/lit/ - Literature

>>22124798
He didn't start with the Assmann

>>22124798
>Both religions go against all of his major premises,
false
>not to mention the contradiction in being christian/muslim while believing that other religions too possess the truth.
not a contradiction

0/10

>>22124813
Anyone who doesn't worship Jesus goes to burn in hell for eternity according to official Christian doctrine, that was a huge oversight from his part

>>22124798
Because he was a Sufi not Muslim. Although plenty of Muslims are Sufi, certainly not the majority, and certainly not accepted to be Sufi in modern Islamic society. Sufi shrines are constantly destroyed and their practises are forced to be assimilated into mainstream Islam.

The main difference between standard Islam and Sufism is: the latter believes in divinity of all souls, being able to walk with god(the same motif found in RV bibles) as well as arguably transmigration.

Most of which most Muslims and modern day Christians would reject outwardly.

Sufism is rooted in Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, primarily.

>>22124821
> Sufism is rooted in Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, primarily.
And Gnosticism?

>>22124821
Its the same in islam, its haram for a real Muslim to claim that some pagan street shitters and chink possess the same knowledge that Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) has bestowed to the ummah in the Quran, if he lived among the traditionalist muslims who took their faith seriously, whom he liked to idolize so much, his head would be chopped off the second he opened his mouth

>>22124824
As per my knowledge, Gnosticism has always been part of Islam. Almost all of the texts of Islam are gnostic and Neoplatonic in origin.


I just wanted to resolve the contradiction of holding both views when in reality he only held one view. He was Sufi.

Pope Pius XI BTFO Guenon and false “Traditionalism” (literally just liberal Freemasonry):
>For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.

>Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

>>22124831
So he's an heretic

>>22124828
By Allah, the salafis have been nothing but a cancer in our society. They have even removed the name Yhwh from all translations of the Quran. Such is their influence, there are clear passages where God’s name is Huwa, but they translate it as him. As well as many others, because the baboons don’t read anything besides the texts handed to them.

>>22124817
>all religions possess a bridge to the Truth =/= all religions are correct on everything ever
The second assertion would obviously be self-contradictory and retarded, and it is not at all what Guenon claimed.

>>22124855
You can't be a Christian if you don't believe Jesus is the only son of the only God that died on the cross to save you from the first sin, and salvation is only through him. So yes, it is contradictory.

>>22124871
Stop gatekeeping Christianity. There were plenty of Christians who have lived and died before Paul showed up who didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ.

>>22124884
It's an oxymoron. If they didn't believe in the divinity of Christ they weren't Christian.
Can you be a Muslim while not believing in the Qoran is the word of God?

>>22124817
>Anyone who doesn't worship Jesus goes to burn in hell for eternity
Lol, that’s so gay and lame!

>>22124871
>You can't be a Christian
Guenon wasn’t a Christian, he saw the Christian religion as containing timeless truths also taught elsewhere.

>>22124926
The problem is that he advocated LARPIng. He said people should be "initiated" into a religion even though they don't believe in it. I was baptised and received into the Catholic Church when I was 20, and during that ceremony (as at every mass) I had to recite the creed.

The creed states "I BELIEVE in one God, the Father Almighty... in Jesus Christ... in the Holy Ghost... in Baptism... in the Catholic Church... etc, etc."

Guenon is therefore literally arguing that people should be hypocrites and liars, be inducted into a religion which they don't believe but profess that they believe it anyway.

It is Freemasonry, plain and simple. Vatican II tried to implement this type of thinking, saying basically that all religions are paths to God, and all it has led to is mass apostasy, loosening of morals, and atheism just as Pope Pius XI predicted.

Pic related is how Christians have always thought of other religions.

Saint Louis, pray for us!

>>22124933
>Guenon is therefore literally arguing that people should be hypocrites and liars, be inducted into a religion which they don't believe but profess that they believe it anyway.
False, that’s a lie. Guenon isn’t saying anywhere that people should become Christian but at the same time not believe that the Christian God is true.

>>22124933
You are a rogue golem, worshiping something you hate and relying on their literature to defend your opinions on their theology.

>>22124939
Yes, the whole project of perennialism is that all religions are paths to God. Which is exactly what Vatican II said (thus destroying the Catholic Church). If all religions are paths to God, then Christianity is blatantly false since it maintains dogmas that are directly contradicted by other religions.

That's why they distinguish between "esoteric" and "exoteric". The "exoteric" is where all religions differ, but this is held to be unimportant compared to the "esoteric", where they apparently all agree.

But this is not the historical position of Christianity, which says that God really is a Trinity, that baptism really does regenerate the Soul, that the Eucharist really is the body of Christ, who really is God.

If you don't believe these latter things why LARP and pretend. It's mind boggling.

>>22124828
You'll never be white Achmed.

>>22124955
>If all religions are paths to God, then Christianity is blatantly false since it maintains dogmas that are directly contradicted by other religions.
It means that Christianity is partially false, but also partially true. Christian doctrine also varies widely per Church, lineage, theologian, and some of these ideas from certain thinkers are closer to and more amenable to eastern teachings.

>But this is not the historical position of Christianity,
a non-issue from the perspective of Guenon or those who take a similar attitude

>If you don't believe these latter things why LARP and pretend. It's mind boggling.
Guenon doesn’t tell people exactly down to the last detail how to reconcile different traditions. One can be a Christian and believe everything you just listed wholly, while also thinking that the Christian God dropped kernals of truth leading back to him in other religions, or you can still think the Christian God is true but that some of the things you listed are culturally- and historically-contingent understandings which suggest or hint towards the truth instead of strictly delimiting it. Neither of these is pretending.

>>22124967
Don’t you understand that this approach was already tried by the Catholic Church in Vatican II.

Vatican II declared that all religions are paths to God, and therefore we should have religious liberty.

What resulted was mass apostasy, decline in priesthood and vocations, loosening of morals, and (I hate to say it as a baptised Catholic) the transformation of the Catholic Church from one of the great reactionary, anti-modern pillars of Western society to a totally controlled liberal NGO completely subservient to the forces of secularism and modernity.

What you are preaching is poison to society.

>>22124991
>Don’t you understand that this approach was already tried by the Catholic Church in Vatican II.
So Guenon is in conformity with the Church then? Now you’re making it sound like he is the orthodox one and you are the larper.

>>22125018
Yeah he’s orthodox with respect to modernism. But he’s certainly not traditional

>>22125021
He may not have been ‘traditional’ in the sense of following pre-Vatican 2 doctrine to a T but he immersed himself in the study and contemplation of more ancient traditions than Catholicism and was in that sense steeped in tradition.

>>22125021
>he’s orthodox with respect to modernism
No wonder Bergson makes Guenon seethe so much

>>22125023
Fine. The only thing I’m opposed to is people who follow his philosophy initiating themselves into Christianity. They are heretics if they try to do so, and the effect of these doctrines has been palpably poisonous.

>>22125030
You are palpably poisonous.

>>22124831
explain how it's gnostic because that makes no sense

>>22125039
Rude

>>22125062
https://islammeetsorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/gnostic-influence-on-the-quran/

>>22125030
>The only thing I’m opposed to is people who follow his philosophy initiating themselves into Christianity.
Do you mean being baptized? Are you saying that it’s more important for people you dislike to go to hell instead of being baptized? That doesn’t sound very Christian.

>They are heretics if they try to do so, and the effect of these doctrines has been palpably poisonous.
Really? What has the effect of them been? Vatican 2 didn’t talk about there being some amount of convergence on the esoteric level which was what Guenon etc focused on. When it talks about other religions it’s about their exterior form.

>>22125077
>Do you mean being baptized?
Baptism is of no effect unless you believe in Christ.
>Vatican 2 didn’t talk about there being some amount of convergence on the esoteric level
Yeah it did. Vatican II was basically a Guenonist/Perennialist/Freemasonic council:

>From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

>Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

I mean: "reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men" is pretty much exactly perennialism.

>What has the effect of them been?
Loss of faith, loosening of morals, secularism in government and society.

All religions are paths to God -> Therefore we should have religious liberty since obstructing heretics/infidels means you are obstructing a true path to God -> Therefore the state should be secular and have no opinion on religious matters -> Therefore society becomes secular -> Atheism and death of civilisation

>>22125088
>All religions are paths to God
False. Jesus is the only son of God, amd only he can grant eternal life.

>>22125088
That’s not really talking about esoteric convergence as far as I see, but it talks about the Catholic church accepting things which are seen as true and valid by Christianity, but the list it gives as examples are either general attitudes, practices or vague ‘philosophical inquiry’.

> Therefore the state should be secular and have no opinion on religious matters
This doesn’t automatically follow from the premise of religious freedom, many countries have religious governments and and official religion while also recognizing the right to practice other religions.
>-> Therefore society becomes secular
If you have to rely on a governmental body to enforce relgiousness then that already suggests you have an internal problem that needs fixing. People who genuinely believe dont have to be forcefully compelled.


-> Atheism and death of civilisation

>>22124884
>stop gatekeeping
>proceeds to tell lies

>>22125166
Ah, can't be bothered explaining to you how the Christianisation of society and State directly leads to the Christianisation of souls. I don't believe anybody should be forced to be Christian but the idea of "separation of Church and State" and religious liberty for every heretic and infidel to practice his religion in a Christian country corrupts the minds of the people and this indifferent attitude just creates atheism.

>>22125088
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

>>22125209
>I don't believe anybody should be forced to be Christian but the idea of "separation of Church and State" and religious liberty for every heretic and infidel to practice his religion in a Christian country corrupts the minds of the people
That implies that Christianity is such a weak doctrine/religion that people have to be prevented from being exposed to contrary ideas, as if Christianity didn't have the internal strength and force of argument to defend and justify itself with arguments in contrast to such things. If Christianity had any vitality then it wouldn't be threatened in the way you describe by non-Christians practicing their religion in a Christian country.

>and this indifferent attitude just creates atheism.
I don't see how that is related at all. Saying that people are free to practice different religions is not the same as telling people that there is no God.

>>22125241
Christianity's problem lies in infiltration and subversion by luciferians who hide behind secret societies like freemasonry, who promote their religious kabbalistic doctrine as "science" and the church's natural predisposition to be open and transparent.

Because he doesn't care about literally anything other than the presence of mystical/metaphysical contemplative traditions within a religion. He doesn't care if your exoteric religion is pagan, as long as you have that core group or groups, like the mysteries and initiatic philosophical schools in Greece and Rome, the Sufis in Islam, analogous traditions in Hinduism.

He thinks Christianity had such traditions once, but doesn't any longer. Evola is the same way, except Evola's conception is less elitist and more "diffusionist," since he thinks a civilization or state will have a core leadership caste that has metaphysical insight and maintains and transmits certain metaphysical truths. Both thought that there were certain latent tendencies and hidden intellectual currents all the way into the High Middle Ages but that Christianity always had a problem with being a purely exoteric sentimental religion, and that even its mysticism tended toward sentimental "communion with the divine person" rather than metaphysical gnosis and union with the divine, and that the Reformation caused a further anti-metaphysical and this-worldly, anti-gnostic and anti-contemplative surge that basically stamped out the remaining metaphysical tendencies in Christianity. They then fled into various esoteric and hermetic currents and secret societies (Guenon is more hot on the latter than Evola is).

The main thing for both is whether there are organized contemplative traditions accessible to those who need them. Everything else kind of follows from this, because society is stabilized by regular access to truth, as the truth-seers can provide it in mediated forms to the society at large. Conversely loss of access to (objectively real) metaphysical truths causes society to destabilize and break apart. People cease to be able to "see" intuitively why it's bad to live like degenerates and hedonists, to tend only to the desires of the flesh, etc.

>>22125260
>Christianity's problem lies in infiltration and subversion by luciferians who hide behind secret societies like freemasonry, who promote their religious kabbalistic doctrine as "science" and the church's natural predisposition to be open and transparent.
So the real problem ISNT people being free to practice something else but is ACTUALLY instead subversion by luciferians? Why isn't Christianity strong enough to defend itself against subverters? Is the Church not able to prevent people from being mislead? What does that say about the Church?

>>22125319
It is explained in John's Apocalypse.

>>22125359
Because you can't fix it only struggle endlessly. Any formal organization will corrupt itself. If a tiny thread of the original spirit is preserved over a generation that's a great success. It's even theoretically possible that Islam may have preserved something from Christ that became corrupted in Christianity. It's worth being open to the different possibilites.

>>22125241
Pornography should be illegal, not because people who don’t watch it are “weak”, but because it is social poison. For the same reason, public preaching of heresy and construction of mosques/synagogues/Buddhist temples in Christian countries should be illegal.

>>22125525
>For the same reason, public preaching of heresy and construction of mosques/synagogues/Buddhist temples in Christian countries should be illegal.
Why? other religions are not social poison. Do you fear competing in a free market of ideas?

>>22125577
Temples are about practice not debate. Academically the information should travel freely but that's not the same thing as practice travelling freely. Academically we need to be able to sincerely and seriously consider even extreme ideas like human sacrifice, that does not mean allowing its practice.

>>22125595
>Temples are about practice not debate.
I didnt say they were about debates, but in a free market of ideas people can have informed debates outside of the temple about what sort of temple they should attend or what religion to follow, if they want to have that debate

>Academically we need to be able to sincerely and seriously consider even extreme ideas like human sacrifice, that does not mean allowing its practice.
Indeed, but practicing other religions is not extreme and nor does it invariably involve killing or injuring people. Citing human sacrifice as an example of why other religions should be banned is a total non-sequitur.

>>22125623
This is a classic liberal argument: that, because man is not capable of grasping fundamental truth, we should allow for maximum freedom for experimentation in order that the best philosophy might be discovered. It directly implies atheism and secularism. This same principle animates the Darwinists and those who put unbridled faith in the "free market" to solve all human problems; the idea that the process of competition will naturally discover the best social order.

The problem with this argument is that human beings possess what is called in Christianity a fallen nature, although this is certainly not just a Christian observation. The human mind grasps at what is easy, what is near, those pleasures of the flesh which consume ones immediate perception.

For a man to develop true virtue, he needs to constantly restrain his base desires and attain utter self-mastery. This is what the Classical Greek definition of freedom was: freedom from the passions, enthronement of the rational faculty above the body. Christ: "He that sins is a slave to sin."

In view of this, it is clear that the liberal order will not produce the true philosophy, but will rather lead society to degenerate.

>>22125633
>This is a classic liberal argument: that, because man is not capable of grasping fundamental truth, we should allow for maximum freedom for experimentation in order that the best philosophy might be discovered.
That's a false equivalency, since the freedom to practice different religions is not the same as saying that man should have total freedom in any given society to experiment with whatever he wants. I also didn't assent to or imply the proposition that "man is not capable of grasping fundamental truth".
>It directly implies atheism and secularism. This same principle animates the Darwinists and those who put unbridled faith in the "free market" to solve all human problems; the idea that the process of competition will naturally discover the best social order.
No it doesn't, since giving people the freedom to choose different religions is not the same as endorsing the denial of religion (atheism) or the separation of religion and state (secularism); that's another fallacious line of reasoning because as I have already pointed out once, there are non-secular and non-atheist countries which allow freedom of conscience viz. religion, so you implying that they are automatically connected is a contrived and false product of your imagination.
>The problem with this argument is that human beings possess what is called in Christianity a fallen nature, although this is certainly not just a Christian observation. The human mind grasps at what is easy, what is near, those pleasures of the flesh which consume ones immediate perception. For a man to develop true virtue, he needs to constantly restrain his base desires and attain utter self-mastery. This is what the Classical Greek definition of freedom was: freedom from the passions, enthronement of the rational faculty above the body. Christ: "He that sins is a slave to sin."
That the classical Greeks recognized this and endorsed this actually undermines your argument because it shows that even in the absence of the Christian Church that humans can still gravitate to this conclusion and work on implementing it, so clearly the Christian Church is not needed as a necessary ingredient for this to occur.
>In view of this, it is clear that the liberal order will not produce the true philosophy, but will rather lead society to degenerate.
Nothing I am saying is an endorsement of liberalism or even modernism, since either total or partial freedom of conscience is not invariably linked with liberalism but it was found in various times and places in highly conservative and traditional cultures and eras around the globe including in pre-modern times before liberalism was even a thing.

>>22125704
You believe in freedom of speech and of religion. You don’t believe the State should be religious (eg. you would condemn the Inquisition). So you believe in separation of Church and State, which is the same as secularism. You are a liberal.

>>22125718
>You believe in freedom of speech and of religion.
I actually think freedom of religion is good but I am rather indifferent about freedom of speech
>You don’t believe the State should be religious (eg. you would condemn the Inquisition).
I never said that, so it's a strawman. I think the State being religious is not always but can often be a good thing.
>So you believe in separation of Church and State, which is the same as secularism. You are a liberal.
You are inferring this based on a strawman attribution to me of something I never endorsed, so your inference is invalid.

>>22125525
If someone tries this in Western nations, you will get something worse than the Protestant Reformation and all the various European religious wars combined, although it’s an asinine scenario as the (at least semi-) constitutional and parliamentary republican systems we have in many Western nations which could conventionally be labeled “Christian” will not have it (although the numbers of people identifying as Christians is declining in Western nations). Many in the police force won’t want to enforce it, nor will many in the military, nor, overall, the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches or equivalents thereof in these nations, as well as the media, finance, corporations, etc.

You would get something a 100x worse and bloodier than the I.R.A. versus the British army, with domestic terror attacks and bloody civil wars also funded and supported by other nations wanting to weaken the West, race riots, and the like. I don’t want to be ruled by the globalist Anglo-American-Zionist mafia and state-enforced transgenderism, progressivism, and blind worship of technology, science, and capital (“Mammon”), but I wouldn’t want to live in a theocratic fascist state either. Sanctimonious, smarmy religious meddling like this in political affairs is what gets figures like Jesuit priests brutally murdered in Latin American nations. I don’t like violence much except when absolutely necessary, but I see how it happens.

“Live by the sword, die by the sword”
“Turn the other cheek”
(etc.), Christ says.

Then the Vatican has its extensive bloody history of cozying up with kingdoms, its military and political alliances turning it into a earthly and political entity as opposed to a genuinely nonworldly Christian one (“My kingdom is not of this Earth”), its massacre of the Cathars, its Spanish Inquisition, executions for heresy, witch hunts, and countless wars and European power struggles it involved itself in.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/827989/15116787/1321289366180/50+million+protestants+killed.pdf

>>22125738
‘It is an unchristian religion in the first place!' the prince resumed in great agitation and with excessive sharpness. 'That's in the first place, and secondly, Roman Catholicism is even worse than atheism - that's my opinion. Yes, that's my opinion! Atheism merely preaches a negation, but Catholicism goes further: it preaches a distorted Christ, a Christ calumniated and defamed by it, the opposite of Christ! It preaches Antichrist - I swear it does, I assure you it does! This is my personal opinion, an opinion I've held for a long time, and it has worried me a lot myself. ... Roman Catholicism believes that the Church cannot exist on earth without universal temporal power, and cries: Non possumus! In my opinion, Roman Catholicism isn't even a religion, but most decidedly a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, beginning with faith. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they've added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness. They have trifled with the most sacred, truthful, innocent, ardent feelings of the people, have bartered it all for money, for base temporal power. And isn't this the teaching of Antichrist? Isn't it clear that atheism had to come from them? And it did come from them, from Roman Catholicism itself! Atheism originated first of all with them: how could they believe in themselves? It gained ground because of abhorrence of them; it is the child of their lies and their spiritual impotence! Atheism! In our country it is only the upper classes who do not believe, as Mr Radomsky so splendidly put it the other day, for they have lost their roots. But in Europe vast numbers of the common people are beginning to lose their faith - at first from darkness and lies, and now from fanaticism, hatred of the Church and Christianity!
(Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “The Idiot”)

>>22125623
>Citing human sacrifice as an example of why other religions should be banned is a total non-sequitur.
The point is we allow sharing ideas about human sacrifice but we don't allow the act, due to our specific cultural norms that we want to maintain.
Introducing a new practice into a stable system will almost inevitable lead to some death at least in the short term so you have to sacrifice humans if you introduce a temple to a new god.

>>22125753
>Introducing a new practice into a stable system will almost inevitable lead to some death at least in the short term
This is nonsense, if the new practice does not directly involve killing people then there isn't any way to substantiate that there will be death as a result
>so you have to sacrifice humans if you introduce a temple to a new god.
Not in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Daoism or Sikhism, so your point is really invalid and its remains a non-sequitur.

>>22125718
go join a monastery and leave this place if you hate free speech so much

>>22125761
>there isn't any way to substantiate that there will be death
A 1% increase in inflation means there will be death. Everything eats people. Introduce something new into a stable system, if it has any effect it will be destabilizing short term even if it's worth it long term. The system will always need time to re-establish an equilibrium state.

>>22125781
>A 1% increase in inflation means there will be death.
So by extension of your maxim that means the economy should be kept in permanent stasis to prevent accidental deaths? GTFO out of here with that retarded reasoning. Moreover, death is a natural part of life and it isn't something to be prevented. What should be prevented are deaths from unjust causes like murder.

Allowing a new temple to be built and allowing people to worship there does not significantly change the economy of a country/region, nor does it cause poverty, nor does it directly involve killing or other unjust deaths. Saying that building a temple might indirectly cause deaths in the same way inflation might do so and that for this reason we should prevent it being built is absurd and irrational reasoning because if you apply that same reasoning consistently then it precludes you from taking any sort of meaningful action or changing/improving society or even your local town/city.

>>22125813
>that means the economy should be kept in permanent stasis to prevent accidental deaths?
Those that have power should and used to pursue policies that maintain the productive stability we have.
>Allowing a new temple to be built
Represents practicing new beliefs as opposed to considering them academically. In practice most examples are very close to our established beliefs so we tolerate them. I pointed out this does not hold as a principle, like when the new belief is very alien to what we have established like human sacrifice. Allowing new temples is not a principle, we're tolerating small divergences from the opposite principle.
>if you apply that same reasoning consistently then it precludes you from taking any sort of meaningful action
It precludes you from rapidly introducing radically new elements to large scale systems that inherently move and react slowly, assuming you want the systems to keep working for you.

>>22125857
>It precludes you from rapidly introducing radically new elements to large scale systems that inherently move and react slowly,
Building a new temple isn't doing this, so if that's the standard then there would be no reasonable basis to prohibit freedom of religion

>>22125718
>You don’t believe the State should be religious (eg. you would condemn the Inquisition).
This is Satanism, NOT Christianity. This thread is bait, or just a warped person, or some mixture of both. My advice to lurkers: don’t waste your time, energy, or mental breath on it. Life’s too short to go around in circles with an impotently frustrated tradcath (who will make all these wordy essays about how they’re correct and everyone else is evil or corrupt, but, fortunately, will never have the political dominion or respect they dream of — hence, they’re reduced to impotently seething on an anime porn imageboard forum). Just sage and move on (although it’ll definitely get to 300+ replies anyway regardless of this good advice).

>>22125862
>Building a new temple isn't doing this
Depends on how new it is. I'm expecting too much of you apparently.

>>22125867
The national church is supposed to crown the king. That's holy sovereign human authority. A state made of checks and balances to make sure no one human is sovereign is a schoolbook example of an oppressive demon.

>>22125894
Okay then mr wiseguy, please explain how allowing a new Hindu or Buddhist temple to be build in a medium-sized city (already containing a dozen or so churches) will count as "rapidly introducing radically new elements" that will result in deaths?

>>22125905
I am glad you are not sovereign

>>22125910
You used the marketplace of ideas argument against a guy talking about temples. I pointed out the difference between information sharing and practice. You then spent the next few posts working hard to avoid understanding anything.
>>22125931
That's pretty evil.

>>22125944
>You used the marketplace of ideas argument against a guy talking about temples
He was also talking about practicing different religions and the freedom to do so in general, the conversation was never strictly delimited to temples.
>I pointed out the difference between information sharing and practice.
I agree, but I asked for reasonable justifications for why either should be prohibited and I didn't receive any reasonable answers
>You then spent the next few posts working hard to avoid understanding anything.
No, I wasn't, I was engaging with their posts and the arguments being used while you (them?) are being obtuse. If you have a point to make then just make it instead of posturing you fag.

>>22125944
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
(John 18:36)

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Mark 10:42-45)

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
(Mark 12:13-17)
__
Preach what you want, but don’t say it’s Christianity.

>>22125905
esus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
(John 18:36)

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Mark 10:42-45)

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
(Mark 12:13-17)

__
Preach what you want, but don’t say it’s Christianity.

>>22125974
>practicing
>the conversation was never strictly delimited to temples
Except when it's convenient to you.
>I was engaging
No. You were repeating your dogmatic beliefs about the benefits of freedom of religion while avoiding thinking about any alternative perspective. Alien customs like sacrifices are examples that demonstrate that the principle we actually work from is not allowing different practices. We only tolerate what our customs allow.

>>22125944
>you are evil for disagreeing with me
peak slave morality... keep seething rogue golem

>>22126001
People talked about and knew how to recognize demons long before Christ and the claim is not that any king can speak for Christ. Humans were given sovereignty by God, demons were not. Deferring our choices to demons is rebelling against God and undermining the order of life.

>>22126020
>I am glad you are not sovereign
You get pleasure from me being powerless and you know almost nothing about me. That you're so quick to undermine the sovereignty of your fellow man means you're not just my adversary but an enemy of life.

>>22126010
>>the conversation was never strictly delimited to temples
>Except when it's convenient to you.
I never insisted that it had to be strictly about temples you idiot, that was the example the other person chose and I simply ran with it.

>>I was engaging
>No. You were repeating your dogmatic beliefs about the benefits of freedom of religion while avoiding thinking about any alternative perspective.
That's demonstrably false since I was asking you to provide justifications for your alternative perspective, it is logically impossible for me to be doing this at the same time that I am "avoiding thinking about any alternative perspective". It seems that you either don't understand basic logic and/or the meaning of the words you are using since you are accusing me of doing something that's logically impossible because of what I have already written.

>Alien customs like sacrifices are examples that demonstrate that the principle we actually work from is not allowing different practices. We only tolerate what our customs allow.
This isn't universally true since there are plenty of examples of completely foreign customs/practices/fads/religions arriving in new regions and being tolerated by locals despite it being novel and foreign and outside of accepted customs. Moreover the actual reason that people would cite in a real-life scenario would be the prevention of killing someone and not simply "because its outside customs"

>>22126030
You are the exact damned same as the Zionist Jews (not all, and not all Catholics are like this, either, fortunately). You’re here explicitly and gleefully talking about the superiority of your cult to all other nations, religions and beliefs, talking about how they should be banned from “your” nation, and how rightfully your sect should even rule the world. Then, in the same moment, you turn around and hypocritically cry, “Why do they persecute me so? Why do they take such glee in calling me powerless?” While in the same breath supporting your massacres, inquisitions, and wanting dictatorial rule.

No wonder powerful factions in your corrupt little crony sect has been so tight with banksters like the Rothschilds, with the P2 Freemasons, and the like throughout your history. I wouldn’t even want to call you a Catholic (despite my criticisms of Catholicism), because figures like Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò exist in it whom I highly respect, and countless historical saints and mystics. But when it turns into this inquisitorial earthly-kingdom Antichrist crap, words can’t express my revulsion over it.

Last response you’ll get. You can feel you’ve ‘won’ if you want, there’s no point getting my blood pressure up over this.

>Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

>>22126039
>I never insisted that it had to be strictly about temples
The marketplace of ideas is not about practicing those ideas.
>I was asking you to provide justifications
When I explain anything you find a way to pretend you didn't understand any of it.
>This isn't universally true
Yes it is. When it's not true the system has broken down. If I said all human bodies pump blood you would say not dead bodies. That's autistically thinking in words, repeating what you've heard instead of modelling systems and translating that to words.
>tolerated
Yes.
>outside accepted customs
Never. Influence that's obviously alien and dangerous gets forced to take hold sometimes like when the established power structures can not resist like when powerful Europeans arrive and every time it destroys societies. If not forced to accept anything new the establishment continues to try to maintain the stability that gave them power. Large systems that lives depend on can not afford to be chaotic.

>>22126097
>You’re here explicitly and gleefully talking about the superiority of your cult to all other nations, religions and beliefs, talking about how they should be banned from “your” nation, and how rightfully your sect should even rule the world.
I'm not reading any more of this shit. You talk about le jew meme, supposedly as some kind of rejection of dishonesty and manipulative tactics and then act like this.
Reference where I said any of this shit or admit you're a liar. That you believe your own lies is only worse.

>>22125738
>>22125867
Catholicism is political, indeed. It must be. Christ is the king not only of our souls but also of society. I will relate to you a conversation between Napoleon III and a French bishop:

>Bishop: Let me add, sire, that neither the Restoration nor you have done for God what should have been done, because you have not disavowed the principles of the Revolution nor have you raised his throne again. The social message on which your state inspires itself is still the declaration of the rights of man, which is nothing else, sire, than the formal denial of the rights of God.
>Now it is the right of God to govern over states just as over individuals. He must reign here by inspiring the laws, sanctifying the morals, enlightening and directing the actions of the government.
>Everywhere where Jesus Christ does not exercise this rule there is disorder and decadence.
>Our constitution, sire, is not that of a Catholic state. For although indeed our public law declares that the Catholic religion is that of the majority of the French, yet doth it add, that other forms of worship have a right to equal protection. Is this not tantamount to proclaiming that the constitution equally protects both truth and error?

>Emperor Napoleon: Yet do you believe that the age in which we live admits of that state of things? Do you not see, your excellency, that if I were to establish this exclusively religious reign that you ask of me it would be to let loose all the evil passions and sow discord within France?

>Bishop: Sire, when the great political men like your majesty raise these objections to me, that the time has not yet come, I can only yield because I am not a great political person. But, I am a bishop; and as a bishop I say to thee: if the moment has not come for Jesus Christ to rule, then the moment has not come for the state to endure.

>>22126030
>you know almost nothing about me
you are an off-brand version of the fat fuck from a Confederacy of Dunces

>>22125074
so extremely loosely and the guy who claimed it greatly overstated it's importance

>>22126125
You don't understand anything I say on any level but still think you have some basis to judge any of it and even my person.
I say some basic shit like "Volvo is a type of car" and you illiterate retards reply with a rant about how I personally murdered your families based on some association in your mind that doesn't relate to anything said.

>>22126161
You think we should have a Catholic Politburo. I think you should stay in your dwindling lane.

>>22126166
>You think we should have a Catholic Politburo
What are you talking about retard? Why can't you discuss things by referencing what is actually said? Why do evil shitheads like you always have to make up these fantasies?

>>22126177
Is there a particular reason a non-tardlarper should embrace your vision of a tardlarp theocracy where clerics crown kings to enforce your desert gibberish? Is there an author who argues for this?

>>22126194
An abstract system is not human. A human at least shares our basic interests like needing food to survive. We can use systems but deferring to them leads to all the runaway situations we have and see no solutions for. The systems just keep going with no regard for anything like human lives. For a similar reason another piece of the puzzle is localism, if you're bound to an area your interests are bound to it. If a company, king or powerful private individual can always move on he can exploit the area with no consequences.

There are plenty of points to be made against the current ways of doing things and plenty to look for in older and even foreign traditions. Only the mention of certain traditions trigger you into these deranged hysterical outbursts where you refuse to think about anything or give anyone the slightest benefit of doubt.

>>22126194
Of course you won’t get it if you’re an infidel. You need to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Read Joseph de Maistre if you want reactionary philosophy, but again what’s the point if you haven’t repented and don’t follow Christ

>>22126233
>give anyone the slightest benefit of doubt.
You've already declared you want to persecute and suppress all your "enemies," obviously from the perspective of such an enemy you need to be restrained from doing so
>>22126239
Right there is no reason to support your primitive bolshevism if one does not believe in it

>>22126266
>You've already declared you want to persecute and suppress all your "enemies,"
Quote what you're referencing. That you can't should tell you that you're lying to yourself.
When I explicitly deny wanting any such thing you don't care. The fantasy is more important than what I really think. You really think acting like this in any situation can be justified in any way?

>>22126274
Why are you playing dumb? Do you expect anyone to unironically assent to an illiberal government whose ideology declares him an enemy worthy of being suppressed and destroyed based on the mumbling of priests? You'd have a society of vicious liars

>>22126100
>The marketplace of ideas is not about practicing those ideas.
Debating or discussing the acceptance of them naturally implies discussing the inevitable consequences of this acceptance (ie their practice) as well. I don't know why you are engaging in pointless hair-splitting.

>When I explain anything you find a way to pretend you didn't understand any of it.
Do you have one example of this being true? I don't think it is true

>Yes it is. When it's not true the system has broken down. If I said all human bodies pump blood you would say not dead bodies. That's autistically thinking in words, repeating what you've heard instead of modelling systems and translating that to words.
I disagree with your premise that there is such a "system" in the first place, it's existence is not established. There is not any natural ingrained system or drive to prohibit foreign customs but humans are rather naturally curious and they tend to not want to ban or prohibit something unknown until they have firsthand experience of it being bad, unless they have received some sort of prior indoctrination (which is not natural).

> If not forced to accept anything new the establishment continues to try to maintain the stability that gave them power
Not every establishment or power base automatically concludes that allowing foreign religions or fads/fashions/customs/etc is a threat to their power though, there are plenty of examples of the contrary being true.

>>22124871
Whenever I have conversations with you people, I really can't tell if I am getting trolled or if you really just can't seem to understand this.
>"Ooooh Jesus save me, salvation is only through you! Save me God!"
>Truth responds (it's not Jesus but likes to help people who ask for connection with Truth)
>"Ooooh Jesus, I've been saved, I've been saved through your grace alone!!!"
>actually saved by something quite different
>the religion still works though
>perennialism.
I don't even like Guenon. Stop making me defend him.

>>22126266
Read these

A defence of the patriarchal family
https://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-patriarchy/

In defence of monarchy
https://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-monarchy/

In defence of censorship
https://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-censorship/

Preliminaries to Catholicism
https://bonald.wordpress.com/the-catholic-perspective/

>>22126354
Abrahamics don't believe in interpretatio graeci or interoperability of divine names. Islam which improves on its monotheist predecessors on a technical level, allows for non-Muslim monotheists to at least pay higher taxes in exchange for being wrong. But with Christianity it's asking the government to kill you until you win.

>>22126371
Let's assume you cannot persuade me to join you as a christlarp comrade without threatening me, as your proposed royal cathburo would. Explain why I as an infidel should support an illiberal autocracy with a religious ideology, knowing that it will move to seize my assets, restrict my activities, and potentially detain, forcibly transport, or execute me for ideological offenses. You can't do so, and out of self-preservation I would lie to your commissariat.

>>22126406
You’re erratic. Nobody wants to kill you or take your property. We’re not commies over here. Censorship is needed only in the case when someone is publicly distributing mind-poison to the community. In that case the authorities should warn the person to stop. For example, pornographers should be warned immediately to cease operations and if they don’t they should get arrested. Sedition, subversion, and propaganda is what censorship is meant to oppose; nobody ever thought of persecuting someone for their private beliefs, no matter how abhorrent they may be.

>>22126429
>nobody ever thought of persecuting someone for their private beliefs
What sort of appeal to naivete is this? Is it the same one used to argue for the accuracy of the NT regarding a certain magical rebbe?

>>22126435
Idk what you’re on about, but no Christian believes in forced conversion. The Jews weren’t allowed to propagandise to the Christian community in the Middle Ages or publish their blasphemous books, but nevertheless nobody forced them to convert. There’s a difference between opposing the public propagandising of false religions and ideologies and actively forcing someone to convert

>>22125030
you are way too worried about the immanent, I doubt your claims of being faithful

>>22126296
>Why are you playing dumb?
You're misrepresenting me. I'm explicitly telling you that your representations do not reflect what I was trying to communicate.
You are not replying to my posts but your own fantasy. Stop doing it, both to me and others. It undermines any chance of anything ever being communicated.
>>22126325
>discussing the inevitable consequences of this acceptance
Thinking about implementing the ideas is not the same thing as implementing the ideas.
>hair-splitting.
It's the distinction between productive sharing of information and chaotically mixing them all together. A given idea from culture x may work there because of the situation that culture has but not be productive when introduced into culture y. So the correct route is the idea goes through academia, is refined for the local situation and slowly a local version is developed.
>Do you have one example of this being true?
The marketplace of ideas is not about practicing those ideas.
Being open to other ideas doesn't mean everything should be allowed everywhere. If our absolute main goal was exploring ideas we would try to isolate the test platforms so one idea isn't undermined by another as much.
>no such "system"
The human body is such a system. Can you really disagree if you refuse to explore the actual ideas presented?
The young individual explores but rarely very far, the established systems that govern the tribe for example maintain themselves by resisting change or they wouldn't exist. The explorers and the conservative systems interact to create something like a slowly moving body.
If an emergent entity is established to any degree it has developed some resistance to change. It will react proportionally to the threat. A culture of acceptance like is the norm now is not deviating by accepting new fads that are all variations on an old theme, that's the establishment. The current established entity uses those variations to extract short term value while erasing the differences over time, becoming more "stable" in this sense and uniform. Alien ideas like human sacrifice etc are still considered threatening.

>>22124798
Why the long face?

>>22126443
>There’s a difference between opposing the public propagandising of false religions and ideologies and actively forcing someone to convert
Sure but who gets to be in charge of that pilpul processing office, a nazi busybody such as yourself?

>>22126500

>>22126458
>Thinking about implementing the ideas is not the same thing as implementing the ideas.
I didn't say that they were the same, I only said that the discussion of accepting a practice would naturally involve discussing the consequences of this unless the conversation is being artificially restricted.

>It's the distinction between productive sharing of information and chaotically mixing them all together.
Sharing information does not by itself invariably produce chaos, nor does that sharing invariably involve the dilation or weakening of the other already-present information that it exists alongside. So, the premise of yours that information being shared in a culture without it first being curated by academia will automatically produce chaos is itself a mistaken notion. Moreover, humans are capable of thinking for themselves and don't need "academia" to think for them. If something isn't compatible with a culture then you won't need academics to identify and rectify that but it will already be obvious.

>The marketplace of ideas is not about practicing those ideas.
I didn't say that this was the case
>Being open to other ideas doesn't mean everything should be allowed everywhere
No idea why you are writing this, as I never said that I endorsed absolute freedom to do anything, just that I though freedom or religion was a worthwhile concept, so far all your objections against it have been very weak and/or nonsensical
>If our absolute main goal was exploring ideas
It's not and I never said it was

>The human body is such a system. Can you really disagree if you refuse to explore the actual ideas presented?
No it's not, the human body is a physiological living organism and is not comparable to the acceptance and discussion of ideas by a group of living beings, drawing comparisons from the human body doesn't prove anything or indicate about the group of living beings and their actions because their actions are driven by willpower and deliberation while the body's actions and responses to disease and foreign agents is unconscious, you are committing the logical fallacy known as "false equivalency".

>the established systems that govern the tribe for example maintain themselves by resisting change or they wouldn't exist.
Right here you are committing the "no true scotsman" informal logical fallacy

>>22126443
yeah except when they were cathars then white men killed a bunch of other white men because they were freebird-listening hippie retards

>>22124798
>not to mention the contradiction in being christian/muslim while believing that other religions too possess the truth
Muslims are christians though.

>>22126458
>your representations do not reflect what I was trying to communicate.
So you're a Windsor type of church-and-statist? I find that highly unlikely. What is more likely is you have some snowflake label for your brand of ideology and me boiling it down to its logical, thuggish conclusion annoys you. If you are so illiberal and pro-discrimination, you should celebrate it, not attempt to disguise it. Why, it's almost as if you fear being treated unfairly (but what's fairness, some degenerate pornography genre?) because of your "beliefs."

>>22126538
>would naturally involve discussing the consequences
Actual temples being built are an example of practice. Discussion about possible negative consequences are not allowed so the marketplace of ideas is being doubly undermined by introducing chaos and restricting discussion about it.
>Sharing information does not by itself invariably produce chaos
Is this deliberate? You wanted examples of your dishonesty? I'm talking about the difference between information and practice and you consistently try to confuse them.
>I didn't say that this was the case
You confuse the simple point to avoid exploring conclusions you won't like.
>I never said that I endorsed absolute freedom to do anything
Information sharing is different from implementing foreign practices and building foreign temples. You argued for introducing new temples based on an appeal to the marketplace of ideas. Since then you've been working hard to confuse yourself.
>It's not and I never said it was
If it was you mindless shithead. It's the principle you appealed to and forget when convenient. If I go even further than just appealing to it and put that principle above all else then that's still not a reason to introduce new temples.
>No it's not
Yes it is. It's my analogy not yours. It's not supposed to "prove" anything, it's supposed to help you understand where I'm coming from and how I'm modelling these systems. You don't even dip your toe into the actual ideas presented before just proclaiming "no" in these repetitive blogs. It's not a fallacy either.
>Right here you are committing the "no true scotsman" informal logical fallacy
Nope. Only organisms that resist threats to their existence maintain their existence. It's structurally tautological not a fallacy and despite being a tautology it can still communicate something about reality and be used to predict events.

>>22126572
>So you're a Windsor type of church-and-statist?
You really can't resist doing this shit even when you're apparently trying to tone it down. Nothing I actually say will ever be processed by you. At best I can trigger some different association.
..and then you abandon the lazy attempt at honesty immediately and start making up more deranged fantasies. You understand nothing about anything. Everything you believe is apparently based on internet memes.
I'm not promoting an ideology, I'm exploring ideas and modelling systems. This is what people used to call thinking but is now so alien to you that it absolutely blows your mind.

>>22126605
>I'm not promoting an ideology, I'm exploring ideas and modelling systems.
No amount of sales language changes the fact that you want a saudi arabia with gothic architecture, and you are yet to explain what an infidel in a secular society would have to gain from supporting sectarian minority rule by people who despise him. It's fine that there is no advantage to him. You can just say so and stop being so evasive like the Target shopper you are.

>>22126658
Can you explain what you're doing? Why do you never engage with what I actually say? All I'm asking for is the most basic element of communication, something logically needed to explore any idea. You can't just jump randomly to some association that doesn't follow from anything if you're sincerely thinking. Even if you're sure something presented is false actually thinking about it in a structured way can only do good like helping you discovering other aspects of the reasons why the presented idea is false. Why don't you ever think? If you're threatened by these ideas which seems to be the implication in all your fantasies that should be even more reason for you to sincerely explore the danger in the safety of an anonymous forum.

>>22126675
I applaud you for keeping up your disingenuous word salad about how an illiberal theocratic society is really just being open-minded to different viewpoints but at this point I am certain you are trolling since you still can't explain why anyone who would be targeted by it for suppression would want to live under it.

>>22126731
>explain why I would want to live under a world order I made up in my head
No. In simple terms we can say that if what I presented is correct and there aren't other more important factors etc then reasonable people would see the value in self segregating into relatively isolated communities with shared values. Academia would still be an international thing like it always ways even in the bronze age.
To sincerely argue against anything I say you have to absorb what I say on some level but you deliberately don't. This fantasy game can't help you unless your goal is spreading confusion.

>>22126776
>self segregating into relatively isolated communities with shared values
That's cute, now you want to be Benedictine or Amish. Not the impression I got elsewhere in this thread from the ultra-integralisto luz extinguido poster but perhaps there are two of you.

>>22126792
>Not the impression
Who gives a fuck you absolutely mindless parody of a human? Do you really not understand structure at all? Nothing exists to you except impressions and associations?

>>22126797
You pretend to be Russian Orthodox on the internet so as to be edgy and contrarian but not actually dissident enough to fall into White Nationalism, anon. You're not unique or special, you're a dime-a-dozen bargain-bin loser.

>>22126593
>Actual temples being built are an example of practice. Discussion about possible negative consequences are not allowed so the marketplace of ideas is being doubly undermined by introducing chaos and restricting discussion about it.
You have not demonstrated that a temple being built equals chaos to begin with. Why would you say that discussion of consequences is not allowed? That's not something I endorse. If you endorse something dumb like that and bad consequences follow as a result then that's on you, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
>Is this deliberate? You wanted examples of your dishonesty? I'm talking about the difference between information and practice and you consistently try to confuse them.
I'm not confusing anything, you asserted that sharing information causes chaos, I rightfully called that out for being a stupid claim. If what you intended to say was the practice that results from sharing information was the actual cause of the chaos then you should have said that instead, it's not my fault that you are bad at articulating what your point is, so don't blame me for it. Take some responsibility for your own actions.
>You confuse the simple point to avoid exploring conclusions you won't like.
I have not confused anything, you are the one who is being 1) obtuse 2) engaging in pointless and talmudic hair-splitting and 3) falling back upon blatant logical fallacies
>>I never said that I endorsed absolute freedom to do anything
>You argued for introducing new temples based on an appeal to the marketplace of ideas.
No I didn't, you are confused. I never specified why they should be built other than saying I agree with freedom of conscience, which simply allows for the freedom to build them without saying WHY they should be built.
>If it was you mindless shithead. It's the principle you appealed to and forget when convenient.
No it wasn't, I mentioned it in passing earlier without ever stating that it was a principle motivating my arguments (this is a faulty inference you made, and not the first one either). As I specifically said earlier I'm actually rather indifferent to freedom of speech, which contradicts what you are wrongly asserting about me and what I wrote.
>>No it's not
>Yes it is. It's my analogy not yours.
The analogy is not valid because we were specifically talking about human organizations comprised of thinking individuals who react to events, so to cite what an object does is an invalid analogy because it's *not* a group of individuals and it reacts to things for totally different reasons and in different ways so it is incapable of demonstrating that a group of individuals behave in a certain way or why.
>Nope. Only organisms that resist threats to their existence maintain their existence.
Now you are blatantly moving the goalposts from "resisting change" to "resisting threats to their existence", top kek

>>22126797
>Nothing exists to you except impressions and associations?
The ones you give off are certainly delusional

>Religion is only the exterior. Each one has its own esoteric doctrine in the interior which is only taught to those who have proved their worth for initiation into such mysteries.
>Nevertheless, we find across different ages and religions that the interior or the esoteric is for the most parts shared across them.

>>22126813
>You pretend to be Russian Orthodox on the internet
Again, what the fuck are you talking about retard? Why can't you quote what you're referencing? How can anyone be this fucked in the head? I even defended Islam more than Christianity in this fucking thread but the association didn't trigger you into making up one of these deranged fantasies.
>>22126815
Can you retards build something structured once? Just to demonstrate you're literate? Don't appeal to your "impressions", build on presented logic or just present your own logic, just as an example. Can you? Why do you never do that? Why, when I do that do you automatically assume a bunch of insane horseshit and ignore everything I actually say?

>>22126814
>You have not demonstrated that a temple being built equals chaos to begin with
I have. Even if you don't understand that you should still be able to explore the idea without accepting it.
>I'm not confusing anything
>you asserted that sharing information causes chaos
Completely false, I made the opposite clear. So what am I supposed to say to someone that responds to what I say by declaring that I said the opposite?
I'm not reading the rest of your confused horseshit about how you're not confused. You clearly, demonstrably are.

>>22126829
This is you right?
>>22125209
>I don't believe anybody should be forced to be Christian but the idea of "separation of Church and State" and religious liberty for every heretic and infidel to practice his religion in a Christian country corrupts the minds of the people and this indifferent attitude just creates atheism.
Sounds like "assuming a bunch of insane horseshit to me." You're saying no one should be "forced" to worship your rabbi, but if there is no state coercion behind it then they won't? But you are obviously in favor of such worship and against its decline, so it seems likely you are being dishonest in saying it shouldn't be enforced.

>>22126848
>I have. Even if you don't understand that you should still be able to explore the idea without accepting it.
No you didn't, you falsely equated change with a threat to something's existence which is fallacious since change is not invariably a threat but it is sometimes beneficial and even life-giving, ie your lungs and heart have to be constantly undergoing change to even keep you alive. So any argument like yours which tries to shift the goalposts from "change" to "threat/chaos" by equating them is fallacious. At root this is what your point about building temples equaling bad/chaos boils down to but as I have explained this is fallacious.

>Completely false, I made the opposite clear.
No, you didn't, in >>22126458 you wrote:

>It's the distinction between productive sharing of information and chaotically mixing them all together. A given idea from culture x may work there because of the situation that culture has but not be productive when introduced into culture y. So the correct route is the idea goes through academia, is refined for the local situation and slowly a local version is developed.
You contrasted the refining of information by academia with sharing information that hasn't been refined by academics and described the latter as chaotic. This carries the connotation that sharing information which has not first been filtered be academics is inherently chaotic, which is dumb. I don't know if you are ESL or something but that was the implication of your own post. Since the overwhelming majority of information shared every day is NOT first withheld and refined by academics before being released, what you are in effect saying is that the sharing of information is inherently chaotic aside from one special and unusual case of it.

>>22124821
>Sufism is rooted in Buddhism
Guenon end up kneeling to the dharmakaya, buddhabros we can't stop winning

>>22127277
Even his favorite jeet was a cryptobuddhist. Tradsisters it's literally over

>>22127302
>cryptobuddhist

"Gaudapada here affirms the possibility of intuiting reality beyond all veiling and thus attain an all comprehensive vision in contrast with the self-stultifying desperate negation of all things by means of the critical intellect.
[...]

In a word, his is a supra-mental philosophy failing to see anything positive, negative or even neutral which can be rightly characterized as the essence of things. He considers it only proper to suspend his judgement in the matter. The means of approach, as I have said before, is reason (yukti) aided by intuition (anubhava) of the three states (avasthatraya) on the one side (Vedanta), and critical reason restricted to the waking state on the other (Madhyamaka)." - Mandukya Rahasya Vivrt, SSS

https://archive.org/details/Sachidanandendra_Swamiji_-_Maandukya_Rahasya_Vivrutti/page/n13/mode/2up