/dead/ - Post-Left

No I don't.

Yeah, sure. A lot of people have an overly simplistic view of religion in general. They see the dominant orthodoxy (or what they imagine it to be) and not all the heresies trampled underfoot, each of them having just as big of a claim to truth as the others.

>>2451
Why don't you agree?

>>2454
The "fundamental reality of Christianity and the God of Jesus Christ" is that it is bullshit. There is no God, and if there was, "it would be necessary to abolish him." It is not an accident that Christianity always manifests itself as an oppressive genocidal apparatus.

>>2455
>There is no God, and if there was, "it would be necessary to abolish him."
Bakunin also said in What is Authority
<I bow before the authority of exceptional men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason
<Does it follow that i drive back every authority? The thought would never occur to me. When it is a question of boots, i refer the matter to the authority of the cobbler; when it is a question of houses, canals, or railroads, i consult that of the architect or engineer. For each special area of knowledge i speak to the appropriate expert
Authority is only bad when it's not valid/credible.
>It is not an accident that Christianity always manifests itself as an oppressive genocidal apparatus.
The quote in the OP goes into this. You are correct in going against oppressive genocidal religion, but Biblical Christianity is incompatible with authoritarian/totalitarian Christianity. The Bible always talks about choice, and freewill. You should be free to choose to follow God or not, you can't have love without having freewill, that is loving your neighbor.

>>2456
It is not about validity or credibility. The difference is that experts don't hold power over you. You can disregard their opinions. You might regret it, but they won't punish you. Not so with God. As the same Bakunin said:
> If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.
I think the use of the word "authority" here is wrong. It is more about trust. But this is besides the point…

Your ideal Biblical Christianity might be incompatible with Christianity in action, but the point is that every time the first enters the picture, sooner or later it evolves into the latter. Bakunin again:
> … a master, whoever he may be and however liberal he may desire to show himself, remains none the less always a master. His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him. Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist.

>>2457
>You can disregard their opinions. You might regret it, but they won't punish you. Not so with God.
That's not true. What bokunin says about not listening to authority simply because of authority is fine with God. There are examples in the Bible where people openly challenge God's decisions and commandments on a range of grounds and rather than crushing them, dismissing them, or punishing them God listens to them and accommodates them.

>Abraham challenges God's decision on the basis of basic morality (Genesis 18:20-32) and God agrees to Abraham's terms
>Moses insists that God should not choose him as a spokesman since he has no confidence or skill in public speaking and God accommodates him by appointing Aaron instead (Exodus 4:10-16)
>The daughters of Zelophehad challenge the law of Moses's inheritance laws, which were given by God, and God acknowledges their claim and changes the law accordingly (numbers 27:1-7)
>Ezekiel challenges God's commandment on the basis of his personal conscience with regard to ritual purity (Ezekiel 4:12-15) and God agrees to Ezekiel's terms.
>Peter challenges God's commandments three times on the basis of his personal conscience with regard to ritual purity (Acts 10:11-16), and God never compels Peter to obey, permitting him to disobey all three times without penalty.

>His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him.
God is a servant to humanity.
<But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. 26It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”.

>>2457
>Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist.
funny, because this is literally the christian god 😂

>>2448
I think he's very correct, and others in a similar vein (Perlman) have also pointed out how christianity was not only a force of domination. Many people found liberating messages in it. At first it was a religion of the oppressed. And for a long time, over all of europe basically, it was THE religion, and all philosophy kind of got smooshed into it (or expressed through a christian theological lens), so yes it's very naive to say absolutely that christianity or religion in general are always bad.

But also, personally I see no reason to try to rehabilitate it. Christians will say you're making shit up, or not a real christian, or a heretic. Everyone else will say "ew, christians", and you'll be stuck defending a book modified over centuries by the most brutal regimes to serve their ideological desires. So… who cares, throw it away.

But as someone else said in one of the recent leftypol threads on god, there's a kind of Hegelian/Spinozan idea of the christian god which does not take the place of all-knowing authority who metes out punishment, but instead is a sort of necessary logical object/figure in the universe, and this seems more close to Daoism than to presently existing christianity.

>>2463
>But also, personally I see no reason to try to rehabilitate it. Christians will say you're making shit up, or not a real christian, or a heretic.
The Christians don't care as long as i don't go against the Bible, unless they're racialist Christians in which case they would already hate my by my race.
>Everyone else will say "ew, christians", and you'll be stuck defending a book modified over centuries by the most brutal regimes to serve their ideological desires.
I have gotten that reaction from friends, and it's fine if they have common atheist questions about the bible. I am familiar with some of them.
>So… who cares, throw it away.
I don't want to give up on Anarchism or Christianity, and especially not on God.

>funny, because this is literally the christian god
God is a gentlemen, he loves you enough to leave you alone if you don't want him in your life.

>>2466
my point exactly, first of all the bible has like, a bajillion messages you can pull from it so chances are some other sect thinks you're getting the wrong message is high, and also it's not a manuscript made my the most righteous people necessarily… so why to not go against the bible? fuck the bible, christianity is w/e, it can be cool, but when a book is a million years old and says a thousand different things, some unrelated, some contradictory, then only a total psycho would want to "follow" that

>I don't want to give up on Anarchism or Christianity, and especially not on God.
why?
also fuck devotional anarchism it's the lamest shit

>God is a gentlemen, he loves you enough to leave you alone if you don't want him in your life.
i dont know if you're serious or not here
i hope no. The idea of god as a person with a mind, who controls things to some extent, is like the gayest most authoritarian version of god there is. fuck that shit

i was meaning specifically how christianity is the only religion i can think of where the singular god incarnated himself on earth as his son, in order to die, in order to offer himself up to himself for us, to wipe our sins clean

its just a wild story for one. But also the parts of the bible around jesus can be pretty egoist and cool. So like literally, he did cease to exist, and said basically "now ur on ur own guys, all of you have the power now, its up to you to keep me alive/invoke me, but i'm not "up there" controlling things" after dying on the cross

like thats kinda metal and literally the closest a mythological god can come to deciding to un-exist, while still being central to a religion which obviously needs something to worship

>>2467
One of the strengths of Christianity is that it is very flaxible.
>but when a book is a million years old and says a thousand different things, some unrelated, some contradictory, then only a total psycho would want to "follow" that
Just because it's old dosen't mean it's wrong. There are answers to what poeple consider to be contradictions in the Bible. Why do you say you would need to be a psycho to follow the Bible? Are you saying that because of restriction to sin? because it's known to be impossible to be sinless.
>why?
Because both have been with me since i was an edgy nihilist teen. I also have felt the presence of God before, and poeple i know have also felt this peacful presence. I also feel that Anarchism and Christianity will help me to resist the Devil's one world goverment.
>christianity is w/e, it can be cool
>also fuck devotional anarchism it's the lamest shit
It's not exactly a popularity contest, I don't care what is cool. Why do you call it devotional anarchism and not Christian anarchism?

>i dont know if you're serious or not here i hope no
If i don't care about Nazi's making fun of me for worshipping a Jew, why should i care about Athetists making fun of me for worshipping God? Someone will always find a reason to make fun of some fault that i have, so why even care. The world hates Christians.
>is like the gayest most authoritarian version of god there is.
If you knew the Bible, you'd know that God isn't tyranical unless he has a good reason and even then he is mercyful. Besides, the devil is the tyrant that the elite worship (including Roman Catholicism, and pagan/luciferian secret societies), he is the one that dosen't want to give you a choice when it comes to worshipping him in his world goverment.

>but i'm not "up there" controlling things" after dying on the cross
He went to hell and then to heaven. he also left the holy spirit.
<Ephesians 4:7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he captured captives; he gave gifts to men.” 9 Now what is the meaning of “he ascended,” except that he also descended to the lower regions, namely, the earth? 10 He, the very one who descended, is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all thing

>>2458
You can cherry-pick shit all you want, it won't make it true.

>>2463
No Christian actually believes that there is no longer a God.

But it does not matter since it's obviously all bullshit. Anyone who is still religious needs to wake the fuck up to reality.

>>2470
>You can cherry-pick shit all you want, it won't make it true.
That's just your opinion, i've backed up what i said with evedence. Just because you call it cherry picking dosen't make it true.

>>2457
>His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him.
This is such a moot point. I mean sure, it makes sense for an anarchist to be adverse to the idea of God, but at the same time, God is of an entirely different order than mankind, so it doesn't make any practical difference until someone (a human) claims to speak for God i.e. when religion enters the picture. There are entirely egalitarian societies without worldy authority which nevertheless see themselves as part of a cosmic hierarchy, God(s) and all. One does not necessarily follow from the other. Check out .pdf related.

Anarchism is incompatible with religion, not incompatible with belief in God.
>Religion is unbelief. It is a concern, indeed, we must say that it is the one great concern, of godless man.
- Karl Barth

>>2469
>Just because it's old dosen't mean it's wrong.
you are vastly misunderstanding my words
it's wrong because it's been revised and translated many times over those years, changing its meaning. The people writing and translating it most recently also hold the most fucked up version of christianity. My point is that even though maybe at its core, or historically, it says good things, that doesnt necessarily hold now. And "flaxibility" isn't a strength, its an enormous weakness. It means that it can say a hundered contradictory things. Why would you "follow" (i.e. give your decision making and value judgement over to) a book which isn't consistent (via its flexibility) and was not written by anyone i respect or whose views i agree with?
>Why do you say you would need to be a psycho to follow the Bible? Are you saying that because of restriction to sin? because it's known to be impossible to be sinless.
no it's not about sin, it's about the way god is used in our current society, and the fact that that reading is constructed from the bible. Chistians are fucking crazy. Case in point here if you ask me honestly.
>Because both have been with me since i was an edgy nihilist teen. I also have felt the presence of God before, and poeple i know have also felt this peacful presence. I also feel that Anarchism and Christianity will help me to resist the Devil's one world goverment.
this is supremely retarded and indefensible. Mostly the first sentence. I've been there too on "feeling a presence", but eventually i came to understand that anything i felt was simply a feeling. Too many christians are trained to be retarded and never grow out of it. Please learn to be critical of your own experiences just like (hopefully) you're critical of everything you read, everything the government says, etc.
>It's not exactly a popularity contest, I don't care what is cool. Why do you call it devotional anarchism and not Christian anarchism?
no what i mean is specifically anarchists who treat their anarchism as a religion, because they tried to outgrow their christianity which theyve been indoctrinated into since a young age, and they could at best come to supplant it or add to it. So anarchism in some individuals takes the place/form of christian religion. It's not about christianity at all as a religion, or christian anarchism. I dont have a problem with that. I have a problem with people raised christian, who then approach anarchism from this mindset, without trying to overturn their mindset. It's just lame because it leads to half-assed anarchists and basically it's a phase, unless it becomes your religion like rasta. Idk. I dont get how people unironically "have faith" and then don't just forget about it or leave it later. It's ridiculous to believe shit for no good reason. And permanent suspension of judgement/disbelief is exactly what cults (and society as a whole) try to do to people, in order to draw them in. So i can't respect the mindset at all. It's maximally cucked

>He went to hell and then to heaven. he also left the holy spirit.
Don't worry, ive read it. And this is exactly where Christianity shines. To me the whole jesus thing implies a new egoist consciousness, rather than anything literal or a temporary, one-time saving. Jesus broke out of hell (thus breaking hell and freeing us from it) and left us with a god which is *only* the holy spirit, negating the god who meddles in our business and replacing him (and our sins) with our own ability to choose, act, and come together to act morally and share this message of emancipation from god.
Sadly christians are brain-cucked rather than egoist chads, so something went wrong. I guess it's bound to happen after millenia for recuperation to happen, right?
>>2470
>No Christian actually believes that there is no longer a God.
yeah i know. Sadly :(

All religion is bad because it asks you to believe in things that aren't true. Any of the social functions carried out by religion could likewise be carried out by a secular structure that acknowledges its own socially constructed nature.

>>2483
>It means that it can say a hundered contradictory things.
They're paradoxes, Christianity is full of them, such as liberation through restriction, or being considered too violent or too peaceful by it's critics.
>Why would you "follow" (i.e. give your decision making and value judgement over to) a book which isn't consistent (via its flexibility) and was not written by anyone i respect or whose views i agree with?
It's consistent, but there are different interpretation leading to "extra room" for other doctrines. For example Right wing Christians can't be racist because that's not loving your neighbor, but racist Christians still happen because of user error. I give my decision making to both Anarchism and Christianity, and i follow the bible because i've had a personal experience with the Christian God.
>but eventually i came to understand that anything i felt was simply a feeling.
It's subjective, yes, and i don't use it to prove God, but i've known many others have recognized the same feeling such as Aquinas, and i've also come across Christians who deny that God is a feeling, so it's not as simple as saying Christians are just retarded. I wasn't always a Christian.
>I have a problem with people raised christian, who then approach anarchism from this mindset, without trying to overturn their mindset. It's just lame because it leads to half-assed anarchists and basically it's a phase
I was raised Christian, but i was critical of God and Christianity at a young age, after a while i was able to get valid answers to atheist questions like "if God is good why do bad things happen". Questioning is good in Christianity, you're not suppose to just accept something without evidence.
>It's ridiculous to believe shit for no good reason.
I agree.

>>No Christian actually believes that there is no longer a God.
>yeah i know. Sadly :(
I don't know why that poster said that or why you agree, when believing in God is at the core of Christianity, every Christina i've met has believed in God.

>>2485
ignored
whole post is dumb, typical christianoid, not even a theologian nerd which can be fun to talk to

>>2484
I think this is an unnuanced (or un-curious) view. The religion we see today is portrayed in a way that says "don't think, just believe", but I think religion can be as simple as people organizing around philosophy.

Or to put it more honestly, the deeper i get into philosophy, in order to address problems of my daily life and political questions/inadequacies, the more I see that what I'm saying isnt so different from what many religions say, except I've come to my beliefs through experience, philosophy, and psychology rather than "just trust the plan bro".

What do you think about this? Because I would have used to say that the difference between religion and everything else is just that with religion, you're supposed to believe shit for no reason. But now I'd rather be hopeful, and I think the best ways of organizing will end up looking very religious, despite not asking anyone to take things on faith.

Like I half agree with your about the secular structure thing, and half am like "what even is secular?"
To me secular seems to fall into the lib things of "science and stfu" attitude that denies people's ability to use philosophy to come to important and very non-trivial conclusions about live, being, action, value, etc. But I generally agree.
And it seems like now more than ever people really only want church for the social function, and don't care too much about the god part, unless they're heavily coping and are on the "I need god or else I'll go crazy thinking about death"

>>2486
I've worked pass the initial atheist impression to Christianity and have found that there is evidence for Jesus. That is why i'm not as skeptical as you want me to be. But whatever, do what you want.

>>2485
> I don't know why that poster said that or why you agree
With a reading comprehension like this, it is no wonder you are a Christian.

>>2448
>Do you agree?
No, and a little yes.
I think that Christianity (or any religion for that matter) can be interpreted and molded in such a way that they become egalitarian or even anarchist. The reason for that is however that they are purely spiritual or ideal, and therefore can be changed in literally any fashion (they can also, like history has shown, be used to justify and produce hierarchies). I recently tried to get into Spinoza and read an article about him by Heinrich Heine who reads his spiritual philosophy in almost a hedonist way - since god is absolute, he is all substance, all matter, and enjoying the sensual life is therefore like loving the self revealing nature of god.
The reason why I still disagree is because, like Stirner says, a lone 'it could happen' doesnt mean it will happen. Just because christianity can be read and used in this way doesnt mean it ever will be. Again, as history has shown, religion is usually used to produce and support power structures.

>>2494
>I recently tried to get into Spinoza and read an article about him by Heinrich Heine who reads his spiritual philosophy in almost a hedonist way - since god is absolute, he is all substance, all matter, and enjoying the sensual life is therefore like loving the self revealing nature of god.
oh boy wait until you find out about gilles deleuze

>as history has shown
nice spook, but if you actually knew any history you'd understand the role millenarian movements played in the middle ages

>>2489
( )

>>2498
>you'd understand the role millenarian movements played in the middle ages
i dont but thing is: they didnt lead to anarchist relations so I also dont care

>nice spook
that things happened in the past isnt an abstraction friendo

also why are you so mean? fuck your shit first telling me that history is a spook and then smugly referring to an obscure historical event like what?

>>2498
I've read this book and it was a complete disappointment: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/norman-cohn-the-pursuit-of-the-millennium

Not the book itself, although it was a bit weird how the author insisted that these movements were proto-anarcho-communist even though they were barracks communism at best, but the movements themselves. Of course I cannot blame them, if I were living at that time probably I too would wait for the return of the saviour, be it Christ, holy emperor or some prophet. But even the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Ranters, who thought themselves to be one with God and therefore sinless no matter what they did, did think that you had to do some training to become one with God and therefore your admission to the elect depended on a master accepting you and it also meant that they did consider themselves superior to everyone else.

But it was a pretty interesting read nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of stupid shit people use to believe and die for. Also selling gamergirl prophet bathwater is not a new invention.

>>2500
i'm sorry anon i'm just taking issue with invoking history as an authority à la "it didn't succeed so it's bad". it's the same type of thinking that makes you reduce religion to domination because the catholic church is still around while the revolutionary peasants aren't. as walter benjamin once said one has to brush history against the grain.

>>2503
The revolutionary peasants were not anarchists either. They still wanted kings and shit.

>>2503
>à la "it didn't succeed so it's bad"
it didn't happen so it didn't happen
I don't care about things might have happened, like religion aiding emancipation
also werent you invoking history as authority too?
>but if you actually knew any history you'd understand the role millenarian movements played in the middle ages

>>2507
secular anarchist theory hasnt lead to shit, but secular statism has created the largest and most oppressive empire ever….. time to give up secular theory and organizations too fam :(

>>2508
>secular anarchist theory hasnt lead to shit
this is /dead/, I know
still not an argument for spiritual theory

>but secular statism has created the largest and most oppressive empire ever
ISIS never happened
or taliban rule in afghanistan
or spanish inquisition or the saxony wars of charlamagne

>time to give up secular theory and organizations too fam
this is sooo dumb. just because secular theory didnt work doesnt mean that spiritual theory does. in fact, all social anarchisms, be that spiritual or secular are trash. get into post-left theory fam ;)