Perverted Culture

[Llwellyn]

It has been said that “western culture is the Bible’s way of making more Bibles” -- this comment focuses attention on the way that western culture and the Christian meme are integrated to a degree that is hard to overstate. Let me make a few quick observations:

 

1. The Gutenberg Bible was the first substantial book printed with movable type. It could be stated that the meme invented movable type in order to create a new means of transmitting itself -- like a biological virus mutating and becoming airborne.

 

2. Martin Luther's translation of the Bible also helped to develop a standard version of "High German." The many German dialects were obliterated and substituted by the dialect of Luther's translation.

 

3. The American criminal justice system, with an emphasis on non-corrective punishment, is a product of Christian thinking about "God's just vengeance" and "Jesus died for sins." As of 2008, more than 2.4 MILLION(!) Americans are behind bars passing their lives away. "The wages of sin is death."

 

4. The cultural value of monogamous heterosexual pairing is a value promulgated by the Christian meme. Christianity denigrates homosexuality and promiscuity. Even Atheist Americans who never went to church still think that heterosexual lifelong monogamy is the standard way to live.

 

5. On a personal level, a lot of the free-floating anxiety in Western culture is due to an assumption that mistakes lead to catastrophe and that there is no recovery from wrong. "I lied so that must make me a liar." "If I have a fatty snack, I might as well binge." "She cheated on me, so I must divorce her." Romans 3:10-18: "All have turned away, they have together become worthless."

 

How can we free our minds from the meme when all our thoughts and beliefs, even our language, betray us?

[lunaticheathen]

When I figure it out, I'll let you know. I'm certainly working on it, and am currently living outside of a few of those memes, but my mind still betrays me.

Training is strong.

[Denyoz]

Yeah, sometimes I wish we could just trash our whole western culture society and start over.

[JoeCoastie]

Christians like to toot their horns over the accomplishments of Western Civilization, when they themselves were the hindrance to it. Aside from some a few artistic masterpieces during the dark ages and renaissance most of the West's great accomplishments occurred either before or after Christianity's great influence. Christianity is a turd in the sandwich of our history.

[Suzy]

Christians like to toot their horns over the accomplishments of Western Civilization, when they themselves were the hindrance to it. Aside from some a few artistic masterpieces during the dark ages and renaissance most of the West's great accomplishments occurred either before or after Christianity's great influence. Christianity is a turd in the sandwich of our history.

 

Yeah, and Renaissance is a movement that was inspired by classical Greek and Roman art. It would be interesting to see an alternative universe where Christianity didn't pervail.

 

And the Roman empire fell to the Barbarians because of Christianity, basically: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm

[Ro-bear]

I agree that the influence of Christianity is pervasive in western culture, but it can be overstated. Non-corrective punishment predates Christianity, and monogamous heterosexual pairing transcends it.

 

Christianity didn't originate much of that we associate with it, but it does reinforce those societal mores.

[JoeCoastie]

During the Dark Ages the Church had a monopoly on the arts. Science has pretty much always been the Church's enemy. With arts its amazing how people took it away from the Church when they were allowed to be inspired by other things. I joke that Christian music sucks, because every song is about the same thing. Christian music is in a sordid state right now where they just ape the pop charts or create the most boring bland ballads, but it used to be the heart and soul of American music. Gospel and spiritual hymns laid down the groundwork for the blues, ragtime, and country music, which later evolved into the devils very own rock and roll. I actually enjoy some old Christian songs by the likes of Blind Willie McTell and Johnny Cash.

[Will02]

Christians like to toot their horns over the accomplishments of Western Civilization, when they themselves were the hindrance to it. Aside from some a few artistic masterpieces during the dark ages and renaissance most of the West's great accomplishments occurred either before or after Christianity's great influence. Christianity is a turd in the sandwich of our history.

 

If there had been no Christianity, there would have been no dark age. The implications of that alone would be enormous. We might have actually lived in the advanced futuristic society we see so often in sci-fi. It sounds far fetched until you realize that without a dark age, Roman inventiveness would have never stopped and we would automatically gain an extra 1500 years of progress and development. Romans were very good at manufacturing and were mining metals on a scale that was surpassed only in the modern era. The industrial revolution might have occurred in 500-600 CE instead of a mere ~200 years ago. (I recall reading that the Romans had something that was pretty close to a steam engine, I forget what it was used for)

 

Rome probably would have still fallen at some point as ancient societies always do, but it may have lasted a few centuries longer. Progress wouldn't have completely ground to a halt like it did in christian Europe. Roman culture was far superior; the Roman love of logic, reason ,and tolerance were much better than the medieval "the-church-is-always-right" mentality. The Renaissance basically had to start over from scratch, and the fact that any Greek/Roman stuff survived at all was pure luck combined with the fact that parchment was very expensive.

[Vigile]

If you mix pepper in with the sauce, of course it's going to influence the flavor of the sauce.

[Akheia]

Didn't Chomsky talk about this? And the Sapir-Worff stuff. Our language shapes our thinking. Maybe learning other languages would help. I know when I'm in "Italian mode" (or whatever language I'm trying to butcher) I actually do think differently.

[Voice]

Yeah, sometimes I wish we could just trash our whole western culture society and start over.

 

This is correct, but we have to do it each for ourselves.

Start investigating other languages

Explore new ideas

Read math

Think of the Western culture as dirt to grow out of. Fertilizer.

[Deva]

American society is truly corrupt. It is certainly much worse now than even 30 years ago. Even common courtesy is largely a thing of the past. I honestly believe that most people are just an inch away from some kind of mental breakdown. It is truly dog eat dog as people lose whatever they have saved due to corrupt banking practices and now need perfect credentials to even get a job because of the intense competition.

 

I agree with Robert Thurman when he said that its a "culture of mass suicide." Everything it touches gets corrupted too.

 

We can speculate as to all the reasons for this, but certainly the massive hypocrisy of Christianity; its screwy doctrines that the Puritans brought over, including the "work-until- you- drop ethic" have contributed to it.

[LivingLife]

I agree that the influence of Christianity is pervasive in western culture, but it can be overstated.  Non-corrective punishment predates Christianity, and monogamous heterosexual pairing transcends it.

 

Christianity didn't originate much of that we associate with it, but it does reinforce those societal mores.

I tend to agree with this, christianity is not known for original thought but perversion of good ideas.

 

Justice has always been abused by the affluent. Been watching Spartacus and the concept of slaves being fucked over as gladiators etc and only when a slave does a master in, is a crime seen. From this wonderful Roman culture we have christianity so no wonder it is so fucked up.

 

On the reproductive side, men really serve no biological purpose other than to impregnate, the women do all the work. However pairing and plural nurturing pre-dates the bible, other cultures have it and all cultures tend to be male dominated and many treated women like chattel or simple brood mares. Who is still holding to this "standard?" - the religious.

 

I agree society would probably have evolved further w/o the church. It does seem to appear that the US is where this last vestige of religious dumbfuckistan's needs to be dragged into the 21st century like EU and other enlightened cultures. E.g. the RCC is opposed to gay marriage and abortion and BC and is making noises about it in the US.

 

In SA all these issues are already resolved so as far as they are concerned, they have no mandate or leverage anymore on the prevailing government. They still have their churches and followers and missions but are ess. a silent minority in the xian circles. Ironically it was a black bishop Tutu that chaired the truth and reconciliation commission in our transition to full independence and equality. Even he has been at loggerheads with the RCC on shit like condoms, you cannot fight AIDS with superstition.

 

The point I think I am trying to make is that once religion in the US plays as much importance as the rest of the world, the RCC itself will start to fade to obscurity too.

 

The question is how strong are the evangelicals? Since the sky here did not fall with abortion and gay marriage being legalised, they have really very little to make the folk afraid of and have defaulted to sale of cosmic real estate like all the reformed orthodox churches.

 

In the black community, gays have never been ostracised, it was seen as an anomaly but no real threat. They are very promiscuous and will still fuck a willing girl/prostitute even if they are married and do not blink an eyelid.

 

It seems only the white gays were embarrassed/shamed in say holding hands, the black folk, meh, they just held hands and no one blinked an eyelid. Perhaps this exposure to another culture is what makes us more tolerant.

[DT761138]

Christianity absorbed and perpetuated alot of the Roman cultural mores. Contempt of homosexuality was found to some extent in the Roman world too, just slightly different mores and more leniency. Lifelong monogamy was also a Roman ideal even more than the Hebrews. However, Christianity reinforced both cultural values. In my mind, the Christianity we have is as much influenced by the Greco-Roman world as it is by the Jewish religion and Jesus of Nazareth. I believe that you can't seperate western culture from Christianity completely, which is why I do not hold western culture as normative any longer... there are other ancient cultures that have things a cosmopolitan human being could appreciate (such as the east Asian world).

[stryper]

It seems to me that Christianity is a mutt of Jewish and Greco-Roman parents. That has then interbred with so many local traditions as to be inconsistent between denominations.

 

As to patriarchy, even in the bible there were instances of kings going to the "wise women" for advise before making a decision. I suspect there was a time when women held the power and dominated like men do now.

 

As to law, the bible simply mimics what many laws existed at the time. The code of Hammurabi was very serve. Many laws of the time period demanded death or dismemberment for even what would be considered misdemeanors. Since nearly all ancient laws had the property rights passing from father to first born son, there was a legal reason for having women treated as property and harshly for adultery.

 

It hasn't been until the advent of psychological evaluation and sociological studies that corrective action had even been considered. Yet many of US laws weren't biblicaly based. They were based on English law. Which in turn was based on Roman law. Which, being Roman, was stolen from cultures they conquered.

 

If I remember correctly Gutenberg was actually protesting the exclusivity of the bible being in a language few spoke and fewer could read. So it was a way to let the masses read the word for themselves. In many ways, movable type and the printing press had a simliar effect on society that the internet has today. Suddenly, the pipeline of information was opened and you can't close it once it is. So then it lead to 38,000 different denominations. Mutted up by location.

[Xerces]

 

4. The cultural value of monogamous heterosexual pairing is a value promulgated by the Christian meme. Christianity denigrates homosexuality and promiscuity. Even Atheist Americans who never went to church still think that heterosexual lifelong monogamy is the standard way to live.

 

You got me on this one, even though I'm an atheist I still think of monogamy as the standard. Is it really solely a product of religious thinking though? What do you think about two people that are very loyal to each other, but allow each other to fuck other people? Would that not have a high chance of complicating things?

 

Now that I think about it, it's easy to attribute something perceived negatively to religion, or any ideology. What is presumably more frightening is to attribute it to human nature itself. E.g. the way Hitler was able to convince multitudes of people to torture and murder innocent people. Religion seems to just be another way humans can manifest negative, harmful, destructive attributes that are otherwise dormant in all of us.

[Vigile]

Is it really solely a product of religious thinking though?

 

It might be religious, but xianity can't take full credit. Monogamy is standard in virtually all societies. There might be an outlier tribe or two, but the vast majority are monogamous.

 

I think it has more to do with the problem hunter gatherer societies faced when they were eking out an existence. If you don't know the kids are yours, why are you breaking your balls trying to feed them?

 

Someone with a background in sociology and anthropology will no doubt soundly correct me now as my inspiration for this comes from reading Alice Walker.

[Llwellyn]

It hasn't been until the advent of psychological evaluation and sociological studies that corrective action had even been considered.

 

Rehabilitative punishment was well known to the ancient Greeks. Socrates's "Gorgias" (399 BC) discusses the purpose of punishment in this way: "In my opinion, Polus, the unjust or doer of unjust actions is miserable in any case,--more miserable, however, if he be not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men." "If he, or any one about whom he cares, does wrong, he ought of his own accord to go where he will be immediately punished; he will run to the judge, as he would to the physician, in order that the disease of injustice may not be rendered chronic and become the incurable cancer of the soul."

http://www.ancientte...to/gorgias.html

You got me on this one, even though I'm an atheist I still think of monogamy as the standard. Is it really solely a product of religious thinking though? What do you think about two people that are very loyal to each other, but allow each other to fuck other people?

 

I'm not an expert on evolutionary psychology, but after reading "Sex at Dawn," Ryan and Jethá, I think that the human is not by nature a monogamous animal. Setting aside the theory, a recent study of Americans indicated that the median number of lifetime female sexual partners for men was seven; the median number of male partners for women was four. We are manifestly a promiscuous species, if only by degrees.

http://www.cnn.com/2...rmal/index.html

[Akheia]

Well, but in a loving way Polygamy is more common than you might think, and it's more agrarian societies I remember being spazzed about paternity. Otherwise I've heard about plenty of hunter-gatherer groups that went matrilineal instead of tracking a child's parentage through men, which as you noted isn't very reliable. But the rest sounds good.

 

Once you get into property ownership, I'd say that's where you start seeing a more patrilineal transmission of family lines. Even then, men who could afford more wives or concubines took them. I'm not sure I can agree that monogamy was the gold standard or anywhere near universal. Hell, I saw a study at one point claim that monogamy was the standard in less than 20% of world cultures, which is even less than I'd have guessed! Patriarchies are funny, aren't they?

[Suzy]

Christianity isn't the basis of monogamy even if Christians like to flaunt monogamy as a Biblical "value". That's just one more example that most Christians don't know their Bible. The Bible is full of polygamy and God apparently has no problem with it. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon etc. all were polygamous. That was OT, alright, but the NT doesn't prohibit polygamy explicitly either - only in one specific case, namely for the elders of the church.

 

I think monogamy came about probably for economical reasons. A man with several wives was required to be able to provide for all those many wives and kids. The lesser the resources became, the more difficult it was for a man to provide for several wives, so the lesser the number of wives became and at the end monogamy became a cultural/religious norm. That's just how I imagine it could came about, maybe it had other reasons, but Christianity isn't really the root of it.

[Llwellyn]

Biblical polygamy is an extreme form of the same impulse that creates monogamy. That impulse is the controlling and possessing of female sexuality. With promiscuity at one place on the spectrum, and monogamy on the other, polygamy is past monogamy. The monogamist male says to one woman: "I own you." The polygamist says the same thing to multiple women. By contrast, with promiscuity and without marriage, males have no exclusive property right to female sexuality.

[Denyoz]

Biblical polygamy is an extreme form of the same impulse that creates monogamy. That impulse is the controlling and possessing of female sexuality. With promiscuity at one place on the spectrum, and monogamy on the other, polygamy is past monogamy. The monogamist male says to one woman: "I own you." The polygamist says the same thing to multiple women. By contrast, with promiscuity and without marriage, males have no exclusive property right to female sexuality.

 

Nowadays it's usually the woman who forces (convinces) the man to commit to life-long monogamous relationship. So I would say: The monogamist female says to one man: "I own you". Just to be fair.