Hello, I am a Christian Discordian

[Cramulus]

I also admit that my post may have been irrelevant or tangled, perhaps as a result of coffee deficiency which I am now remedying. I do think we're in agreement on most of this.

i mean in the way that there's no historical proof of jesus, that the whole resurrection and water-into-wine and other miracles can't possibly have really happened, etc. the usual conclusions you draw about fairytales when you take a step back and think about it, really.

yeah, but you're arriving at that conclusion using rational scientific thought, which is not necessary to Discordians.

And as a tangent, I personally don't think that religion is about finding out what "really" happened in ancient times new roman. If you don't believe that Jesus had magical powers and actually came back to life after being brutally executed, it has little bearing on being a good Christian or taking Christ's message seriously.

D-cup quite nicely clarified what I meant by the Discordian Christian / Christian Discordian line. I probably could have explained that better, and yes in hindsight it doesn't seem relevant. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Beliefs are like any other thought.  They are just commands you enter into your brain that result in it releasing some combination of chemicals you want to feel at a given moment.  You can believe whatever you want.  Putting limits on belief is like making psychedelics illegal, which just an incredibly prickish thing to do.

[Triple Zero]

as far as i know, being "a christian" in the vaguest sense of the word means you gotta believe that jesus christ is the son of god and died for your sins. believing his death was done by crucifixion is, while the most widely accepted, i'm not sure if it's strictly mandatory.

That's pretty close, in my experience.  A minor fix-up from my point of view would be:

1) Accepts that Jesus is the the Son of God, or Christ.
2) Believes that He was Crucified for your sins.
3) Accepts Jesus as your personal Savior.

yeah, that's basically what i was trying to say.

You'd be surprised about how laid-back the Jesuits are, but in general your point is quite valid.

okay

one of my best friends is a jehova witness, there's good people everywhere

either way, i was refering to "orthodox fundamentalist" as being defined by, what i would informally like to call "not being laid-back about it"

Actually, you can take it as seriously as you wish.  But you must recognize the validity of every other chamber you hold within your mind, too.  Bringing conflicting belief systems into close proximity to each other inside your noggin without your brain melting down is one of the tests of a Holy Infidel.  Like forcing two magnets together the 'wrong way' or licking a 9-volt battery.  Zowie.

well yeah. all that are your options

the main point i was trying to make is that you can't simply be both and go easy about it. like "oh yeah no those christian morals, ten commandments have kind of a good point to it, but i'm also like zany and chaotic and i like fun and i was born on the 23rd so i'm also discordian yay"

and then still, either way, personally, i think there's seriously some better and more interesting and useful religions, world-views, philosophies, spiritualities and moral-ethical systems you can invest your time in to read about and try out to see if they fit for a while other than christianity. because you get a large enough dose of christianity anyway for simply living in western society. but, this is really my personal opinion.

and to D-Cup: (same in dutch. though some adjective orders sound more pretty than others)
I figured it would be a kind of primary/secondary thing, and no matter which way around which one is (we'll never get that straight anyway), it's actually the general point cram was trying to make about it that i was wondering about.
because IMO, if you want to get two religions at the same time, and call yourself both, you're lucky if there's even one way to fit them together. ah but you're probably going to be frowned upon by both as well

to Cram: aaah you guys keep posting i keep "you may wish to review your post" .. both of youse! go get yourself a nice strong hot cup of black coffee PRONTO !

> yeah, but you're arriving at that conclusion using rational scientific thought, which is not
> necessary to Discordians.

it isn't? i thought it was about being able to hold up your viewpoints against the worst intense kinds of scrutiny and somehow still manage to have them crawl out semi-alive. hardcore thinking, that is.
please don't bring the science thing in this discussion. science and religion or spirituality need not be opposed. and if they are, blame the religion.
cause if you strip "science", you end up with "you're arriving at that conclusion using rational thought" which is necessary for a discordian (IMO)
(cause really, there isn't much science involved to see that the fairytale has been largely made up, and just a bit of rational thought alone will do nicely)

now if you strip that part of the bullshit off, you end up with a lean kind of "christ archetype" sort of thing, the kind that is so well described in the sixth sephirot on the tree of life, Tiphereth.
but when you get down to that, you'll end up with a threefold combination of "son of god", "sacrificed god" and "lord over man", from which you can draw all sorts of very useful spiritual whatnots (soul food) and wise lessons and etc etc, just about the same amount as you can possibly wholesomely get from basic minimialist christianity, with the exception that it does not require you to believe in the physical incarnation of this threefold personality somewhere about 2000 years ago.

pff

this stuff is more complicated than i thought.

vex: ANOTHER NEW REPLY too bad i'm just gonna hit post now.

[AFK]

Discordian Christian: A Christian, but with Discordian leanings, such as perhaps believing in Jesus/the crucifixion, etc, but also believing in the ideas of chaos, mindfucking, etc.

Did that clarify at all? My brain isn't working quite right just now (need moar coffee and less high heels) but I think that got the basic idea down. Perhaps someone else can help expand a little?

You are driving the correct motorcycle here.  And I know one of these IRL. 

[Wigwam Jones]

I like to visualize religious belief systems like acetate overlays on a photograph of oneself.

You can have more than one overlay, and you can draw things on each one.  Each can add to or cancel out what is on the overlay(s) underneath.

If you keep adding overlays, eventually they obscure the original photograph.

But each overlay is valid unto itself, and beyond contestation, taken as the layer it exists upon and ignoring what may lay on top of it or has yet to be added.

[Darth Cupcake]

because IMO, if you want to get two religions at the same time, and call yourself both, you're lucky if there's even one way to fit them together. ah but you're probably going to be frowned upon by both as well

Yeah, I think that's very valid. I run into this problem a lot with philosophies, and also literary criticisms (yes, seriously, sometimes I cannot sleep at night because I am debating the best approach to literary criticism. STFU!). I feel like there are many valid ways of approaching the world (or literature!) out there. There can be multiple ways that are effective/functional/however-you-want-to-call-it. However, which is The Best is a pretty subjective thing. No one is necessarily better than another. But then we run into the conundrum of trying to reconcile approaches that may be bordering on mutually exclusive. As you've covered, in order to make Christianity and Discordianism fit together... Well, you're not. It's the whole round peg in a square hole thing. You have to make alterations to them to make it work well. But once you start altering one or the other, the shape is changed, and you're no longer talking about what you started with. So where does that leave you?

I like to think with possibilities. I like to think that I can take things I like (whether it's religion, philosophy, or literary criticism) and kind of mash and reshape until I get something that works for me. At what point, however, has my mashing and reshaping changed what I'm working with so much that it's become pointless because I've really pretty definitively lost what I started out with?

As a side note: Wigwam--Damn. I like that metaphor. That's nicely put.

[PopeTom]

That's pretty close, in my experience.  A minor fix-up from my point of view would be:

1) Accepts that Jesus is the the Son of God, or Christ.
2) Believes that He was Crucified for your sins.
3) Accepts Jesus as your personal Savior.

And to ensure that his death wasn't in vain all good Christians should sin as much as possible.

[Wigwam Jones]

And to ensure that his death wasn't in vain all good Christians should sin as much as possible.

That has not been a problem.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

AGAIN

there is nothing about Discordianism that would prevent you from being a Christian.  If anything, Discordianism could be said to encourage you to be a Christian, in that it loves it when people get fooled, especially when they fool themselves.

On the other hand, you're probably being intellectually dishonest with yourself if you think Christianity allows you to be a Discordian.  I am among those who say if you're going to believe something, believe it.  Even if half of it's crap, and God knows at least half of Christianity is crap.  But its scriptures and doctrine are at least mature, and it's fairly obvious that it's an exclusive religion.  If you're going to believe half of it and toss the rest out, what's the point?  If you're in it at all you might as well be in it completely.

[Wigwam Jones]

AGAIN

there is nothing about Discordianism that would prevent you from being a Christian.  If anything, Discordianism could be said to encourage you to be a Christian, in that it loves it when people get fooled, especially when they fool themselves.

I hate to be disagreeable on a such a lovely day, but I have to take issue with your statement.  One cannot be fooling themselves with the same mind which is a Christian - or they would know themselves not to be Christian.  To be it, one must believe it - utterly.  Whether there is a subjective reality that sees Christianity as 'fooling oneself' is moot.

On the other hand, you're probably being intellectually dishonest with yourself if you think Christianity allows you to be a Discordian.

Christianity does not allow it.  I allow myself.  The mind I own which is a Christian is not the mind I own which is a Discordian, but I own both minds.  As an example, I have two hands.  One hand may well have a rule which forbids me to hold certain things - but it cannot control or know what I hold with the other hand, or vice-versa.  I control both hands.

  I am among those who say if you're going to believe something, believe it.  Even if half of it's crap, and God knows at least half of Christianity is crap.  But its scriptures and doctrine are at least mature, and it's fairly obvious that it's an exclusive religion.  If you're going to believe half of it and toss the rest out, what's the point?  If you're in it at all you might as well be in it completely.

Anyone who can grok the concept of 'true in some sense,' etc, can grok the concept of simultaneously embracing two mutually-exclusive belief systems and holding both to be completely and absolutely true.  Not 'theoretically true' but 'actually' true.

There is no part of me that does not believe in the entire Christian/Catholic system when I receive Holy Communion.  And still I can say yes, it is most likely all BS.  I believe/don't believe/am agnostic about pretty much everything.  But I do them all whole-heartedly, as you recommend.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

At least you're thoroughly self-contradictory.

I am particularly biased against the Christian faith, and not just because I read too much Nietzche in my formative years.  It is hard for me to follow a logic, even if it is thinking-outside-the-box logic, that allows you to be both an enlightened believer in meta-abstractions and a singleminded Christian simpleton, when Christianity requires, really, that any part of your consciousness which you control must be necessity be fully devoted to Christianity.  By the honest rules of Christianity, ultimately you fail because you are capable of and indulgent in not believing it.

I'm not saying you don't believe it, though.  I'm saying that Christianity is incompatible with larger belief systems that incorporate it as only one choice among many.

[Cain]

AGAIN

there is nothing about Discordianism that would prevent you from being a Christian.  If anything, Discordianism could be said to encourage you to be a Christian, in that it loves it when people get fooled, especially when they fool themselves.

On the other hand, you're probably being intellectually dishonest with yourself if you think Christianity allows you to be a Discordian.  I am among those who say if you're going to believe something, believe it.  Even if half of it's crap, and God knows at least half of Christianity is crap.  But its scriptures and doctrine are at least mature, and it's fairly obvious that it's an exclusive religion.  If you're going to believe half of it and toss the rest out, what's the point?  If you're in it at all you might as well be in it completely.

FUCK YOU FASCIST!  I WORSHIP GOD, JESUS, OSIRIS, TAMMUZ AND HERA AND YOU HURT MY FEELINGS!

[tyrannosaurus vex]

AGAIN

there is nothing about Discordianism that would prevent you from being a Christian.  If anything, Discordianism could be said to encourage you to be a Christian, in that it loves it when people get fooled, especially when they fool themselves.

On the other hand, you're probably being intellectually dishonest with yourself if you think Christianity allows you to be a Discordian.  I am among those who say if you're going to believe something, believe it.  Even if half of it's crap, and God knows at least half of Christianity is crap.  But its scriptures and doctrine are at least mature, and it's fairly obvious that it's an exclusive religion.  If you're going to believe half of it and toss the rest out, what's the point?  If you're in it at all you might as well be in it completely.

FUCK YOU FASCIST!  I WORSHIP GOD, JESUS, OSIRIS, TAMMUZ AND HERA AND YOU HURT MY FEELINGS!

God : metaconcept indicative of an entire culture's unimaginitveness
Jesus: bad copy of Osiris.
Osiris: Egyptian and therefore disqualified.
Tammuz: Early incarnation of Alberto Gonzales.  Not intended for mass consumption.
Hera: Will kick your ass for listing her last, and that's a fact.

[Wigwam Jones]

At least you're thoroughly self-contradictory.

Well, I do my best. 

I am particularly biased against the Christian faith, and not just because I read too much Nietzche in my formative years.

I think we can find an instructive statement above.  In James, we find a concept of an 'overbelief' that is part of a meta-framework.  Absent the meta-framework, the overbelief cannot find purchase.  You cannot imagine that which you cannot imagine.  This is no indictment of you - I would find myself similarly unable to hold an overbelief in which I experienced Hinduism as a legitimate meta-framework.  That's just not my scene, man.

It is hard for me to follow a logic, even if it is thinking-outside-the-box logic, that allows you to be both an enlightened believer in meta-abstractions and a singleminded Christian simpleton, when Christianity requires, really, that any part of your consciousness which you control must be necessity be fully devoted to Christianity.  By the honest rules of Christianity, ultimately you fail because you are capable of and indulgent in not believing it.

Again, the missing meta-framework fills in blanks in your grok with emotionally-charged words that others might object to (I do not).  To swim, you must get wet.  There is nothing else for it.  To be a Christian is to NOT feel that one is a simpleton, but rather that one is both wise and brave; wise for seeing the choice of Salvation and brave for choosing it with one's own Free Will when all senses scream to never give over control.  You miss the 'honest rules' of Christianity because it is the fact that you 'are capable of' not believing that makes one's choice important.  If one had no choice in the matter, Christianity would seem hollow indeed.

In any case, to more directly answer your point about 'thinking outside the box', it is merely myself that imagines that there is a box to be outside of.  The Church and all the universe it contains appears to live happily within that box, which of course can be infinitely large and infinitely lengthy, unlike the box which contains it.  It has no conception of the box, and as such, it has no objection to any time I spend away from it.

I'm not saying you don't believe it, though.  I'm saying that Christianity is incompatible with larger belief systems that incorporate it as only one choice among many.

Very few gears are aware of their place in the machine, in my experience.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

eh. that's what i get for being raised by fundamentalists, i guess.