Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

Dumai wrote (edited )

then: very secular, very communist (in like a "naive idealistic ancom" way), way more vague and platformist

now: way more spiritual, definitely not at all as teleological (i wouldn't have called my politics teleological then and i knew all the right things to say about teleology but i was nowhere near mature enough to grasp the full implications of rejecting it at that point) less arrogant (i hope)

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Spiritual how? Why?

How would you define your tendency now?

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

"spiritual" as in "postmodern christian/quaker", which answers your second question too i guess

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

What does that mean? And how does that relate to your political leanings?

As someone who left a cultish Christian religion, I'm always kind of blown away by people who are Christians, especially anarchists.

1

Dumai wrote

oversimplifying hugely, quakers believe in the "priesthood of all believers", the spiritual uniqueness and equality of all of human souls, and the emptying of the self according to the light of god within us. which is to say that there is something holy within everyone, and quakers try to live according to light within them all times; meaning, for a quaker, religion is about the entirety of life.

the political implications of all that are pretty obvious i think. traditionally quakers acknowledge no ordained clergy or accept any religious hierarchy at all. they were preaching the equality of women in the 17th century. they were basically the first religious group to organise against slavery in the US. they've been active in anti-war movements, LGBT rights, refugee rights... i could go on.

i mean i totally get why people would be put off christianity, especially in your case. but for me, christianity, when properly understood, is a radical statement.