After all, I consider it to be fulfilling and in my self-interest to act on the commands and will of what I consider to be the highest entity in the universe, and hopefully seek union with His energies.
It's about choosing your spooks instead of letting the spooks choose you, right?
Can't really be a Christian without considering sin to be morally wrong.
>>1337135
Right, within a Christian context.
Supposing there is a god introduces considerations like that, but a Stirnerian context doesn't have a god.
So while the Stirnerian context would obviously be seen as immoral from the Christian view, the Stirnerian view really can't put any value judgements on Christianity.
I suppose you could say you can be a Christian Stirnerian, but not a Stirnerian Christian.
>>1337120
>what I consider to be the highest entity in the universe
>highest entity in the universe
You can't be free of spooks and worship something you consider higher than yourself at the same time.
>>1337120
depeneds on your brand of Christianity- for the ones that actually believe you have a duty to be loyal to god out of love to him you are in trouble but for the - fear of the lord is the start of wisdom ones you can align them.
>>1337184
Also, it's never about choosing your spooks, I don't know where you got that particular idea, but it's certainly not Stirner's.
>>1337184
Actually it's more a case of acknowledging gods power - in the same view as one does the state - the govt demands taxes and God demands prayer.
>>1337184
Practically speaking, if there is a god, he can BTFO me at any time.
That would make me his property in Stirner's thought.
Did Stirner ever actually use the word spook?
Was he actually noteworthy or do people just meme him because the picture drawn of him makes him look like a badass?
Stirneriansm is a nigger tier philosophy
>>1337267
He's a pretty good filter for bad philosophy desu, kinda like Hume. His attack on fixed ideas helps clear out bullshit like muh common good and muh humanity, that kinda shit.
>>1337120
If you are trying to apply rigorous philosophy then you wouldn't arrive at the conclusion that there must be
1. A higher creator
2. That you or anyone else can know anything about it
3. That the institution of Christianity is the exclusively valid interpretation of it's will
4. Whichever denomination is valid over the others
without severe and extreme spooks.
>>1337120
If you're meticulous, accepting christian spooks isn't a problem in itself, but it would have absolutely zero bearing on the reality of God's existence. You could claim that a belief in this higher power serves yourself as an end in itself, but all you'd be doing is making use of a delusion which, from a Stirnerian perspective, can never be certified as existent other than as an ideology which exerts its influence and maintains power over you.
>>1337311
It's more about believing what I feel like and not letting spooks like empiricism keep me from living a fulfilling life.
>>1337353
I didn't read the English translation, so I can't give a quote, but in the first part of The Ego and Its Own, he says religious belief stems from viewing Spirit as something higher than yourself,ideal, inaccessible, that you call God.
>>1337407
So, replacing spooks with other spooks? You should know better than that, my property.
>>1337429
You can't escape the spooks, might as well enjoy them
>>1337429
A T H E I S T I C
oh holly fuck no , you shall on pain of death have non b4 me , none shall stand b4 me on earth. hello Christ stains your god is a blood thirsty mongrel rise up and kill god !!!!!11!!!!!1111!!!!!!
Are you following an evil abomination who hates your kind and wants to destroy you all instead of the rightful God?
Mark with an x where applicable.
My god says we are not to test him in case he is false and undelivering [ ]
My god says we are to avoid delicious meals like pork because apparently good people eat shit [ ]
My god says we should try dying virgins, because apparently good people don't deserve pleasure and gods themselves, owning the place, don't have whatever ammounts of sex they desire [ ]
My god forced me to be of a certain sexuality to then get angry at his own decision and blame me for it [ ]
My god requires that I let my enemies beat me to a pulp until they get bored and I have to stay put and don't hit back [ ]
My god says that the world is populated by children of the devil, yet he demands I visit them when sick and give them alms, as good people give good things to enemies of gods [ ]
My god says that if I use his name, I will be able to move mountains, but I cannot do it [ ]
My god says that if I use his name, I resurrect people, but this never happens [ ]
My god claims that the world is filled with devils and his church is supsiciously always full of people that don't really care about the belief system but join up anyway [ ]
My god claims his spirit of goodness and rainbows enters his priests several times so he can guide them, the result is that they are child rapists [ ]
My scripture warns that the law was changed by evil people, yet my gods priests insist on keeping the obviously false laws [ ]
My scripture warns that the true one will be called beelzebub and a prince of demons by the people of the world, yet people don't say this [ ]
My scripture warns that the followers of the true one will have to move from city to city because of persecution, but our churches remain calm and our child rapists aren't even detained [ ]
You better not have marked a single X there, nigger.
Allah kuckbar
>>1337771
What even side of this argument are you even taking with this deranged list
>>1337820
he's a gnostic, ignore him
Is Stirner a materialist?
>>1337135
Not even that. You need to love God before you love yourself, but to do anything in a Stirnerian context, you need to put yourself first.
So, no, being Christian is out of the question.
>>1338102
If i remember right Stirner rejects egoism that only tries to gain material gain.
>>1338179
I meant as in the philosophical position rather than the consumerist type.
>>1338299
He rejects idealism pretty heavily, i guess he is a materialist by default.
>>1337154
>a Stirnerian context doesn't have a god
False, see his reasoning as to why God would be an egoist
That is assuming, of course, that you've actually read his book
Who am I kidding nobody here has read it
>>1338307
Does that mean his views could be refuted by demonstrating the validity of idealism?
>>1338317
In the introduction he says "humanity" is an egoist, too. Doesn't stop him from recognizing both as spooks later on in the book.
