Christian Mysticism and Church

[Icon]

anyone else in here into Christian Mysticism? Tonight I am listening to the Tao of Christ.

Also, has anyone else thought of founding a church for official protections?

also, did yall see the EO trump signed today on Iboga and other psychedelics? I cried.

Santo Daime is a christian denomination that treats DMT as the sacrament. They're legally protected to use it in ceremony in USA since 2009.

 

[blig-blug]

The great educational value of the war against Christendom lies in the absolute truthlessness of the priest. Such purity is rare enough. The 'man of God' is entirely incapable of honesty, and only arises at the point where truth is defaced beyond all legibility. Lies are his entire metabolism, the air he breathes, his bread and his wine. He cannot comment upon the weather without a secret agenda of deceit. No word, gesture, or perception is slight enough to escape his extravagant reflex of falsification, and of the lies in circulation he will instinctively seize on the grossest, the most obscene and oppressive travesty. Any proposition passing the lips of a priest is necessarily totally false, excepting only insidiouses whose message is momentarily misunderstood. It is impossible to deny him without discovering some buried fragment or reality

Big words, but it rings to me quite empty and shallow. If it had been written in the 18th century at least one could still appreciate the bravery, but not today. And I believe it's playing a trick:

We can take it at its word, and interpret this as the claim that everything ever stated by any priest has been a falsehood. This is a remarkable claim that's very easy to disprove by providing any of the myriad cases of priests making true claims.

So it can't mean that. What does it mean, then? That a priest never said a truth "as a priest", where "as a priest" is conveniently defined to make the statement true? Some other convenient interpretation? In any case, those would make the whole claim a tautology, while being very dishonest.

I can only conclude the text is an expression of emotion. All we can be sure this text shows is that the author dislikes priests. Which is fine, but hardly interesting or ground-breaking material. I don't see a mere expression of dislike as being too convincing to anyone religious, either.

Here's something that shows the emptiness of the quote while being amusing (to me, at least):

The great educational value of the war against Accelerationism lies in the absolute truthlessness of Nick Land. Such purity is rare enough. The 'man of reaction' is entirely incapable of honesty, and only arises at the point where truth is defaced beyond all legibility. Lies are his entire metabolism, the air he breathes, his bread and his wine. He cannot comment upon the weather without a secret agenda of deceit. No word, gesture, or perception is slight enough to escape his extravagant reflex of falsification, and of the lies in circulation he will instinctively seize on the grossest, the most obscene and oppressive travesty. Any proposition passing the lips of Nick Land is necessarily totally false, excepting only insidiouses whose message is momentarily misunderstood. It is impossible to deny him without discovering some buried fragment or reality

 

[blig-blug]

Thinking further about it, something else amusing about that quote is that Nick Land himself wouldn't be allowed to post it here:

If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning. If you cannot do that then don't state your opinion at all since it's useless for others.