This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Here's an embed that should work, there's been trouble with the invidious instances.
He's definitely from a radical skeptic/redpill perspective. With that you almost always see overcorrections, viewing all or most established perspectives as unenlightened. For instance at 16:40 he argues that religion and atheism are both wrong, and he's neither. He also argues that he follows "science" not a belief system.
In both of these he's just negatively associating "religion" and "belief" when the terms are innocuous and mean exactly what he's doing. Belief doesn't necessarily mean irrational, blind faith and religion doesn't necessarily mean accepting some series of doctrines which are told to you by religious authorities.
>To me the historicity of the man Jesus is meaningless (20:00)
This is an untenable approach to religious philosohpy. He says "ultimately it is the ideas which are transformative".. ok and how do you conclude that? Did you just read the ideas yourself and conclude that they were good, or look at the history of philosophy? The source material (scripture) rests it's authority on the historical claims of events in scripture. We know Jesus is God because of the historical record, especially thanks to the eyewitness testimony.
>Christianity is coopted. Esoteric Christianity is the solution because it removes the mind control element of gatekeepers.
A valid objective with a false solution. Adding esotericism obviously only inhibits Christian theology, and Biblical churches already do not have any such gatekeepers. Pastors of good churches already preach expository sermons where you only follow the preacher as far as he proves it from the Bible.
>The main purpose of all false religions (presumably including all Christian churches) is to control people by distracting them from an accurate understanding of natural law
Except historic Christian theology is the primary resource for natural law, synonymous with natural theology. He's using "natural law" as a gateway to import his philosophical ideas, just like the "esoteric fascists" on these godforsaken imageboards invent their cults following David Lane.
>Anarchism
This is the good stuff. He's right about a lot, but you don't have to leave Christian orthodoxy. It's called Christian Libertarianism.
>Constantine caused the inevention of a new Christian religion (1:50:00)
Sort of, but not really. Constantine caused a fundamental paradigm shift regarding Christianity's relationship to culture. A better way to think about this is Neibuhr's "Christ and culture" models
Here's a good summary https://frederiksbergimu.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/christ-and-culture.pdf
Criticism of sacralism is also good, but delving into theories about subversive agents corrupting Christianity via Nicaea is silly. Looking back 1700 years we have every opportunity to evaluate the claims of Nicaea and evaluate them on their own merit (spoiler: they were right)
>Romans 13 is bulls— (2:01:00)
This whole meme about Paul starting a new religion from Christ's should have died 100 years ago when Machen wrote The Origin of Paul's Religion. This again brings the problem of the authority of scripture, being arbitrary like this does not form a cohesive worldview.
He's conceding to the argument that Romans 13 is some kind of authoritarian statist admonition when it isn't, properly interpreted in context.
>Proof of the coopting of Christianity is found in the secret meaning of popular Christian symbolism (2:10:00 ->)
Essentially let me tell you what you believe" x 1bil
This also can't account for the entire reformed tradition which throws out everything in the context of worship
>(2:34:00)
typo "exoteric" hehe
>Don't trust the priest class(2:43:51)
Obviously. We've been saying that for centuries now in Protestantism. I can only assume he's completely insulated himself against the dominant view in his own country, common to these cultists.
>Vatican did and does a lot of bad things (end)
Yes. Don't be catholic. It necessarily entails your support of the vatican, which is undeiably an evil force.
<Summary pt 1
This guy has a few valid criticisms but proposes the wrong solution and doesn't really make much of an argument why. There's no engagement with any Christian movements which recognize the same problems, especially the state and symbolism. There's no argument as to why esotericism.
Anyone who follows Passio really just wants to be edgy as far as I can tell.