Split topic: Christianity, priests, rhetoric, and the Nick Land quote

[Varallo]

Nick land sums it up nicely.

“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.”


For anyone who wants to break their thinking il add a link to his most famous book:

https://kyl.neocities.org/books/%5BPHI%20LAN%5D%20fanged%20noumena.pdf

 

[Voidmatrix]

If we could get actual legal protection through a psychedelic church I'd honestly consider joining but I have no idea how any of that works

I think the roots of all the old religions are fascinating but it seems they all became quite distorted over the years, to say the least. That's partly why the Nag Hammadi texts mentioned are interesting, since they were discovered relatively recently and skipped some of that two thousand year jigsaw puzzle of translations and intentional or unintentional distortions. I don't know much about it but I found this line particularly interesting, from the Gospel of Philip in Nag Hammadi: “Those who say they will die first and then rise are wrong. If they do not receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

It also seems some of the bizarre descriptions in those texts trace back to Egypt, for example the serpent with a lions head

Naqa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nick land sums it up nicely.

“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.”


For anyone who wants to break their thinking il add a link to his most famous book:

https://kyl.neocities.org/books/%5BPHI%20LAN%5D%20fanged%20noumena.pdf

He has some really interesting interpretations that appeal to gnosticism. I hope this is the right video.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Varallo]

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

Because it captured something I felt was already happening in this thread.

The discussion starts with Christianity and an response to the EO on psychedelics, but it quickly shifts into a broader critique of how Christianity is used, how belief gets framed, and how authority attaches itself to that framing.

In the quote it is important that “the priest” is not just a literal priest. It means the one who mediates belief, presents a narrative as truth, and asks others to receive it as if it were salvation, regardless of whether truth is still the real aim.

And that’s also where the connection with context is aligning. The EO on ibogaine doesn’t actually establish a solution. It hopefully accelerates research and allocates funding, like Christianity it’s not the cure for social illnesses that seem to be the result of modern times.

The point is that within structures, that are now surfacing, between very powerful man their ideas about psychedelics and their use of Christianity makes that what is presented as truth is no longer oriented toward truth itself, but toward belief, authority, and effect.

So not as a literal claim, but because it compresses that pattern into something very direct.

 

[Voidmatrix]

The discussion starts with Christianity and an response to the EO on psychedelics, but it quickly shifts into a broader critique of how Christianity is used, how belief gets framed, and how authority attaches itself to that framing.

I'm not seeing this is the replies leading up to your initial post.

One love

 

[Jamie01]

I’m certainly criticizing Christianity and feel it’s well deserved.

 

[Varallo]

We wouldn’t have Christ without the Jews. There is a whole lot of stuff in the Hebrew bible that is just weird. I don’t know how to just put it into a religious scope. I honestly read some of that stuff and I’m thinking about giants, aliens…science experiments…or some psychedelic/inter dimensional thing.

I don’t have an issue with Christ himself. I mostly don’t like the current cultural trend towards Christianity, and all the rich nut jobs like Thiel trying to twist it to fit whatever psycho narrative they want to push. Was the church not always operating this way?

I have mostly just been told totally insane stuff by Christian’s my whole life. They told me I had to read a book or go to hell. They told me dinosaurs aren’t real and earth is only 6000 years old. Every time reality becomes too believable for the Catholics the pope just changes his story.

I didn’t want to make it to personal, and quote everything relevant, but here it started to all come together. Take then the powerful man, like the one named, but also the ones responsible for the push and signing and we are pretty much there. Combined with the ideas of solving mental health issues through psychedelics and the obscenity of the interpretation of Christianity as is now seen in those circles is why.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I didn’t want to make it to personal, and quote everything relevant, but here it started to all come together. Take then the powerful man, like the one named, but also the ones responsible for the push and signing and we are pretty much there. Combined with the ideas of solving mental health issues through psychedelics and the obscenity of the interpretation of Christianity as is now seen in those circles is why.

I appreciate you helping me understand.

I am getting ready to sit for a DMT session and so have to be brief. But I feel that your quote conflate disparate topics in the OP, and is unnecessarily contentious, and in that way somewhat disrespectful to the OP. I see the connections you're making, but it may be a bit much and not needed here. Someone should be able to ask if anyone is into Christian Mysticism without having Christianity attacked. Christian Mysticism is also very different from exoteric Christianity.


One love

 

[Varallo]

I appreciate you helping me understand.

I am getting ready to sit for a DMT session and so have to be brief. But I feel that your quote conflate disparate topics in the OP, and is unnecessarily contentious, and in that way somewhat disrespectful to the OP. I see the connections you're making, but it may be a bit much and not needed here. Someone should be able to ask if anyone is into Christian Mysticism without having Christianity attacked. Christian Mysticism is also very different from exoteric Christianity.


One love

From my perspective the quote wasn’t meant as an attack.

It was more a condensed way of expressing what I felt was already present in the thread. The discussion had already moved from mysticism toward criticism of how Christianity is used, how belief gets framed, and how authority builds itself around that framing.

So for me, the quote wasn’t introducing something new as much as it was making explicit, in a more extreme form, a pattern that was already there.

That said, I can see how dropping it as a standalone quote made it come across as more abrupt than intended.

 

[blig-blug]

Reducing philosophy to explicit arguments works for some traditions, but it becomes a limitation when dealing with texts that operate through style

Okay, it may be so. My point still stands, the Nexus is not a place to post provocative, dismissing rants that offer no arguments, and that is very explicitly stated in the Attitude. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not valid, there are many valid things that are out of place here. E.g. that Luther quote, which I guess "operates through style" as well, it being the same style as your quote. Many 4chan greentexts operate through style as well and would likewise be out of place here. That's all I care about here.

In the quote it is important that “the priest” is not just a literal priest. It means the one who mediates belief, presents a narrative as truth, and asks others to receive it as if it were salvation, regardless of whether truth is still the real aim.

I could also interpret it as "the priest" being actually Nick Land's father, and this being the expression of a psychological conflict. It can be an interesting exercise, but I don't think the Nexus is the right place for it. Any text can be interpreted in many ways, but if its explicit and most direct meaning is out of place here, then the text itself is out of place.

I honestly think the least the Nexus needs is provocation and inflammatory or emotional language. This used to be called flaming.
There's a place for that in the world, but not here. We don't allow preaching, opinions without arguments, gore, porn, obscene language, and many other things that have their value and their place in the world.

I won't repeat myself more, as that's all I seem to be doing. Please don't post more in that style, I'm sure you can find other ways to get your arguments across, as you have in fact been doing in all your posts since that one.

 

[Varallo]

Okay, it may be so. My point still stands, the Nexus is not a place to post provocative, dismissing rants that offer no arguments, and that is very explicitly stated in the Attitude. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not valid, there are many valid things that are out of place here. E.g. that Luther quote, which I guess "operates through style" as well, it being the same style as your quote. Many 4chan greentexts operate through style as well and would likewise be out of place here. That's all I care about here.


I could also interpret it as "the priest" being actually Nick Land's father, and this being the expression of a psychological conflict. It can be an interesting exercise, but I don't think the Nexus is the right place for it. Any text can be interpreted in many ways, but if its explicit and most direct meaning is out of place here, then the text itself is out of place.

I honestly think the least the Nexus needs is provocation and inflammatory or emotional language. This used to be called flaming.
There's a place for that in the world, but not here. We don't allow preaching, opinions without arguments, gore, porn, obscene language, and many other things that have their value and their place in the world.

I won't repeat myself more, as that's all I seem to be doing. Please don't post more in that style, I'm sure you can find other ways to get your arguments across, as you have in fact been doing in all your posts since that one.

I think it would help to clarify the standard you’re claiming to apply.

Are you saying that the most literal reading of a text determines whether it is appropriate for the Nexus? Because that would exclude a great deal of philosophical writing that operates through style, exaggeration, and non-literal language.

And if you look at my original post, what I actually did was quote a philosophical text, briefly indicate that I thought it captured something in the discussion, and then link to the source. That is not the same thing as preaching a position in my own voice or posting an ungrounded rant. Let alone something to be grouped, or framed, together with gore and porn.

 

[blig-blug]

Are you saying that the most literal reading of a text determines whether it is appropriate for the Nexus? Because that would exclude a great deal of philosophical writing that operates through style, exaggeration, and non-literal language.

It's not my standard, it's explicitly stated in the guidelines:

If you have an opinion about something, respectfully state it, but please do not talk in absolutes about right and wrong or disrespectfully disregard other world views.

If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning.

So yes, a text written in an explicitly disrespectful tone that talks in absolutes and is surrounded by no context or reasoning is out of place here. I think it's pretty clear cut. I also have interests that don't fit here, unfortunate but it is what it is.

And IMO (and this is just my opinion), the last thing we need here is provocation and flaming.

That's all I have to say about this.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Because it captured something I felt was already happening in this thread.

The discussion starts with Christianity and an response to the EO on psychedelics, but it quickly shifts into a broader critique of how Christianity is used, how belief gets framed, and how authority attaches itself to that framing.

In the quote it is important that “the priest” is not just a literal priest. It means the one who mediates belief, presents a narrative as truth, and asks others to receive it as if it were salvation, regardless of whether truth is still the real aim.

And that’s also where the connection with context is aligning. The EO on ibogaine doesn’t actually establish a solution. It hopefully accelerates research and allocates funding, like Christianity it’s not the cure for social illnesses that seem to be the result of modern times.

The point is that within structures, that are now surfacing, between very powerful man their ideas about psychedelics and their use of Christianity makes that what is presented as truth is no longer oriented toward truth itself, but toward belief, authority, and effect.

So not as a literal claim, but because it compresses that pattern into something very direct.

Yes, , not looking for y'all attacks, I'm seeking to have a conversation with others out there who are into this stuff. Y'all can kindly take the criticism elsewhere

If someone is not into it, they can share, but at that point - move on?

Did you see the two bottom quoted messages? Respect the OP.

I don't think that any of that was spoken about in an obvious enough manner to warrant that text, which, imo, is not philosophical. That's the kind of rhetoric spouted only for those who already agree. It doesn't invite critical thought at all. Jamie was really the only one that entertained those ideas. Now it would've been different if you'd said "hey Jaimie, I think you'll like this quote," but instead you shared it as if it sums everything up and then recommended the book. Poor form.

That said, I get it, you don't like religion, but it's disrespectful and unbecoming to hop in threads you disagree with and add contention because you don't like the topic. This isn't the first time you've disparaged something spiritual or religious from someone.

One love

 

[Varallo]

Did you see the two bottom quoted messages? Respect the OP.

I don't think that any of that was spoken about in an obvious enough manner to warrant that text, which, imo, is not philosophical. That's the kind of rhetoric spouted only for those who already agree. It doesn't invite critical thought at all. Jamie was really the only one that entertained those ideas. Now it would've been different if you'd said "hey Jaimie, I think you'll like this quote," but instead you shared it as if it sums everything up and then recommended the book. Poor form.

That said, I get it, you don't like religion, but it's disrespectful and unbecoming to hop in threads you disagree with and add contention because you don't like the topic. This isn't the first time you've disparaged something spiritual or religious from someone.

One love

I agree, @alpharex would you like me to split this off so you have a clean slate for the original topic?

My point wasn’t an attack on the OP or on Christian mysticism as such, but a response to a direction I perceived in parts of the discussion. I’ve already clarified how I read the quote and why I used it.

What I’m pushing back on is the way that gets reframed through literal reading, then emotion, and then moderation, and is now being reduced to mere disparagement of religion or personal dislike. That doesn’t reflect the reasoning or my views on the subject, I have no dislike for religion, I just don’t do religion.

If the quote seemed too abrupt or under-explained, that could just as easily have been handled by asking me to clarify why I posted it or what I meant by it, you thankfully did. That would have led to a more useful discussion than repeatedly shifting the issue into normative framing.

 

[blig-blug]

That doesn’t reflect the reasoning or my views on the subject, I have no dislike for religion, I just don’t do religion.

Then explain your reasoning and views instead of posting what you yourself call a provocation. If you post a provocation, don't be surprised to get a reaction. So far the reaction has only been to say that it's out of place. That's pretty benign.

If the quote seemed too abrupt or under-explained, that could just as easily have been handled by asking me to clarify why I posted it or what I meant by it, you thankfully did. That would have led to a more useful discussion than repeatedly shifting the issue into normative framing.

If a post goes explicitly against the rules, normative framing is to be expected. You would have done the same had someone else posted the Luther quote I posted above without context, and you (rightly) do the same when you remove a post and warn for clearly breaking the rules.

It could also have easily been handled by admitting from the beginning that it was wrong to post that the way you did, while also explaining what you meant (you did the latter). Instead of pretending that the text "actually" doesn't go against the Attitude because it can be interpreted in a given way.

The points in the Attitude are also about tone and form, not only content. It matters.

I'd say you should take this as an illustration of the least that can happen when you post provocative stuff in an Internet forum (regardless of any rules), and learn from the experience.

BTW, Nick Land should be careful to not get cut with that edge Harsh words in the 21st century surely are quite radical when in the late 18th century priests were actually being beheaded.