Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.

No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.

If I had tatoos that ugly I would seriously consider becoming one.

I read it as "robot that can eat orgasms for fuel. My version is better.

If only these nonreligious people recognised how little they know about religion.

I might have changed my views on certain things after coming to the fediverse, and now I see that Lemmy is an echochamber. It seems like right wing and even moderate people just stayed on twitter and “truth social”, which are echochambers as well, especially the latter, clearly, and I end up arguing with everyone all the time.

Hey, do you mind telling me why I got down voted, if you have an idea why, of course?

I do not believe I said anything particularly contentious this time, and I do not believe I said anything factually wrong either.

Not to the early Christians it wasn’t. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.

That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.

Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.

Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.

Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.

They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.

Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.

Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.

The idea that early christianity was somehow “more pure” I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.

Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?

Also, it doesn’t have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.

The question of “should Christians strive for a classless society” is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the “fallen world” authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.

However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after “the base” changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.

The binaries are not opt out, but opt in.

Packages, not apps. Yes, packages will be recompiled every time they are updated. This can take a moderate amount of time, but it is not a problem in my experience, as you can still use your PC when it is compiling and you don’t use your PC 24/7 so why would it be a problem? You can use binaries for the packages that take an especially long time to compile(like chromium) or all of them.

The first one is hotter.

How else would you describe it?

What you described is the normal one. The american one does not have solid chocolate at all as I described.

I prefer the normal sized ones.

Or do you mean you will buy the american one?

If I remember correctly, they don’t even have chocolate in solid form, and the plastic egg splits into two halves, with one having the toy inside and the other some kind of white thing with two balls.

This is not really a kinder egg tbh, it is too different and loses the cool part about it which is the toy being inside the chocolate egg.

Where is this from?

Oh, that is sweet. I suppose I kind of get the reason why you did feel ashamed, but I do not think this way generally. I might feel pity for someone like that, but hardly guilt, since if they took the job out of self interest, it would be worse for them if I didn’t offer it. The only thing you can do to help them then is give them the money they want without making any demands of them, but all wage labour functions in such a way, that it offers a monetary reward for time and labour, it is hardly worse to work as a maid than to work in a factory. If you want to do charity, you do not have to fire your maid.

I am not quite sure: did you feel guilty because you was uncomfortable with hiring another person to do your bidding, or because you thought it was excessive to hire them and so it is wrong because making someone work to fulfil such an unnecessary need is unethical?

But I do not mean to say you were wrong to feel guilty about this. I am just sharing my thoughts on it, and I think that your sentiment was noble, in a way.

I see your point, but asking someone to value someone over themselves in such a way is a bit much. Charity to such a degree(giving away your money whenever you want to spend it on unnecessary labour/goods) is for saints.

A lifestyle of bourgeois decadence is something that is difficult to refuse. Are you sure you would be able to?

Oh, but is it not better to not have to do housework? If you could hire one, wouldn’t that be preferrable?

Yes, gods are different in different religions, but why would you, to determine whether something is a god in christianity use pagan standards?

My point is, that within the logic of christianity you can not say there is more than one god, it is unreasonable to say that christianity is polytheistic.

Also, “one divinity appearing in multiple forms” is not a polytheistic thing, since you only have one divinity. The trinity does not consist of three gods, but of three hypostases of the same god. My point is that it can only seem like those are three gods, but if you have more deep knowledge of christianity you will never say that.

Ok, I will concede to you that pop culture should be considered, however I would not say angels are gods.

The christian God is the supreme power, he is the monarch of the universe, so to speak, everything is under his authority. An angel is not a god, because he is a creature, not the creator, he is subordinate. He is not all-powerful, he is a servant. Within the logic of christianity there is absolute difference between god and everything else.

In greek paganism Zeus was the king of the gods. However, he was not allpowerful(there were some henoteistic tendencies, however), other gods were still powerful in their own right, and there were gods he was afraid of(in a famous passage from the Iliad that I do not quite remember, it is mentioned that he was afraid of Nyx). There was a revolution when Kronos was overthrown, as you mentioned. So those two religions are quite different.

In Jainism, the so called “gods” are a different thing altogether, no need to mention it.

I do not know much about mormons, aren’t they christians? I thought they were.