Christianity is a symptom of the disease it’s trying to cure
What do you mean by that?
I kind of have a vague, nebulous idea of what you’re talking about, sort of, but the idea won’t take shape.
I don’t know much about christianity, not being christian, but as perains to all religions, from before and after the Egyptians, religion has been aiming to explain the world and erase prior myths. The result, though is to create new myths. Something along those lines, perhaps?
Phew, I thought this was gonna be about the spanking part.
By the way, my good friend, your sig is STILL long-ass and STILL braggadocio - now you are just bragging about spankings from me to make everyone jealous. 
And it’s working!
Well, slythe - assume the position! 
My two cents
“Christianity is a symptom of the disease it’s trying to cure”
A symptom is an early manifestation of a disease. As such, it is a mild occurrence of a particular sickness. It encompasses, to a minor degree only, the negative connotations of the disease.
Following Zenster’s sig, the symptom is the whole body of Christian dogma in conjunction with the administrative practices of the Christian Church. The disease to be cured is, in this case, whatever spiritual ailment that afflicts a particular individual.
Thus Christianity is useless as a spiritual healing tool since it carries in itself the spiritual afflictions that it is trying to cure. Christianity itself is the disease, albeit in a controlled, moderated form. If you let it evolve, however, it can increase its sphere of influence and become the very monster you are trying to escape from. It is not only useless but also prejudicial.
As such, the aforementioned sig is criticizing Christianity’s ability to bring spiritual peace to its followers. It also seems to be theorizing (preaching?) that the reason while it is so inefficient rests on the self-contradictory nature of its ideological dogma.
I was asking Zenster.
And Christianity has done a wonderful job of bringing peace to my soul, thank you very much.
Thea Logica
Pardon moi for exercising the right to express myself. By the way, what I gave was not a personal opinion on Christianity but my INTERPRETATION of Zenster’s sig. I will, however, give you my personal opinion on the matter if you ask nicely.
Anyhow, I have come with an analogy that totally defies the sig’s intended message/critique. That, of course, assuming that my previous interpretation was correct.
According to the sig, Christianity is a symptom of the disease it is trying to cure. In other words, it tries to cure a disease with a mild manifestation of itself.
Two centuries ago, a physician by the name of Edward Jenner came up with the concept of vaccination, which prevents the occurrence of a disease by vaccinating the patient with a weak, mild form of the ailment to induce the production of antibodies. When and if the disease strikes, the antibodies would be able to combat it and promptly eradicate it.
Thus, following the analogy, Christianity can be conceptualized as a vaccine against spiritual discontent that, if its precepts are strictly followed, will prevent spiritual afflictions from taking a hold over your existence. Thus it is effective and beneficial.
This view of the matter provides a completely opposite conclusion to the previous interpretation. Two diametrically opposite conclusions stemming from the same argument, now I feel confused.
Guess I will have to wait for Zenster to come by and give the official verdict on the precise idea that his sig is trying to convey.
[grumble]Damn kids think they can go around interpreting other people’s sig lines, then turn around and give a completely opposite interpretation.[/grumble]
Didn’t meant to offend, quasar, but I * was* asking Zenster, primarily. Of course, this is a public forum and you’re entitled to post here, but I have found it generally unwise to speculate on what’s going on in other people’s heads.
Now somebody find Zenster and tell him to get his butt over to this thread and answer my question.
I know this is a famous quote somewhere, but I can’t find it. Here’s as close as I got:
“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds walls; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it’s deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exists.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
The sig may be a paraphrase this quote by Nietzsche.
Magdelene very kindly brought this thread to my attention a short while ago.
(Incidentally, nice to see the fray that has begun prior to my arrival.)
What follows will be a lengthy explanation. Trust me that it is necessary. Thea Logica is not the first to question my sig’s meaning, just the only one to start a thread about it. For that I must be glad. A couple of important and well known imperatives apply to the ensuing arguments.
[li]Patriarchal societies are most commonly afraid of homosexuality.[/li]
[li] Matriarchal socities are most commonly afraid of incest.[/li]Please read on about the sig line that follows;
“Christianity is a symptom of the disease it’s trying to cure.”
Let us address a common situation that occurs in a lot of fundamentalist Christian homes with children.
The young son, “Johnny” finally shows an interest in a girl at school. Since sex is not discussed in the home as much as might be hoped for, Johnny is teased and ribbed quite a bit for having these feelings about a “girl”.
When Johnny brings home a boy buddy from school the two of them might easily receive less supervision (compared to having a girl drop in) when it comes to their activities. The additional privacy afforded a “non-threatening” (i.e., perceived non-sexual) relationship is the exact opportunity to give “Johnny” the chance to have a homosexual experience with his “boy buddy” since there is no chafing about his new “friend”.
Thus a most anti-homosexual (fundamentalist) atmosphere potentially creates more opportunity for homosexual activity.
You may question this as a presumptive case, except for these points:
[li]The Christian church is supposedly based on the idea of tolerance. Yet, intolerance seems to be the order of the day. (I understand the concept of intolerance for malignant evil.) To assign, inappropriately, an aura of evil to unfamiliar or different belief structures is contrary to a doctrine of acceptance and forgiveness.[/li]
[li]An intolerant and unforgiving church that is founded on the words of a Messiah who embraced difference and preached acceptance is not consistent.[/li]
[li]A church that understands that there may be those who question the very foundations of “reality” is much to be desired. (If I do not give credit to Judaism for the willingness to confront questions about the existence of God I should not be allowed to claim any knowledge here.)[/li]
As with the above three points, any church that proclaims acceptance and yet is intolerant is hypocritical in its essence and is therefore suspect.
To be continued.
(This ought to get things going.)
If you didn’t want anybody horning in on this, why didn’t you just e-mail Zenster directly? Although I am glad you didn’t, because it prompted him to post an interesting explanation.
Because e-mailing him directly would have deprived me of an opportunity to pad my post count.
Actually, my reply to quasar was more than half joke. S/he took it more seriously than was intended. I am interested in seeing the commentary that Zenster’s answer draws. He does have some interesting points, though I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. Interesting take on the homosexuality issue, though. I’d have never thought about it in those terms.
So this is a question of interpretation, not a personal attack?
In the immortal words of Miles Lane, “I’ll allow it!” 
Dear slythe,
Thenk ewe.
Yours Truly,
Chris
Hi Zenster:
I’d like to ask about your sociological imperatives. I am unfamiliar with them and I would be interested in more information.
( I am not demanding a cite here but an online site would be appreciated. )
This assertion is unsupported:
You have demonstrated that Johnny has an opportunity for homosexual experimentation but you haven’t demonstrated that the situation would be different if the parents were nonchristians.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that sexual orientation is not a product of enviroment but rather of genetics.
There is no scientific or conclusive proof that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. Ergo, I will not attempt to refute claims made upon that basis.
I will deal with the body of your post tomorrow when I have more energy. This is not to take issue with your credibility. I am merely very tired from an illness that I have had for most of this week.
Please count upon my reply 2sense.
Thank You,
Zenster
Thea Logica
You said:
Just to evade any confusion. The second interpretation that I provided in reference to the sig was in no part at all motivated by an intention to rectify matters with you, as you seem to be implying. It had occurred to me before reading your post, and I posted it only as a curiosity; its purpose being simply to demonstrate, via a specific example, how subjective arguments can be twisted to propose a statement in direct contradiction to their originally intended point.
In any case, my first post exemplifies more truthfully my take on the subject. You can disregard the second one, as it contributes zilch to the discussion.
Well, you seem to have a knack for concealing your jokes so subtly as to make it impossible to detect its supposedly humorous content. And I did not take your reply seriously at all. The reason for that will be clear by the end of this post.
BTW, it is a HE.
Before I proceed, let me stress that what I am to say is not by any means intended as a flame. Its purpose is to provide constructive criticism–boy, don’t you just hate those two words–because posts like the one quoted above indicate a fundamentalist, narrow-minded, dogma-embracing attitude of your part.
If you want to be taken seriously you should be careful of the impression you portray when posting, as if you appear to be stubborn and unwilling to accept new ideas people wont take you seriously.
From experience I know that serious discussions with such people are futile and do not advance the cause of an intellectually prolific line of argumentation. That is why I politely declined to get into an argument with you and thus limited myself to clarify my stance regarding the matter before moving on to more relevant subjects.
Having mentioned that I must say that I am positively surprised at the tolerant attitude with which you took Zenster initial hint at the meaning of his sig.
[Initiating hijacking process]
Have any of you noticed this trend: when a female doper is not sure of the gender of the person to whom she is replying she always goes she/he when alluding that individual. On the other hand, we guys go, he/she. Since there is such a marked difference between both groups regarding initial gender perceptions, it strikes me as unusual that both males and females conceptualize God from a masculine standpoint. I have asked this to several people and they all share this perception. Well except for an uncle of mine who proposed that God might be hermaphrodite. I doubt that he was serious though.
[Hijack completed]
Anyway, it is getting late around here and there is a Christina Ricci movie showing on the tube. I shall have more to say tomorrow regarding Zensters “enigmatic” sig.
May the Force be with you all…
I am absolutely amazed at the assumptions and false conclusions that have just been made based solely on one sentence of a post.
Likewise.
Quasar, you’re point is well taken. In the future, all bratty posts that are not meant to be taken seriously will be concluded with a 
smiley.