In my view, the vast masses of society were repressed. Feudalism was a pretty brutal system (but necessary for the time).
I don’t think it’s possible to separate religions from the societies that created them. Christianity was the “glue” that held together European civilization and gave hope to a population in a brutal world. It also kept the arts alive and drove innovations like the printing press (I believe the first book Guttenberg printed was the Bible).
I don’t think Christianity created oppression of women or men or children. I think another religion in its place would not have changed anything. Hinduism had the caste system and Islam … (I don’t want to get sidetracked into the Islam debate). Historically, Christianity is inseparable from the advancements of the cultures it was enmeshed with. Music, the concept of “rights”, and so on are products of Western Civilization and also Christianity. And surely there are hundreds of others.
Other religions have also provided similar things according to their time and place.
It’s possible since you listen to Bill Maher that you assign his views to me as a surrogate. I watched his anti-religion movie and partially agree and partially disagree.
Christianity and other world religions have benefitted their respective societies and also have quite a bit of negative contributions. As time has progressed in my lifetime, I have seen the negative grow and the positive decline. That’s my opinion. Or more accurately, religion has been less able to accommodate “the quickening” of societal changes as they accelerate year by year.
I used the time frame of 2,000 years to explain why in the English language we cannot even begin to express certain ideas accurately. I was not comparing the two time periods, so you are inaccurately describing my point there.
It is, however, valid to compare the 1950’s or 1900’s to today when the article under discussion is literally making it’s case with ideologies and theories of those times. If someone brings up Freud, then Freud is open game.
If the article says this: prompted by what we have come to regard as the unrealistic, unhealthy, and oppressive moral prohibitions inherited from Christianity. But because, for Rieff, these prohibitions are a core part of our psyche, therapeutic culture can only ever lead to their transgression or negation, never to their genuine overcoming. it’s unreasonable for you to assume I am somehow unbalanced, impartial or emotional because I present my opinion in opposition to that view.
You presented a discussion topic, and then make up all kinds of stories around me personally when I present my opinion on the same matter being discussed.
Did the article also present a “fair and balanced” view and devote some time to the good points about the “therapeutic culture”? Not really. Do you yourself ever in any of your posts also do what you are asking of me? Have you ever made a post outlining “anything of value, goodness beauty or humanity” of the left?
Why am I held to a higher standard than you hold yourself to?
I can describe the positive contributions of Christianity to the degree the they were significant in a historical sense.
In modern times I recognize that people may get great benefit for themselves from Christianity. To each their own.
But honestly, you crossed the line of mutual respect and “live and let live” with this article first. It proposes that all society should be reverted back to being repressed - because Christian Beliefs.
If you present an article using religious beliefs as a reason why society and myself as a member of this society should return to being repressed - are you joking? I shouldn’t present an opposing view? I shouldn’t point out the obvious flaws in reasoning in the article?
Again, the topic you presented ironically is that “therapeutic culture” (transformative?) is the "anti-culture and in opposition to everything “good” and will result in “barbarism and chaos”. His solution is to return society (including me) to the paradigm of good and evil (virgins and whores, if you prefer). That’s the basic premise of the article you presented.
If you want my personal opinion - modern Christianity can easily unlock one level of transformation but increasingly restricts further levels. That’s just my opinion, but again - I don’t try to convert people to my system of beliefs and I’ve probably only mentioned them once or twice in here. If people are in their Christian world I respect that - until they try to delegitimize my world. The article you posted was trying to present the theory that we should end my world and return to a repressed (and Christian) world - and it’s completely fair to present ideas in opposition to that.