/lit/ - Literature

Inarguably it begins with ‘wishful thinking’ as prerequisite to the absurdism, that is: it avoids logical observation and appeals to the childish part of the psyche.

We notice that many of the sacred-absurdisms and even the concept itself of a ‘sacred-absurdism’ (that is: something so patently false and disproven or unverifiable that is nevertheless held up as a matter of faith by a political faction) stems not from the human mind or from scientific rational observation of a thing, but of ‘wishful thinking’ which is at once indistinguishable in its conveyor (i mean the bad sophist) as to being their simple-minded naivety or their devious-minded criminal intent cloaked in costume of naivety; to outward appearance they seem the same and in their language they seem the same and the criminal will go to every effort to appear as a ‘simple-minded person’.

So what is ‘wishful-thinking’? In context here the claim is moreso a demand made by the prideful and the criminal that logical inquiry should not begin to take place.

Typically here begins all bad rhetoric as to the appeals made by such persons toward that which we recognise as Pathos and Ethos and Ethos in order to avoid ever coming to Logos which would immediately reveal the preposterous nature of their claims as not only being incorrect (in the unprovable claim) but leading to predictable negative consequences (as therein is the objective of the criminal, who has predicted at least one of the negative consequences and desires it). Also to the outcome of hatred of logic and promulgation of anti-discourse, ad hominem and a desire toward enmity to thwart any attempt at discussion, as each person holding an absurdism cannot deal rationally with what they have said and done and what they will do, being incapable of admitting to being wrong makes them impervious to correction and thus predicts that they will instigate some form of violence.

It seems to me that this is the desired outcome of such thinking when it is seeded within a person or within a society in general; to establish such a mentality that is impervious to reason and despises logic is but to coddle and kettle the baseline egotism of a baseline human being. Or perhaps it is simple insanity and we have not recognized such a thing due to the ennoblement of such characters within a religion enforced by violence for many centuries in our recent past:


A people held a book of religious stories which they feared so much to be read; for the vast number of errors and evil things contained within those pages to be known, that Men and Women were burned alive for daring to translate the stories into a language that was intelligible. This became intolerable and so the Church responsible was largely eradicated in many parts of Europe. But was the mentality? The notion that someone in power is not a citizen but a separate class; a foederati overlord or a diocese imperial agent overseeing a captive populace of barbarians who are considered too stupid to partake in society; this is the mentality of the roman church via the imperial offices over much of western europe so it is necessary to examine and realize this in order to understand how it is that this "middle man" position of 'propaganda fides' came about in real terms.

It is pertinent, I think, that we arrive first of all in Voltaires time when we are considering concepts such as ‘propaganda fides’ as at once the seemingly modern operation and façade of propaganda and advertising (there being no difference) consist of Church items, that is: the news desk is the pulpit, speaking one-sided to the congregation, declaring things to be true or false and it is expected that half the congregation will blindly obey or face agitation against them, perpetual enmity born from the speaker who considers himself or herself an authority or professor (as in: he professes) of 'fides' and as 'fides' is the profession then there is no debate or discussion but merely the dogma of one belief or another, professed as gospel without proofs - either in the mind of the speaker nor in the mind or the believer, enabling as equal likelihood as to criminal schema coming from the mouth of such a character - as we have much discussed already.

I had mused previously of the queer history of recent modern academia in its bizarre trend to have continued on this 'fides' following the English and European Reformation (i.e. kicking out) of the Papal Overseers and implementing 'some' changes but apparently not understanding just how deep the rot had spread into the culture and modus of those Church institutions, here largely the University. But I realized, no sooner as tracing the cause of that problem in the paradox of its origin and practice (being utterly counter to aims), that the problem was not unique to universities or academics alone. Rather it was an inheritance of the cloister, to put it into terms of origin and promulgation of this evidently flawed methodology, that is: both the forms and actual corporeal flesh of these two institutions and their modus stem from the monastic fides.

In both practices: academia and media, we find much of the same mentality passing along from one proponent to the next, where it is not 'proof' or 'truth' which is upheld or sought but merely fides melded into baseline egotism; the disputations are perverted and take the form of hostile off-topic character attacks which are demonstrated so often to be fallacious in origin yet continually perpetuated by both practices. In such cases, as we have discussed here, it is an admission of conscious error in the part of such attackers surely born equally from egotism as from fides; if, as I observe, the two (egotism and fides) are hopelessly melded together in all such persons brains then this is the result in their conduct: their consciousness is operating from fides in the manner of a zealot rather than inquiry and their view towards inquiry is identical to the that of zealot discovering infidelity toward their verbal professions and proclamations. I realize I seen here to taking an awfully long time to arrive at what is already a fairly popular critique of academics, that they are a "religion unto themselves" but I am intending to make no such statement (we may agree here that such is already evident and requires no affirmation) and instead to offer what I deduce is the actual cause so that it may be extricated for those so willing and honest to recognize this impediment in themselves.

What I am saying, as I hope to make clear my working on the matter, is that it is a culture of 'blind faith' and verbal profession which stoke the baseline mentality of a person, something which they may shrug off naturally (as it is most unadult) but which is fortified, reinforced and perpetuated via the institutions perhaps entirely unconsciously on the part of those promulgaters as there is no demonstrable ideological thread as to why, say, a liberal would degrade into a position of operating and speaking in terms of 'fides' rather than logic. It is my observation that this has been inherited unawares and that the basis for all such problems in thought and interpersonal conduct on the part of such persons within such institutions can be tied entirely to the protocol and modus of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who established the university as an indoctrination center, and primarily there for their foundation upon nonsensical propositions (see: judaism for gentiles) which set them away from logic and into enmity.


If absurdism in belief is at the root of atrocity then it follows that fides is the principal agitate for atrocity.

Insisting a lie to be true is to end any discussion so it follows that propaganda fides in every activity toward such aims is an act of agitation toward violence and ultimately the principal enabler and chief architect of every atrocity. I mean this directly of such institutions which herein can be understood as those institutions promulgating fides or 'unquestioning faith in (whatsoever narrative)'.

If we trace back the modus and form of such institutions to their church origin then we arrive at the legal basis of a corporation in ancient rome, originally these were temple guilds, and it is perhaps integral to the comprehension of this subject to understand what a corporation is. A corporation is, in essence, a set of doctrines which are held up and adhered to by whatsoever individuals desire to join that corporation: consider how the word 'profession' exists in our English as a misnomer and how heavily and constantly such bad and stupid actors within corporations insist that whatsoever they do they do 'professionally',

In literal terms this is to say that they will profess to sincerity, honest dealings and good things and make every outward appearance of so being in the eyes of others, to say nothing at all and pay no mind whatsoever to anything else. I am not here suggesting that such persons even understand the meaning of that word but therein permits a strange and psychologically interesting thing to occur within their minds; they latch to the word and utilize it to profess their fides to the doctrine of false professions and whatsoever other creed or dogma that the corporation happens to have. If they figure out the problem of this there are endless numbers of humans who will fill their abandoned office immediately, thus the corporation perpetuates itself and in such a manner as that we find eerily similar, utilizing the adopted legal framework, of that of the role of the Catholic Church. Legally speaking a corporation acts as a diocese in that it occupies a parcel of land and claims the rights to hold that land, having taken this land from the broader polity, and there it sits against all comprehension.

Again I am suggesting here, on the part of such institutions, no kind of actual conspiracy in aim unless perhaps more poetically it could be said that a corporation 'is' a conspiracy against the economy of its host state - I would agree with this assertion but it is not the topic for this text. Rather: I am sure that, when this occurred, some validity needed to be granted in a legal basis to the activities of a group (east india company, for example) and that there seems to have been no legal basis (as every ounce taken by a third party is taken from the citizenry or its crown) and so that of the church was utilized as being recognizable as a third estate. In English nations one can see perhaps how this occurred somewhat naturally, we being the first to kick the Papacy from our lands and the legal paperwork that it utilized being somewhat unknown or only partly understood. I think here again it is that common origin point in time whereupon we can somewhat understand how it is that formerly monastic then nominally secular universities were first wrenched from clerical control (and there is another word to muse on in business: a clerk) and yet ended up (although not immediately) acting out the mannerisms and jargonism of fundamentalist zealots by inventing one ideology or another and lionizing various petty academics in the manner of saints. It is profoundly weird as we gaze upon the edifice of such things seemingly such deep paradoxes in their actions today and in the near recent past, but viewed from the context which I hope I am relaying adequately for such a large subject matter it could almost have had no other outcome if the true cause, that is, of what was all the time wrong with fides was not recognized as the cause of what was wrong with the church.


I perhaps will end this text here, subject to annotations.
id iv. iun. to vi.

>>22140768 1/6
>>22140773
>>22140775 meat begins here
>>22140779
>>22140783
>>22140793 6/6

previous /rhet/ :
>>22066192
>>22058695

NEXT ON /RHET/
PROBABLYYYYYYY on the evil actions of people fully bought into faith-based narratives; being unwilling to improve anything, wishing for death of the world in order to 'rebuild', encouraging this in their actions.... christianity in the doomsday cult; jewish ethnic supremacism being adopted by the christians ... fantasies of perpetual enmity just excuses to avoid learning how to grow vegetables by lazy people

>>22140768
What a laughably terrible translation. I’m dumbfounded. Propaganda Fide is not Faith in Propaganda—it’s Propagation of the Faith. It’s from botany. The same way you propagate a crop. Very silly.

>>22140894
yay the first christian aggressor, hello fake-critic!

>a laughably terrible translation. I’m dumbfounded. Propaganda Fide is not Faith in Propaganda—it’s Propagation of the Faith.
That's what was said, yes.

It's Propagation of 'Faith' (in a thing that has not been demonstrated to be true), that is why the political actor or 'professing' person professes their fidelity to a narrative.

>>22140894
thanks for the feedback though, that could be rephrased.
>> this concept of “faith in propaganda” or “propaganda to establish a faith”
although it's kind of self-evident You'have to be really wanting to avoid the subject or ignorant toward it to make that error though....fidelity to a narrative in war propaganda or a political smear campaign, for instance.

bashes head against brick wall

>>22140768
I absolutely cannot stand Voltaire for the life of me, and I think its fine to cast targets of propaganda as inhuman. read Schmitt.

>>22142603
> I think its fine to cast targets of propaganda as inhuman. read (some german).
Well thank you for admitting this, anon, and thank you for confirming the case of why belief in absurd things produces a character of total enmity which demands slavery or death.

Which ethnic, religious and political group do you represent? I'm going to assume (hates voltaire, likes evil propaganda, german) Anglo-Irish Papist.

>>22142603
>read Schmitt.
Given that this is not goingto happen..

> I think its fine to cast targets of propaganda as inhuman
..care to make a case or summarize the one you've adopted?

>>22140768
You will never post anything that's not propaganda OP. You don't understand how.

>>22140768
>arguing is futile
Lol fuck 4 year olds and praise God you fucking heretic

>>22140793

I don't think your previous stuff is available, the annotations or Bad Rhetoric. I would like to read up more on these ideas and perhaps discuss them sometime with you. Do you have a telegram or discord that you wouldn't mind sharing?

>>22144161
>>22144200
o boy, more brainwashed dissonant shit

>>22144161
>(no u are the propaganda because you say church bad)
Don't you understand how belief in an untrue thing is identical to your religious narrative as it is to the narrative of your political opposite? If a thing cannot be proven it is probably a criminal lie being perpetrated against you, and at bare minimum - presuming innocent idiocy - it will be a mistake for the 'believers' not being at all sure of what the consequences of their actions will be. If you cannot prove what you say you cannot convince anyone that your position is right.This breeds enmity and violence either on your part or against you.

In this instance you're defending the entire press-ideology that you probably think is the work of the devil, because in order to actually refute and understand it we have to understand the error of fides.


>>22144200
no idea what this is supposed to mean, pedophiles4jesus? lol okay, i've got a nice crowd of opposition so far here..

actual pedophile
and dude who thinks dehumanizing people is a good idea

>>22144639
Oh thanks,
this is actually pre-annotation and an earlier draft hammered out over a few days on train rides. I'd rather not dox myself on 4chan for these idiots.

> previous stuff
The so-called archives here just get burned after a few weeks so.. I guess I haven't been here for a while.

>I would like to read up more
Previous stuff was detailing Rhetoric as Pure Logic (see: Chrysippus) as opposed to Pathos which is Emotionalism and appeal to emotionalism; common epidemics today and we started from there. This is basically the Second Stoicism of the Roman Empire, as best as I can deduce the mentality relayed in what little text survives on the subject itself, again through Chrysippus.

From there the notion of untrue things being '(delusions of) pathos' (expounded in via psychology, dissonance, etc.) conveys itself into the mentality of Absurdism-in-Belief as Voltaire put it; with the attocity-enmity as consequence or the desired outcome of the untrue belief on the part of the believer or fooled person: "claiming to be offended"


summary:
Bad Rhetoric is Anti-Discourse which stems entirely from not being able to prove what you say or believe to be true; from having that position which is logically indefensible the individual enters into ad hominem. This is pathos, essentially.

Good Rhetoric is straight science; predictions and cases being made, etc. as well as not being anchored 'to' any position for being more interested in the truth in reality than of "appearing to be correct" in the eyes of peers (status, egotism, etc.). This is logos, definitely.

actually, the first /rhet/, according to my bookmarks was:
/rhet/ the socratic method as the reducto ad infinitum fallacy

That's probably a good start.

>>22144200
>pedophile
FYI i think you should be put into a bomb collar and sent out to stab criminals under threat of your head being blown off.

>praise God, the H word
FYI i think you should be strapped to a lie detector and asked questions about this belief claim of yours. I think it would be easy to demonstrate that your god delusion (pun intended) was a tiny cloth covering your own foul baseline barbarian disposition, in which case, see above.

>>22144639
btw what're your thoughts on this so far?

>>22144131
actually no, Lutheran middle American. you are poor at judgement it seems.

>>22144152
any group of persons who attempts to demoralize a population of its rights is perfect within their rights to combat it. I don't understand why this is so complex for you, unless you're of the hebrew persuation and constantly see yourself as the "victim-protagonist" of history.

>>22145023
>Lutheran middle American
>unless you're of the hebrew persuation
> you are poor at judgement it seems.
Well, some flavor of judaism-for-gentiles who blames his poor culture on jews, that was a given; it being your entire culture.

>any group of persons who attempts to demoralize a population of its rights is perfect within their rights to combat it. I don't understand why this is so complex for you
You're responding to an unspoken political narrative here, of course. I think the same thing, merely I recognize that ad hominem and various lies do nothing to resolve any issue. Recognizing why a person refuses to resolve an issue is entirely key to eliminating what you describe:
>any group of persons who attempts to demoralize a population of its rights

If you, hypothetically, cannot refute a persons claim or argument then why are you thinking that you should?


To be clear here, you seem to be holding up Nazi Propaganda as the moral argument to defend the contemporary CNN emotionalistic war propaganda and the false populism of the fake-left (which is really what I'm talking about; their proclamations of 'faith' toward absurd and untrue dogmas). My point here is that without a focus on proof and truth then anything can be said by them without means to challenge: these political things can be refuted in a few moments in conversation but conversations are not permitted to occur due to the anti-discourse "championing their faith" on the part of ideologues and populist news-preachers.

If they copied this from the religious institutions, as I believe they probably did (although I'm undecided 49/51 whether it's all unconscious on their part), then it still means that the religious lies must be shot out from under them; that is: (the 3 things mentioned in the first paragraph) being the horse that they're riding upon which you have been trained to defend, using words like 'rights' and agreeing entirely with 'dehumanization of a target through propaganda' - defending your enemies attacks against 'you' in the name of a concept of 'faith'.

Whereas,
It might go without saying that propaganda of any sort does not even work on an intelligent person who thinks first of proof whenever somebody speaks.

>>22145023
>Lutheran middle American
>unless you're of the hebrew persuation
> you are poor at judgement it seems.
Well, some flavor of judaism-for-gentiles who blames his poor culture on jews, that was a given; it being your entire culture.

>any group of persons who attempts to demoralize a population of its rights is perfect within their rights to combat it. I don't understand why this is so complex for you
You're responding to an unspoken political narrative here, of course. I think the same thing, merely I recognize that ad hominem and various lies do nothing to resolve any issue. Recognizing why a person refuses to resolve an issue is entirely key to eliminating what you describe:
>any group of persons who attempts to demoralize a population of its rights

If you, hypothetically, cannot refute a persons claim or argument then why are you thinking that you should?


To be clear here, you seem to be holding up Nazi Propaganda as the moral argument to defend the contemporary CNN emotionalistic war propaganda and the false populism of the fake-left (which is really what I'm talking about; their proclamations of 'faith' toward absurd and untrue dogmas). My point here is that without a focus on proof and truth then anything can be said by them without means to challenge: these political things can be refuted in a few moments in conversation but conversations are not permitted to occur due to the anti-discourse "championing their faith" on the part of ideologues and populist news-preachers.

If they copied this from the religious institutions, as I believe they probably did (although I'm undecided 49/51 whether it's all unconscious on their part), then it still means that the religious lies must be shot out from under them; that is: (the 3 things mentioned in the first paragraph) being the horse that they're riding upon which you have been trained to defend, using words like 'rights' and agreeing entirely with 'dehumanization of a target through propaganda' - defending your enemies attacks against 'you' in the name of a concept of 'faith'.

Whereas (as to your faith in the utility of black propaganda),
It might go without saying that propaganda of any sort does not even work on an intelligent person who thinks first of proof whenever somebody speaks.

Not to go too deep into the failure of 'faith-based proclamation' but it might be said that Christians in the West were unable to come up with any argument at all against homosexual marriage and things like that. There were arguments to be made but for some reason they made none.

Deeply strange. And, anyway, a sign of total ineptitude for a majority religion anchored in proclamation to change anyones mind about anything:

"let's brainwash the kids" is the go-to for religion and contemporary political dogmatics.. which is inferior and short-term.

>>22145248
Yeah I’m sure you’re a shining beacon of humanity yourself. I bet you spend all day on here lecturing people on the good life despite not leaving your house and interacting with other people. I could be wrong, though. But you haven’t proven to me otherwise. Despite your proclamations, in order to get things done, you have to interact with the rest of society, either directly or indirectly and it seems you’re doing that without trying but actively trying to make sure no one wants to interact with you. Reminds me of how pedophiles, trannies and niggers fit into society. Oh wait…

>>22144817

I agree with the overall message and am very impressed by your decesion from the start not to get into the blame game that would divert from a subtle point that all institutions seek to inflict an easily manipulated pathos upon the minds of their adherents and a public.

Transforming discourse away from topics relevant to a populace into an emotionally charged fiddle that a criminal can then play upon seems a repeatable pattern throughout history. If a person can be made to believe things which have zero connection to reality that person has no chance at thinking for themselves and will bend to whatever personality entices their senses the most.

What's more, I think it was Steve Bannon who basically put the following idea forth - Anyone can believe an objective fact. Believing a particular set of insane things requires individual participation and engagement. When a large group of people join together and believe in an obvious fiction that becomes their uniform and a group in a uniform is an army - Something like that.

A lot of what you go into lends credence to the above. Of course since all institutions promote their own propaganda I believe they unwittingly engineer the armies of their opponents almost as much as armies for themselves but I would need to research more.

My primary interest is the use, abuse and possible repurposing of propaganda in practice so I very much appreciated you going into the history of the Churchs' use all the way back to Paul. It's very fascinating. I also agree strongly on how you view the set up of universities thanks mostly to their history as tied to religion.

As a leftist I would go more into the role of ideology, as a view towards power relations generally might prove a valuable lens to deepen the understanding of manipulating individual egos and degrading discourse and therefore human relations so that violence against the other is always accepted as the best means to deal with issues.

But ya a very fun read :)

>>22140768
Midwit thread

>>22145906
>despite not leaving your house and interacting with other people.
FYI I work in care and mental health so I'm probably doing far more every week than most people will do in their entire lives. but this is an ad hominem. i'll just ignore all of these in your reply, I'm used to working with people who don't know what they're doing. ha


> in order to get things done, you have to interact with the rest of society, either directly or indirectly
and therefore: "propaganda is the tool for that" is that what you're suggesting?

If so I strongly disagree, for all the reasons given. In fact you don't need to lie to people or abuse them or tell lies about other people in order to trick some other people into doing something for you. If you want people to do something for you you would present your case so that the actions you want them to perform are fortified solidly in the heads for direct reasons, rather than relying on that they 'might' perform some action by accident, via complicated inefficient indirect manipulation.


Did you consider that an ideology or religion does more harm to its professed aims just by using 'propaganda'? When leftists lied to you as a child, for instance, did this work on you? Obviously it had the effect of accelerating you along the opposite path that they set out to achieve with their advertising and influence campaigns to appeal to the overly-impressionable with sloppy lies. Obviously, then, to gain consent by lie is inferior as it 1) doesn't last, 2) produces a very hostile actor against you.

>>Obviously, then, to gain consent by lie is inferior as it 1) doesn't last, 2) produces a very hostile actor against you.
>>1) doesn't last,
ed. i mean: it's short-term win for poor results, at massive long-term cost.

>>22146890
pseudo-elitist response

>>22145961
>What's more, I think it was Steve Bannon who basically put the following idea forth - Anyone can believe an objective fact. Believing a particular set of insane things requires individual participation and engagement. When a large group of people join together and believe in an obvious fiction that becomes their uniform and a group in a uniform is an army - Something like that.
That's a very good point. I remember "mass psychosis (or something like, uniformity)" appeared for a few weeks on mainstream blogs to 'refute' the idea that they had gone mad during trumps tenure. Outside of that political instance it's quite true: William Reich (mass psychology of fascism) and Hannah Arendt (Eichmann in Jerusalem, banality of evil) are good reads on this topic.

>My primary interest is the use, abuse and possible repurposing of propaganda in practice so I very much appreciated you going into the history of the Churchs' use all the way back to Paul. It's very fascinating. I also agree strongly on how you view the set up of universities thanks mostly to their history as tied to religion.
I'm glad to have been of help. My view, mostly on this, is that it's a cultural thing going on in the unconscious or subconscious, and that the most effective means to stop it is to relay this case. It kind of makes it almost inactionable for today, since as we see here a christian finds themselves defending atheists (r whatever) due to recognizing a great commonality in the way both of them go about things. But I'm of the view of H.G. Wells in 'shape of things to come' where in order to end the awful and stupid thing going on that humanity must fulfill its potential as the 'society of polymaths' as these things are not beyond human cognition to understand at all; introducing basic psychology into schools, for instance, would immunize a population to virtually everything negative occurring today..
>egotism
It won't happen today of course but when it does, as it will eventually, society will be on its way to the stars - I don't think we can progress anymore until we hit this point.

> the role of ideology
My view here is that any ideology-narrative is like a "god of the gaps" in missing pieces of information; whereas if we have a mindset to investigate without biases then we have no "gaps" that need filling in that can be latched onto by hostile actors. The interest in the truth itself vs. that of "popularity/peers/socialization" is, I think, the deciding factor considering Logos vs. Pathos on the mind or within a society. But then it ought be very simple and Logos is the obviously correct stance: why would a human in the natural world agree that the wrong way to hunt a tiger is correct? the wrong way gets him and his people killed. The "peer consensus" stuff is more obviously an urbanite and fantasy thing, a human construct of social orientation which isn't interested in reality.

felix causas

*mass-conformism

>>22140768
You did many mistakes, anon. Your knowledge of history is high school-tier. You should study historical materialism before discussing these topics, but it feels like you are just a philosopher, so ignorance and smugness are your best bets to sound smart.
That said I will correct you on what you called "the big three stageplays observable in all of Pauls dealings which were continued through his Church", so that they may be a good starting point for further in depth analysis.
>To seek the status of a persecuted victim for social and political power
Paul didn't invented this. Jews did back when they were in Babylon. Paul was actually fairly supremacist, using Merkvah to support Jesus, calling Gentiles "dogs" and, most importantly, him working, being tolerant of those who didn't respect the laws of food and having made an early form of vow of celibacy made him much more exalted than his other fellows and the other humans. You may say he was doing so to obtain power, but again, his emphasis on self sustainment would disprove any attack to his actual goals.
>To appeal to the most stupid and viceful persons within a society
Paul tried to appeal to the rich people interested in esoteric knowledge. Just like atheism appeals to the same strata nowadays. Retarded folks were forced to accept the Christian faith years later, when the whole aristocracy had sedimented its Christian craze.
>To cast the targets of the propaganda as inhuman in order to avoid discussion with them
Incredibly reductionist view, anon. The discussions were very much supported by early Christians. Paul and Peter were one on the throat of the other, but then reconciled.

>>22147146
Hello
> it feels like you are just a philosopher, so ignorance and smugness are your best bets to sound smart.
I'm fairly sure you didn't read anything since the majority of this text is detailing the origin of that stuff.

and as to this
>(you are ignorant)
because
>Jews did back when they were in Babylon.
"well that makes it alright then" lol - actually much of judaism is founded upon lies and christianity are a sect within judaism, so this is no refutation on your part or even logical: e.g. if I hate child molesters who are arabs I don't approve of child molesters who are french. They all deserve bomb collaring.


You're defending christiaity from the blame game, which is fine, but it shows that you're only pretending to be interested in the subject: falling into the enmity trap of propaganda fides, beginning with ad hominem etc. as mentioned in the text.

However,
You're probably correct in that "the practice" of (those 3 things) did not originate with Pablos but they 'did' enter into the modus of the later churches and their academic institutions; that is my point how the later academe slipped into adopting a mentality of 'faith-based profession' and the canonization of petty academics, and the enmity on the part of speakers uninterested in ad res and only capable of operating in ad hom.

>Paul
I'd like to find a good case to redeem Paul, believe me it would be so much easier lol

>>22140775
Jesus, anon. I cannot stay silent on such blatant retardation.
>A people held a book of religious stories which they feared so much to be read;
They read it, A LOT. You have clearly never read St. Augustine, or St. Aquinas, or any religious figure ever.
These people read it, explained it. If the book is of complex nature, then you need to understand it before proposing your arguments. The amount of literature you need to know to hold debates is that which will force you to study 10 years: the seminars are of such length.
Similarly happened in Judaism: you need to be 40 years old and well versed in Jewish law and theology to study Kabalah, otherwise Shabbatai Zvi will happen.
The idea that a book should be opened and read for the sake of discussion is stupid: medical literature is nowadays unintelligible for the commoner, and yet novaxxers read it and what happens? They end up doing very evil things to themselves and to others. Same goes for religious literature: Ignatius of Loyola had to study 10 years before creating the Jesuits, and in the meantime he didn't anything inherently wrong about the Bible.
>Men and Women were burned alive for daring to translate the stories
Kek. Prove it. Pro tip, you can't.
People said very nasty things about God and the Church back in the days, and didn't have anything done to them. Onlt after many repeated violations they would kill these people. An example of a verse written by a Jewish poet, friend of Dante Alighieri, commenting Dante's death:
>Now I know that was an evil year:
I am greatly disheartened to see that God,
jealous of human goodness, brought about this loss
Did they kill him? No. He was Jewish after all, they could have dealt with him in no time.
So we must conclude that the Church was much more tolerable than it is portrayed by historians. They just didn't want to have a Hong Xiuquan as a pretender to the Throne of God.
>This became intolerable and so the Church responsible was largely eradicated in many parts of Europe
The Church was eradicated in "many parts" of Europe (namely, Germany, England and Scandinavia, because that's where the nobility wasn't very savvy) because it was economically profitable, not because the peasantry suddenly chosen to die just to read (how? They were illiterate anyway) the Bible.

>>22147221
> I cannot stay silent on such blatant retardation.
>They read it, A LOT.
I see, so those post-schism five centuries of latin-only masses across europe and the burning of the translators just didn't happen? In reality for those five centuries of going to church nobody would have known anything of the content of their religion; this is central to understanding why the reformations occurred and you do not.

If this is your premise I'm inclined not to read on.

>>Men and Women were burned alive for daring to translate the stories
>Kek. Prove it. Pro tip, you can't.

William Tyndale for one. Are you that ignorant of your own English history to be unaware of this Man? of course you are, you're a traitor papist. ha j/k (but deathly serious)


> (you have not read) any religious figure ever.
I have. I used to be more sympatico with Christianity until I realized how the majority were selectively latching into quotations to avoid doing anything to improve their character. e.g. Augustine against moderation because "it is too difficult" is perhaps the most egregious; if an ideology produces this then it is useless, and the basis of the religion anchored to the god of the jews who "curses man with original sin for desiring to tell right from wrong," is patently an awful irredeemable creed. I don't see the value in pretending any differently... if it's useless or outright bad then it's useless and outright bad...

...whilst East Asian and Pagan Romans produced far better intellectual works on the few things that Christians would claim monopoly on; morality and virtue, for instance.


I might say that this text (i.e. this topic) is referring to 'fides' and 'propaganda fides' and not about 'church good' - church bad.

>>22147206
>the majority of this text...
...is detailing your critique of the counter-reformation, not of Paul.
>well that makes it alright then
No, anon. You didn't get the point. You seek to blame the Catholic Church, when in reality you are just ignorant that it is endemic of every minoritarian group. You don't see that "playing victim" in minorities is due to the fact that they are actually victims. Saying otherwise is being ignorant. Paul used the Psalter to rehearse the perennial state of victimhood in Jewish communities, moreso as they were subject to the first major schism.
>blame game
I am not saying that claiming to be a victim is bad. I am saying that you should look if the claimant is actually a victim, not attack him on the basis of him claiming to be a victim.
>only capable of operating in ad hom
They were not arguing in "ad hom", but "ab auctoritas". The difference is in the fact that the authority of an author is used as of today to determine the accuracy of the published paper(read for more informations: Tate 2010 Web Wisdom).
>I'd like to find a good case to redeem Paul, believe me it would be so much easier lol
You won't find it. You got too comfortable hating him.

>>22147294
>You didn't get the point. You seek to blame the Catholic Church,
it's impossible to trace back current european academia and ignore that it's origins were religious indoctrination centres. I am sorry if this upsets you but it is the truth.

>in reality you are just ignorant that it is endemic of every minoritarian group.
Today, sure. Now if we were interested in finding out where the idea cam from that "pretending to be abused (or in Pauls case: having abused, then claiming identity with the abused, i.e. jesus)" was a source of political power then... see above. It's unavoidable.

With that said,
I don't mean to suggest that 'this' is a unique euopean religious thing, but you really do not find the same mentality occurring so much (or either at all) in previous (pre-christian) europe or in other places with an intellectual grasp of things. It's my case here that the religion lent itself uniquely to our societies being predisposed to political and religious abuse in this precise way. That for example: a society would not be susceptible to atrocity propaganda today if it did not have such a massive historical foundation in atrocity propaganda which demonstrated the apparent efficacy of "telling lies".

>They were not arguing in "ad hom", but "ab auctoritas"
Who are we talking about? Augustine? I'm talking about media and academia. To be honest, many christian writers from even those supposedly 'better' days take this form; Ireneaus for example seethes bile and addresses nothing, his writing is a case study in political spin or mental illness or both.

re: media and academia
CNN or 'local paper is ab auctoritas? Are you sure lol? It doesn't matter to bolster an ad hominem with anything else; in reality if a person is not arguing to the specifics of a case, not wishing to discuss the topic and are diverting from the topic to hand with character attacks, etc., then it is ad hominem first of all before it is anything else. It is 'ad hominem (to the man)' because it is not 'ad res (to the matter)'

e.g. a scientist does not prove his assertion or refute another persons case by declaring that the person is a 'bad person'.

>The difference is in the fact that the authority of an author is used as of today to determine the accuracy of the published paper
i.e. consensus of peers. Yes it sounds good but in reality, again, we can observe at least 250 years of western academia engaging in rabid character attacks of people who turn out to have been correct: this is not 'scientific-thinking (or practice)' but 'zealoty' to a doctrine.


>Paul
I got a good one for him, I don't think a Christian would like it though: Paul is a totally evil character who goes mad from guilt from his time torturing the early Christians. Probably this is most likely. So he isn't' a role model but a person to learn "how not to be", but this is quite backwards from his role as the founder of Christianity.

>>22147284
>post-schism five centuries of latin-only masses across europe
Just like for the scientific literature, the lingua franca stayed latin.
>the burning of the translators just didn't happen?
The burning of translators didn't happen. They were protected by nobility driven by greed.
>In reality for those five centuries of going to church nobody would have known anything of the content of their religion
And even in the places where the Bible was translated, did they actually read it? 2000 pages of abstruse poetry, historical accountancy and encyphered protests against the status quo?
And even after those 500 years, in the lands where the Church still hold power they didn't discovered what the Bible actually said, even if they could and were able to.
Also, another ignorant mistake on your side: the first Catholic translation in Italian came out in 1769, the Martini Bible, that came out 247 years after the translation from Martin Luther. Almost half your supposed "500 years". In other words, once the literates (during the Enlightment) stopped using latin, and switched to the local language to discuss academic papers, the Church too did the same. The Bible is meant for learned people, not your ignorant peasant.
>William Tyndale for one.
Kek.
>Catholic officials, prominently Thomas More,[19] charged that he had purposely mistranslated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views.
Also,
>The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”
Also,
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER%20XI
>your own English history
Well, thanks for implying that my English is equal to that of a Briton, but I am just an ESL. And of course I know of him. He was not burned for his translation, but for his mistakes.
>if an ideology produces this then it is useless
St. Augustinus is not the Messiah, he can be wrong. The Church Fathers are emboldened by tradition to become Catechism, they are not doctrine per se.
This is why you study the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and not the single author.

>>22147456
>current european academia and ignore that it's origins were religious indoctrination centres
Law schools originated from Irnerius, which popularized the Corpus Iuris Civilis, a laical Imperial commission.
STEM field degrees originated from kabalah, which used Trismegistus, which was written by a person which a great passion for Pythagoras. Alchemy (as it was called in medieval times) was condemned by the Church for being unreliable and as it was put in the papal bull Spondent pariter:
>For there is no doubt that the professors of this art of alchemy make fun of each other because, conscious of their own ignorance, they are surprised at those who say anything of this kind about themselves;
Medicine originated from Aristotle's philosophy which had some things in common with Christianity, but not regarding its more formal aspects.
In other words, there is nothing actually religious in the origin of modern academia. Religious centers just were good at preserving the material used later on by these academics for their purposes.
>you really do not find the same mentality occurring so much (or either at all) in previous (pre-christian) europe...
... for Christianity brought for the first time Europeans together.
>in other places with an intellectual grasp of things.
Every time a religious escaped its ethnic connotations, it showed an inherently victimistic nature: Buddhism is an example.
>Who are we talking about?
Medieval academia. Legal doctrine was based upon ab auctoritate argumenti (sorry I made an error writing it "ab auctoritas").
>consensus of peers
No. I am specifically talking about ab auctoritate. "this paper, this argument, this logic is right for it is written, proclaimed or defined by an authority".
An example is "You are not a psychologist, so you can't say that affirmative care is a flawed cure for gender dysphoria. My psychologist, who has a PhD in Psychology btw, says that there is no need to try behavioural therapy, and HRT is definitely the only possible therapy".
The arguments for why HRT is the only possible cure are 0, and the only basis for such claim is "the authority of the person who supports my thesis is greater than the authority of the person who agrees with your thesis".

>>22147463
>The burning of translators didn't happen. They were protected by nobility driven by greed.
I'm sorry that you began with this. By rights I should disregard everything you say after this as your premise is demonstrably false and you even confirm what I said without seeming to realize it:

> another ignorant mistake on your side: the first Catholic translation in Italian came out in 1769, the Martini Bible, that came out 247 years after the translation from Martin Luther. Almost half your supposed "500 years"
then it was 750yrs of ignorance for mainland Western Europe, we English banned these people from our country in the 1500s and only suffered for 500yrs. As you seem to be aware very shortly after we did translate these things and killed the Catholics (More) who had orchestrated the suppression 'of' the translators we discovered that the bible contained a lot of total nonsense. This foreknowledge on the part of the clergy was evidently the reason for the suppression in the first place, since the character of their religious dogma proposes a demented ethnic jewish god with highly immoral lessons who curses humans to hell for desiring to know right from wrong, etc.

> The Bible is meant for learned people, not your ignorant peasant.
This is moreso the topic as relating to "unknowable (absurd) doctrines held by a self-proclaimed elite," it enables them, when discussion cannot occur, to make-up what they like and this informs their character - inculcating a habit of deception for presupposed yet erroneous 'greater good' of which they would be unable to explain. But before you go on, Cardinal, I am talking about modern day contemporary Leftists.


>So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543
Irrelevant: all subsequent English language bibles are verbatim copies of Tyndales; the difference or point of contention (or reason the Catholics were angry) was of the word Ecclesia which is translated erroneously into 'Church' but meant, to the Greeks and Romans, simply a 'public forum'. The main points (the Tudors) agreed with Tyndale on, of the usurpation and invention of papal primacy - a fraudulent claim (which the native speaking Greeks would have always been aware of, see: post-schism).

My point in this text is that the position and operation that the papacy were guilty of then is the same position and operation that propagandists (for want of a better word) are guilty of today; this is way you find persecution for erring from dogma, it is the same pseudo-elitist mentality of propaganda fides.

>>22147542
>>22147463
>No. I am specifically talking about ab auctoritate. "this paper, this argument, this logic is right for it is written, proclaimed or defined by an authority".
>ab auctoritate argumenti
>An example is "You are not a psychologist, so you can't say that affirmative care is a flawed cure for gender dysphoria. My psychologist, who has a PhD in Psychology btw, says that there is no need to try behavioural therapy, and HRT is definitely the only possible therapy".
>The arguments for why HRT is the only possible cure are 0, and the only basis for such claim is "the authority of the person who supports my thesis is greater than the authority of the person who agrees with your thesis".
Your example would agree with me then that the claim or presumption of auctoritas (a pagan roman concept and personal virtue) is in error; chiefly because it is not an argument ad res ... but I was saying more than that: that ad hominem is being mistaken for auctoritas and presented as if it were debate or refutation, due to the verbal profession of authority, e.g. "he is a doctor," etc.

>Medicine originated from Aristotle
untrue; again pagan romans accomplished this and before they built hospitals and introduced sanitation it was temples of aesculapius around the aegan and propontis, and hygiea in the adriatic and tyrrhenian, etc. whilst Galen is (accurately) credited with the formalization of medicine that lasted for 1,500yrs (or thereabouts) in stagnancy until new docotrs (persecuted equally by church and western academe) reintroduced things like "washing your hands."

The self-proclaimed authorities could not be wrong, you see, and their toddler-like emotional abuse of inventors and thinkers is "justified". But they are wrong almost constantly, to such an extent that it seems obvious that character attack is used more often in history as admission of guilt or inability to refuted or disprove the case presented. The idea was to protect the doctrine and the ego attached to the doctrine; with the highly negative consequence that society would be held back from understanding some new superior method of value. Perhaps Professionalism would truly be the word for this; "to deny evidence for the sake of career."


>Every time a religious escaped its ethnic connotations, it showed an inherently victimistic nature: Buddhism is an example.
What do you mean here?

>STEM field degrees originated from kabalah
uh wait what - what're you saying here? Science is the Jewish Devil? I hope not lol that's extremely illogical since Judaism possessed no science or medicine or civics of its own.

>... for Christianity brought for the first time Europeans together.
untrue. In fact we have not today exceeded the political and economic high bar set by the Roman Republic. I mentioned foederati in the text, this is what europeans are under those later christian laws; where the only person enjoying the rights of a 'roman citizen' in a town might be the senior clergy.

>>... for Christianity brought for the first time Europeans together.
ahem, proto - leftist egalitarian idealism

My dad went on a church mission trip and he said that one day while they were doing a prayer walk around a neighborhood, this Jewish guy wearing a gay rainbow shirt and yamaka hat came up to them and started mocking them for their Christian beliefs and calling them homophobic.
He said that the gay supporter said "Well I'm Jewish but I'll do a prayer with you" and he mockingly did a sign of the cross and pretended to pray to God in a sarcastic way after calling my dad and the rest of the group hompphobic.

>>22147890
That's pretty cool, when did that happen in 1967?

In real-time I came very close to punching out a group of street preachers who were shouting about how when everyone is dead they'll just rot in the ground and be forgotten within a few months by their family.

I'm forced to listen to them every other weekend over lunch so pretty sure one day I'm just going to have had a bad morning and decide to stand in front of them and ask them why it is that non-jews need saving from jewish customs that they don't even follow. Or maybe just pay some kids to kick their folding table over.

i gotta live here you know

>>22147890
no

courtesy bump for catholicapologetics.com poster

>>The main points (the Tudors) agreed with Tyndale on, of the usurpation and invention of papal primacy - a fraudulent claim (which the native speaking Greeks would have always been aware of, see: post-schism).

>>My point in this text is that the position and operation that the papacy were guilty of then is the same position and operation that propagandists (for want of a better word) are guilty of today; this is way you find persecution for erring from dogma, it is the same pseudo-elitist mentality of propaganda fides.
To be more clear:

A group (or person) which has anchored themselves to an easily demonstrated fraud or untruth (Absurdism) 'cannot' tolerate a discussion on the matter as a discussion would reveal their position to be untrue, this is what prompts their terrible conduct: character attack, censorship, violence, false narratives, atrocity propaganda, demonization without proofs (libel, ad hominem), etc., and how this provides a basis we can understand to contemporary propaganda and the mindset of the promulgator of it: 'propagada fides'.

In cases like this (i.e. things originating fro this foundation of flawed premise being demanded to be true) it can be understood that, no matter what else, it is 'not' the truth that such persons are defending but rater the doctrine to which they have attached their careers/egotism.


The process of this, I observe, is identical in operation (regardless to the verbal professions made, or the subject) whether its religion or ideology or a persons own individual social dramas, so that one cannot immunize against and understand one use of this without understanding all uses of this at the same time. Likewise, if a person has this mentality in one area they will have it in all areas as well.

>>22150976
Kek. Didn't think I would get so much attention.
Listen anon. I have an idea. I have a wattpad page: https://www.wattpad.com/user/AlexanderOfCremona
Make one too, copypaste your posts, then me and you will have an "epistolary debate". Back in the days people used to write letters to debate: Jung and Freud did it (in italian, https://m.libreriauniversitaria.it/#!/product/BIT/9788896658048)), i found this in english https://www.amazon.com/Epistolary-Dissenting-Richardson-Concerning-Ordination/dp/137990594X..
To be more specific: you create a book, then you create a subsection where you copypaste your whole article. Then I create a book and a subsection where I answer it (to know what I am referencing, let's use the quotes from each other texts as titles of each paragraph. Let's make these titles in bold font and number them to be able to reference them later on. I made my original post as such https://www.wattpad.com/1352955263-draft-for-epistolary-debate-original-answer-to).). Let's create one subsection for each post we are discussing: if you have something to add to a previous subsection, you write it in an additional subsection (I will name it addenda et corrigenda).
Let's restart this debate from the beginning: in depth discussion, no insults, if it is possible provide sources, if asked post images from books we are quoting. In other words, let's keep it civil and intellectual.
Ok?
I think that 500 words each day will suffice. Post them as soon as you write them.
I was quite busy these last two days: I will start writing tomorrow.

Dang I thought this was going to be a thread about rhetoric but it's just some schizo. I want to learn rhetoric.

>>22151954
You are learning Imperial Roman Rhetoric, muh hatefilled criminal hanging up on a cross.

If you want to learn how to be a psychopath, it's not very hard: watch hillary clinton or mike pompeo and copy them, take drugs to zone yourself out and numb yourself to dissonance then say whatever comes to mind whilst being sure to avoid the subject and use copious libel and idealistic mass-appeal narrative. it's very easy though (i would argue) mostly useless and therefore inferior; but it only requires the cognitive and intellectual capacity of a toddler so it's accessible. yw. I won't even charge for that.


>>22151902
You know, that's not a bad idea. I've been thinking of a way to incorporate this feedback into a more readable format: either for the funny abuse or for more genuine reality-based critique of the ideas as they are. That's my aim here really, yes I am open to changing my mind, of course, but I'm trying to assertion the contemporary impression of things that I consider inevitable to be brought in by a success human society in the future; for their benefit to know for sure what humans today thought of these ideas. As I said, I don't believe we can progress until we adopt this this and this.

Alright, I'll check out the format of that thing and be in touch through there. Good suggestion, Cardinal, very helpful.

*ascertain

>>22151902
>I think that 500 words each day will suffice.
>each day
I wouldn't go that far. This text, as it is, sits about 2,518 words.

>>22152065
Have you not heard about Poe's Maelstrom and McLuhan's take from it? McLuhan learned the contemporary rhetoric, the political speak, the advertisement speak in order to escape from the Maelstrom because in the story the character studies the Maelstrom to escape it, so we need to study these things in order to escape them.

>>22152082
>McLuhan
oh shit, there's a name I haven't heard since I was in my early 20's. It doesn't ring a bell for me; the "maelstrom". Retreating into jargonism is commonplace nowadays, if it was once novel or a good idea to escape confusion or whatever, it's an obvious impediment in the mind which knows nothing but jargon and uses it like "god of the gaps" - ill-defined or unknown phraseology which subverts attempts at precision to the matter being discussed; both in the mind of jargon-speaker and the audience.

e.g. Eichmann used copious jargonism and it was clear he didn't udnerstand the import of the things he was referrig to 'with' the jargon; he was clueless to what was happening down the chain of command as consequence and his followers, also utlizing the vaugness of jargon, could make-up whatever they liked.

As Fronto and Quintilian said "we should speak clearly and precisely so that we cannot misunderstood (or have our words reinterpreted),"

>>22152078
Maybe you didn't understand.
>I wouldn't go that far. This text, as it is, sits about 2,518 words.
Anon. I indended to go through it in its entirety: >>22147146 is 250 words, >>22147206 is 250 words, >>22147221 is 400 words long, >>22147284 is 300 words long, >>22147294 is 200 words long, >>22147456 is 500 words long, >>22147456 is 450 words long, >>22147542 is 350 words long, >>22147770 is 400 words long,
>>22147847 is 500 words long,
>>22151085 is 300 words long.

In other words, we wrote in total 6400 words. A 200 pages book is 50000 words long. We basically wrote 25 pages in one day, and we only debated the following sentences:
>To seek the status of a persecuted victim for social and political power
>To appeal to the most stupid and viceful persons within a society
>To cast the targets of the propaganda as inhuman in order to avoid discussion with them
>A people held a book of religious stories which they feared so much to be read; for the vast number of errors and evil things contained within those pages to be known, that Men and Women were burned alive for daring to translate the stories into a language that was intelligible. This became intolerable and so the Church responsible was largely eradicated in many parts of Europe.
Those are 100 words from your 2500 words. We would easily publish a book, just by debating your 2500 worth of text.
Not that im saying that we should publish it. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things to discuss if you want to. As I said, "let's restart this debate": by that I meant "let's discuss your entire article from beginning till the end". And in order not to burnout, I suggest to write 500 words every day. Understood?

>>22152336
Oh, hm. Probably easier to go by paragraph in that case. Although the double spacing marks the end of one 'section', there's four in there.

Four chapters. ha

>We basically wrote 25 pages in one day, and we only debated the following sentences:
yep i get what you're going for now, it's a good idea.