Classifying Western Religions

Old Testament + Talmud = Orthodox Judaism
Plato + Talmud = Liberal Judaism
Old Testament + New Testament = Traditional Christianity
Plato + New Testament = Liberal Christianity
Old Testament + reality = Mikraites
Plato + reality = Classical (Enlightenment) Liberalism
Old Testament + nothing = Karaites
Plato + nothing = Secular Liberalism

"Reality" refers to science, history, and other studies of the real world.

Western culture was a combination of Traditional Christianity and Classical (Enlightenment) Liberalism.
Modern culture is a combination of Liberal Christianity and Secular Liberalism.

so the failure of modern Christianity is that they swept the old testament under the rug.  

By "Plato," what do you mean precisely? Do you mean the belief that there is no objective truth, or do you mean anything else? Also, where would Evangelical Christianity fit in? Maybe New Testament + Nothing?

Plato believed in absolute objective truth.  The Old Testament doesn't.  But both the Talmud and the New Testament are influenced by Plato.  In particular, the New Testament believes in absolute truth.

There are 2 key questions about truth: what is the source of truth and where is truth located.  Plato said that the source of truth is the mind and truth is located in reality.  The Old Testament says that the source of truth is reality and truth is located in the mind.  But in the context of my post in this thread, I am mostly talking about the source of truth.  So by "Plato" I mostly mean the belief that the source of truth is the mind, not reality.  So in this sense, Evangelical Christianity is just like Liberal Christianity since their source of truth, "the holy spirit", is the mind.

Liberalism is mostly based on humanism that came after the enlightenment. It is generally based on Dionysian culture as well. It is about doing what you want so long as you don't harm anyone else. That is the basic creed of liberalism with is rather Dionysian (or similar pleasure seeking cults/ideologies). Then humanism basically rejects God and states that humans create their own destiny and thus a basic cultural education is very important to human success and happiness. We need to be literate, we need to learn morals (as morals are practical laws that allow society to be more pleasant and successful rather than commands from gods that must be obeyed), we need a basic education in the humanities. You can still believe in God or not believe in him, but either way you believe the most important thing is that people solve their own problems ("God helps those that help themselves").

Modern liberalism (neo liberalism) unfortunately has been influenced a lot by the Frankfurt school and people like Jonathan Rawls. Thus it incorporates criticism of Western culture, criticism of whites and males, extreme individualism etc. It is toxic.

Plato certainly wasn't liberal. He believed in tradition and that reality resides in the mind. He thought you could just figure out the truth logically. Society long ago realized that we need to verify a theory through testing it (the scientific method) as not everything is intuitive or easily deduced.

Modern Christianity: The New Testament contradicts itself and also contradicts the Old testament. Christianity has always been a religion of the peasants and slaves and appeals to the loser (the first will be last, the last will be first, blessed are the poor, but it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven etc.) Yet Christianity largely evolved in a positive direction throughout its history all the way up to about the 1950s. It became more humanistic, more logical etc. Back then there was often a racial aspect to Christianity (white churches, black churches), there were standards of conduct (certain standards of behavior in who would be a member of the church), belief in God was not that important but rather many people saw church membership as something necessary for the good of society and good socialization/morals. Almost everyone went to church, including college educated people and people who went to elite schools like Harvard. The more educated people tended to be Unitarians and many founding fathers of the U.S. were Unitarians.

Unitarianism was probably the height of the enlightenment's effects on Christianity. After that, neo-liberalism affected Christianity. As the 1960s cultural revolutions happened the church decided that standards was a bad thing. They catered themselves to the poor, the weak, the drug addict, the sinner etc. a lot more so than in the past. Standards that excluded people were thrown out the window. As an example, if in 1950 you had a kid out of wedlock (such as a teenage pregnancy) you were a pariah. You probably would not be in good standing with the church and your official membership revoked. I guess you could still attend but you weren't considered a good christian and you really had to get your act together to be in good standing with the church. Similarly an ex-felon would probably not be in good standing in regards to full church membership. The person could show up, worship god, confess his sins, but not really an accepted member of civilized church society. Some people would even be asked not to show up. Screwed up people didn't go to church. Prostitutes did not go to church unless they changed. The degenerates and low lifes would be in the bars on Sunday and civilized people would be in the church.

Well in the 1960s a big change happened. Secular society began to worship the loser. The school classrooms began to cater themselves to the dumbest people and such and so did the churches. They began to cater themselves to the prostitutes, the drug addicts, the felons. This chased normal good people out of the church.

As well, ideologically they began to shift more towards fundamentalism. Belief in God or one needed to believe the world is 5,000 years old or that evolution isn't real became more important. It chased out educated people. This shift to more backwards/fundamentalist ideas probably resulted from the acceptance of lower class people and the driving out of normal/educated people.

White churches were considered racist and every attempt made to import black people and to cause race mixing. At the same time all black churches are not racist. All Asian churches not racist etc. Only white communities have no right to exist. This chased more people out of the church.

So church attendance dropped by large margins steadily through the 60s, 70s and 80s. This also caused dysgenics as people who go to church are encouraged to have lots of children, but the only people going to churches now are the bottom dwellers of society or those with low I.Q.s or who live in poverty as the message is made to appeal to them.

Unitarianism actually died. People who go to Harvard and are educated are now atheists or agnostic and don't go to church (rather than being Unitarians which believe that Christianity is important for cultural and moral reasons). Membership was so small among unitarians that they had to combine with the neo-liberal universalists in order to survive- creating the modern Unitarian Universalist fellowship which for the most part is just a Universalist fellowship.

Since the 1960s in secular society massive increases in education expenses have happened, but our education scores have flatlined. The gap between white and black performance has actually increased, not despite of, but probably because of massive Marxist programs to close the gap. The "war on poverty" besides being very expensive has created more poverty. The reason is they totally neglect the reality of genetics or race. They believe that if you educate a dumb person enough he will become a genius. Violent crime went up exponentially, especially among black communities. Single parent families went through the roof, but even more so among the poor and even more so among blacks. All kinds of horrible out comes have arised fro this neo-liberalism which is mainly based on a constant criticism of Western culture and white people and preaching that whites have unearned privilege and that males are oppressors and other such things. Besides that somehow putting the poor and stupid on a pedastool and claiming they are victims rather than considering that maybe their own low ability or bad choices plays a role in their life outcomes.

Judaism was not effected as badly by this. Liberal Judaism is still close to Unitarian ideologies. It has gotten effected by neo-liberalism, but at a slower rate. Orthodox Judaism has a problem in that in order to maintain a traditionalist society they must stamp out individualism and encourage blind conformity (as any traditional culture must do). This means that a highly conservative person may be impervious to reason and may reject change even when it is necessary. If all orthodox Jews jump off a cliff then it must be the correct thing to do and I do it too. It is not just Judaism but any traditional society creates this sort of group think.

Obviously a good idea would be to get back to classical liberalism and reject neo-liberalism. You need standards. You can't cater to the lowest people. You can't always obsess about the loser and outcast in society. You should care about the downtrodden but you also need to care about the health and well being of the average and above average too. Obviously white people and Western civilization are not responsible for all the failures of non-whites and non-Western societies. That is ridiculous. Obviously men are not perpetually "oppressing" women. There just needs to be a common sense approach to things which seems lacking. It is like people swing from one extreme to the other- they go from some extreme orthodox view, they see that it doesn't work, then they go to some extreme neo-liberal view which leads to all sorts of problems- in reality there is a middle ground. Tradition is important, but should be balanced with personal freedom and freedom of thought. That is a Unitarian type of mindset. Religion doesn't need to oppose science (a Unitarian concept). We can help the poor and losers of society, but we also need certain expectations in conduct to be in good standing as members. We can be tolerant and fair towards diverse people, but if a group (like muslims) wants to kill us and take over our government and institute sharia law, maybe we shouldn't let them immigrate. I don't know why this is complicated.

The Frankfurt school of Jews basically invented this neo-liberalism/cultural Marxism as a reaction to Nazism. It is basically the exact opposite of Nazism but also by constantly criticizing Western culture and white people they thought it would benefit Jewish society and make them safer from any kind of future third reich (similar with importing lots of non-whites and making a more diverse society). I think it spread too effectively and has outlived its usefulness toward anyone.

Anyway sorry about all the typing errors. This laptop keyboard sucks and it is just too time consuming editing everything. Besides that I know an emphasis on race may turn some people off (such as Judaism's ancestry requirements). It should be understood that Christianity in the 1950s may have organized itself along ethnic lines, but all people could be Christian. It was ok to want to feel a sense of community with other people who were similar to you, but at the same time you had a sense of community with all Christians. It wasn't perfect. There was conflict in regards to opposition to race mixing which some people may feel is wrong.

But what replaced it is a million times worse. Whenever a handful of white people live together in comes the "liberal" who calls them all racist and attacks them. If two white people marry and have a white baby- they are racist. The wife needs to be impregnated by a black guy in order to be "progressive". Some remote corner of Arkansas has a school with 100% whites in it- they bus black people in from out of state to "diversify" this school. These are not good intentions but rather hatred towards white people. Needless to say the people doing this did not practice their own rules. They were mostly Jews, but even some goyishe white people who live in gated communities of all white people telling the other 90% of society they are racist if they don't mix themselves with certain people.

To me I think if you want to go to a mixed church- fine. If you feel comfortable in a white church- fine. If you want to go to a black church- fine. A community should be free to define itself in such ways. To me that is real liberalism- live and let live. Calling every white person a racist, saying all men are pigs, chanting "hey hey ho ho Western culture has got to go" or like in the recent missouri video calling for some black "muscle" to beat up a white journalist- this is not real liberalism. It is just hatred towards whites and males. Sometimes it is hatred towards rich people or successful people.

I'm not advocating any kind of oppression or abuse towards someone based on race, but rather just the idea that people can have their own cultural and racial identities so long as they respect other people. But the problem with a lot of muslim communities today is they don't respect other people's right to exist. The problem with neo-liberalism is they don't respect white people's right to exist. Obviously that is a problem.