Differences Between Different Christian Denominations

I sometimes hear things such as 'all who believe in Jesus go to heaven' or 'Jesus loves you'. I think these phrases originate from the US. Possibly that is what American Christians believe.

However, that is not the case with all the Christians.

"American Jesus loves you and Russian one will send you to hell for being a sinner." - Me

I will even list two most contrasting depictions of Jesus I could find:

They do give vastly different impressions.

That is the same with Christian denominations as well.

Some of them lean heavily into one or the other direction, others try to find middle ground.

I would say Eastern Orthodox Christianity as well as Puritans are on the extreme end of ascetism, cruelty and restrictions.

In contrast American denominations, such as Baptists, are probably on the extreme end of all loving and forgiving ones.

How that came this way

The major differences started from Protestant Reformation. 

Both Catholics and Orthodox held and still hold believe that sinners go to hell and only sin free people go to heaven. 

Eastern Orthodox even made the whole faith revolving around earning right to go to heaven after death, by being extremely pious and observant of all religious rules. Fear of eternal damnation in hell reigns supreme over the Orthodox faithful and forces them to comply with Church rules. Alternatively, they become atheist be rejecting the premise of existence of God. This particular denomination holds monks and ascetic monastic way of life in high esteem. Most Church leaders come from monastic background as well.

Catholics were somewhat easier on it and allow people to simply buy a forgiveness for their sins from the Church by giving it money. Just pay and sin as much as you want. That practice made Catholic Church very rich and allowed them to decorate their Churches in very opulent style. This, among other things actually led to Protestant Reformation.

While some protestants went on to embrace poverty and ascetism themselves thus becoming somewhat like Orthodox in process. Most protestant went the opposite way entirely and decided to address the issue of final judgement directly. 

Luther and Calvin went on to address this issue directly. Luther claimed that salvation and damnation is ultimately in God's hands and sin will not necessarily preclude people from being saved and go to heaven. 

Other theologians went even further and said that ultimately solvation and damnation have nothing to do with either sinfulness or faiths. Calvin claimed that each person from their birth is just destined to one or the other from the start and nothing can be done to change that. That latter does not even require any faith at all to be saved and go to heaven.

Later it was simplified by American Baptists into 'all who believe in Jesus go to heaven'.

Later Developments

As Protestant Reformation opened the door for more and more different denominations. Some like Mormons may not be accepted as Christians by other denominations, but they have their origins in Christianity.

Because of that simply knowing that person is Chirstian tells you surprisingly little of what they actually believe in.

Also a Batist Jesus is much better than Russian one.

Universal Faith

I was thinking recently that Muslims managed to sell the idea of women being inferior to men and should be subordinated to them at all times using their religion. 

They just say that God made women inferior to men and wills for them to be subordinated and obedient to men and it works. It made their women obedient and reshaped their societies. 

Perhaps it also allowed them to spread this idea far and wide.

In contrast people ban me on internet forums if I try to push for that in a straight face way without brining any justification.

So, I was thinking that maybe I need to start my own religion, that will incorporate these ideas, but will also mix them with other good ideas here and there. 

In fact, while at it I can even flesh it out into a cohesive full-fledged religion.

I think we can call it something like Universal Faith. 

Universal to Unite the World

I think many other people before me wanted to create something like a religion to unite the world around it. I am not opposed to uniting the world per se. I used to oppose religion because I do not want to be told what to do or believe.

However, since I will be creating a brand-new religion, then why not create something that can unite the world. That will allow my new religion to get more supporters. People who want religion to unite the world will likely join as well.

To make it even more universal, famous personalities of other religions should all be included into Universal Faith. They can be called Wise Men, Seers or Oracles. Oracles were specially blessed people who managed decipher some secrets of the universe and taught these secrets to humanity.

Jesus Christ, Prophet Muhammad, Buddha and many others can be included in this group. Each of them should be elaborated further as to what message they brought to society. Jesus taught people importance or mercy, generosity and love towards fellow man. Prophet Muhammad taught men how to lead the society and made women to submit to male authority. Buddha taught people that suffering comes from ignorance, stupidity or anger and that one should avoid these feelings to avoid suffering and be happy.

Pagan gods too should be added as Oracles who each taught humanity a piece of their wisdom.

Male and Female Relationship

We will begin with this issue. It is a reason why I am creating this new religion in the first place.

Issue with women not being obedient enough affect many people and places over the globe. Making women obedient is desired by many people: not only those who practice BDSM, but also by Alt-right, Donald Trump supporters and many other groups. However, there is currently nothing that can solve this issue.

Because of that if this new faith will be able to address this issue, it will be able to gain supporters and eventually take over and unite the world. It will be able to convert alt-right and other such radical groups into this instead.

Theology/Psychology on Gender Roles

As for actual theology to explain and justify it. Then:

There are huge and irreconcilable difference in psychology between men and women. These differences make each gender uniquely suitable for their own particular role in a society and relationship.

The fundamental rules of the Universe, that existed since the creation of the Universe, made genders fundamentally different from each other. Completely and irreconcilably different

Men, by their nature, are free and independent. These qualities allow them to lead and create new things and advance civilization. Thus, they should rule and lead. In doing so they will advance society towards new and better future.

In contrast women by their nature are inferior and subordinate gender. Since women are a subordinate gender, then men should take control and lead them. Tell them what to do, what to believe and how to behave. 

Due to differences in their psychology: women make poor leaders, but good subordinates. In contrast men make poor subordinates but make good leaders or independent actors. Because of that men should lead make all the rules and women follow these rules.

Women should never be made or allowed to make decisions. They are psychologically unsuitable for that. Men should make all decisions for them.

While women should be told to be obedient, men should be told to lead them. People should be told that female psychology makes them unsuitable for making decisions, so men should make it easier for them, by deciding everything for them on their own.

Different Social Structures for Each Gender

Because of differences in psychology, each gender should have different social structures that would allow them to live and function in society better.

Male idea of authority

Fundamentally every man wants to be on top. No man would simply acknowledge authority of some other man. Men detest hierarchies and do not want to be under someone.

Because of those men created democracy, so that every man's opinion is heard and counted.

When men select their leaders, they want someone who will listen and accommodate needs of everyone in the group ideally or work out compromises that will satisfy most of them.

Men do not like authoritarian leaders who just do what they want and ignore everyone else's needs.

Men do not like religion with a God on top. Men are naturally atheists. 

Female idea of authority

In contrast to men women actually like authoritarian leaders who forcefully push their will through.

Women do not want to be on top. Instead, they want to see strong manly alpha men to lead and rule.

It is this woman's logic that is behind totalitarian movements and governments of 20th and other centuries. It created communism as it was in the USSR.

Since women love authoritarianism, they should be controlled by a strong hierarchy with powerful leader on top. 

Such leader can as well be God. Because of that a new Universal Faith should be created to rule over women.

How to go about it

Since women need to be led by someone, then a religious authority should lead them and control their lives.

In contrast men should not be subjected to someone else authority as much as possible. Men should be given freedom to do what they want. 

Men however should be taught how to be the authority themselves. How to lead and control women.

There should be a democratic structure for men to govern their side of society. For men decision should be made by consensus, or by vote.

In contrast there should be authoritarian structures for women. A Universal Faith should control female lives. An all-powerful God and Creator on top of this hierarchy should serve as justification of the Authority of Universal Faith.

Conclusion

Because of all of the above Universal Faith will be able to unite the world and solve the relationship problem.

With that humanity will finally be able to advance into the future we all need and want.

Symbol

Finally, we can use 9-point star as a symbol of the Universal Faith. See picture above.

5-point start is too generic, everyone uses it. Islam uses 8-point star and Judaism 6-point start. Georgia and Australia use 7-point star. No one uses 9-point star.

9-point star not only looks good and distinctive enough, but also allows a notion of progress, it takes from past but makes it better. More sophisticated and advanced.

Outward points of the star stand for male superiority and far reach of their ambitions. Inner angles stand for female humbles, inferiority and willingness to submit. They are connected to each other to show that men and women need each other. Repetition of this pattern shows that it is Universal and unites all people. 

It also looks somewhat like a sun, because it shines upon humanity from its heights and keeps people warm and happy with its wisdom. 

On Global Problems

A response to this.

None of these. Choice of events kind of strange, possibly reflects on your worldviews.

Why warn about Arab Spring, aren't it good that people tried to establish democracy.

I do not think that world would have reacted sufficiently to actually prevent Invasion into Ukraine. Most importantly however is the fact that underlying issues that caused this war will not go away no matter the warning. So, there is no point of warning about that.

Warning about Corona would have made world much worse as some restrictions would be placed in advance.

Probably same with 9/11. Here you might say that towers would have survived, but it might have been that terrorists would have managed to beat all the restrictions and still done it.

What are the problems caused by social media? That sounds like a made-up nonsense that only concern some people. Too subjective anyway. In my subjective opinion.

Same with National Debt. Donald Trump already explained to you that when you owe a bank 1 million it your problem, however when you owe bank 1 billion it is bank's problem. National Debt is more of a problem to people who lent the US this money. US can simply default on all debt and there is nothing they can do about it. They can't invade the US militarily to force Americans pay. It is their economies that hinge on interest payments from the US. So, the US can easily fuck them up by defaulting and they will not be able to do anything about it.

In fact, we should spend more and end the stupid austerity. That is the only problem that matters in the world. End Austerity. Once again idiots will not listen to me and will likely impose it anyway.

Why Murdoch Press is Detrimental to Society

 

News Corp Longevity

In fact, it is remarkable how Murdoch managed to carry News Corp business on for so long without showing any signs of the inevitable death of his media empire.

Rupert Murdoch is painfully aware that he is losing his business to internet streaming. However, he figured out a rather clever strategy to mitigate these losses and keep his company afloat for foreseeable future.

To keep the remaining elderly loyal to Foxtel and News Corp he pushes for a message that ponders to the interests and worldviews of the older people exclusively. It mixes nostalgia with ever increasingly conservative message of how things were better in the past. 

That produces an echo chamber where old people's views are amplified by pliant media that in turn make their views even more radical and that in turn makes News Corp message even more radical and out of touch with the rest of the society.

To be fair internet has equally radial message as it is also an echo chamber, but of the younger people's views.

Why That is Detrimental to Society

This radical pondering to older people views by Foxtel eventually made them very close minded and oblivious to issues the rest of the society faces.

Because old people are oblivious of their problems, young people are increasingly cynical and disillusioned with the society as a whole. That creates rift between old and young who are by now unable to even understand each other.

Politicians Overestimate Murdoch

Worst of all though is the fact that politicians rely on traditional media for their understanding of society. Politicians tend to believe that Murdoch press if nor represents the society, than at least shapes it in many ways.

Reality is that Murdoch only has sway over older people at best. His constituency ever shrinks. Thus, relying on what News Corp says makes them govern only in the interests of older people.

Because of that younger people lose interest in politics and get disillusioned with society and government. In the long run this will jeopardize the very foundations of society. 

Final Words of Warning

Disillusioned youth will rally behind any radical movement that will manage to appeal to their interests and world views. Unless politicians will figure out how to listen to young people, we will have another Nazism and Fascism on our hands.

After all, if government ignored their needs for so long, why should young people even listen to any opponent of their agenda. Disillusioned youth will be willing to implement changes that benefit them even if they are opposed by the rest of the society.

End of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp

"Our companies are in robust health, as am I,"

That is a very lofty statement from someone who is 92 and a half years old. He is less than 4 years younger than Queen Elizabeth II was when she died.

While issue of Murdoch's own health is pretty clear: he might be looks alright with no visible ailments, but it is obvious that he will die soon. Human life expectancy is not infinite after all.

However, I personally would say that his companies are as bad as he his. They may be still look good, but their future is as grim as that of Rupert Murdoch himself.

That has nothing to do with Rupert's managing ability or lack of. The companies will fail not because Lachlan and other successors will mismanage them. They will fail because of intrusive technological change than affects media industry.

Decline of Traditional Media

Traditional media were in decline ever since internet became a thing. The inevitable reality of our world is that is it pointless to pay money for a newspaper that writes about things that happened yesterday if you can read online for free about things as they happen in real time. 

Because of that News Corp is doomed as horse driven carriages were when automobile became a thing. The fact that Rupert Murdoch tried to push for a legislation that will make Google and Facebook pay for publishing news, shows that he feels threatened by these new sources of news.

Thus, numbers that show News Corp domination of news market are misleading as it does not take into consideration these informal sources of news that younger generations rely on.

It is the same with Foxtel domination of entertainment market, numbers are also misleading.

Entertainment Market

On the entertainment market it is the same. 

While older generations still mostly rely on newspapers and Foxtel, younger generations prefer internet media and things like Netflix and Stan for their entertainment. Foxtel tried to create their own alternative to Netflix, Foxtel Now, however Stan alone has 10 times more subscribers and Netflix probably even more than that. 

Thus, when it comes to Millennial television, Foxtel clearly losing.

Both with news and entertainment, it is unlikely that younger people will switch to a traditional media as they grow older. So News Copr and Foxtel will die out together with boomer and Gen W generations who stick to the traditional media the got used to.

Internet Streaming

Internet streaming services were set up by younger future minded people. 

Because of that they cater heavily to young people's tastes, values and worldviews. Access to them requires one to be more than comfortable with online way of doing things, which is hard for older generations. Because of that their userbase remained young. 

However, it is ever growing as more and more young people are born and come of age to make use of these services. Because of that internet streamers are not concerned that their content is inaccessible to older people. 

Older people are also often unaware internet streaming even exists. This mutual ignorance prevents each side from understanding each other.

End of Murdoch

Because of all of the above, Murdoch is not an undefeatable emperor of the Evil News Empire. He is more of Ned Kelly on his last stand, who refuses to go without a bang. However, steam of his resistance is dying out.

On Rupert Murdoch

Recently I read the news that Rupert Murdoch have resigned from all his remaining positions in News Corp.

The Article

He even admitted that media is in cahoots with elites.

There is a lot of truthful words in his resignation memo. Though it is of course written in a misleading way as to create wrong impression.

Here a quote for example:

Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.

It is not like this passage is untrue per se, it is just in context it gives the impression that what he means is that: media, other than News Corp, is in cahoots with elites and News Corp is pushing the truth. 

Words per se do not state that, however. You can even interpret them as this: since all media is in cahoots with the elites, do not feel bad that we are as well. That can almost sound like an admission to his critics.

The rest of what he said is equally wonderful words, that do require clever interpretation to get most of them.

However, yes, Murdoch media is in cahoots with business elites and its pushes messages that directly benefit the business elites, even if such messages are clearly untrue. 

Murdoch as Oligarch

In that regard you can even consider Rupert Murdoch the closest thing Western World has to a post-soviet Oligarch.

Just like oligarchs, Murdoch uses media to pursue his and his associates' agenda, rather than reports on events truthfully like a proper journalist would.

However, unlike oligarchs Murdoch does not need a supplementary income from another business to payroll his media empire. On paper at least.

Another difference is that there is no other oligarch like figures who push for a different agenda and push their own untruth in a similar way to Murdoch.

Harm Murdoch Causes

What he does is indeed damaging to society. Especially to the one that get used to the idea that journalism supposed to be fair and impartial. 

In post-soviet space people get used to government media telling them blatant lies out of political considerations. Thus, transition to oligarch-controlled media was actually beneficial to a freedom of speech. Monopoly of untrue message was replaced with a pluralism of untrue messages that come from different sources and pursue different interests. Oligarchs also had to be cautious about their lies, as they can be sure that rival oligarchs will not echo their message and will instead poke holes in their narratives to discredit their rival's media credibility.

The fact that what Murdoch does in the West is unprecedented and not matched by any rival media makes effects of his deceit even more grieve.

Because of that I would like to be cautiously optimistic that with Rupert Murdoch resignation, this era of blatantly biased propaganda.

However, I have one other reason to be optimistic about end of Murdoch and I will cover it in a separate article.

Anatomy and History of Communism

Lenin said that 'religion is opium for the masses'. 'Communism is heroin for the masses' I say. A heavier drug with even worse aftereffects.

Well, there are many different things that were called communism and socialism.

Marx himself even once said 'if that is what they call Marxism now then I am not a Marxist'.

It got way more convoluted and twisted ever since.

According to Marx, but not according to Marxists, communist will happen organically as part of natural development of economy, when overabundance becomes a thing. Society and economy would gradually develop from capitalism to socialism(welfare state thing according to Marx) and then to Communism. It would require changes to policies to accommodate this reality. Basic Income for example.

According to Marxists on the other hand, communist could be established via revolution by decree. Marx said it would not work this way. They tried in USSR and failed.

So nowadays:

Communism became associated with what USSR was and North Korea and Cuba is. (Some lefties do not like that term Communism is used to describe these regimes and call them Stalinist instead.)

Socialism is abroad idea of more equal social organization. I think nowadays it often boils down to making every business a co-op by law.

Democratic Socialism - Co-op businesses and democratic form of government. Bern describes himself as such but analysts call him Social Democrat instead.

Social Democracy - Market Economy and high social spendings on poorer people. Welfare State or Socialism according to Marx. Scandinavian model if you like. To the extend practiced everywhere in Western world nowadays.

Social Liberalism - As above but with more personal freedom. My favorite kind of.

Also there is difference between Capitalism and Market economy. Then can exist together but not always.

Market economy is when goods and services are trader freely on open market. Without monopolies, where there is only one supplier or buyer.

Capitalism is economy controlled by capital.

Capital means money needed to establish a business.

Therefore Capitalism is when only those who posses sufficient amount of money to establish a business could do so.

Well a cold reality of sorts.

In better societies capitalism is mitigated with easy credit and generous labor laws to even playing field and give everyone a fair go.

In worst examples on the other hand, capitalism divides society into privileged elite who do posses means to establish a business and the rest who do not. Those who do not have capital, have no other choice but to work for those who do.

That creates two class society of privileged business owners and landlords (Marx called them bourgeoisie) and those who work for them and pay rent (proletariat). Inequality between these two classes sometimes produces revolutions.

By virtue misfortune of being a member of lumpen-proletariat class, who does not posses means to establish a business, not does own a house. I tend to support left ideologies and politicians who cater to my and my class interests.

Well, me self-publishing a book is an attempt to become a petit-bourgeoisie, but since it does not sell well, I am still in lumpen-proletariat class.