> I'm as opposed to the witch-hunting evangelicals you deal with as you are
But not enough to prevent you from promoting the same body of literature which repeatedly and consistently has lead to that activity over the past 2,000 years.
> holy wars are a natural part of human existance
As far as I'm aware the only ones who have a concept of "holy war" (ie. against non-believers) are Abrahamic superstitions. Feel free to show me an example otherwise (and where it's mandated in a relevant doctrine or scripture) which isn't simply an act of self-defence against Abrahamic aggression.
> my interpretation of much of scripture isn't necessarily the same as others.
In an earlier age you'd have been put to death, on the basis of your own scriptural tradition.
> the fake Christians causing all sorts of problems for the rest
I hear that a lot. It's a fallacy. The belief system has had 2,000 years to demonstrate it isn't just a glorified narcissistic doctrine of genocide veiled in insubstantial saccharine platitudes, and so far has utterly failed to do so.
> trying to make a case when your ideas are already very cemented
Admittedly, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the Abrahamic trackrecord is other than it is. But as to anything else, I'm a perpetual student and always open to new and better information, even if it means having to change my mind accordingly.
> the local priest.
I sometimes consult the local Christian pastor too. But my reason for doing so isn't theological. It's because the local priest is often very well acquainted with my neighbours, and tends to have good advice on how to deal with interpersonal issues related to that. I have little respect for their theological delusions, but when it comes to serving the community and generally keeping sensitive matters confidential, I extend all due respect.
"The messiah" isn't even a real thing. First off, it's a term which applies to any/all kings and high priests in the line of David. It means they've been ordained (anointed) to fill that role within the government. Second, the supposed prophesy (Zechariah 6:13) is that there will be two, one high priest, and one king, who rule together side by side (as is ever the case regardless). Christians coopted the term, but apparently without even understanding it's correct cultural significance or place within the wider Biblical canon.
It's not Yahweh I see as my enemy. Certainly no moreso than Marvel's Spiderman is my enemy. What I see as my enemy is the rhetoric in the BuyBull which causes people to react with prejudice and violence towards people outside their faith group (such as Pagans, etc).
If that weren't the case I'd be happy to reciprocate mutual respect and tolerance as I do any other religious community or spiritual tradition. But since that's not the case, and so long as the literature continues to be promoted it will remain the case, I can only in good conscience regard it with the level of abject disdain it has amply earned.
Anyway, to understand the concept's of your own belief system, you should also look into the belief systems which heavily influenced the development of it's theology. For example...
If you mean John 11 (eg. verse 42), or Matthew 23 (eg. verse 23), sure. But that doesn't say anything about ascending to heaven. On the other hand John 3:13 does say that Jesus alone ascends to Heaven, and John 3:16-18 clearly indicates the necessary transaction (belief in Jesus), failure to abide by which leads to eternal torture (apparently). The provenance of those `scriptures` is another matter though.
Another thing to consider is the Biblical covenant between Yahweh and the nation of Israel and Judah. The entire premise of being God's chosen people is based on their willingness to abide by the assigned contractual obligations. In other words, it's a transaction. Give Yahweh your exclusive obedience, and he won't torture your forever and ever.
"God" is a metasyntactic variable. It has no inherent meaning on it's own, but is entirely subject to the theology of the person(s) using it. Even within a single faith tradition like Christinanity the theology can vary widely resulting in mass murder over disagreement as to the minutia. Moreover the arguments that there's a singular conscious being at the end of the rainbow or whatever are all on pretty shaky ground. Which is why you have arguments like Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which by contrast are equally as well grounded in evidence.
Another aspect people frequently overlook is that "faith" implies doubt. Faith is a coping mechanism which helps people hope for the best when all evidence is to the contrary. As such "faith" is incompatible with unshakeable "belief" (ie. opinion) which does not allow room for doubt. Given the mysterious nature of the world and our lack of true understanding of how it works or from whence it arose, belief in some absolute infallible answer to those questions is itself tantamount to wilful self-delusion.
Fun fact: Tarot as a divination tool was first proposed by a French Huguenots (reformed Calvinist) pastor named Antoine Court de Gébelin, as a means of forecasting geopolitical dynamics.
> try to treat god/divine revelation like a vending machine then it's bad
That's basically all prayers bar none. Even the Christian desire to be a good person and go to heaven, is transactional. You're not being a good person it for it's own sake, but because of what you'll get out of it, and the supposed eternal torture you'll avoid.
The problem was lack of diversity of potato varieties, not the lack of other crops. There were loads of other crops grown, but all exported to England, because the Irish were essentially agricultural slaves of British land owners until 10 years prior to the famine.
For contrast, in Peru there are around 4,000 different varieties of potato adapted to a diversity of growing conditions, and an entire system of mythology and folk rituals designed to teach the proper manner of cultivation and maintenance of their distinct genetics from generation to generation.
The main difference of opinion between capitalists and socialists is essentially negative vs positive rights respectively. The right to dissent is the underpinning of all individual rights (ie. Take "No." for an answer in respect to others' person and lawfully owned property). The moment one tries to conceive of a right to have their "needs" satisfied by others, it starts to impinge on the former, because it requires the collective to seize the property of the individual involuntarily (eg. taxation), and apply force against their person if they resist.
On the other hand, there's a lot of circumstances where without reasonable limitations on the right to accumulate exclusive property, you could end up with the bulk of society being effectively enslaved to a minority who have monopolised the available property (aka: the 1%). That's basically the crux of the turmoil between the two. Until we figure out a way of sustainably harmonising those two conflicting concerns, the problems will continue.
The other thing is that concepts like democracy need to be limited such that no collective majority decision can undermine or abrogate the individual's negative rights, otherwise it's just gang rape by another name.
I skimmed your essay. Some of it rung true to me, though I personally happen to like individualism and equality. However when I speak of those terms I mean specifically individual liberty, and the equality of rights (specifically rights to dissent). That said, I do think having a goal which the whole society is working towards is beneficial as you said. It's how the Giza pyramids were built for just one example. But I don't think such a goal needs to be so grandiose to fulfil the same function.
For instance, the late Elinor Ostrom provides many examples of communally self-organised and self-governed management of what she terms "common pool resources", which can include things like an area of forest for logging, an estuary for fishing, an irrigation system, an aquifer, etc, which is public in nature, but requires a framework of communal trust and cooperation to manage equitably and sustainably for all who require access. She concludes with 8 principals which make or break the ability to do so effectively, based on 1,000's of case studies both historical and contemporary.
Even something as small as several farms having to share a stream for irrigating their crops, and maintain the system, schedule time and duration of access, and have a framework to keep each other honest and accountable, is more than sufficient to provide the kind of goal you're advocating. It doesn't have to be on the level of an entire civilisation necessarily. You're quite right that no man is an island, and without that kind of sense of shared ethos and public responsibility, we've lost the heart of what makes us noble as a people. Yet it's far easier to take modest steps to get back to that on a smaller community by community basis, rather than trying to forcibly manufacture agreement of people numbering in the millions or billions.
"...next to the Nasamonians along the sea coast towards the West come the Macai, who shave their hair so as to leave tufts, letting the middle of their hair grow long, but round this on all sides shaving it close to the skin..." -- Herodotus, The Histories, 5th century BCE https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#link42H_4_0001
The style was also worn by pre-Christian Irish Pagans, and 16th-century Ukrainian Cossacks.
Kinda reminds me of the whole dreadlocks cultural appropriation nonsense. People who bitch about this kinda shit usually have no fucking clue what they're even talking about. https://youtu.be/lHYls9e4mVM
Follow me if you like #philosophy #anarchism #privacy #floss #esotericism #occulture #magick #paganism #heathenry #mysticism #witchcraft #herbalism #foraging #history #folklore #anthropology #permacultureResiding on the unceded traditional territory of the Petun, Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishnaabe peoples.Follow me if you enjoy long winded hot takes about controversial or obscure topics that most people either haven't heard of or don't care about in the slightest. I also sometimes post stuff about 🇨🇦 /pol if that interests you.Abrahamic superstition is all violently narcissistic genocidal mass delusion masquerading as religion, perpetually enabled by a hoard of brainwashed fools acting as apologists by bleating cherry picked saccharine platitudes in denial of the 2,000 years of history that demonstrates it. Wake tf up and spit out the Kool-Aid!