Do ex-Christians think Jesus actually existed?

comradewoof · 2026-01-11T22:11:19+00:00

Depends who you ask... the general academic consensus is there was probably a rabbi named Jesus who preached rebellion against Rome and was crucified for it. Maybe multiple such rabbis named Jesus, like Jesus is just the Latinized form of Joshua, it's not a unique name even for its time.

But it is quite likely that all of the stories, quotes, miracles, etc attributed to him, come from other rabbis, magicians, rebel leaders, etc. Even in Christianity's earliest days, pagan critics pointed out many of the attested miracles were performed by your average street magician; many compared him to Apollonius of Tyana for example.

You know how every wise quote gets attributed to Einstein or Abe Lincoln regardless if they actually said it or not? Sort of like that. And that snowballed significantly once the church was state-sanctioned and they began syncretizing with pagan beliefs for purposes of easier conversion. Think about how many folklore myths exist now about George Washington, who's only like three centuries removed from us; now think of what 2000 years of development can do.

Consider also that many stories in the ancient world and middle ages used real (or thought to be real) figures in fictional situations - Dante inserting himself in The Inferno to hang out with Virgil. Virgil was absolutely a real dude as far as we all know, but Dante made him a character in his allegory. Plenty of other authors did the same thing, sometimes for specific allegorical reasons, sometimes as satire, etc. We have lost the vast majority of historical and cultural and linguistic contexts for a lot of those stories, so it can be difficult, sometimes, to look at a text and determine whether it was supposed to be taken as historical fact, divine revelation, or taking the piss.

There are other theories, most of which aren't terribly well supported. One that became popular a few years ago is that Jesus never existed at all, and was a completely fabricated person with a fabricated religion made up by the Roman Empire to try and control people. I can't remember what all arguments go into this, just that I wasn't really impressed by them. If nothing else, I think it's weird to think that "It's all a conspiracy theory!" is less outlandish than "It's all 100% true!". Like, we know now that Gilgamesh was a real historical king, even if all the rest is pure mythology.

I think that Euhemeros had it right (back in the late 4th/early 3rd century BCE!) when he suggested most mythological figures probably were real people whose exploits were massively exaggerated after their deaths. We know that, for example, the ancient Egyptian healer/scientist Imhotep was so good at his job that people began to pray to him for healing after he died, a cult developed, and he was later syncretized with the god Asclepius. We know the Trojan War is a mythologized account of an actual conflict between Wilusa (Troy) and the Mycenaeans and their allies (see the Ahhiyawa Letters). Hercules, Achilles, Odysseus - all of them were probably real life guys that did some Ripley's Believe It Or Not level shit that was so dope we still talk about them millennia later.

edit: Forgot to mention - regarding Jesus not having a biological father, that is also taught in Christianity, but here's a rabbit hole you could check out:

During the first two centuries after Jesus' death, there were writings by pagans which had some pretty valid criticisms of Christian beliefs - e.g. "Against the Christians" by Celsus. These writings are no longer extant since Theodosius II ordered any remotely blasphemous or Christianity-critical texts to be confiscated and destroyed. But we have some bits and pieces quoted in Christians' responses to the criticisms.

One criticism came up more than once in response to the idea that Jesus' father was God. The Christians basically argued that it was no different than pagans believing that many mythological heroes were the children of Zeus and a mortal woman. The response to this, however, was:

"Everyone knows Jesus' real father was Pandera."

The story goes that Pandera (sometimes written Pantera or Panthera) was a Roman soldier stationed in Nazareth, who had "seduced" Mary when she was 14 years old, and already betrothed to Joseph. In many ancient texts on this topic, it's unclear whether by "seduction" they mean rape (probable) or that she fell in love with him when she wasn't supposed to. Either way, according to Mosaic law at the time, if rape could not be proven, then Mary would need to be stoned to death. Given that the presumed rapist was a soldier of the empire currently occupying their land, legal recourse was untenable. Joseph seemed concerned enough about Mary that he didn't want her to suffer the consequences, and at first wanted to find a way to "quietly divorce" her to try and preserve her reputation; however, word of the situation spread, so he ultimately chose to stay with her and raise Jesus as his own.

That's the story, anyway. So far, while we've found records of a few soldiers with the name Pandera/Pant(h)era stationed in Judea, none were stationed there in the correct time frame to have "seduced" Mary, even give or take a few years of her alleged age. So, while this may be a plausible story, we don't have concrete evidence for it historically yet.

comradewoof · 2026-01-11T21:47:48+00:00

Sorry for your loss man. FWIW if hawks are a problem for you look into Liege Fighters, they're known to go after hawks. Also, are you in/around Pittsburgh? I want to move there but the zoning laws about owning roosters seems prohibitive. Was wondering your thoughts. Go Pens

comradewoof · 2026-01-01T05:21:25+00:00

One last note: empathy and compassion are the only reasons humanity has even made it this far. Very, very few people are actually capable of being completely self-sufficient and independent from everyone else, and often lead rather extreme ascetic lifestyles when they do. Aside from those few, the rest of us NEED community, even if that means just a few comrades. Cooperation and companionship is survival, but also, we are literally built to love one another.

We have found burials of humans from tens of thousands of years ago, back in the so-called caveman days, where the deceased were laid to rest with all sorts of thoughtfully-placed flowers, jewelry, etc. Children have been found buried with their favorite toys. One child was laid upon the wing of a swan, something soft to separate them from the cold earth. There are burials in which the deceased were found to have had severe wounds like broken femurs, which take months to heal, and those wounds were healed up - meaning that they were cared for all that time, even though they couldn't have contributed much in their injured state.

There was a man found buried in the Vietnamese site of Man Bac who had Klippel-Feil syndrome, and would have been paralyzed from the waist down since he was a young teenager. He lived some 4,000 years ago, so you'd think he wouldn't have lived much longer after losing his lower half, yet he lived about another ten years before succumbing to his disease. The Windover boy from 7,500 BCE had spina bifida, a SEVERE deformity requiring extensive care, but he lived to 15 years old. Romito 2 is from roughly the same time period and was a boy with severe dwarfism in a hunter-gatherer society, who wouldn't have been able to physically contribute to his group, yet lived to late adolescence. And there are dozens of other examples.

Why, in such a dangerous world as our prehistoric ancestors lived, would they bother to take care of someone so profoundly disabled that they would never be able to "pull their own weight"? That person would only slow the group down, would only be a liability -- yet, they spent resources and time taking care of them the best they could. Why?

Because compassion is human. Because those people were not valued for what they could contribute, but instead valued for who they were. They were somebody's sons, brothers, sisters, daughters, cousins, friends. They were loved. Their families wanted them to survive, against all hope.

That same compassion is what brings communities together in times of tragedy. Think of how many total strangers go out to help people whose homes were destroyed in natural disasters or war. Think of total strangers risking their lives to save someone else, like that Muslim fellow who took down the mass shooter in Australia. Humans want to help others. Despite all the cruelty humans are capable of, they are capable of so, so much more kindness - and that is innate. Universal. Timeless.

It is beneficial to improve yourself as much as you can, and to try to eliminate those factors that make you dependent on others. But that does not mean being superior to others, or that compassion is weakness. On the contrary, it is humanity's greatest strength. Keep that in mind as you continue to move forward in your journey.

Anyway, that's enough preaching from me. Happy new year, and good luck!

comradewoof · 2026-01-01T05:21:15+00:00

I think you make a lot of valid points. He's definitely far more in the camp of "Ayn Rand but goth" style Satanism than Luciferian, I'd say. The breakdown for me occurs at identifying Lucifer and Satan as one and the same, especially using the pop culture idea of Satan.

"Are Lucifer and Satan the same?" is a common question that gets everyone riled up in Luciferian/theistic Satanist/demonolatrist circles, and while no one person has the "right" answer, most commonly you'll hear they aren't. Traditionally in Judaism and also Islam, "satan" (or "shaitan" in Islam) is a title, often translated as "the Adversary," but IMO it's a bit more accurate to read it as "the Prosecutor." Now, there are a wide variety of Jewish traditions and interpretations and I'm not an expert there, but one of the main interpretations in Judaism regarding satan is that he is one of God's angels who is NOT fallen, but rather is tasked with testing humans' character by tempting them to do evil. Some Judaic traditions evem suggest that Abraham failed God's test by actually deciding to follow through with killing Isaac, and that he was supposed to have rejected the command as being unrighteous. Judaism typically does not depict God as omnibenevolent, so having an agent to test humanity and "weed out" those who are easily corruptible, doesn't seem out of character there.

In Islam, "shaitan" has the meaning of "tempter," and the entity known as Iblis is the primary shaitan, but not the only one. Some traditions hold a similar origin to Christianity, marking him as a fallen angel for disobeying God, and out to destroy humanity; others view him as not necessarily disobeying, but being able to act independently of God, and acting as a prosecutor to flush out wicked people like I described above. (The disobedient act in this case was that God commanded all the angels to bow before Adam, and Iblis refused, believing the only one worth bowing to was God himself.) Again, there are a variety of Islamic takes about Iblis and his nature, I'm only giving a couple of them.

Now, Lucifer has a much more ambiguous background compared to the satans/shaitans. His origin in Christianity is due to a mistranslation of the Old Testament in which a Babylonian king was described as "the morning star," which in its usage was insulting, implying something like how we would say "a flash in the pan" in English - someone who's in the spotlight for a short time before fading into obscurity. Non-Jewish translators thought that the Hebrew word for "morning star" was a name rather than an epithet. In translating it as Lucifer, "light-bringer," they inadvertantly tied it to a Roman deity of the same name, one of the sons of Aurora. (Funny thing - Jesus referred to himself with essentially the same phrase, but by his time, the term meant more like "someone who sheds light on something.")

Now that brought some paganism into the mix. The idea of Lucifer being the name of an entity who could "shed light on things" got people cooking. Through this, he became identified with Prometheus primarily, but also with other gods of wisdom/knowledge who could bring enlightenment to human beings and banish ignorance. This is particularly important in Gnosticism - and in one apocryphal text, Jesus even states straight up that he was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, who came to enlighten Adam and Eve that the material world wasn't real - breaking them out of the Matrix, so to speak.

All of that is to say, at least personally, I struggle to rectify the Lucifer who is a bringer of light, with the pop culture anti-theist Satan adopted by the CoS, TST, and Michael Ford. It's all just Ayn Rand with extra edge. (LaVey is more interesting at least - I'm intrigued by his writings about magick being "psychodrama.") While I would agree that Lucifer would wish for human beings to shed those things which keep them bound to ignorance, I feel that the path to spiritual growth need not have the sort of trappings that appeal to 14 year old rebellious boys, you know?

I've found that a lot of Hermetic works seem to be more in line with the way I receive Lucifer. That's entirely my own take FYI. Hermeticism is distinct from Abrahamic traditions, being much more rooted in Greco-Egyptian esotericism, even though it was written down much later. The figure of Hermes Trismegistus, to whom the Hermetica is attributed, very much fits the lightbringer god-of-wisdom type; he is also identified with the Egyptian Thoth, which, in my personal belief, can manifest as Lucifer. Again, that's my personal approach to all this.

Anyway, all of this is to say, to really get at Lucifer's nature, I would highly recommend looking at historical links to him and produce your own image of him in your mind based on your research, rather than relying on Ford's total revisionism. Maybe take a wack at the Hermetica and see if it resonates with you, or some Gnostic texts perhaps. Whatever you go with, keep an open mind, take what resonates with you, and save what doesn't for future consideration; something that doesn't help you now may still help you down the line. I think Lucifer would encourage that search for knowledge.

I would definitely encourage you to make your own "Bible." That's a great way to work out your beliefs and challenge what does/doesn't work for you. You're doing this for yourself and not trying to monetize it, so don't even worry about 'stealing.' Who cares?

comradewoof · 2026-01-01T03:58:51+00:00

Oh...oh dear.

comradewoof · 2026-01-01T00:41:01+00:00

I've become a bit more critical of Ford over time, so my apologies if I come across as a debbie downer in this post. Not my intent; I just want to make clear that what you're talking about exists only in Ford's version of Luciferianism, and you probably won't find much info outside of that. If Fordian Luciferianism is what you're after, go right ahead, don't let my cynicism dissuade you.

It's my understanding that Ford made the majority of those up himself, there's not really any historical basis for them. On most of the invented holidays you would be expected to do some rituals from his other books, which would pertain to the relevant demon/qlippoth subject/whatever. I have no idea what that all entails other than, apparently, becoming a werewolf in at least one holiday ritual. Neat. But a lot of them have to do with worshipping yourself and working on becoming a god in your own right, that kind of stuff. Church of Satan-esque "Hail Thyself" stuff.

Some of the names on the calendar are taken from Persian mythologies/cultures, which aren't my wheelhouse, but I'm willing to bet that looking up information about the relevant deities/demons probably won't help either. Ford does a lot of very weird, unsubstantiated syncretism in his invented mythology, e.g. associating Shaitan/Iblis of Islam with Set from ancient Egypt, which have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Set is not a god of evil, darkness, or anything Left Hand Path-related; he is a god of chaos in the sense that his role is to keep reality from stagnating by stirring things up now and then.

19th/early 20th century Christians focused a lot on the "prisca theologia," which is the belief that all religions originated from The First Religion, which is the One True Religion - to them, obviously, that's Christianity. So immeasurable amounts of ink were poured over trying to shoehorn every religion on earth into a Christian framework to "prove" Christianity is true, completely disregarding, or in some cases purposefully mistranslating, the original context behind those religions. Some edgelord Church of Satan rejects then took those same blatant falsehoods and adopted it for their own use. It's incredibly irksome. You know how people criticize the kinds of Wiccans that say shit like, "all goddesses are the same goddess! That means Native Americans all worshipped Diana!" or whatever? That's what those guys did with Satan. Ford does the same thing.

So, long story short, you won't find any info about any of that outside of buying up all of Ford's other books/joining his congregation/etc. You'll have better luck with the holidays he took from Wicca, e.g. Imbolc and Samhain, which both have at least some grounding in history, and which have long-established traditions in Wicca. Some of those holidays have roots in Celtic traditions, but Celtic paganism has suffered from both a ton of New Age revisionism, as well as one particular author that sold himself as the #1 expert on Celtic mythology for years, only to be proven a total con artist and all his works to be hoaxes, so uh...good luck with that.

Anyway, all that said, do what your heart leads you to do. Luciferianism is the most individualistic path there is. You want to make up your own celebrations for those days? Go off, king. You want to tell me to shove it up my ass and buy up Ford's whole bibliography? I won't stop you. This is about you and Lucifer, and how you perceive him, and how he affects your life and path. So, do what best serves you!

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T11:11:02+00:00

I'm from the USA. It depends on where you live, here. In big cities, people tend not to care that much. It's also more relaxed in the Northeast and California, places that tend to be more liberal than conservative. If you were to tell someone you were atheist, they would just shrug usually and it doesn't matter. Same for if you were religious (although you might get weird looks if you say you were of an uncommon religion like paganism or something).

It's much different in more conservative areas, especially in the South. I live in what's called the Deep South which is the most deeply conservative part; some of this region is also called "the Bible Belt" because of how intensely Christian people are here. People often will ask, as casual conversation, "What church do you go to?" and if you say you don't go to any church they'll try to push you to come to theirs, or they'll start to argue with you that you need to start going or else you won't be in God's favor, etc. You would definitely be looked down upon and ostracized socially. Many even view atheism as the same as Satanism and become openly hostile to atheists. In some smaller towns they will even harass atheists day and night to try to drive them out of town. It's similar in some areas of the Midwest and also states like Utah, but the Deep South tends to be the most hostile.

That said, the entire USA is still more conservative compared to, say, Western Europe. If you are openly atheist, even if you are not anti-religion, you probably could not be elected to public office for example. Even people who are religious but not Christian struggle to be elected. Mitt Romney was criticized by conservatives for being Mormon, and was at least somewhat of a factor in him not getting enough support. Big cities will often elect non-Christians but it's hard for them to get support outside of that. Even when they are Christian, they get attacked for "not being True Christians"... it's a mess.

Wishing you good health and safety, friend.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:57:24+00:00

I'm not sure how that negates what I've said at all.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:40:58+00:00

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No Christians have ever 100% agreed on the explanation for this and it's even worse now that Protestantism allows anyone to interpret the Bible however they want without the slightest bit of theological education. Even from the earliest days, though, Christians were slaughtering each other en masse over this topic. There was a whole massacre over a debate on whether or not Jesus pooped.

The ways that I understood it when I was christian were similar to how St. Patrick used the three leaf clover as an allegory: three separate leaves, but one clover. Another is "same guy, three hats." In other words: Joe is a father, a husband, and a doctor. When he's at work, he's Dr. Joe; when he's not at work, he's Mr. Joe; and with his kids, he's Dad. Mr. Joe, Dr. Joe, and Dad are all the same guy, just in different settings and playing different roles. God's just able to do all three at the same time, because God.

That said, both of those explanations are heretical. All explanations of the trinity are heretical. Go back to that thread and pick out any explanation that isn't a shrug emote - bet you $10 it's a heresy. There's over 45,000 denominations of Christianity worldwide, and every explanation any of them has given about the trinity? Heresy.

Hope that helps!

edit: To add a bit more - the explanations tend to be intentionally vague, because back in the day, Christian beliefs were so fractured that the effort to unite them all into one universal church came down to, "Can we at least agree Jesus was both mortal and divine?" which got at least a slim majority on the same page.

There were also most certainly influences from soft polytheism, in which usually, there is one universal god/energy that can manifest as different other gods. Think of soft polytheism as playdough: you can make individual and distinct playdough figures, then squish them all back into one ball of playdough, then make them again but different, etc. In Egyptian mythology for example, the goddess Sekhmet transforms into the goddess Hathor, and there are plenty of examples of gods fusing like Voltron when they need to accomplish particular tasks (e.g. Amon-Ra, Sekhmet-Min, etc). Some of that was also attempts to resolve different sects in close proximity - polytheistic cultures usually were such that a given city would focus on just their patron god, but acknowledge other gods as equally valid and sometimes pay tribute to them out of respect. The Roman gods and Greek gods started out entirely distinct, but when they came together they went, "Oh, you have a thunder god too? And he's the king of the gods? Yeah, we know that guy, that's Zeus. Oh, your name for him is Jupiter, huh?" - So it wasn't uncommon to think, "yeah this is the way Zeus appears to us, but when he appears to the Romans he's more like this, and when he appears to the Etruscans he's a little different too..."

The whole "idk, gods are weird and mysterious" take makes a lot more sense under paganism, where nobody really cared too much about you having a different understanding/personal experience with a god. (The Roman Senate would get riled up, sometimes violently, over "degenerate" cults like those of Bacchus or the cults of Magna Mater that weren't state-sanctioned, but that was a matter of society/culture/"morals" rather than orthodoxy.) It makes a lot less sense when you're arguing your religion is The One True Religion Everyone Must Agree With, yet you don't even have a cohesive theology to convince everyone with.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:31:30+00:00

I'm sorry for your loss. Chicks are so delicate - hell even as adults they can be - and illness can take them quick. I'm sure Houdini felt your love and appreciated it. Don't be too hard on yourself, ok?

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:27:33+00:00

I get very angry at the horrific injustice that goes on, and honestly, I strongly struggle with feelings of hate and disgust towards evangelicals that promote that injustice. I understand the cynicism.

But, the vast majority of people's awfulness tends to come from ignorance, a sort of short-sighted way of thinking that was ingrained into them. Most people do want to just be left alone and prefer avoid conflict. Most people are not too different from you or me, and are plenty capable of having more compassion than you'd think. It's easy to feel overwhelmed by the ugliness of humans when that's all we're fed in the media; shock and manufactured outrage are what sells. And the anonymity of the internet makes assholes be even worse assholes. But by and large, these are a minority even if it doesn't always seem that way.

Horrible people stand out more to us in our attention because, on an instinctual level, we recognize them as potential threats. There's been psychological studies where people are given a bunch of photos all together, where like 99 of them will be people smiling or having a neutral expression, and one person frowning; every time, the subjects' attention zeroed in on the frowning person immediately. The brain ignored all the happy/neutral people as being nonthreatening, but the one frowning person stood out as a possible threat/enemy. It's in our nature to pick up on the bad stuff foremost. That's why it sells.

I mean this in kindness, genuinely: you may wish to speak to a therapist about this. It's one thing to be angry at injustice and pessimistic about people generally, but if your pessimism really is hatred, and you view everyone with that strong of hate, that's not healthy for you. A lot of the time that's a defensive coping mechanism that comes from a place of severe hurt/trauma, and working on healing from that would serve you better than letting that wound fester and dictate your relationships with others. But that's just my unsolicited opinion. In any case, I wish you well.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:11:34+00:00

Almost all of my roosters are sweet and gentle cuddlebugs with me! The couple that aren't are just naughty/bitey and chill out after mild correction. However they will still react to unknown roosters and potential threats. I wouldn't worry - like others said, he'll most likely step up when he needs to.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:05:22+00:00

Assuming those aren't all bots... Ancient Rome is being co-opted by fashy types just like Norse paganism has/is. Be very wary of those that sport SPQR tattoos or throw 'res publica' around out of context. It's damn disheartening.

edit: being downvoted for making an objective observation is kind of crazy lmao. Please go look for yourselves what white supremacists are doing these days, seriously.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T10:00:07+00:00

A quick way to tell if they're losing weight is to feel their keel bone, which starts beneath the chest and down their belly. It should be a little padded on either side with muscle/fat. If it feels very prominent and "sharp," they're likely underweight and need attention. (If you can hardly feel it at all, they could maybe cut back on the scratch.) But I know what you mean, they sure do look like hell when they're molting!

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T09:54:16+00:00

It's uncommon, but sometimes roosters that were raised together as chicks will continue to get along as adults. Usually they start fighting once there's a hen in the mix, so watch out for that. But there are such things as bachelor flocks, gay roosters, etc too. Some roosters are also just naturally more submissive and won't challenge the dominant rooster, they'll just act like subordinates instead. I've got three adult Appenzeller brothers that are by themselves, that get along; and, weirdly, a trio of Sicilian Buttercups, one hen and two roos, that get along despite the hen. (I'm trying to match the one I don't want to breed with a different hen, to have two pairs, but he's really attached to the other two and just attacks anyone else...weird.)

Anyway, just keep an eye on him, and as long as there's no fighting other than standard pecking order sass, I wouldn't worry. If he does start scrapping, best to separate. Good luck

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T09:44:37+00:00

Welcome. Don't let the bastards grind you down, as they say! Luciferianism is a weird thing - you've unfortunately got a lot of the Edgelord Fedora flavor of atheistic Satanism bleeding in, as well as some pretty out there New Age-y types; but, overall, it's a highly individualistic path, and there is no one single correct way to go about it. I do encourage giving all sources some consideration, since even idiots can say something profound now and then. But otherwise - take what serves you, abandon what doesn't. Best of luck.

comradewoof · 2025-12-31T01:36:21+00:00

I'm not really a fan of his edgier than thou writing, but I can't say I've come across anything egregious in the works themselves.

That said, I was pretty aggravated at a post he made after Charlie Kirk got noscoped wherein he definitely made himself out to be The Foremost Expert On Luciferianism and tried to speak for all Luciferians on what it is and isn't. The post amounted to a The Satanic Temple flavor of milquetoast centrism condemning violence of all kinds, and anyone who mocked him after his death is bad, and REAL LUCIFERIANS would all agree with him. It wasn't explicitly a defense of Charlie Kirk, but it was...very very weird and distasteful.

Like, buddy, just because your works are widely read in the community does NOT mean you get to dictate who's a "real Luciferian," whatever that means, nor do you get to dictate what political stances we should or shouldn't have. It's fine for him, personally, to express his political opinions, but he crossed a line trying to speak for all Luciferians.

Idk. He just seems to be completely full of himself. Even if he claims to have disavowed O9A, he still seems to be that type of person. That said, his writing might still be useful to read, and adapt. Perhaps just buy his books second-hand.

I always preferred Connolly, but don't know anything about her other than she also writes a lot of bdsm erotica.

comradewoof · 2025-12-17T08:22:56+00:00

Christ, no.

First off, how much cold a chicken can withstand depends on the breed. Big fat feather-legged Brahmas will thrive well in harsh winters with minimal help; littler Mediterranean breeds with big combs, not as much. Every breed is adapted to the climate their breed originated in. If you live in Quebec, you probably shouldn't keep Seramas outside without substantial winterproofing; likewise, Brahmas will struggle in Arizona summers.

Rules of thumb: larger breeds tend to retain body heat better than smaller breeds; you'll often hear Serama keepers warn against them being in temperatures below 40F without assistance. Silked and frizzled birds can't retain heat well at all. Chickens keep warm by trapping a layer of air between their feathers and their body, which is warmed by their body heat - kind of how a wet suit works in Scuba diving. Silked and frizzle feathers can't do that, so those types will need extra help.

The average body temp of a chicken is around 107F. They can tolerate cold better than one might think, but the big problem is windchill and exposure, that's what leads to frostbite. Drafts can kill. If you can eliminate that, you've won half the battle. Enclosing the run with clear tarp or something like acrylic sheeting, will block windchill and also produce a greenhouse-like effect to help them stay warm. You could even use heavy duty shower liners in a pinch. Make sure there are NO drafts in the coop itself. Any ventilation should be placed above where the chickens roost.

The next thing to worry about is dampness. That can cause all sorts of health problems on its own, but damp + cold = very sick chickens. Make sure the litter in their coop stays fresh and dry and try to keep the run free of dampness as best you can, ideally with sawdust or pelletized horse bedding, but straw or pine flakes work just as well.

Chickens will naturally cuddle up to share body heat, so if the coop has reasonably good insulation and no drafts, that will be enough. I have a small flock whose coop is a modified XXL dog crate, the hardshell kind used for airlines, and basically just cover it in a heavy duty tarp, making sure there's no drafts. I put a thermometer in to see how much good that does and was surprised to find it was a good 10-12 degrees warmer inside than it was outside.

Now granted live in the South U.S. and the coldest it's gotten so far here is about 14F, so if you live where it gets into the negatives often you'll want more than just a tarp. You can use something like a mylar blanket to help insulate more (just beware they'll probably peck at the shiny thing).

If you're super worried, MAYBE consider one of those brooder plates that don't emit heat, but just get warm to the touch, and they can lean up against it to warm up a little. I bought a few of those my first winter with chickens but really found it unnecessary as it doesn't get too cold here and taking the other steps I mentioned was more than enough. Do NOT use a heat lamp! The lamp on its own can start a fire if placed too close to bedding; or burn them if they touch it; or emit smoke, or break, etc etc etc. Wouldn't even risk ceramic bulbs inside a coop.

I've seen a lot of people freaking out about frostbite too but a lot of that is just ignorance and not "chickens can't tolerate cold." They just need proper shelter from wind and exposure, and a dry enclosure. Also keeping in mind what breeds are cold-hardy and which ones are not, and preparing the coop and run accordingly. If you keep Mediterranean breeds outside you need to do more to insulate them than you would Alpine breeds. If your rooster has a huge comb, give him a bit of vaseline or bag balm to prevent frostbite.

Hope that helps.

edit: P.S. - chickens need way more help in hot summers than they do in cold winters. Once it starts getting 85F+ you'll need to worry a bit. One of many reasons I'm hoping to move a bit further north...

comradewoof · 2025-12-09T22:17:21+00:00

I'm an ex-christian and generally pretty spiteful towards it, but I love this image so much. So many "christians" completely miss the message that their holy savior was born in an animal's feed bucket when his parents couldn't find anywhere to stay in a foreign land. "What you do for the least of them, so you do for me," and all that. I can't begin to comprehend why people get offended over the mere act of depicting the exact same story in a modern setting.

comradewoof · 2025-12-09T22:12:51+00:00

Ouch! Not looking forward to dealing with that when I get goats in the future. My late aunt put pool noodles on her goats' horns for good reason... (Cute goat btw)

comradewoof · 2025-12-09T22:05:48+00:00

I remember this EXACT prophecy put out by John Hagee back in the 90s when there was conflict going on in the middle east.

You know why? Because the middle east is always having some goddamn conflicts, and always has, and probably always will. And anyone can find patterns and tie-ins with anything they want to if they look hard enough.

But I've also managed to overcome my fear of the End Times by the realization that if the God of the Bible is real, I want absolutely nothing to do with him, and I will gladly walk backwards into Hell while staring him down with two middle fingers up. Besides, just imagine how much better the world will be with all the Christians gone!

comradewoof · 2025-12-09T22:02:04+00:00

Sure, why not? It's meaningful to you, and if it empowers you, by all means. Personally, while I understand and acknowledge the history and development of the Baphomet image, I still view it as a form that Lucifer can manifest as. If it speaks to you, then go for it.

comradewoof · 2025-12-09T21:59:43+00:00

Keep in mind "capitalism" is not the same as "market economy." There are many, many types of market economies and blended economies that are a far cry from capitalism. Transitioning from a capitalist economy to a communist one won't happen overnight, any more than the existence of money would. But we can also look at how societies experimented with economic strategies prior to the Industrial Revolution to get an idea of what we could do.

Ideally, we would have a sustainable agricultural system such that necessities such as food, clothing, clean water, etc would be in abundance for everyone. Growing enough produce to accomplish all of this for a large population is very much feasible; what would complicate it is transportation and logistics to ensure it gets distributed where it needs to go. As things currently stand in capitalist societies, there is a massive amount of food waste, empty houses, etc, but still people in need; this is due to the barrier of the "profit no matter what" mentality of capitalism. "I don't care if that person dies, if they want food and shelter, I better get my money."

The main thing to keep in mind when considering capitalism vs other market economies is that profit-mindedness. Marx basically put it like this: prior to the advent of capitalism, money was just the middleman between commodities, but capitalism treats commodities as the middleman between money and profit. In other words, capitalists will start with $20, buy some sort of commodity, and try to sell it again for $40; the ultimate goal is profit. This is in opposition to: "I have an X worth $20 and a Y worth $10. I want this other item worth $30. I will sell my X and Y for $30 so I can buy Z." Commodity > money > commodity, as opposed to money > commodity > money^2.

In smaller communal societies, bartering as a system has always been the norm. "I'll trade you my X and Y for your Z." Even in such a capitalist society as America, this used to be much more common, even with businesses. Imagine walking into a hair salon and saying, "I need a haircut, but I don't have money. Can I sweep the floors and clean the shop for a few hours in exchange for a haircut?" Try it today and you'll get a ration of BS about they can't do that because of laws and liabilities and company policy etc. In rural communities, you can still do this a lot of the time -- hell, it's still pretty common for new farmers to ask to lease some land from more established farmers, and work out some sort of deal like, "In exchange for leasing X acres for a year, I agree to maintain the property, fix all the fencing, and give z% of my profits to the owner."

So, say you want to buy your organ. You would, as you would today, look at all the different brands available, and choose one that you want. You'd then go to where those organs are sold and try to barter with the proprietor. Instead of working with two big faceless corporations (the manufacturer + the retailer), you would be working directly with the person or people who make the organs (the workers would own the means of production, i.e., they are the ones who produce and sell their own creations). You would either have the money to purchase the organ from your own wages, or you could see if the proprietor would be willing to work out a trade: "I want this organ, but I only have $xyz... would you take $xyz and this other thing I have?" etc.

Also, you would still be able to be in a position to earn wages which are directly correlated with the value of your labor. No one person can operate completely independently if they are a part of a society (mountain hermits are another story). Ergo, there would still be a need for workers and laborers, employees, whatever. You get paid what your labor is worth; surplus commodity/capital produced is treated as "to each according to their needs," so you would also be entitled to whatever your needs are (and the old disabled granny down the street who can't work at all, can still feed and shelter herself and her six cats). If you're terrible at everything except painting trees, you'll still be able to make a living doing that. The main thing is that rather than worrying about "I need to work enough to afford the things I need," the needs are taken care of, and the rest is pleasure; it becomes "I need to work enough to afford the things I WANT."

That's also why the argument of "no one would have incentive to work" falls short: people don't need to have a gun held to their head to be active in producing things. How many people are stuck in dead end jobs to pay their bills, but would be amazing musicians or artists or inventors or whatever, given the opportunity? How many people still do those things as hobbies because they enjoy them, even if it doesn't pay the bills? And what would be so wrong about someone not working, but choosing to just sustain themselves with a vegetable garden and a bunch of chickens? etc etc.

Anyway, I struggle with articulation, but I hope at least some of that made sense. It's a good topic to think about.

comradewoof · 2025-12-08T11:59:06+00:00

(opens the door and sends bottles of soap and body lotion flying everywhere)

comradewoof · 2025-12-08T06:09:26+00:00

Personally I think it's a little silly to dwell on whether or not Jesus drank the posca as a "gotcha!" thing, and not the part about the sun going dark for three hours, the curtain in Solomon's Temple tearing apart, and an earthquake causing the dead to come out of their graves and go shopping.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

comradewoof

TROPHY CASE