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

[Varallo]

I’ll move this to a separate thread so we can discuss the underlying ideas more directly there.

My intention with the quote was to provoke thought, and that part clearly worked. It was however not intended to derail the original topic.

 

[Varallo]

This was split off from another thread to keep that discussion focused.

The quote I posted earlier was not intended as a literal statement, but as a condensed way of pointing to a structural tension: the mediation of truth through authority and belief.

I’m more interested in exploring that tension here than in revisiting the question of whether the quote itself was appropriately placed.

 

[Voidmatrix]

My intention with the quote was to provoke thought, and that part clearly worked. It was however not intended to derail the original topic.

It provoked thought in terms of moderating... that's the only reason I addressed you in that thread. My stance on many things aimed at being provocative, is that with such a goal, there is obvious inauthenticity that in turn makes it hyperbolic. It's not something that generally interests me.

I’m more interested in exploring that tension here than in revisiting the question of whether the quote itself was appropriately placed.

Happens in any milieu, science, religion, politics, etc.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

I’m more interested in exploring that tension here than in revisiting the question of whether the quote itself was appropriately placed.

On my part, they are one and the same, as the ideas expressed don't particularly bother me. So once that's solved, I don't have much more to say.

I've been a Marxist for many years (not anymore), so as you may expect I have both read and expressed myself quite a bit of criticism of religion and specifically Christianity. Fighting Christianity never was and still isn't a priority of mine, but it doesn't bother me that there are people that do.

Nowadays I'm still generally opposed to organized religion, but see the value in many aspects of different spiritual traditions, Christianity included.

 

[Voidmatrix]

There's also a distinction between a religion and the people that practice in and the ways they practice it.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

There's also a distinction between a religion and the people that practice in and the ways they practice it.

One love

I sometimes look at it as religion as a social reality vs. religion as an experiential reality. I think the latter is relatively rare.

In my opinion, one can't be said to believe something if they don't act as if it were true (although it's possible to act as if it were true without believing, of course). If most Christians were to really believe that hell awaits them if they don't love their brother, give their property to the poor, and forgive, the world would be no doubt a much better place. For example, I think Tolstoi (the writer) was a honest Christian, and admire him for it even if I don't share his beliefs. He renounced a position of nobility for living with the poor, became staunchly against war (any war), and was completely transformed as a person.

In line with this, it's interesting how many supposed believers get hyperfixated in aspects of their creed that demand no change or effort from them, as whether the world was created in six days, whatever that means. While ignoring and often working actively against the moral teachings that would demand effort and change. Not surprising, as it happens in every possible realm. It's easier to change beliefs than attitudes or ways of living.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I sometimes look at it as religion as a social reality vs. religion as an experiential reality. I think the latter is relatively rare.

Exoteric vs Esoteric.

In my opinion, one can't be said to believe something if they don't act as if it were true (although it's possible to act as if it were true without believing, of course). If most Christians were to really believe that hell awaits them if they don't love their brother, give their property to the poor, and forgive, the world would be no doubt a much better place. For example, I think Tolstoi (the writer) was a honest Christian, and admire him for it even if I don't share his beliefs. He renounced a position of nobility for living with the poor, became staunchly against war (any war), and was completely transformed as a person.

I feel similarly about Wittgenstein, though while he became like a monk, I am not sure it was attached to any religion. He was Austrian and Jewish. However, I don't think most are very aware of what they believe...

In line with this, it's interesting how many supposed believers get hyperfixated in aspects of their creed that demand no change or effort from them, as whether the world was created in six days, whatever that means. While ignoring and often working actively against the moral teachings that would demand effort and change. Not surprising, as it happens in every possible realm. It's easier to change beliefs than attitudes or ways of living.

Or what someone else does with their own body.

But hey, path of least resistance...

One love