things can vary from person to person because even when we are organized into religious groups (ie Hellenion or some of the Germanic style groups) the focus tends to be on correct practice and exact individual belief is just that, left up to the individual practitioner.

Fair enough but I'm still curious how this would actually logically hold. Are Ra, Apollo, and Sol the same person since they're all the deity of the sun, are they just avatars of the sun? Why did the pantheons do absolutely nothing when utterly thrashed by one desert boi's religion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing aside Christianity and Islam and returning to pagan beliefs (bring back the pharaohs) I just can't understand it.

[Hakons]

He's probably referring to the state-wide persecution of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome. I'm still not sure if it's a myth or not, you know.

Moderately mythical. There were only two empire-wide persecutions, one under Decian, and one under the Tetrarchy. Under the first, Christians refused to render unto Caesar a simple service and got their just desserts for it. Under the second, they were stripped of legal rights unless they renounced Christianity; ironically, despite Diocletian being the instigator of the frankly stupid policy, it was one of his co-emperors, Galerius, who was the bigger asshole about it.

"Refused to render unto a Caesar a simple service" is a rich way of saying refusing to apostatize

[Shanhwa]

Man, since Dio brought em up I really have to give the Mormons props. I live a good 30-40 minutes out of the city now and I still got a knock on my door a couple months back from some Mormon chicks trying to spread the good word. That's dedication.

You think that’s odd? I live about 40 minutes out from a city some roofing company is based in, and we had a bad hailstorm about 2 months or so ago.

They kept sending us flyers and people came to our door almost every other day.

Whenever I go into town I guarantee I will see one of their cars.

Should I be concerned? Is this random small-town Indiana roofing company gonna get me assassinated for not having them do my roof?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

That's the pretty basic position for us to take, yeah. Obviously things can vary from person to person because even when we are organized into religious groups (ie Hellenion or some of the Germanic style groups) the focus tends to be on correct practice and exact individual belief is just that, left up to the individual practitioner.

Fair enough but I'm still curious how this would actually logically hold. Are Ra, Apollo, and Sol the same person since they're all the deity of the sun, are they just avatars of the sun? Why did the pantheons do absolutely nothing when utterly thrashed by one desert boi's religion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing aside Christianity and Islam and returning to pagan beliefs (bring back the pharaohs) I just can't understand it.

> Bring Back the Pharaohs

W e w, that is a spicy take m8.

I can't tell if you're being serious, though.

[Hanafuridake]

Fair enough but I'm still curious how this would actually logically hold. Are Ra, Apollo, and Sol the same person since they're all the deity of the sun, are they just avatars of the sun? Why did the pantheons do absolutely nothing when utterly thrashed by one desert boi's religion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing aside Christianity and Islam and returning to pagan beliefs (bring back the pharaohs) I just can't understand it.

> Bring Back the Pharaohs

W e w, that is a spicy take m8.

I can't tell if you're being serious, though.

I am being 100% unironically non-memeing serious.

Bring back the Pharaohs.

I want to worship cat goddesses.

[Conserative Morality]

Moderately mythical. There were only two empire-wide persecutions, one under Decian, and one under the Tetrarchy. Under the first, Christians refused to render unto Caesar a simple service and got their just desserts for it. Under the second, they were stripped of legal rights unless they renounced Christianity; ironically, despite Diocletian being the instigator of the frankly stupid policy, it was one of his co-emperors, Galerius, who was the bigger asshole about it.

"Refused to render unto a Caesar a simple service" is a rich way of saying refusing to apostatize

The Decian persecutions didn't require any renunciation of belief; only an offering of incense ON THE BEHALF OF the Emperor. It was no different than swearing an oath, or paying a tax, but the majority of Christians chose to interpret the command to obey the earthly authorities as "Obey them only when they agree with your religion".

Funny enough, that was the cause of an early split - between the Christians who did make the offering on the behalf of the Emperor, and those who did not and thought the former were irredeemable.

[Proctopeo]

> Bring Back the Pharaohs

W e w, that is a spicy take m8.

I can't tell if you're being serious, though.

I am being 100% unironically non-memeing serious.

Bring back the Pharaohs.

I want to worship cat goddesses.

4/10 not cute enough, get the Japanizing Beam
we're making Bastet a kemonomimi motherfucker

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

> Bring Back the Pharaohs

W e w, that is a spicy take m8.

I can't tell if you're being serious, though.

I am being 100% unironically non-memeing serious.

Bring back the Pharaohs.

I want to worship cat goddesses.

Erm, I'm not particularly sure if that's a particularly feasible idea, and this is coming from the man who wants to unite the entire world under a single banner. Do you have a particular reason for it, aside from wanting to worship cat goddesses?

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's the pretty basic position for us to take, yeah. Obviously things can vary from person to person because even when we are organized into religious groups (ie Hellenion or some of the Germanic style groups) the focus tends to be on correct practice and exact individual belief is just that, left up to the individual practitioner.

Fair enough but I'm still curious how this would actually logically hold. Are Ra, Apollo, and Sol the same person since they're all the deity of the sun, are they just avatars of the sun? Why did the pantheons do absolutely nothing when utterly thrashed by one desert boi's religion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing aside Christianity and Islam and returning to pagan beliefs (bring back the pharaohs) I just can't understand it.

Tis a complicated question, and one I still go back and forth on from time to time. Currently my position (and that of most people I discuss the topic with) leans towards the various pantheons of the world being separate but equal things. ie some people will do offerings to both Greek and German (or whatever other groups you feel drawn to) deities and recognize many different deities who have domain over the same things and whatnot. I'm prob doing a shit job of explaining cuz it's 9 AM and I still haven't gone to bed but you can tg me if you ever wanna talk about the topic more.

Man, since Dio brought em up I really have to give the Mormons props. I live a good 30-40 minutes out of the city now and I still got a knock on my door a couple months back from some Mormon chicks trying to spread the good word. That's dedication.

You think that’s odd? I live about 40 minutes out from a city some roofing company is based in, and we had a bad hailstorm about 2 months or so ago.

They kept sending us flyers and people came to our door almost every other day.

Whenever I go into town I guarantee I will see one of their cars.

Should I be concerned? Is this random small-town Indiana roofing company gonna get me assassinated for not having them do my roof?

I'd get a new roof just to be safe.

[Hakons]

"Refused to render unto a Caesar a simple service" is a rich way of saying refusing to apostatize

The Decian persecutions didn't require any renunciation of belief; only an offering of incense ON THE BEHALF OF the Emperor. It was no different than swearing an oath, or paying a tax, but the majority of Christians chose to interpret the command to obey the earthly authorities as "Obey them only when they agree with your religion".

Funny enough, that was the cause of an early split - between the Christians who did make the offering on the behalf of the Emperor, and those who did not and thought the former were irredeemable.

Giving an offering to demons is absolutely apostatizing. Once again, your interpretations of Christian teaching mean squat. Christians obey the authorities when the authorities don't demand us to violate our religion. Even then, Christians still can trying to influence the government to be more in line with our beliefs, just as any citizen in the country can. Regardless, for someone as keen on criticizing religious influence in government, you do so warmly support the persecution of Christians by the Roman government, even going so far to engage in persecution apologetics.

Yes, the Donatist controversy I believe. However, the split wasn't on whether giving offerings to roman gods was gravely sinful, but whether the sinful act was forgivable. The Donatists, as you said, saw it as irredeemable, while the Church saw it as forgivable after repentance.

[Conserative Morality]

Giving an offering to demons is absolutely apostatizing. Once again, your interpretations of Christian teaching mean squat. Christians obey the authorities when the authorities don't demand us to violate our religion.

So in other words, the command to obey the authorities means jack shit. "Obey the authorities when they command you follow your religion" is as empty as it gets.

Even then, Christians still can trying to influence the government to be more in line with our beliefs, just as any citizen in the country can.

Oh? Is that what you call violating the law?

I've seen what Christian influence in government does; not a big fan. Something about crashing civilization and then blaming gay people for earthquakes and famines.

Regardless, for someone as keen on criticizing religious influence in government, you do so warmly support the persecution of Christians by the Roman government, even going so far to engage in persecution apologetics.

Of course; why would I not? Christianity is deeply socially harmful. If I was told that my pledge of allegiance only counted if I added "Under God", I'd suck it the fuck up because I have loyalty to my nation. I'd grouse, no doubt, but grousing is as legal now as it was then. Christians have no such loyalty; when the reverse situation is presented, they sabotage the government until they're in power and can create a perfect mirror image.

[Galloism]

Even then, Christians still can trying to influence the government to be more in line with our beliefs, just as any citizen in the country can.

I mean, only if Jesus was out of his gourd and his direction can be safely ignored.

[Old Tyrannia]

That's conspiracy-theorist level nonsense.

What is? That there was a persecution or that there was no persecution? Your statement is a bit vague.

That there was no persecution. The historical evidence for widespread persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire is fairly unambiguous.

> Bring Back the Pharaohs

W e w, that is a spicy take m8.

I can't tell if you're being serious, though.

I am being 100% unironically non-memeing serious.

Bring back the Pharaohs.

I want to worship cat goddesses.

I mean, it's tempting. I practically treat my cat as a goddess as it is, and I do love ancient Egyptian aesthetics.

[Galloism]

So in other words, the command to obey the authorities means jack shit. "Obey the authorities when they command you follow your religion" is as empty as it gets.

This is... not a valid interpretation.

Soldiers in the army are commanded to follow orders, except when it violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Does that mean it's "Obey your commanding officer when they command you to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice" and that's as empty as it gets?

[Camelone]

So in other words, the command to obey the authorities means jack shit. "Obey the authorities when they command you follow your religion" is as empty as it gets.

This is... not a valid interpretation.

Soldiers in the army are commanded to follow orders, except when it violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Does that mean it's "Obey your commanding officer when they command you to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice" and that's as empty as it gets?

CM’s interpretation of Christianity is biased in the view that he believes it is a socially harmful force so that is the lenses he looks out of. It’s an interpretation to get what he wants out of Christians.