Culture is superior to law

 In the west, long gone are the days when culture was at all relevant, except for maybe to few people who carry their culture to this land with them and practice it as such. As a whole there is little if any culture left in the west, in many ways this is good when speaking of western culture. The culture that was brought to the west by white people was nothing special, it was a self centered ethnocentric culture of domination and genocide. So as far as cultures go, good riddance to that one, though many are trying to maintain this as Christian nationalism and white supremacy, which go hand in hand. So for this piece I am going to focus on cultures I have either read about or personally experienced. Ive read of a handful of tribes and lived in Ethiopia. 

One of the major things I noticed in Ethiopia was there are not that many laws or even law enforcement to enforce the laws they do have. Initially this perplexed me as I could not see with my western eyes how a country could maintain itself without law and those who enforce it. However, being steeped in this culture for two years in Ethiopia and another 16 in my marriage I learned that it was culture that governed the behavior of people, not law and not law enforcement enforcing laws. In fact at that time I began to see how creating numerous laws and a police to enforce them actually created more problems and less freedom than say Ethiopia. 

I was able to see how so many cultures and ethnicities got along in Ethiopia so well. Although occasionally there are political tensions that spill over and create problems. As for the everyday Ethiopian, theres little problem in getting along with fellow Ethiopians of a different ethnicity or religion. 

One of the character traits that western capitalism rewards is a sort of brash self centeredness. It seems as if those who get rewarded in this society must be sociopaths who care for nothing but profits. By contrast, Ethiopian culture shuns this sort of behavior. While it most certainly exists there, as with any capitalist society, its not as rampant. As an example its never looked upon favorably to talk or brag about ones self or ones accomplishments, where in the west thats exactly how you get a job, you basically have to brag about yourself and accomplishments, its how you get ahead. Now, this isnt to say people will not know about what you are doing or have done, as your family will talk you up, but for you to talk yourself up? That is frowned upon. This is just one example of many on how culture is superior to law. 

When I read about different tribes this is one of the things I seek out in the writings, about the culture and of how the culture treats those that deviate from it. How the culture keeps people from getting big heads, how the culture keeps people from behaving in a way that would disrupt the tribe, and the consequences. Shunning someone for deviating is a common practice amongst tribes until the person has suffered and appropriate amount of time. The most severe that I have read thus far is being banished from the tribe completely, which is basically a death sentence in most cases as you need a good size group in order to have a functioning tribe, depending on the tribe and region in which the tribe is located. 

What the west needs is a new culture and it will get one eventually as the United States is currently engaged in a culture war between fascists and communists/socialists/anarchists. So it may be a culture that reverts to fascism, or it may be one that actually has the interests of the people in mind. You may disagree but you should be able to see that more laws do not solve problems, they in fact create more problems and more law enforcement clearly solves nothing but again creates more problems. This idea that laws and law enforcement is meant to solve crime is an absurdity told to us by a country rapidly descending into total fascism. The police state serves their interests, not ours, especially when the supreme court ruled that police have no obligation to protect citizens. It is pretty obvious to anyone that they do not serve us, only the ruling class to protect their property.

Other examples from Ethiopian Culture

In Ethiopia there is no legal drinking age. If a 13 year old was so inclined they could get some beer and get drunk. In Ethiopia you do not see teens doing this. In my two years there I dont think I once seen any teens drinking at any point in time. So what is stopping them from doing this? Its culture that keeps them from doing this. Being a drunk in Ethiopia is culturally frowned upon as it reflects on friends and family that you are in fact a drunk. This would ostracize you from them and you would be more likely to quit drinking so that you could again be with your family and friends without the shame of ruining your life.

Also, there are no laws against Marijuana. Ive met people that smoke it, Ive met people who grow it and sell it, but its not a big deal there. Again, why arent people in droves smoking mass amounts of Marijuana every day there? Again the answer is culture. Its frowned upon to become chemically dependent and this again reflects on family and friends which may lead to ostracizing of the individual. It would again encourage someone to stop smoking, at least too much, so that they can again be with family and friends.

This being said, nobody judges you, lectures you, or arrests you for doing either of these things. Abusing drugs and alcohol is culturally unacceptable and so more often than not people simply dont do them, at least in excess.

I am also reminded of an African proverb that "A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" which is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing in America with mass shootings and gun violence almost as a whole. Ethiopias culture is very social, one could say its a socialist culture, not a socialist society but culture. What I mean by that is its very social and everyone is helping everyone to ensure that together they all succeed. I can recall going out for coffee in Ethiopia, thinking we would grab a coffee and then go on about our day. In reality coffee is a social activity. The coffee is roasted and brewed right in front of you and you drink while socializing. I think I spent around 3 hours drinking coffee and socializing. 

I quickly found out that almost everything in Ethiopia has a social aspect to it. Even when I would go out to eat with friends and family we would be dining and socializing for hours upon hours and the restraunt would not be trying to force us out or get us to spend more money. It was expected that we would be spending many hours eating and socializing. When there I truly felt as if I belonged, even when I was generally the only white person in the room. I did not feel the need to use my cell phone, or spend time on the internet at all. I was for the first time in my life comfortable, I felt embraced by the village. In Ethiopia they say the best medicine is another person and I believe that is true. When I came back to the US I remember sinking into a deep depression as the individualism, not the individual, embraced me here. I felt alone, not like when I was in Ethiopia. 

In the US there is a law for virtually everything, and a penalty of some kind for almost every violation. I can get cited for jaywalking as if I am not smart enough to safely cross the street I need the government regulating that and punishing me for not crossing in a crosswalk when I am fully capable of looking both ways and crossing the street safely. The US is a nation of laws which has created a people incapable of doing anything themselves and there are people who rebel against this, rightfully so. We do not need more laws, we do not need more law enforcement as those equal a reduction in freedom. We need a unified culture and less laws.

Why For Proft Ruins Everything

 In a society that prioritizes profit over all things, how on earth can we know what reality actually is? We are in a gulf of never ending products, each trying its best to prove they care about us when in reality they only care about selling something to us. Something created at low cost and sold for well more than what it is actually worth. How can we know someone is being sincere when the motive is profit. Can we know that the person selling us a medicine is being sincere? No, they know we have a problem and created a solution to it in order to make a profit from us. For profit anything ruins everything. It devalues reality and life in general as it reduces everything to a transaction. Our life, in this system, is a series of transactions in which everyone, nearly everyone, is trying to extract some profit from us. The nature of this rubs off onto humans, who then view everything as transactional. So even our actions are calculated responses based on what a person or people can provide for us. Is it profitable for us to be around someone who is depressed? If we can gain anything from this then the answer is yes, if we cannot then we don’t. 

This is why a for profit system ruins everything. It teaches humans to look at everything in terms of how we can profit, reducing literally all interactions to transactions. Even when we date we are looking for something to gain from the interaction, making it a transaction. “If I buy her dinner and something nice, maybe she will fuck me.” Thereby dating becomes transactional. A person may think “Can this person provide a nice life for me? Are they financially stable enough to take care of me so I don’t have to work?” Thereby dating has become transactional, not interactional. This reduction is part of domestication of the human animal in which we have been reduced to living off the very system that is destroying all life on this planet. Without it we would be totally free, with it we are mere cogs in a death machine. However, we are domesticated and cannot live without it, its sort of a symbiotic relationship. We proved labor power, it provides us with the bare minimum, but strips from us our foundational human nature to live off of nature alone. 

Removing a for profit system would certainly be a step up in the human condition under capital, but it would not be a means to an end.

The Crises

 Humans will go to their extinction singing the praises of the very system that is killing them. Despite all the evidence for human caused climate change humans still seem content on living in their delusion that everything is alright. Humans are going about business as usual when in reality we are seeing the effects of climate change first hand and need to be acting to stave off any further damage. But alas, human concern themselves with trivial things and argue about inconsequential nonsense instead of acting. Civilization, namely capitalism, caused the crisis we are seeing today, its clear as day. Yet humans seem to think that civilization, again namely capitalism, is the greatest system ever invented. Its as if we are praising the noose we are about to be hung with. We are praising the gun we are pressing against our head ready to fire. It is sheer nonsense, the height of absurdity. A critique of capitalism here is not enough, as civilization gave rise to capitalism and therefore it is civilization that bears all the blame. 

In our 200,000 years of existence almost all of it was spent living in harmony with nature. We hardly left a mark on nature. and in the last 6,000 years or so we have damaged nature beyond repair and seem content on going to our graves continuing to do so. The handful of people responsible for the bulk of the damage have convinced us that it is we who are the problem and so we should recycle or drive electric cars. When in truth it is they who are the culprits. The masters of civilization are also the archetects of our demise. We need to face reality, accept the truth, and act expediently to stave off anymore damage. As a pessimist I don't see this happening, nothing short of a collapse.

Christians convert more people to atheism than to Christianity

I know this title may seem a bit far fetched, the idea that Christians turn more people to atheism or agnosticism sounds absurd, but hear me out. The main friction Christians have with the rational world is with science and namely evolution. This seems to be what creates more tension between Christians and scientists, or anyone that believes in evolution, than anything else. So I will attempt to show why this battle tends to create more atheism than it does create new Christians.

We as a people, Christian or non-Christian, need to be open to new ideas and information, if we are not we doom ourselves to being simple minded and backwards, unable to progress as a human being both mentally and spiritually. When scientists present us with data, we need to accept it. Of course we first need to be critical of what they present to ensure that what they present is true, thats how science works. But we should not immediately reject any new ideas because it supposedly conflicts with our religious convictions.

As with evolution, Christians tend to think that it is incompatible with scripture. As an evolutionist and a Christian I reject this. I once took this stance that the two were irreconcilable. But over time as I began to realize that science had a point about evolution and it was backed by hard evidence, I understood too that I was not a scientist, I had to accept the reality of evolution. So, what of my faith? Should I abandon it because it conflicts with scientific fact? It was at this point that I realized that it was not scripture that evolution was in conflict with, it was my literal interpretation that was conflicting. As new evidence arose to prove evolution true, I understood that my view of scripture must also change. The creation story in Genesis is not a literal one, it is metaphorical. (detailing that could produce an entire book about the metaphorical meaning so I will spare you). One must also understand the audience Moses was speaking to, former slaves who were almost entirely uneducated and illiterate. He had to present a simple explanation almost like he was talking to kids, hence the reference to the jews as "children."

Moses was not interested in giving a detailed scientific explanation as to how the world came into being, he was giving them a simplistic story that was easy to understand, but not literal. Had Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson, and perhaps Bill Nye, been those amongst the Israelites, he probably would have began with "billions of years ago..." But he didn't do that for the specific reason that the Israelites would not be able to grasp this idea, it would be foreign to them and they were already hostile towards Moses and very untrustworthy of him. He was forced to make a simple explanation.

How do Christians create atheists? Well, when a hardline Christian with a literal view of the bible and no understanding of science debates with a scientist, he goes against all evidence presented, ignores it and then says "well the bible says so its true." This willful rejection of scientific fact and all the research and knowledge of a plethora of scientists who have studied this for years tells them that Christians are dumb people who reject evidence and fact, and denounce all use of reason. Why on earth would that scientist ever want to become a Christian? This tells him or her that Christianity does not hold reason or fact in high regard, and if they reject fact for fiction then none of it must be true. This does not make Christianity appealing to a single one of them.

My advice is to stop rejecting science and leave science to the scientists just as you expect scientists to leave theology to the theologians. Nobody is saying that science proves God does not exist, in fact there are many scientists who do believe in both God and evolution, they see God in creation and it is entirely possible that God used a discoverable way in which to create all things. The big bang most likely happened and this was most likely the method with which God created all things. It is still a miracle that we can all marvel at regardless of how all came into being.

My logic is this, all matter must have an origin. That matter could not have come into being by any materialistic or natural means because we simply do not observe matter creating itself today. If I see a computer or television it is rational for me to say "who made that?" That is logical, and I assert it is also logical for all matter. It is irrational to think matter can come into existence of its own will, matter is inanimate, it just cannot self exist. Some would say, well, then who created God? But this is not a fair question because in asking this we either bring God, an infinite being, to the level of matter or elevate matter to the level of God. It would be like asking where does infinity end. God, by His very nature, has always existed. This is a very difficult concept for finite beings to grasp because our nature is to be born, grow old, and die. We cannot conceive of anything other than that because it is beyond the scope of our understanding. That is, at least, my thinking on the matter.

Christianity was meant to be classless

"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." Acts 4:32-35

This is a passage in scripture that is almost completely ignored by all Christian denominations. In fact I would wager that most people who identify as Christians are completely unaware of this passage or what it even means. Its quite simple, early Christians gave their wealth to the church and it was distributed equally among the people. This did a few things, it eliminated class within the church putting everyone on equal footing, and made sure that all were united as one. They were either all poor or all rich, and maybe there were many in between. But the point is they were all of one class. 

Why is that so important? Because when you have classes, a rich and a poor, the rich tend to think of themselves as better or in the Christian context, chosen by God. After all their riches must come from God, that meaning they are appointed. This often leads to the rich then running the church and leaving the poor and middle class out of the decision making. It can often mean leaving the priests out of the decision making as well, since it is the rich that contribute most and therefore pay the salary of the priest. Therefore the priest is put in a position of being under the rule of the rich within the church.

What I have witnessed in many churches is Christian adopting the right wing republican or libertarian view that poor people are poor by their own choosing. They have not worked hard enough and do not deserve any sort of help. This also adds to the idea that they, by virtue of being rich, are somehow better or chosen and therefore are entitled to lord over everyone else. The feeling is that they are rich, therefore they are better decision makers, better thinkers, better people, and or are chosen by God.

The trouble with this is obvious. It creates classes within the church and gives all power to the rich. Christianity was founded by poor people for poor people. Christ did not exactly have positive things to say about wealth and or rich people. This is why it was a requirement in the early church to give up your wealth for the greater good of all the people within that church, to make everyone equal. Yet we see inequality within every church. In nearly every church you will see someone driving to church in a car on its last leg and at the very same church others will be driving expensive luxury cars that are worth more than what that poor person makes in a single year, or two. You will almost always see people who have no worry of medical insurance and those going without medical insurance in that very same church.

This passage in Acts shows graphically that the early church sought to eliminate that by creating a classless society in which all were equal. What changed this and when I do not know but I am sure it happened over a period of time. Slowly but surely the Christian church became a church governed by rich people, for rich people and the poor slowly shut out.

Ask yourself, would anyone in your church be willing to give up their wealth for the good of all people within that church? Would you personally be willing to give over all your wealth for the greater good of all the people within your church? We must ask these questions because it is obvious that every denomination has strayed from the early church and its intent on creating equality within the church. 

Defining What is Christian

How do we define a Christian and why is that important? It would seem that the definition of Christian is ambiguous, having been watered down my countless denominations that continually redefine Christian theology. Why is this important? It is important to define what a Christian is because if we do not then anyone can call themselves a Christian and be misled or mislead others into incorrect teachings. It is important to define what a Christian or Christianity is so that people can know the truth. If we accept anyones profession that they are a Christian without having first investigated then we will be held accountable.

The easiest way is to contrast everything against the sacrament of sacraments, the Eucharist. In the Orthodox Church this sacrament is considered to be the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, not as in the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, but a mystical or spiritual transformation, not a transformation of substance. It is not considered symbolic at all in Orthodoxy. It is not considered symbolic by Christ in the Gospel of St John either, He says: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

Christ does not say that this is symbolic in any way, He is literal, in fact when the people were grumbling He reiterated that He was being literal. This caused many to desert Christ, so why didn't He explain that He was only speaking symbolically? To further prove this point, when Christ instituted the Eucharist in Mt 26:26 He said: “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice that Christ does not once say that this is a symbol but that this is My Body and this is My Blood. He then refers to this as His blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins. This is literal, not symbolic in any way.

Christ says in John 6:53 that: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." This again is clear in that we must partake of the Eucharist, which Christ instituted and said is His Body and His Blood. Christ says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will have no life in us, meaning we cannot receive salvation unless we partake of the Eucharist.

So it stands to reason, whomever rejects the Eucharist rejects Christ and in turn rejects their own salvation. This we cannot consider to be Christian. Any denomination that either rejects the Eucharist or teaches that it is merely symbolic cannot be considered Christian. For any Orthodox to suggest that one who rejects the Eucharist is Christian is heresy because they are stating that a person who rejects Christ is in some way a Christian. This is in no way a condemnation of the people who may believe this as most probably do it out of ignorance. It is important for Orthodoxy to strictly define what it means to be Christian, and this is one way of doing that.

Why the Apostles were not liars

There seems to be a lot of denial when it comes to Christ and Christianity these days and more often than not the Apostles and their accounts are portrayed as unreliable and fanciful tales of magic. If one did not stop and think critically this would seem to be the case. How could someone be brutally tortured, crucified and then raise themselves from the dead? Where is the evidence for such a claim? I will tell you, it is in the lives of the Apostles and disciples of Christ. If anyone knew that the resurrection, and other claims in scripture, were false, it would be them. So why is this important and how does it prove anything? Generally speaking when some religious person makes outrageous claims they do it for a purpose and that purpose is power, money, women, fame, or any of the trappings that come with the ability to manipulate people. But this is not the case when it comes to the Apostles nor the disciples. Many of them were martyred for their faith and all of them lived very poor and meager lives, hardly reminiscent of cult leaders.

If anyone had a reason to steal the body of Christ it would have been the Apostles, this would have given weight to their claims and the claims of Christ. So that means they would have been living a lie, but for what reason? They gained nothing. Every Apostles, aside from St John, was either tortured then martyred or just martyred. I could see maybe one Apostle doing this and being so delusional to think that his lie was real and being martyred for it, but 11 of them? Surely one of them would have broke and admitted this to save his own skin. What of St John the Apostle? Why wouldn't he admit that this was a lie to save himself from being exiled an old man to the obscure island of Patmos? St Peter, who seemed to have been a weak in faith at times, was crucified upside down at his own request. Now why didn't he break and admit this was a lie? After all it was him who denied Christ three times out of fear for his life, if anyone were to break it would have been him, but he didn't.

It makes little to no sense for a group of people to maintain a lie like this for no reason. None of them gained anything. They were constantly persecuted and ridiculed. They were poor and ended up dying miserable deaths. Unless all of them were totally insane I see no purpose for them to lie. The probability of all of them being insane has to be off the charts, and then you would have to explain how these insane and unstable people were convincing educated and uneducated, rich and poor of their claims. The only logical conclusion is that the Apostles were not lying about the things they saw, that these things were not some fanciful musings of an insane person, but reality.

One also has to understand that Christ did these things in full view of the public, for all to see and hear. If the Gospel writers were lying surely someone would have come forward to discredit them, but even the jews did not deny that Christ did something, calling Him a "sorcerer" (Sanhedrin 43a). They aren't denying the existence of Christ or that He indeed did miracles or some kind. If Christ did not exist certainly the jews would not admit to His existence. If Christ and or his followers were lying about His "miracles" certainly the jews would have made no reference to it, but they instead try to explain it as being sorcery.

We know from several sources outside scripture that Christ existed historically, I don't even think people cognizant of the facts would deny this. What is in question is, was He who He and His followers claimed? There is enough evidence to suggest that Christ was who He and His followers claimed He was. This is not indisputable evidence, it is inferential evidence that one could base their conclusions upon.

It defies logic that the Apostles would have knowingly upheld a lie and not buckled under the pressure of persecution and a life of poverty. It also defies logic to say Christ did not exist at all and that all the stories are made up. If Christ did not exist surely the jews wouldn't admit to it and if Christ did nothing that could be considered a miracle then why would the jews attempt to explain it away as sorcery. To say there is no evidence is to state a falsehood, there is evidence. It is inferential evidence, not undeniable truth. But one could easily take these facts and base their faith on it as the foundation of their faith. There is truth there. It is not as if there is nothing to base faith on, there clearly is, this however is the choice one must make based on what we know.