Religious Holla Forums

noice ohayou, fukken sav'd

ohayous are nice

The Death of God theology/Christian atheism/whatever is interesting, or at least Altizer is, as well as Žižek with the Holy Spirit embodied in the radical emancipatory collective and so on and so on

I should probably step up my Hegelian dialectics game though before reading more DoG stuff tbh

Hellenist here.

ysee.gr/index-eng.php

PAGANS LEAVE

Where would my nyaruko go?

Religion should be kept out of politics and the government. Religious people should not be given special rights no one else has.

I don't have a religion but I have a somewhat abstract concept of god and gods but I'm agnostic about it. My beliefs are more closer to paganism and eastern religions. I'm not sure if I fit in just one category as I have not heard anything exactly like what I think.

Religious Jew here.

Agreed.
all people are religious in some form in the sense of dogmatic pursuit of an ideal however I claim. The state and politics infringes on my beliefs especially capitalism so I want it to GTFO so I guess we're on the same page

Stop defiling our sacred lands first.

Have you read about Ein Sof yet? It covers a lot considerations.

Well, Jews are particularly Hellenic compared to most denominations.

Forgot to mention this.

Pagan does not equate to polytheist, the root word of the term predates Christianity and was used disparagingly by urban people in reference to rural folk, backwoods superstitions, and animists.

...

...

...

...

I feel like fusing Posadism with the Joy of Satan's take on spiritual satanism(which involves Sumerian mythology and ancient aliens) and would work really well actually.

This is a noice thread

...

Muslim here.

I'm not a leftist though. I just lurk here, looking for spicy memes.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

all hail the ohayou!

The fire rises

I do love ohayou.

Weebs should all be gulag'd tbh

Not done a lot of reading from problems focusing. I might get to it some time. Only stuff I've read all the way through is the Kybalion, the Tao Te Ching, and The Book of the Law. Some of it I had to rely on audio books just to get through it.

Make new videos Rebel Absurdity

10 minutes of Rebel trying to say "ohayou" as cutely as possible.

Let's make it happen user :^)

Where the fuck is nazisatangril and when will she show tits again?

An eternal but uncaring creator, offering no objective moral or life beyond death?
Close enough, does that qualify me to post in this thread?
As for the original question.
I would not object to some one Ted Cruz envoking the name of Azathot for political gain.

not lovecraftian enough =(

NOT HELLENIZED ENOUGH

NORMIES SENT US TO HELLen BUT WE'RE GOING EVEN DEEPER.

Darn, I'll work on that, can always use some extra cringe points.

Might as well get my beliefs written down first. I am a Pagan that follows the old Celtic beliefs. Now to get on the conversation:

Speaking of "God" in everyday speech, is completely unacceptable in all sense. Because I believe that it devalues the name further and dilutes it. Then they have the audacity to try to use that said name because that is the only defining trait they have.

Mix this with politics and it becomes a tool to rally blind support. Then trying to further an agenda that alienates most people, and this could be from the ails of the working class, to pushing for a Christian theocracy.

For myself we should keep the two separate from each other and not mix the them together. Because we will start having religion making policies that would hurt the causes for Socialism. Now I am not saying that religion should be gotten rid of since it can help some of those who feel lost.

All Mushriks will burn in the fire.

I get what you mean but I can't help but be annoyed by it a bit. Reminds me of all the Jews online writingle happy merchant meem whenever they say it.

ah fuck I didnt know there was a filter on that. hah

While some form of a god or gods may exist, you have no way of knowing, so it's useless to try and worship them.

Religion is the spookiest of spooks.

read first line in OP and pls go

Physics is a spook if we follow your logic since it's based on mental arbitrary mental principles like time and distance.

I just don't get why you support the ideology of militant atheists, OP. Christianity requires some thought if you delve past the initial sublayer of generational Christians, and most practical examples of folks trying to move towards socialism have seen massive negative, often violent feedback towards theologians and educated Christians.

Not telling you to embrace Capitalism or anything like that, just pointing out the shitty track record of tankies and violent revolutionists. You can believe in sharing without being held at gunpoint.

NO BULLY RAFEAL CORREA

He is a gud boy and Christian too

"ideology of militant atheists"

You should read more christian philosophers and theologians. They are very often if not always socialist.
Capitalism leads to atheism. Socialism upholds christian social values.

Capitalism needs *necessarily* to injustice, and supports greed in all forms.

youtube.com/watch?v=jW8Wc8Wz4W4

Socialism isn't exclusive to Marxists and specifically Bolsheviks, no matter how much they would like to give off the impression. Socialism predates Marx.

Just to clarify before we continue this discussion, are you claiming that the ideology of capitalism leads to militant atheism, or that attempting to pursue a capitalist train of thought leads to militant atheism?

I'd also ask for your personal definition of capitalism before I delve into this topic.

Gonna go grab some brunch. I'll be back soon.

Gulag all theists

I'm claiming it leads to destruction of christian values, which leads to atheism.

Capitalism = private ownership of means of production, as opposed to: worker ownership, democratic ownership, collective ownership.

I don't mean the ideology, I mean the system *being* in place.

I like the idea of the Holy Spirit being the community of believers. It's a shame early Christians had to sell out their communal way of life.

Some values. And not just Socialism. Marxism has a lot to say about usury, for example.

I'd say religion is often Left, in the beginning. Occasionally, even revolutionary. But it turns reactionary and Right eventually. It lacks Materialism, yes. Which is why religious movements that support Socialism are pretty much heresies or minor sects.

Now that's bullshit. Once religion becomes established, it supports status quo. Religiously.

If capitalism happens to be part of it - religion will support it. There is a reason why Orthodox Church went full Antichrist about Bolsheviks (and Anarchists). And why Napoleon also got Antichrist treatment as well (though I'm not sure if I can call him Socialist).

And vice versa: "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America invented Christian America" has a lot to say about it.

I've seen Christians argue that because people have dominion of earth they should own private property and profit from it. Lets not forget Jews popularized interest and Christianity is just Judaism the sequel.

Well are't you a spoil-sport.

(checked)

Cool. Just wanted to confirm.

I'd have liked a bit more detailed answer, but I understand my own tendency to shitpost so I don't blame you- I wouldn't want to explain jack shit to a shitposter either.

One of the defining "features" so to speak that made me into a capitalist was the idea of man acting in a pseudo-state of nature. The idea that even the staunchest misanthrope would have to benefit his community in order to produce profits for his own greed was pivotal. Tying back to that, I believe one of the main enemies of today's Christian is the libertine who is both selfish to the extreme, and incapable of profiting the community as a whole in their own base desire to break the taboo and corrupt the minds of others to be like them.

Under socialist settings, it is my belief that the sheer focus on the community gives the libertine an equal talking point where they can be seen as an equal and thus subvert the community in a negative manner, whereas in a more "capitalist" setting, the libertine is forced to go against their inherent destructive nature by benefiting the community in order for their ideals to spread to others. It is my hope that under such circumstances, having to benefit others would induce a "social chemo" to purge the libertine's destructive nature, or that the libertine would naturally be excluded due to their inability to benefit their neighbor. Likewise, regardless of the system, cooperation between individuals allows for greater returns- if cooperation between individuals was all socialism meant though, we wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation.

tl;dr to extract from all that- I'm not seeing where you're coming from. To me, the capitalist setting purges those with anti-Christian values because they're unable to work with the community. Perhaps it's just the fact that the way my branch of the faith sees it, the community is the church whereas many western branches would see the church as the community.

See though, we already have an inherent difference in our definitional understanding.

Private ownership of the means of production for me and most propertarians that don't use fake descriptions like "Paleocon: allows for worker ownership of the means of production and collective ownership of the means of production.

The only thing Capitalism would really prevent as the term is used by propertarians is "democratic" ownership of the means of production in the sense that a majority rule is just a new-age way of saying Tyranny or Ochlocracy. In the worker/collective sense of the word, they're free to use democratic means of ascertaining things like ownership, but they do not have a right to enforce their will on others.

Ah, and before anyone comments on the AnCap flag, I think it's important to point out the quote "to dream the impossible dream." I am very much for any Capitalist system that shifts the overton window significantly towards less government. If someone wants to shitpost about Voluntarist "feudalism," we can address this from a minarchist or "right-libertarian" perspective instead.

That incentive isn't a bad thing, that's a good thing in any system (E.G., Lenin said those who don't work don't eat), the problem is when you make greed the incentive, and so greedy people succeed more.

I don't agree that the libertine is only an individual can exist under capitalism. In fact I'd wager that because of blackmail relations of bourgeoisie and proletarian that it's hindered by capitalism.

What you're essentially saying is that "Socrates couldn't exist under socialism". But this is obviously not true, because socialism doesn't mean "force your values on others". If anything that's a product of bureaucracy. Don't forget, it was the government that killed Socrates.

Try to look at it this way

or

Etc etc. Capitalism is inherently materialist as far as I am concerned.

But they always get outcompeted because the workers won't decide to exploit themselves for higher profits. Only individuals who don't care about others will do that.

I agree that democratic ownership is majority rule and I don't personally agree with it.

Why not go for a capitalistic ideology that has some accountability, like distributism which is actually quite cool IMO

If God cares, surely he's more than capable of stopping it?

Orthodox Church went full antichrist about Bolsheviks because the Bolsheviks literally tore down hospitals and schools that the church communities had established to help the poor, while they were simultaneously told to die while your faggot leader murdered the blind and old because he couldn't teach them propaganda.

I don't have very many issues with AnSocs and certain groups of socialists since we keep to our own for the most part, but the authoritarian left is sadistic in its desire to murder every fucker in the room because they happen to like a different alcoholic beverage than them.

Don't you have some my little pony to watch or something?

Yeah, rightly so, and so did Catholic Church.
I only used Lenin as an example. I think Marxism is anti-virtue-ethics and generally not a great replacement moral wise to capitalism and also wrong anyway.

Socialism predates Marx.

I mean, "The Social Contract" is generally great for this. And treatise on social inequality
(both by Rousseau).

I think you would benefit a lot from reading Marxism and Christianity by Alasdair Macintyre he dropped marxism later because of reasons I gave but kept up anti-capitalism

Jews didn't do shit to popularize interest, that's a Holla Forums meme. Try the ancient Sumerians (the Code of Hammurabi has the first law on usury recorded almost 800 years before the United Kingdom of Israel existed), which is why Holla Forums has to concoct ludicrous conspiracy theories tying Jews to the bronze age fertile crescent through aliens and reptiles and shit.

Jews became primarily associated with usury in the Middle Ages.

Ri-ight.

Now I'd like some sources. I'm guessing that would be some unbiased priest? Or another obersturmbannfuhrer? And then we will get "everyone else is just spewing bolshevik propaganda and there are no hard facts"?

Marxism is an ideology, not an economic system, FFS.
If you want to contrast it with anything it would be Liberalism.

...

you're asking the wrong person friendgot.

Yes, an economic system which is morally bankrupt.

to catholic communist "and other organized christian believes "

With the catholic faith having a pro hierarchical believes and structure how can you stop the church from transforming itself to a state and establishing a theocracy in the middle of the commune ?

I see where you're coming from and I understand where you're coming from, but I think this is one of those matters of "theoretic objectivism/capitalist theory" versus "subjective application."

The business owner would probably love to take actions that drastically reduce costs in order to improve profits, but he can't take that action because of competition. If business A wants to hire people for $9/hour and business B wants to hire people for $10/hour, then business A must either provide a new incentive for people to work for him, or raise his wages assuming a labor deficit or break-even point. The price point tends to stabilize towards a middle ground between what the business wants to pay and what the employee wants to make, assuming there's no arbitrary laws on the book that give the business a cultural bargaining power to demand a certain price point E.G. minimum wage. Similarly if you considered distributed costs and concentrated benefits, sometimes the porky benefits don't add up to virtually anything for the worker even if the worker did go after him. Dunkin' Donughts' CEO was recently in deep shit because people found out he made the equivalent of $4,886/hour in salary. The flip side of that is as salary he was putting in about 70-90+ hours per week going to various locations and making sure things were running efficiently, and that if you divided his labor between the ~11,000 stores he was in charge of, he was making approximately 44 cents per store per hour. Similarly there are chefs working for restaurants for shit pay, but they'd be making the equivalent after costs, and working three times as many hours if they opened their own store- the desire of porkies to minimize costs is actually saving the worker about 3,000-3,500 hours per year that they can now use for themselves.

In the case of oversupply of labor, an issue we're currently running into in first world countries and the reason so many people want walls, you can think of every consumer as being a "private business." In this case, the worker is the private business of "work as few hours for as much money as possible." Some businesses are smart and invest money early on (education, trade skills, investments, etc.), some businesses poorly manage their money in the hopes of getting rich, and some businesses choose an inferior line of business in order to break even unskilled labor. As supply of workers increase allowing businesses to pay their workers less, incentives to become skilled labor increase for the worker. The only question is if the worker is willing to invest their time and energy into these more skilled forms of labor (to which I'd say no, they have no desire to do that). There are plenty of skills that will have set "fees" but you don't have to pay them until you start making money in the industry, so lack of money tends to only be an excuse if a worker has to go for the next-best instead of their ideal (which, frankly, is an issue that a business must overcome on a daily basis when hiring applicants whether worker-owned or singularly-owned, and which even they fail at in a lot of cases).

I think the theory of textbook capitalism is inherently materialist as all fuck and would agree with you, but the spirit of capitalism in its application is not. It builds community, and the "thank yous" between the consumer and a business are a sign of good faith in one another as they benefit one another and grow closer. There's nothing quite like going into a business you frequent and being greeted kindly by the staff as the two of you talk about far more than the products on the shelf.

I'd say WinCo is a good example of how this is wrong. The bigger issue is that worker-owned groups get into arguments more frequently, and suffer from the same issues most bottom-up groups face. I prefer networks/webs over specific top-down or bottom-up structures.

It's mostly some definitional differences and the like. I get along with Distributists far more than most American Conservatives, but I have some issues with the Distributist views on profit as being something immoral, and I think anti-trust tends to be abused more heavily by monopolies for monopolies than any other group.

S

P

I could link my sources and you'd just bitch about "muh propaganda" so why bother? Any source I could provide you would come from a capitalist country or followers of the Orthodox faith, and thus you'd ignore it.

Pic related is a good start though if you actually do care and aren't just shitposting.

OO

KS

#rekt

/thread

By returning to the one true church. :^)

I legitimately believe the Orthodox Church is the best example of how Capitalists and Socialists can coincide peacefully.

FUCKING SPOOOKS, GET OFF MY BOARD

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Well, as long as "Socialists" are SocDem, you are right. Even Anarchists will start losing their shit after a while.

But it would be extremely enlightening. For you.

OUT OUT OUT

...

We'll be having none of that.

The sad part is if Catholics hadn't raped and pillaged when they headed east, there is a good chance that Islam wouldn't exist today. At least not as anything larger than a small group of people.

Then again Christians might not have learned lessons about corruption within the ranks if not for the Islamic invasions raping, pillaging, and enslaving the masses.

It's fucked up either way.

We'll be having none of that here.

And why do you care about God's name being used in vain? You only do so for selfish reasons, because you oppose those who tend to use his name in vein. God himself apparently doesn't care.
No matter what you do. Religion is and will always be hypocrisy.

...

read Marcel

...

I'll give Alasdair Macintyre a look by the way* Forgot to mention that.

Right but that implies that there is a shortage of employable people in the world. You mean competition for employees. I don't agree with this idea. We very obviously have too many unemployed people as it is. So many so that we need to manufacture jobs.

You agree still that a capitalist will in this sense be greedy and still have the incentive to lower wages as much as possible in any case, which means either way that some people will not be getting enough to sustain themselves on, even if they work very hard at their jobs.

I also am interested in what you think of the idea that employers steal surplus value, something I tend to take for granted.

Do you accept that capitalism could turn God into a commodity? E.G., "buy this and be closer to God"?

At the end of the day interaction with the staff can't be carried out in "good faith" because you know their ulterior motives are preventing them from being authentic in a purely Sartrian sense, I know they can be authentically nice but they are not themselves.

We need a vaticanguard
holy war now
Burn the heretics

God-botherers, I'm curious. Will you manage to fedoratip your way out of this?

Because, you know, religion actually is business. And Stalin sells. Get yourself ready for St.Stalin of Orthodox Church. The liturgies are already happening, patriarch is talking about miracles, there are icons and stuff.

It's coming.

Simmer down crusader, you're just going to end up attacking your own cities and generally making a mess of things again.

I think the underlying issue is that government regulations and backroom deals are preventing the creation/founding of new jobs, to be honest fam.

I think there's a couple ways to look at this god I'm beginning to think that's becomingh my catch phrase on Holla Forums.

I do believe there's shitty things that an employer can do due to pardon the word state priviledge. There are clear examples of employers stealing "surplus value" in cases like Goodwill Industries hiring mentally handicapped individuals since they only have to pay them $3/hour, or factories hiring illegal immigrants who can work for less than minimum wage. This is more along the lines of companies being able to violate the rules of the game due to buddies in office. I also believe that large businesses like McDicks and WalMart that hurt the average consumer would be incapable of existing without government subsidies.

However I also believe that an employee is signing a contract, not investing in the business. I do not see many socialists calling for the coal miner to receive a percentage of the train's profits, nor for the construction worker to receive a percentage of a store's profits for building the store. I'm typically told this doesn't happen because they were under contract to build the store, not to work in it. What is the inherent difference though between the construction worker and the store employee? I don't see it.

If an employee is willing to forgo pay and receive their payment in commission based on the store's performance, knowing full well that they might in fact receive nothing if nothing sells, and the employer hires them on under this, then it would be exploitation in a sense. It's exploitation for the employer to withhold profits from the employee. If the employee is working for an hourly fee that they will receive regardless of the business' success or failures, then they are under a contract and have effectively signed that they are not working for the store/factory's profit, but to complete a task at said store/factory regardless of profits.

I think any opportunist could try to turn god into a commodity regardless of the systems in place. For instance the LDS church provides food when you're in need, but they expect you to try and attend church still, in a sense they're treating their religion as a commodity through charity. If anything, it separates the true believers from the fakes in a capitalist system. At least in the sense you described.

Depends on the type of business, really. I'm best friends with some of my clients and we hang out outside of the work place.

as much as I like the st. matrona one, dude don't make me link to that schlock icon thread again

st. thomas more (morus) is enough already, innit?
welp I'd love seeing hieronymous savoranola redeemed and cannonised one day (alike to joan d'arc), "christian socialism" group on leftystormfront had him even on icon with h&s, what the fuark srsly

It would be exploitation for the employer to withhold profits*

Fuck.

What are the jobs going to do though? These people could be contributing towards said community, but they are stuck doing things that are just logistics. Is there really any surprise that I say capitalism leads to moral alienation?

Should mention my flag keeps disappearing

I'm not sure I'm following what you're getting at here, user.

The ideal in small-regulation (and regulation-free) capitalism is minimizing work hours while simultaneously minimizing costs of production.

E.G. I fully believe that if not for regulations preventing new companies/businesses from starting up, I could be working 25 hours per week and afford all the same things I afford working 40+ hours per week.

Less working hours = more time to go about your own business how you see fit, and companies tend to like this approach.

Henry Ford was passionate about finding the right work for the right man, and bringing about the 40 hour work week because he could minimize cost of production and simultaneously increase his gross sales by lowering the price.

The end goal is even if you're making nickels, the goods you need only cost pennies to buy.

If you look at milk, even though the "price" of milk has gone up over the years, the "buying power" of the consumer is also much higher. Thirty years ago a consumer had to work about an hour to afford a gallon of milk. Now they need to work about 20 minutes to afford it.

I guess a more in-depth discussion would require a discussion on the validity of austrian economics etc, which I frankly am too lazy and not educated (enough, not that I can't at all) to have that sort of discussion.

Go back to Holla Forums.

E.G. I fully believe that if not for regulations preventing new companies/businesses from starting up, I could be working 25 hours per week and afford all the same things I afford working 40+ hours per week.

TOP KEK ancap confirmed for not understanding capitalism. Were it not for "le ebil state meddling" you'd be working longer hours than ever.

If it makes you feel any better, I have a mostly surface level knowledge of socialist economics, so I'm right there with you.

Austrian economics isn't even taken relevant or taken seriously today.

Last time I checked they weren't unironically religious.

But what would have changed? Some Neopagan on /new/ (FoKy) forced the "Dead Kike on a Stick" shit.

Yes, Hong Kong which has a massive labor surplus due to being the trade hub of China, and being in the transitional phase of industrialization, is a great example of every capitalist nation and every type of business in history. How could I ever think to say that a service sector is different from an industrial sector job?

Actually, considering industrial work, one of Hong Kong's major bubbles, has an average working week of 60+ hours, that's considerably good. Especially when you consider the number of small businesses in Hong Kong, and consider that small businesses imply much longer working hours.

That makes sense

Anyways I gotta take some packages down the UPS and take care of a night job I offered to do, so I'll catch y'all later.

What Marcel ?

Don't come back, faggot.

Shameful.

As if we do anything from ancient Sumerian culture carried over hah I never said they were first I said that is where it culturally expanded from how they charge everyone who is not a jew. Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism where they expanded similar ideas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism
myjewishlearning.com/article/interest-free-loans-in-judaism/
truetorahjews.org/qanda/usury

gabriel marcel the catholic existentialist

Ancapposter a good boi

I actually have considered starting a cult

make an esoteric order of dagon lol

It's like you don't have anyone that came back from outer space to worship.

Daily reminder the Bolsheviks were all satanists.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ8ujkc1jhUZvk_C0qK6PFVtaUtvmWvqH

Great source. BTW Satan controls everything in the world, including capitalism you dumb fuck.

Is this wishful thinking or are you just poorly informed?

...

Lovecraft is my baby, stop making everything personal tbh

Source?

I'm a Buddhist if I'm allowed in this thread, although I don't worship any gods nor believe that the Universe was made by a creator god.

I like this image.

Why are you religious?

Because Syriza legalized gay marriage and brought down judgement on Greece you sinner :^)

Why is there no antichrist-chan

because you didn't draw her.

I tried then gave up. Drawing with a track pad is hard.

Pan-religious movements like say Pan-Islamism and Pan-Christianity won't work. Every religious movement has reactionary monarchs like the popes of Vatican City and the rulers of Saud Arabia. Ted Cruz is another such reactionary though with less power and influence.

Because it's the truth of subjectivity, the only method of becoming one's self.

You forgot one link, I think.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozbul

Not the user you're replying to but…

I think a lot of religious people misinterpret frustration as anger in atheists. As a life long atheist who was raised in a nonreligious household, religion is absolutely baffling to me. I try to question religious people about their faith, but whenever I try to dig deep I either come up disappointed with the answers or angering the person I'm speaking to (because genuine skeptical questioning = attack to many). I just can't "believe", I lack the ability to do so.

Think of it like how you (probably) view otherkin: weirdos. No matter what you do you just can't convince yourself your a wolf or a dragon in a human body, it feels fucking stupid to try to make yourself believe. Not only that, but you live in a world full of otherkin so that you're the minority, and some otherkin try to pass laws based on their wacky beliefs that can inconvenience you or worse, decrease your quality of life. This is how being an atheist surrounded by a world of religious people feels. I just don't understand it and a life time of not understanding a major part of the culture I live in leads me to frustration.

...

Jesus was never a Jew, forget what you've heard- it's not true! That babe in the manger was no Hebrew, stranger! Jesus was never a Jew!

His name was Christ, not Christowitz.

That's a normal sentiment. Spiritualism is an innate neurological chemical reaction.

With the right drug stimulus you could have a genuine religious experience, or even become homosexual.

But this is probably a great opportunity to ask those questions.

I know you're joking but it gives me the opportunity to point out most Christians I've known don't seem to know Jesus Christ is a title not his name.

Well, yes it's Yoshua. Jesus is the intended Hellenization of his name, similar to Jason.

I've seen some non Christians say his name was probably actually Yah-Zeus a combination of Yahweh and Zeus.

That is goddamned revisionist idiocy.

The Greek pronunciation was probably more like Ee-A-Seuss.

And YHVH isn't phonetic; it's a visual aid.

One is supposed to chant the name of "g-d" Adonai. and visualize the four Hebrew letters that makeup "YHVH."

No it was supposed to be phonetic, Hebrew alphabet was not written with vowels.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_root

hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html

Could you be less cryptic? Are you rebel? Because the last time, you said something about double contradiction (or something I forget) is all you need and not any sort of apologetics for Jesus being Messiah. I have zero idea what you're talking about :(

I mean that in the best way though.

I don't know of any current catholic anarchists, but Dorothy Day and the rest of the catholic workers movement didn't see a contradiction between their catholic faith, anarchism and the Church's authority structure. Maybe they were bad anarchists, or maybe the contradiction isn't really there or has good reason for being there.

I see now, my mistake.

Hashem: The Name
Since ancient Hebrew did not use any vowel markings, the actual pronunciation of the sacred Name is simply not known. In ancient Temple times, only the Kohen Gadol (high priest) would utter the Name during Yom Kippur [Yoma 39b].

The Jewish tradition is to not pronounce the sacred Name at all, but to substitute the word Adonai ("my Lord") in its place. Thus, when reading Torah, you do not attempt to vocalize the Name, but say Adonai instead. When not reading Torah or the Siddur, most observant Jews refer to the sacred Name simply as Hashem or "the Name" (Lev. 24:16).

In Hebrew the sacred Name is called Shem HaMeforash, "the ineffable Name." Attempts to provide an exposition of the Name have come to be known as Shelosh Esreh Middot, or the Thirteen Attributes of God and are usually based on exegesis of Exodus 34:6-7 (mystical speculation about the Name is found in Kabbalistic literature).

hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Adonai/adonai.html

hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html

top wew

Are you familiar with the concept of Catma?

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catma

And Jesus isn't Messiah, he's "the semen that saves."

Contradiction is helpful because it puts into perspective the falsehood and limitations of our immediate perception- we typically can't see the forest through the trees.

Ein Sof is both immaterial & material- as it well exceeds the bounds of understanding and is the likely source of conscious awareness.

It is Holla Forums, right?

You lost me. But thanks for trying.

Well, that image is basically Celtic worship of Greek Pan.

Catama is a belief more fickle than dogmatic beliefs, to be understood but not accepted as certainty.

"The semen that saves" is in reference to the book Sacred Mushroom and the Cross which outlines Christ as a metaphor for fertility cults; son of god = psychedelic mushrooms; which are essentially a penis that sprouts from the ground containing the essence of the son of god.

For more on this, just look into the work of the Mckenna brothers.

youtube.com/watch?v=LvEyaPIeNCo

This is the Hebrew notion of god described in Kabbalah. It just means infinite. Eternal. Forever. All encompassing.

It's easier to say what it isn't than what it is- because it's both the void and existence. From cosmic dust, to fingernails, to points between atom, to points outside our Local Group.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

It's omniscient because all life is an extension of it.

Also, one theory is that the brain is not a factory for conscious awareness, but rather a receiver for it.

All life shares the same larger consciousness and our minds simply draw on it to shape our awareness.

Idk, fam. All this seems to be going against my Catholic sensibilities.

Well as a papist you have to take even more time to consider these aspects of Abrhamic tradition.

That is- the Ein Sof and the works of Mckenna.

Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is more food for thought, and not to be taken literally.

This is also a good point of reference.

catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-gnosticism

jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

How autistically edgy can you get?

Pretty surprised how many pagans there are on here. Holla Forumstards must be shilling at full force

I doubt it's Holla Forums, but since you suggested it, I may as well post this.

pump

bump*

Present, to the supreme revolutionary council, the pros and cons of genociding those who refuse to acknowledge there is no god in public.
Pros: more resources for everyone, average intelligence goes up, humanity will not be distracted by thoughts of the afterlife, humanity has just taken a huge step towards the future, liberal tears, it attracts many young angsty oppressed youth to the cause
Cons: time making mass graves, guillotine sharpening, some cuties who would make good sex slaves may get executed(though it is extremely reactionary and not Marxists to keep sex slaves)
There is a strong historical precedent for genocide, why should communist deny this tool?
Let's face it communism is the most advanced creation mankind has ever created.
In this world Muslims are killing Muslims because they have a dispute over who of two dead guys was the prophet's successor. In the past Christian killed Christians because of minor doctrinal differences. Man has killed man for simply speaking another language or having the wrong last name.
Why do such minor unimportant reactionary ideas get to use brutal tactics while the communist tie their hands behind their back.
If you are a reactionary communism is you enemy. Communism isn't to be concealed and kept in the dark to supposedly fester and grow. Communism isn't a virus that kills you. Communism is beast that sinks it fangs into your neck, the beast does not care whether you see it or not, it only wants you dead.
If ye comrades be apprehensive about implementing effective techniques remember all the common people who rose up and fought for communism and died horrible deaths, lost family, lost years in order to achieve communism. How frustrated would they be to see their sacrifice was for naught. 60 years after the Greek comrades rose up, Greece is still oppressed. 60 years after Mao declared the Chinese people have stood up, the Chinese people are forgotten and exploited by the rulers. 80 years after the may 15th incident in Japan, Japan still lives under an emperor. 60 years after the Soviets defeated the fascists, there are no Soviets.
You may disagree with the leaders of the movements, but I don't ask you to take into consideration what they did. I ask you to think about the young man who walked away from the family house not knowing whether he would come back alive. Guided by the desire to liberate his fellow proletariat. What was his death for? And why has so little changed since then?

I want to make a reading group for religious socialism. I would love to start with Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within you" and then move on to Alasdair Macyntire, Cornel West, etc. I already have a list but it's kind of all over the place.

But would anyone else like to partake in a discussion of the Tolstoy book on a weekly basis?

There is like two…don't know how you can consider that a lot.

Odd to explain this, but the network and grids will not just go down. There will remain plenty of media and televised accounts, and your notions will be created as propaganda regardless if carried out.

To do so systematically would just make too many enemies at once, and your faction would be marginalized and lose all credibility.

Such events would no doubt be manufactured to cause schisms.

There's no real solidarity with modern genocide; it ends up more as supremacist state controlled less by idea, theory, notion- it's just war, sale, and tragedy.

Bringing back slavery only recreates capitalism. And even denying your "concept of slavery" your entire post is essentially varying degrees of slavery.

As someone raised in a non-religious household who became religious in his early 20s, I can't explain it to you. It's something innate that nothing short of a few dabs of acid will help you understand.

I can try to answer questions for people who are frustrated because I understand your frustration, but I have disdain for people who attack religion since I've seen both the good and the bad of religion instead of just the bad.

Tell me your thoughts on the Mckenna brothers.

AHAHAHAHA NICE SPOOKS NERD

I'm a Chaos Magician, if that counts as a religion. Just did a few divinations. My spirituality is also heavily influenced by Daoism.

French Autonomist here, luv u bruh

That's absolutely false, you don't know anything about the history of Islam. I study islam (in an actual university, I don't believe in any of it), and this is absolute bullshit. Just pick a book, I don't have to add anything.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedgy.

And gay.