carp30mnia

Nah, skepticism is good and healthy for science. Open discussion builds trust and drives progress, while silencing people who question vaccines is **dogma**, not science. Blanket censorship only fuels suspicion and reduces oversight of mainstream science. And not all vaccines are the same — they differ in ingredients, formulations, mechanisms, and purposes.  
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2410/1757514350377-9be0ae0a8862850a.png)
Some concerns focus on specific ingredients (i.e. aluminum salts) or mechanisms (i.e. mRNA), not on vaccination as a whole. Others worry how vaccines can effect virus evolution if done improperly. Example: **“Leaky” vaccines (stops symptoms, not disease from spreading) can actually drive viruses to evolve into deadlier forms, as happened with Marek’s disease in chickens.** Also people face different medical circumstances, allergies, and risk–benefit calculations. There can be religious reasons as well (ex: some vaccines use pig-derived gelatin as a stabilizer, some Muslims might consider this haram).

If we silence every skeptical person, we risk fueling distrust and missing real opportunities to improve safety. Critical questions — even uncomfortable ones — have historically led to medical improvements (such as better testing protocols, clearer allergen labeling, and the removal of thimerosal). Shutting down opposing views doesn’t make medicine safer; open scrutiny does. If that means tolerating the whackier conspiracy theories, I don't mind.  
  
Oppositely, %%blind faith in *human-led* science getting everything right all the time is more questionable%%. While vaccines imo overall have saved lives, there have been real historical cases where things went wrong and caused harm. These are rare but often cited as reasons for caution. Here are some documented examples:

![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2410/1757514350441-a50aaafdc7c1dbcb.png)

Vaccine-related accidents and failures have happened, and absolutely can happen again. These examples show why people can be skeptical, not necessarily of the idea of vaccination, but of implementation, oversight, and specific vaccines. It's why rigorous safety testing and transparency are essential. And that starts with being cautious and asking questions.

5 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/10/2025, 1:36:42 PM · permalink

on Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says throwing criminals in jail is “racist, immoral, and unholy in strangethingshappeningallover

4 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/10/2025, 1:04:42 PM · permalink

on Let's check in on the West - Still committing Cultural Suicide in offensive

Political leaders of every ideology — right, left, and centrist — have been implicated in sexual scandals. It’s a human failing, not an ideological one. Left-wing leaders (i.e. Strauss-Kahn, Spitzer, Weiner, Morales, Ortega) have been tied to orgies, prostitution, harassment, or abuse scandals for example.  
  
You sound like you're falling in line with "motivated Reasoning": **people tend to interpret information in ways that favor their in-group and downplay an in-group member’s misconduct**. This mirrors how fans defend their “home team” when criticized. A 2023 study examined how people judge sexual misconduct based on political alignment. *Both conservative and liberal participants judged alleged perpetrators whose politics aligned with their own more leniently than those opposed to them.*  
  
Personally, I believe that most global leaders have been corrupted by power and perversion; and there is an extensive blackmail network on this info to keep them in line. That and what better way for a wolf to eat sheep - than disguise himself as the shepherd pretending to defend them?

3 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/8/2025, 11:11:40 AM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

The claim that conservatives “hate schools” because they were ridiculed is a pretty unfair oversimplification. A lot of conservative critiques of education aren’t about personal grudges but about issues like curriculum, bureaucracy, perceived political bias, or government inefficiency. And framing schools as places where only “smart people” thrive while conservatives reject intelligence is just a strawman—it ignores the real, nuanced disagreements people have about how education should be run.

South Africa is actually a bad example for that argument, because the country doesn’t represent pure capitalism or libertarian minimal government. It has a very large, interventionist state, high taxes, and expansive social programs on paper (*it’s one of the most interventionist governments in the developing world, in fact*), but chronic corruption and mismanagement mean those resources don’t translate into working public services. That’s why people end up hiring private security or sending their kids to private schools—not because the government “did nothing,” but because it did a lot *badly*.

The problem there isn’t a lack of state involvement, it’s the failure of state institutions to deliver. People who opt for private solutions in that environment are making a rational choice. If anything, it shows that throwing more government programs at social issues isn’t enough; good governance and accountability matter more than just the size/funding of the government. While there are white-exclusive communities (i.e. Orania), there are other gated estates—like Dainfern, Val de Vie, Kyalami Estates, and Aspen Hills—which are much more racially diverse. These communities are focused on lifestyle, amenities, and security rather than cultural or ethnic exclusivity. And they offer reliable electricity, water, private security, schools, and healthcare — the basics people feel the government can’t always guarantee. This shows the situation is more complex than just “hatred.” I'm not saying this is ideal (far from it)—but reducing the problem to “just stop hating” (aimed only toward people seeking alternative solutions) misses the deeper reality: people often turn to private self-reliance out of necessity when the state itself is dysfunctional.

In the end, self-determination isn’t just better than statism—it’s the only real safeguard against a failing state.

2 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/8/2025, 9:17:46 AM · permalink

on If people never saw themselves in mirrors or photographs, how might that change their life? in dailysojshot

4 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/8/2025, 8:31:31 AM · permalink

on If people never saw themselves in mirrors or photographs, how might that change their life? in dailysojshot

3 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 3:39:27 PM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

8 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 2:50:27 PM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

22 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 2:28:17 PM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

29 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 2:13:37 PM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

\&gt;&gt;&gt;*Marx wrote word soup that could be interpreted by anyone as anything.*  
Yep, Marx’s writing style was notoriously dense. And different schools of Marxists have interpreted him in very different ways (e.g., Soviet Marxism, Western Marxism, anarcho-Marxists, etc.)  
  
\&gt;&gt;&gt;*Also, another dude finished Marx's book.*
Yep, Marx only published the first volume of Das Kapita, but died before his other 2 planned volumes. His friend Friedrich Engels edited Marx’s notes and drafts, publishing those 2 volumes + compiled Theories of Surplus Value.

\&gt;&gt;&gt;*Also, Marx didn't come up with this idea, communal/tribal/group think has been around a long time.*  
Also, true. The idea of shared property, communal living, or collective ownership long predates Marx. Ancient tribal societies often practiced communal property. Early Christian communities shared possessions. Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen promoted communal living decades before Marx. etc.

5 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 2:00:55 PM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

41 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 10:44:11 AM · permalink

on 9/4/25 - Would you CORRECT another person at the risk of being thought UNKIND ? in dailysojshot

3 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 9:43:31 AM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

50 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/7/2025, 9:41:41 AM · permalink

on I fear this guy is right in freethinkers

⚠️ Btw: your link was incorrectly titled and I did not realize this until I clicked it. The actual video link goes to:   
*Consumerism is the Perfection of Slavery - Prof Jiang Xueqin*  
  
This was my response before I realized the error. (but giving the amount of energy I spent on replying to it, I'm still posting it)
**\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**

**1\. Marx’s “Success” was really just Governments Pre-emptively Defusing Potential "Revolution"**

\&gt;&gt; The lecture claims that “every industrial society adopted Marx’s ideals after WWII” by centering workers through unions, welfare states, and public services.

But this was never a true realization of Marx’s vision. It was a containment strategy from the beginning. Western governments expanded worker protections not because Marx was right, but because they feared Marxist revolution. Welfare states, strong unions, and education programs were designed to buy worker loyalty and prevent radical politics from spreading.

Even in this so-called worker-centered period, the very foundations were being laid for a transition to consumerism—alongside the rise of Big Government as a mechanism of containment and control.

**2\. Consumerism is as bad as it is because it's specifically Debt-Consumerism**

\&gt;&gt; The speaker treats consumerism as mostly a matter of desire and competition but fails to go in depth about its crucial mechanism: debt. He does not expand on debt as a structural feature of modern consumerism.  
  
%%Consumerism by itself%% (buying goods as markers of status or happiness) could, in theory, **be self-limiting**. People would only spend what they actually have, and the pace of consumption would be tied to real earnings.

%%Debt-consumerism%%, however, takes the brakes off, with debt becoming the main engine of the system. Credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and buy-now-pay-later schemes let people consume far beyond their means. Modern consumerism doesn’t just thrive on people buying things—it depends on people borrowing to buy things they can’t yet afford. Debt turns consumerism into a self-reinforcing cycle. This makes consumerism:

\- **Faster**: Credit enables people to consume beyond their wages.

\- **Deeper**: Debt ties people more tightly to the economic system, since they must keep working to repay it.

\- **Binding**: once you owe, you’re tied to the system, forced to keep working and consuming

\- **A Societal Precondition**: Industries (housing, education, healthcare) restructure themselves around easy credit, ensuring that debt isn’t exceptional but normal.  
  
This is why financial crises (2008 being the prime example) are consumer crises rooted in over-leveraged debt, not just overspending. **Without debt, consumerism would be smaller and slower.** With it, consumerism becomes turbocharged—fueling growth but also creating systemic instability, financial crises, and a population locked into repayment.

In this sense, debt-enabled consumerism specifically is what makes consumerism so horrible and enslaving as it is today.

**3\. Neglect of Identity Politics' Role**

\&gt;&gt; The lecture ignores a massive contemporary force: identity politics as the major divisionary framework today.

Workers no longer see themselves primarily as a unified class. Instead, society is fragmented along racial, gender, and cultural identities, amplified by consumer platforms and media.

\- Political coalitions now fracture more over cultural identity than over economic policy.

\- Universities, corporations, and governments often prioritize symbolic identity representation over material worker gains.

\- Social media turns identity into a consumer product (hashtags, pronouns, slogans), where individuals market themselves as representatives of a cause.  
  
**4\. Debt-Consumerism + Identity Politics = Today’s Real Divide**

\&gt;&gt; The lecture ends by calling consumerism “the perfection of slavery,” but this misses the modern twist: identity politics

\- Debt-Consumerism atomizes individuals, while identity politics tribes them back up—not as workers, but as competing cultural factions.

\-The elites no longer need to suppress class solidarity directly—identity politics does the work for them by keeping people fighting symbolic wars instead of uniting over shared economic concerns.

\- Example: Debates over cultural symbols or gender issues dominate headlines, while corporate consolidation, wage stagnation, and debt slavery go largely unchallenged.

%%Recommended Reading%%: [The Trouble With Diversity by Walter Benn Michaels](https://prospect.org/features/trouble-diversity/) (leftist):  
argues that celebrating “diversity” doesn’t challenge economic inequality — in fact, it can coexist perfectly with neoliberal capitalism. (Example: a diverse boardroom of billionaires still keeps everyone else poor.)  
  
\-----------------------

**Where Left and Right Both Fail at Targeting Class**: Most of the left stops its critique at consumerism, while most of the right stops its critique at identity politics. The left points out how consumerism breeds shallow competition, alienation, and endless debt, but rarely explains how consumerism fuses with identity to become a cultural battlefield. Meanwhile, the right highlights how identity politics fractures society and erodes shared values, but often ignores how consumerism monetizes identity and turns it into marketable brands. By treating these critiques separately, both sides miss the larger picture: consumerism, debt, and identity politics are not rival explanations but mutually reinforcing forces, keeping people distracted, divided, and locked into a system that benefits the few at the top.

19 bumps

carp30mnia · 9/5/2025, 1:17:32 PM · permalink

on What Causes Burnout in People Who Love Their Jobs? in teachingtorahtothenations

**PART 3 of 3**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Altogether, your assertions build on a narrow psychological claim — that burnout stems from ego in altruism — and extend it into sweeping metaphysical conclusions about charity, unity, and the purpose of creation. While rhetorically compelling, this approach blames ego for burnout when it could help alleviate it, dismisses immediate-relief charity pre-emptively, assumes unity = perfection (with arguable flaws), and overlooks counterexamples (Tower of Babel) and practical evolutionary arguments for societal and cultural diversity.

A more balanced view might be: real charity can take many forms — immediate relief, long-term systemic change, and yes, even efforts at fostering broader unity. But none alone can claim exclusivity as the essence of “true giving.” Burnout is a signal, not a flaw: a sign you are overextending and need to reel back in, not that you are “egotistical” for feeling it. To avoid burnout, step back and realize you cannot fully control or perfect the world, just do your best to better it. **%%*And that’s okay.*%%** In fact, maybe believing otherwise is the real unhealthy ego. Do what you can without neglecting your emotional health... and let that be enough. Humans are imperfect, and any lasting answer of optimal society (if there is one) will emerge gradually through the experimentation of diverse and divergent societies. Attempts to short-circuit this process or impose forced unification globally, are futile at best, and counterproductive to human development at worst.

**Remember: utopia rhymes with dystopia in humanity’s long and recursive march toward ideals.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

“There is no prize to perfection—only an end to pursuit.”

— Viktor, Arcane

1 bump

carp30mnia · 9/5/2025, 1:16:34 PM · permalink

on What Causes Burnout in People Who Love Their Jobs? in teachingtorahtothenations

**PART 2 of 3**

**\-----------------**

**4\. Practical Consequences: Unity for Unity's Sake Without Boundaries in Action**  
  
**Unity without moral boundaries is dangerous**: Elevating unity as the highest value blurs essential distinctions — such as between those who harm and those who are harmed — and in practice produces harmful outcomes.  
  
**Example — soft-on-crime approaches**: An overemphasis on compassion/unity with offenders can overshadow justice for victims and compromise community safety. Extending unity indiscriminately risks empowering abusers while leaving the vulnerable unprotected.  
  
**Cohesion requires separation**: Functional societies must sometimes draw clear boundaries — isolating or excluding harmful individuals — to preserve collective wellbeing. Taken to extremes: demanding “unity between all members” is not only unrealistic, it can be unjust.  
  
**Balance of values**: Compassion and charity matter, but they must be balanced with justice, freedom, accountability, and protection of the vulnerable, etc. “Universal” unity alone, as a guiding principle, is insufficient. Without boundaries, it turns from ideal to liability. Not every heart can — or should — align. Unity gains meaning only when filtered through principle (e.g., justice), not pursued indiscriminately for its own sake.  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
  
**5\. In Defense of Existing Forms of Unity**  
  
You say people only unite “around flags, identities, and ideologies,” which always oppose others. This is too absolute: scientific collaborations, humanitarian coalitions, and interfaith efforts show unity without zero-sum opposition.  
  
**Opposition is not inherently unhealthy or purposeless**. Societies and cultures must be tested by nature and by competition with one another in order to adapt and grow. Humanity is still young, experimenting with many ideas and ways of living. Through this process, stronger systems and better paths emerge, rewarded naturally by survival and persistence. But the process is iterative: progress comes through trial and refinement — practice makes perfect, not forced unification.  
  
Insisting on “unity for unity’s sake” begs the question. Why should unity be valued apart from what it enables — peace, cooperation, human thriving? In fact, humanity may function best when fractured on the macro-scale yet unified within smaller, cohesive societies on the micro-scale. The clash between different societies has undeniably produced suffering, but it has also driven adaptation, innovation, and the testing of ideas — painful, yet generative.  
  
**By aligning global unity with humanity's higher purpose, you risk the opposite**: taken to extremes, it can reduce human potential and diminish humanity’s true *range* of purpose. What if humanity isn’t meant to be boiled down into a single people - or (effectively) a single unified heart?  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
  
**6\. The Tower of Babel as Counterpoint**  
  
The argument depends on the metaphysical assumption that there is a singular “purpose of creation” and that it is human unity. This is not universally shared and requires justification.    Even if it were true, one must still ask: why are short-term acts of charity invalid if they indirectly align with this purpose by preserving life and dignity?  
  
**Unity is not automatically good**: In Genesis 11, humanity achieves complete unity of language and purpose — yet this is judged dangerous, leading to arrogance and overreach. Diversity was corrective: The scattering of languages is portrayed as a divinely intended safeguard. This challenges the idea that “restoring original unity” is perfection.  
  
**Unity can magnify harm**: Collective ego can be more destructive than individual ego. Babel illustrates that unity itself can accelerate hubris.  
  
**Unity for its own sake can fail**: You valorize unity as pure good, but Babel (and history) show that direction and purpose matter more than unity by itself.  
  
**Alternative vision of perfection**: Perfection might lie in some degree of disunity, not uniform unity — depending on the scale (macro vs. micro).  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
  
**7\. ("Raise Your Flags") Evolutionary Resilience in Diversity**  
  
From an evolutionary perspective, human diversity in cultures, identities, and social structures functions like genetic variation.  
  
**This diversity emerges through balance**: societies require internal cohesion to function, but as populations grow, divergence naturally occurs. Over time, these splits create distinct cultures and identities, ensuring variation across humanity as a whole. Rise and Fall of Empires as natural selection at work: History shows that no single empire or uniform order endures forever.  
  
**Empires operate like “societal organisms” subject to natural selection**: some rise to dominance, but all eventually decline. Their fall opens space for other cultures, systems, or identities to adapt and survive — often inheriting and refining what did work from the previous order. Diversity of societies ensures that humanity as a whole survives even when dominant systems fail.  
  
**Homogeneous systems are fragile**: if catastrophe strikes, a single shared way of life could fail globally. Multiple diverse societies (different flags, identities, and ideologies) with different survival strategies increase humanity’s resilience.  
  
Unity framed as “one body” may be emotionally appealing but practically brittle. Survival of the species has historically depended on pluralism, not uniformity.

1 bump

carp30mnia · 9/5/2025, 1:14:47 PM · permalink

on What Causes Burnout in People Who Love Their Jobs? in teachingtorahtothenations

**PART 1 of 3**
**\-----------------**
**1\. Relating Burnout and Ego**  
  
You present compassion fatigue as proof that altruism inevitably collapses into burnout, claiming the cause is ego.  
  
**But altruism is not reducible to ego**: Studies in psychology and neuroscience show that genuine empathic distress and compassion fatigue involve over-identification with others’ suffering, not covert self-serving motives. When people burn out, it is often because their empathy reaches a breaking point in the face of ongoing trauma and their inability to alleviate it. This disillusionment is not necessarily ego-driven — but rather a collapse into emotional “pain for the sake of pain,” when caring intensely no longer translates into effective relief.  
  
**Structural causes matter:** Research shows compassion fatigue often arises from systemic issues: lack of organizational support, unsustainable workloads, and repeated exposure to others’ trauma. These external factors cannot be explained solely by hidden ego motives.  
  
**Altruism without recognition or reward exists**: Anonymous giving, volunteering without visibility, or caregiving for those who cannot reciprocate all demonstrate sustained empathy with no obvious ego payoff. Moreover, expecting results isn’t necessarily ego-driven — it can reflect a genuine desire to reduce pain and harm, not a craving for personal validation.  
  
Ego can be self-preserving: In many cases, it is not ego that causes burnout but ego that prevents it. A healthy sense of ego can set limits, create boundaries, and preserve the self from being consumed by endless exposure to suffering. Without these safeguards, empathy can spiral into exhaustion, while ego provides the resilience needed to step back and recover.  
  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
  
**2\. Redefining Charity as Intending Perfection (Defined as Unity)**  
  
To avoid what you consider ‘ego,’ you redefine true charity as action aimed only at long-term change rather than easing immediate suffering. But both matter.  
  
**Dismissing charity that seemingly only provides immediate relief ignores the tangible, echoing good** it achieves — saving lives, reducing pain, and creating the conditions for long-term progress.  
  
Framing “real charity” as the only non-burnout path is a bold claim that sets up a false dichotomy: either “egoistic” short-term relief or transcendent unity. In reality, many forms of charity coexist and reinforce one another. Also people can avoid burnout through other 'paths' also: community support, balance, faith, or a sense of mission — not just by aiming at cosmic unity.  
  
Your argument assumes ego-transcendence is necessary for sustainable charity. But many ethical traditions sustain altruism without requiring complete ego dissolution (e.g., duty in deontology, compassion in Buddhism, virtue in Aristotelian ethics).  
  
Lastly, you equate intention toward perfecting the world with meaningful giving. **But are the actions of those who extend kindness less significant simply because they seek to ease suffering in an imperfect world, rather than to perfect it?** True altruism wouldn’t even be needed in a perfect world. If every human need were universally met by societal design, altruism would atrophy — reduced to a vestigial trait. Humanity’s prosocial capacities exist precisely because of the challenges and imperfections it has had to confront. Without those struggles, would humanity remain recognizably human, or become something unrecognizable, reshaped by the environment of perfection?  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
  
**3\. Theoretical Problem: Perfection as “Unity Between All Hearts”**  
  
You identify perfection with human unity, defined as inner connection “between hearts.” Other conceptions of perfection (justice, truth, flourishing, sustainability) are excluded, or assumed to be inherently contained within unity — which is debatable.  
  
**Claiming “we have never attempted this” overlooks historical and religious movements that (imperfectly) sought universal** brotherhood, cosmopolitanism, or global cooperation. Each with its own version of “unity” through conformity. Yet conformity is always confining, and eventually provokes resistance.  
  
**The problem of unifying unequal hearts**: Even if “unity between hearts” were achievable, not all hearts’ desires are equal. Some aim at compassion and justice; others at domination or cruelty. Aligning indiscriminately risks elevating destructive drives alongside noble ones.  
  
**In theory, this makes unity incoherent**: a concept without boundaries dissolves into contradiction. True flourishing (or meaningful unity) demands a filter — bounded by some other principle like justice — or else unity becomes a cover for misplaced empathy (as problematic as burnout).  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1 bump

carp30mnia · 9/3/2025, 12:53:32 PM · permalink

on Christianity. in freethinkers

I'm sorry to hear you experienced that, and hope your spiritual journey settles you somewhere you find the most fulfillment. I myself struggle a lot as someone raised Catholic, who is an on and off again Christian. My own issue with Christianity is not from experiencing religious abuse (though I've met my share of hypocritical Christians), but finding that compared to Old Christianity - 'New' Christianity has been watered down, overly fractured (too many denominations), and corrupted (i.e. unaddressed pedophilia amongst clergy, Scofield bible) into a seemingly different religion.  
  
One example: Part of what lead to Christianity's success and eventual mainstream adoption in Roman Empire's later years was the fact that it would take the infants (mostly girls and disabled) that the Romans would discard and abandon. The Christians would then raise the babies themselves, because their religious values upheld the sanctity of human life as well as a 'go forth and multiply' mindset. And these children would often adopt the same religion that had saved their lives, and consequently increasing Christian numbers.

![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2410/1756904012381-a4381f1b3874106f.png)
  
Something about that warms me. In contrast, too many modern self-proclaimed 'Christians' don't bat an eye at abortion-as-contraception (or use the possibility of child abandonment as a REASON for why they're better off never having a chance at life) or state-sanctioned suicide (Canada's MAID program) these days... The value of human life across the board (religious and secular alike) feels like it's at an all time low. While ironically being paraded as the new 'moral' high-ground. Of course, ideologically-'purist' Christians got issues too (especially those more keen on controlling every detail of another person's relationship to their faith, rather than practicing the main ethics of the faith itself... Perhaps they took 'The Devil is in the details' too seriously lol). I've yet to find that kind of genuine welcoming warmth cemented in moral values I idealize, in Christian communities... And no I'm not counting the ones so open-minded their brains fell out (if you accept everything, you stand for nothing).  
  
As it is, I feel caught between only extremes for options. Currently, I'm back in religion-less limbo. And when this happens, I get curious about Judaism again. For all their historical beef, Christianity inherited major values from Judaism, i.e. the ten commandments, the old testament, etc. With the exception that, Christianity is more actively trying to pull others into their fold (or what they believe to be salvation rather) as opposed to the exclusivity seen as a hallmark of Judaism (i.e. there will never be such a thing as an ethnic Christian). That 'chosen' stuff is my biggest hangup with Judaism. As someone picked last amongst my half-siblings as a child, the basic idea stings (who is the ultimate parent but God?). At least, going by what's taught commonly in Christianity, he chose them preparational-ly to dispense his word and their lineage to eventually produce 'Christ'. I am honestly more drawn to the Christian interpretation as to the rationale for why/what God chose the Jews for. But then again, I'm confused about what Jews (minus the supremacists/radicals - that's easy to understand lol) themselves believe they were chosen.

If you don't mind me asking:  
1) What previously appealed to you about Christianity that is/isn't present in Judaism?  
2) What things do you believe/don't believe which are antithetical to Christianity (or branch thereof)?  
3) Besides returning to your roots, why do you think Judaism might have a better spiritual/moral case after-all?  
4) And what's your take on whether non-ethnically Jewish individuals can meaningfully convert to Judaism?

6 bumps

carp30mnia · 6/3/2025, 7:02:12 AM · permalink

on If I ever fell too hard... in dailysojshot

2 bumps

carp30mnia · 5/26/2025, 8:39:23 AM · permalink

on 5/25 - On a bright Sunday afternoon, would you rather play D&D or Wiffle Ball ? in dailysojshot

1 bump

carp30mnia

If people never saw themselves in mirrors or photographs, how might that change their life?

The future, Islam, and Islam's future: resisting or surrendering to secularism.

Could Trump's Tariffs significantly harm globalism?

What would be the most humane way to make humanity over generations increase their IQs?

What we're overlooking about the Singularity: the potential for a real Rebellion

Making the Distinction between Founding Americans and Modern Americans Inheriting their Legacy

More and more I'm convinced that the EU is willing to start WWIII, or at least risk it.

Everyday Jewish peoples as the scapegoat to another group: 'Sabbatian-Frankists'?

Signature