One characteristic of Christiandom.

Throughout the complex magico-philo-socio-phsycho-economico-historical phenomenon that has been Christiandom, one thing (among many) was achieved: the top of the scale of the pyramidal scale of values of all things is an allmighty, omniprescent, all loving god.

That is why “human,” for example, has always been such a favourite level to hate on by people who feel closer to that god.

This is a spawn of Christiandom, understanding Christiandom as it is: far beyond a cult.

Maybe if you like, rephrase that or something I can understand what your saying. I don’t know if I should take offense or accept what you just said.

Thanks CN, that means a lot to me!

Oh man, CN! I just wrote that post-nietzschean thread I had promised. I hope you have that answer ready.

Moved to religion.

Pezer,

It’s more the reverse that is the case, if you think about it.
Primates have pyramidal social scales that revolve exactly upon the idea of alpha species superiority.
There are many of these that govern by measure of jealousy of social position, and execute social ostracization battles to overtake each other.

From this perspective, Christianity can be but one among the many manifestations of this primal neurology.
(By primal, I do not mean lesser.)

I am not talking about social structures, I am talking about, erm, what did CN call it? an archetype.

There is no alpha male because the alphaest of all males would not be very far from the omegaest in the way-bottom of the pyramid. The whole point is that the god is so far above all other valuations that anything but the god is as good as crap.

And you assert that Christianity provokes this perspective.
I was pointing out that there is reasonable observation to suggest that Christianity follows this perspective, and that the perspective is provoked by evolutionary behavioral biology, and I used primates as an example of how a similar system exists in some of our species’ relatives without the convention of religion.

Regardless how small the pyramidal scale is of humans to this deity, there is a consideration of clergy in many forms of Christianity which ends in a finite individual held as the closest individual to their god.
In one variation, should an individual be tasked with such (as it is viewed), and should they be meriting enough when tasked, then they themselves will one day become a god of another planet (LDS/Mormonism).

Ah, I see now.

Well, notice that I am careful to say Christiandom instead of Christianity. Christianity is an introverted term for Jesus worshipers to define themselves, while Christiandom is a historical term for a complex magico-philo-socio-phsycho-economical phenomenon that has taken place in Europe (including it’s extra-continental extentions) over the last couple of thousands of years. I think the fact the the global calendar used today is based on the cult of Jesus, even by people who haven’t the slightest to do with that cult, says a lot about this point.

In other words, Christianity is a cult, while Christiandom is a complex magico-philo-socio-phsycho-economico-historical phenomenon.

The social hierarchies of primates might indeed be a good starting point to explain how the Christiandom Valuation Pyramid came to be. Eg. some people simply started claiming that their alpha male was the god of the christians.

By the way, the reason that it is a pyramid and not a cylinder or a chain is that the higher you go in the vertical scale, the smaller the horizontal scale becomes, until at the very top there is only space for the god.

OK, if you really prefer the term; then replace every use I had of Christianity with Christiandom.
I was speaking of the historical breadth.

And gods as the ultimate alpha, male or otherwise, has been in effect far before Christianity was labeled by that name, and far before the circumstances which produced it into existence were present.

EDIT - Posted rashly, gimme a sec to read well.

In that case, simply ignore all of the preamble. Let’s get down to it:

Maybe so, I have heard that pre-christiandom Persian empires sometimes used a similar model, as well as the Egyptians at specific moments and potentially many other times that I never heard about.

Still, the fact that not all conceptions of god or gods include this concept of god-as-the-alpha-maleindicates that it is relevant that it has been included all throughout Christiandom. It is a very life-denying view-point, to put it in Nietzschean terms, if one believes that the god of that pyramid, the alpha-male-god, never really existed. To think that we are all much lower than trash compared to an entity that only exists in the imagination of that very lower-than-trash is to think that all of existence simply sucks, period.

In other words: the Christiandom Valuation Pyramid (I’ll just refer to it as the CVPyramid from now on) theory states that all of existence sucks, especially compared to the creator who is all that is awesome and good. If the theory of the creator is disproved but the CVPyramid maintained, it becomes simply a way of saying that nothing is awesome or good and all of existence sucks.

Well, to be fair, that is but one sub-sect of Christiandom.
Most of which results from what many people now class as, “Paulism”, but really was much more prominent in Gnostic Christianity than any surviving variations today.

Having an ultimate deity doesn’t inherently equate to a tiered system in all cases.
The Hebrews had variations within their culture which supplied the perspective of unity to each other and their god by the definition of their god theologically; defined as the life-breath which was their god and came from their god.
Such branches were existent in Galilee, for example.

In regards to pre-Christian pantheons, most had one deity which was the top.
Even early Hebrew peoples had such arrangements before the religious unification period took place (sort of the Hebrew variation of what Constantine did; largely done by King Josiah of Judah (after the short-lived Kingdom of Judah pored into Judah, fleeing the Assyrians who demolished, forever, their Kingdom) around 7th c BCE).

Take the Hittites, the Anthropological - not the “Old Testament” variation (though the latter is referring to the former to a small degree); their pantheon was massive. So much so that they are coined as the people of a thousand gods.
That said, they still had a god which was at the top of them all: Tarhun (or Tarhunt in other variations).

Even Zeus was the king of gods in the Greek pantheon.

Very rarely has this concept consequently created a perspective of humanity being worthless.

This facet was also one of the contentions between other early Christian cultures and Gnosticism; that the Gnostics were demeaning the creation of the god being debated by claiming his creation was worthless.
This is one such reason that there even exists a section of academia which contains those who propose that Paul was either Gnostic or Gnostic influenced.

Before we go any further, I want to remind you that I am not talking about a sect or subsect. I am talking about a magico-philo-socio-phsycho-economico-historical phenomenon.

I really wish this thread hadn’t been moved here because I truly use “Christiandom” whith much less religious connotations than you are. I am not talking about some specific theological thesis, I am talking about a psychological archetype. This archetype is not the product of a single specific current of thought, it is a product of the amalgamation of currents of thought and action that I am referring to as Christiandom. Like all historical periods, there is no real starting date, but we know this phenomenon has been developping since more than 1500 years ago.

There are always sub-sects, even regardless of religion.
I only bring up such as examples that clarify lesser points of the overall statement I am making.

If you don’t want to discuss religion at all, then don’t bring up gods and work backwards from there.
What I’ve been trying to explain is that the paradigm you are describing existed in many societal systems in history prior to the seeds which would make way for your classed era of Christiandom.
If we erased the era from taking place, another such manifestation of this tiered system would have been produced anyway.

Further, this idea of humanity being pathetic by comparison is simply impossible without a sub-sect variation of Christian viewing as such a concept is not held at large by the Western culture.
America, for example, would have never been a culture encouraging of principles which are poetically summarized in the likeness of “Dr. Bones” had its viewpoint been focused upon the idea that humanity was terrible and worthless by comparison to a divinity of a given religious culture.

We can’t swing this conversation both ways: we can’t bring up that the folly is from a perspective of a god paradigm and then exclude the conversation from religious discussion.

I’m sorry man, but I don’t believe in theology like I don’t believe in Inca Gods. I am discussing a philosophical fact that, by virtue of coming to be in a deeply religious society, was heavily influenced by religion.

I originally posted this in philosophy forum.

You have mistaken me.
I’m not a theist.

Everything I have been discussing is directly relevant to your point; in fact, directly addresses it.

Your stance is that the Christian god concept creates a pyramidal scheme which places man as pathetic by comparison.
I’ve pointed out that such is not the result of the religion, but the result of behavioral biology and pointed to examples where the behavior occurs in the absence of religion in even simpler species. I have also pointed out where alpha-god systems have developed long prior to the era you describe as Christiandom, thereby supplying the examples of how the case of Christiandom is not isolated or unique.

Again, you want to start with a god and work back from there pointing a finger.
I’m not suggesting that innocence abounds. I’m stating that there is far more suggesting that the reverse cause and effect is the case than the other.

Jayson, you should move this thread back to Philosophy or maybe Rant. It’s not actually about religion.

Don’t look at me; I’m purple now, not green.

That withstanding, I still don’t see how anything I brought up isolates it to such.
Everything I’ve brought up addresses the idea that such behavior comes from evolved behavioral biology and not a single socetal paradigm; or as it was referred to as magico-philo-socio-phsycho-economico-historical phenomenon.

But I personally disagree. I think the OP sets its targets directly at the Christian religion and pulls the trigger.
It’s only been backed off since the OP as if that wasn’t what was done.

Take the OP

We got the Christian god.

Due to receiving the Christian god, people who feel closer to this god love to hate, “human(ity)”.

And this makes Christiandom more than a cult.

Recap:
We got the Christian god.
Due to receiving the Christian god, people who feel closer to this god love to hate, “human(ity)”.
And this makes Christiandom more than a cult.

Christiandom:

  1. Christians considered as a group.
  2. The Christian world.

I’d say the definition, specifically #2, makes Christiandom more than a cult.
But in direct points of the three points of the OP, the premises don’t arrive at the conclusion properly.
That said, I don’t care about the conclusion part about being more than a cult (as said, that was pretty much implied by using the word Christiandom right off).

Instead, I looked at the general disposition which appeared to be, “I don’t like Christianity because it brought Christiandom the idea of the ultimate and best god, far beyond man, and then put man next to the bottom. From this people that want to be close to the Christian god (implicitly this would be Christians in the world of Christiandom) therefore have to hate their humanity.”

To which, I responded by pointing out how this construct of this ultimate divinity was not exclusive to Christianity or Christiandom, and that the pyramidal scale that was brought up in reference to climbing and pushing down upon humanity during such was something already present before Christiandom, and exists laterally in other members of the Great Ape family.

Although it’s not my choice on where the thread lands, I disagree that this is not actually about religion.
I don’t see how it can be not about religion.

It points out a receipt from a specific religion and reflects upon how it has affected the society in which it has built along side of and into.
If that’s not about religion, then bone marrow transfusions aren’t about bone marrow.

You’ve got to read between the lines.

If someone, who you don’t get along with, is a train conductor, you might start a thread about the evilness of railways. Ranting, venting, looking for confirmation, whatever. The poster is not seeking a rational argument.

He is more likely to get the response he needs in Philosophy or Rant. Just saying, so you don’t waste your time. :icon-wink: