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.

 

[alpharex]

Have any of y'all checked out the work of Marshall Davis, author of the Tao of Christ, or Richard Rohr? Both modern Christian Mystics.....Marshall Davis

 

[alpharex]

What happens now post EO? I have GWOT vet friends that need ibogaine treatment

 

[Transform]

And yeah, really if we go far enough back in almost any culture, it'll start getting weird, even in indigenous European cultures.

"Weird" itself refers to the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon nature religion known as Wyrd, so I don't know if you hit that particular nail on the head intentionally…

 

[Varallo]

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):

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

Of course it is his opinion; he wrote it, so that is obvious. In many cases, it is immediately clear that something is merely personal opinion from the way it is framed. Here, in his philosophy, it’s per definition you could argue, the rule is not made for this I would say.

I don’t think the issue is really whether Land is simply “right” or “wrong,” nor whether the passage presents itself as absolute. You can disagree with the passage, of course, but I think one thing Nick Land does well, especially in the context of the wider piece, is force questions, assumptions, into the open. He pushes on them aggressively, and in doing so also destabilizes them. It is also obvious that he has little sympathy for Christianity, so the hostility is not hidden.

What makes the passage effective, to me, is not that it should be read as a literal claim about every priest. If you read it only as a literal claim, you are almost guaranteed to miss what the passage is doing. Rather, it works as an exaggerated and provocative compression of the gap between Christian moral language, institutional religion, and God.

I think it is also important to realize that this comes out of Shamanic Nietzsche, where Land is not doing a traditional reading but dissecting Nietzsche’s thinking in a very different way. In that sense, I think he is actually doing a good job, even if he does it in his own style. It is radical, and precisely through that radicalization he forces a different mode of thinking. What Nietzsche would call ressentiment is here turned back into a direct attack on priestly morality.

The reason I chose that quote is also tied to how Christianity is currently being used, and the tensions and conflicts around it that are becoming increasingly visible. Even this week, in the friction between some world leaders and the Pope, or in wars framed in Christian terms by figures who themselves carry the symbols of crusades on their skin, you see how charged this terrain still is. That is why Land, for me, feels relevant it’s not just abstract radical philosophy, it is still actively unfolding, as is the obscenity of Christianity.

That is mainly how I read Land, not as a balanced philosophical theory, but as exaggerations that provoke thought.

Disclaimer: this is my opinion

 

[blig-blug]

Of course it is his opinion

The problem is not his opinion, the problem is that quote (I don't know about the book) provides zero arguments or evidence for it. It's written for people who already agree with it, and even those won't learn anything from it, other than just maybe getting a warm fuzzy feeling.

What makes the passage effective, to me, is not that it should be read as a literal claim about every priest. If you read it only as a literal claim, you are almost guaranteed to miss what the passage is doing. Rather, it works as an exaggerated and provocative compression of the gap between Christian moral language, institutional religion, and God.

Indeed provocative and provocative only, as again there are no arguments provided. So it indeed intends to provoke emotions.
It's not even very good at that, much has been written about the topic during the last five centuries (and more), both with and without arguments. Screeds about Christianity being a Big Lie are hardly novel.

I think it is also important to realize that this comes out of Shamanic Nietzsche, where Land is not doing a traditional reading but dissecting Nietzsche’s thinking in a very different way. In that sense, I think he is actually doing a good job, even if he does it in his own style. It is radical, and precisely through that radicalization he forces a different mode of thinking. What Nietzsche would call ressentiment is here turned back into a direct attack on priestly morality.

I suppose and hope that the rest of his work is better than that quote (which may itself be better in context). However, I'm replying to your post, that contains that quote and doesn't provide any context in it other than a full book.

The reason I chose that quote is also tied to how Christianity is currently being used, and the tensions and conflicts around it that are becoming increasingly visible. Even this week, in the friction between some world leaders and the Pope, or in wars framed in Christian terms by figures who themselves carry the symbols of crusades on their skin, you see how charged this terrain still is. That is why Land, for me, feels relevant it’s not just abstract radical philosophy, it is still actively unfolding, as is the obscenity of Christianity.

I don't disagree about the use of Christianity, however I would argue that in my opinion that "currently" has been current for over 16 centuries. Now, I don't think Christianity is inherently "obscene", and as you may understand I won't just be convinced by a vehement statement that it is so.
All this is besides my point here, as I'm not arguing about the idea presented, but the complete lack of anything resembling arguments, evidence, or nuance.

That is mainly how I read Land, not as a balanced philosophical theory, but as exaggerations that provoke thought.

I understand that, I do like to read provocative thinkers too. But again, does the statement "Christianity is maximally false" by itself, with no rationale given, provoke thought in anyone in 2026? Believers will obviously just reject it (and rightly so as long as zero arguments are provided), and non-believers will either shrug ("yeah I agree there are many lies there, however that seems somewhat over the top") or cheer if they already agree. No one can learn anything from the quote provided, beyond facts about Nick Land himself.

I think there's a more important point here, and is that the quote, as provided is out of place. It explicitly attacks a whole group of population without providing any arguments. It's just "boo outgroup!", "a religion I disagree with is a Big Lie!", "their priests are liars!". Whether one agrees with the quote or not makes absolutely no difference, it's an expression of an attitude that's out of place both in this subforum and in the Nexus in general.

It's perfectly possible to criticize Christianity providing reasoning and arguments (as you do in your second post), but the quote fails to do so, and the post itself fails to provide any additional context that could make it into something different than the equivalent of spitting in the ground. If I fully agreed with the sentiment expressed there I'd still think the quote is out of place here, at least as provided.

I'm going to illustrate this more clearly with a specific example. I don't agree with the following quote, nor think it would be fitting to post it without context in a post, and I think you'll agree with me on this latter part. It matters little if one is to agree with it or not to establish that it would be out of place in the Nexus:

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews and know that where they have their schools there is nothing but the Devil’s nest in which self-praise, vanity, lies, blasphemy, disgracing God and man, are practiced in the bitterest and most poisonous way as the Devils do themselves. Wherever you see or hear a Jew teaching, do not think otherwise than that you are hearing a poisonous Basilisk who with his face poisons and kills people. Through God’s wrath they have been delivered to believe that all of their boasting, vanity, lying to God, cursing all men, are right and a great service to God, something well becoming to such noble blood of the fathers and circumcised saints (no matter how mean they otherwise might know themselves to be in gross vices) which service they think they have rendered hereby. Look out for them!

"Boo outgroup, religion X is a lie because I say so!!!!!!111"
I would expect anyone that posts this without further elaboration to at least get a warning, probably be banned.

So, feel free to argue against Christianity, but please provide arguments, as you have done in your follow-up post. Avoiding emotionally charged language when dealing with these topics is also a good idea.

 

[Varallo]

The problem is not his opinion, the problem is that quote (I don't know about the book) provides zero arguments or evidence for it. It's written for people who already agree with it, and even those won't learn anything from it, other than just maybe getting a warm fuzzy feeling.


Indeed provocative and provocative only, as again there are no arguments provided. So it indeed intends to provoke emotions.
It's not even very good at that, much has been written about the topic during the last five centuries (and more), both with and without arguments. Screeds about Christianity being a Big Lie are hardly novel.


I suppose and hope that the rest of his work is better than that quote (which may itself be better in context). However, I'm replying to your post, that contains that quote and doesn't provide any context in it other than a full book.


I don't disagree about the use of Christianity, however I would argue that in my opinion that "currently" has been current for over 16 centuries. Now, I don't think Christianity is inherently "obscene", and as you may understand I won't just be convinced by a vehement statement that it is so.
All this is besides my point here, as I'm not arguing about the idea presented, but the complete lack of anything resembling arguments, evidence, or nuance.


I understand that, I do like to read provocative thinkers too. But again, does the statement "Christianity is maximally false" by itself, with no rationale given, provoke thought in anyone in 2026? Believers will obviously just reject it (and rightly so as long as zero arguments are provided), and non-believers will either shrug ("yeah I agree there are many lies there, however that seems somewhat over the top") or cheer if they already agree. No one can learn anything from the quote provided, beyond facts about Nick Land himself.

I think there's a more important point here, and is that the quote, as provided is out of place. It explicitly attacks a whole group of population without providing any arguments. It's just "boo outgroup!", "a religion I disagree with is a Big Lie!", "their priests are liars!". Whether one agrees with the quote or not makes absolutely no difference, it's an expression of an attitude that's out of place both in this subforum and in the Nexus in general.

It's perfectly possible to criticize Christianity providing reasoning and arguments (as you do in your second post), but the quote fails to do so, and the post itself fails to provide any additional context that could make it into something different than the equivalent of spitting in the ground. If I fully agreed with the sentiment expressed there I'd still think the quote is out of place here, at least as provided.

I'm going to illustrate this more clearly with a specific example. I don't agree with the following quote, nor think it would be fitting to post it without context in a post, and I think you'll agree with me on this latter part. It matters little if one is to agree with it or not to establish that it would be out of place in the Nexus:

"Boo outgroup, religion X is a lie because I say so!!!!!!111"
I would expect anyone that posts this without further elaboration to at least get a warning, probably be banned.

So, feel free to argue against Christianity, but please provide arguments, as you have done in your follow-up post. Avoiding emotionally charged language when dealing with these topics is also a good idea.

I think the difficulty here is that you are evaluating the passage purely in terms of argument and evidence, and by that standard it will of course fail. But that already assumes that philosophy must primarily function through explicit arguments, and I don’t think that assumption holds, especially not for someone like Nick Land.

Reducing philosophy to explicit arguments works for some traditions, but it becomes a limitation when dealing with texts that operate through style, provocation, or conceptual disruption, as is often the case with Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and others.

That does not mean the passage is beyond criticism, but it does mean that dismissing it as “empty” simply because it lacks explicit argumentation may be too quick. It is doing something different, and whether one finds that valuable is another question.

If philosophy is reduced to argument plus evidence alone, then I suspect we are not going to understand each other.

I'm going to illustrate this more clearly with a specific example. I don't agree with the following quote, nor think it would be fitting to post it without context in a post, and I think you'll agree with me on this latter part. It matters little if one is to agree with it or not to establish that it would be out of place in the Nexus:
"Boo outgroup, religion X is a lie because I say so!!!!!!111"
I would expect anyone that posts this without further elaboration to at least get a warning, probably be banned.

So, feel free to argue against Christia

That comparison conflates critique of a system with hostility toward a group, and I don’t think those are the same.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Curious @vara given the nature and title of the thread, what inspired you to share that quote or what other post were you responding to with it?

One love