Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights — Page 4
Think about it, who gets to define what Christian means? People will naively say, "Christians, of course." But no. It can't work that way because this begs the question. Why should Christians get to define what Christianity is? What if they define it wrong? Who says their self-definition is the right one? If their definition is wrong then they were never Christians in the first place. So thanks to relativity, even defining Christianity is impossible because there is no objective way to agree on who a true Christian is. But Christians are so simple-minded and irresponsible that this issue does not even bother them.
Here's the key insight on this: A non-Christian can define Christianity better than a Christian because there is no way to know that the Christian is actually a true Christian, while the non-Christian can be more Christian than the Christian. This is why Christians don't do epistemology, since it would undermine their position of being true Christians. The Christian has no way of knowing which version of Christianity is correct. And notice that every branch of Christianity thinks itself to be the one true church, but they have no way of knowing that.
No, there does not need to be a boundary between true and false Christianity because you never knew that true Christianity was true to begin with. Just because someone says, "This is the true Christianity", does not make that true. "But there has to be some original Christianity." No, there doesn't. It could all be made up from day one. You don't know otherwise.
The best way to know that epistemic anarchy is real is to just look at all the sects and splinters of any major religion. Christians themselves cannot agree with each other, cannot keep their stories straight. Christianity is an epistemic cluster-fuck. They just believe whatever is convenient to their survival at the point in time and space that they find themselves in. It is bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit.
The far-right Zionists in Israel are a good case-study in the evils of self-bias. Israel is a sick country to allow such extremists to run the government. These extremists are certainly genocidal, even if the general citizenry are not, but extremists have a disproportional influence in the government. Government by extremists never ends well. Extremists thrive in war and violence. They love it. There cannot be peace when extremists are in charge. For extremists, extremism is their life purpose. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are life purposes for these people.
When you have a strong visceral dislike of something, that’s where you need to be extra doubtful of yourself, because truth is hiding behind that emotional rejection. Investigate precisely those areas where you feel visceral dislike. For example, if you hate socialists, investigate that. If you hate Nazis, investigate that. If you hate religion, investigate that. If you hate atheists, investigate that. If you hate New Agers, investigate that. If you hate Islam, investigate that. If you hate Jews, investigate that. If you hate women, investigate that. If you hate conservatives, investigate that. Apply self-doubt especially in these areas. I promise you there’s something you’re missing there. Hate is never grounded in deep understanding. Antipathy is a red flag for self-deception. Do not feed or act out antipathy but question it philosophically. What truth is your antipathy masking?
Just in general, strong negative emotions are a dead give-away of self-deception. Tell me what you hate and I'll tell you where you're self-deceived. This is a nice little heuristic.
This is a good history lesson.
You don't learn politics by listening to loud-mouthed, click-baity, partisan pundits, you learn it by studying political history like this:
Much of our politics is so stupid simply because most voters are ignorant of history.
