Alright enough shitposting for now, hope everyone enjoyed
sigh
deleted by creator
true lol. previous thread was like ‘damn ratto, aru and seanchai are gone, hope they’re okay’
and now this thread is basically just ‘FUCK OFF I HATE YOU GRAAHHHH’
deleted by creator
the sad truth
Communists be like: 100+ comments struggle session under a c/memes post.
With the unexpectedly contentous topic being… dialectical materialism no less.
This thread has run its course and there’s not much left to add so I’m going to exercise an executive move and lock the comments.
In general, I want to reiterate we are not reddit and we don’t tolerate personal attacks against other comrades. I don’t want to start banning people over this but we will if we have to.
We don’t police for every opinion users may have, so the problem is not – from the admin standpoint – that people support or don’t support religion, the problem is how people get that message across.
There’s perfectly reasonable ways to talk about this topic but honestly, if it’s clear your interlocutor is not going to change their mind, then you’re probably better off just dropping the topic.
damn, what a chaotic fuckin thread lol.
Maybe having a cooldown period between successive posts in a single thread ain’t such a bad idea.
It’s definitely chaotic. But hey, people will espouse whatever they want according to the “theory” people wrote I suppose.
The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.
Oh, no, comrade, you forgot your fedora and katana, which is given to us by the central committee of satanic homosexuality cabinet, which is a requisite of being atheist. Also, we should remember that the good atheist is the one that empowers religion and serves it, and never voices out for their own interests and their companions.
Good lord is it a warzone in the comments
It’s funny, because full idealist bullshit of theistic utopia still has sacerdots and kings as ruling class, which is even more backwards than even capitalism by even Marx’s standards BUT OKAY.
Comrade, I will have to ask that you please calm down in discussions regarding religion. We’re not Reddit, and we work hard to foster an accepting and generally chill atmosphere on lemmygrad. Aside from the occasional lib wandering in once in a while, we’re all MLs here and there is no reason to get nasty towards each other.
we’re all MLs here
Well…
Yeah, that’s something that bothers me… If you can’t accept some of the mains aspects of Marxism… Why be one? There’s been always non Marxist branches of communism that ain’t Materialist.
deleted by creator
I have the appointment scheduled by Wednesday, Screamy
Well marxism is certainly not the only socialism (and by damn definition diffuse even communism stopped meaning “strictly marxist” at some point), but as pointed out by Lenin in “Materialism and Empiriocriticism” all others are idealist. And even “almost” materialist revision attempts like machism leads to opportunism, even though that philosophical core might seem very distant and unimportant to average communist.
Yeah, well, you described pretty much too what’s going on with religiousness staining Marxism, to take it away from Materialism
Religion has not stained Marxism one bit. You’re just being straight up reactionary. Go to r/Atheism if you wanna circlejerk.
“no you 😭😭😭😭😭😭”
You meant this comment as an example to tone down, or this thread in general, tho?
Yes the thread in general; I just picked the first comment I found to reply to.
Thanks for the clarification
I like the username.
Are you the “Religion Recovery” guy that I’m mutuals with on Twitter?
No, I’m not, comrade. I quitted Twitter long ago now.
And thanks for the support. Here there are a lot of people who aren’t physically able to read Lenin about religion even calling themselves ML, and even pretend that ancient history didn’t happened,so this is fresh air.
Thanks! Yeah, finally, someone that actually is consistent with Marxism and its anti-theism and anti-religionism.
Care to share your story?
I would love, but I will be called “bigot” for not being a real one against people being in actual danger by precisely this “comrades” that try really hard to keep the sacerdotal class in power without realizing(I hope).
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
All socialist nations are revisionist except for Albania (They enforced state atheism) and the Soviet Union during Lenin /j
Which ones require people to go full reddit atheism and spit on old ladies for being religious?
if you wanna be this frank… Nobody doing this here? I don’t see any old ladies here. I see people pretending to be marxists while denying basic core of marxism which is dialectical materialism and trying to shut up the marxists with wild projections of “reddit atheism”.
deleted by creator
You seems to missed the target of your post and started quite rudely at me.
deleted by creator
I guess we both have our exceptions then.
deleted by creator
Yes he does, which i try not to despite your post here being aggressive to me.
Multiple posts about religion relation to marxism are downvoted so unless those are bots we do have people thinking that religion do belong not only in communism, but in marxism. It might do belong in some primitive or anarchist communism, but i don’t want to have anything to do with such cultish version. That ended with scientific socialism.
Why do you think you get to state what the core of Marxism is?
This is silliest thing i read in a long time. As i noted, every successful communist party seems to rather agree with me than with you and with our resident fideists here.
On a base of works of such nonimportant reddit atheists like Marx, Engels and Lenin. Surely you did read such fringe pamphlets like “Anti-Duhring” or “materialism and Empiriocriticism”? Even in the very article which states that the communist party should not “spit on the old ladies” and with which i repeatedly agreed, Lenin goes absolutely straight about it, coming out as “reddit atheist” i guess:
The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion
deleted by creator
Every account here is from the home team.
This is what i had doubts about in GenZedong too. Problem goes like that: if the very base of marxism is so casually misunderstand or openly denied, this is not the same team as in “marxist” team. This is ML space, not big tent, i would expect people maybe arguing about finer points, new challenges and interpretations (especially according to material conditions, as ML’s should) but not its absolute core principle.
You keep making arguments that religion doesn’t belong in communism (which I agree with and haven’t said I don’t) while you’re glossing over the interpersonal issues.
You just admitted to downvoting me because you had personal issue with my comment. Good to know you agree with meritum. From my r/GZ experience, you just could not criticize religions there without flock of people dogpiling you and saying nonsenses like (actual quote) “you cannot be marxist without being religious” - so maybe i’m overreating, but when i saw the amount of downvotes on even the dryest statements - it’s the same look. At least people in comments here are on better level (except maybe one)
Actual communism is party work
Both. Work without theory or with wrong one is also erroneous and will lead to nowhere, as proven multiple times. Where i did negated need for party work? I even linked you Lenin article where he says just this.
Sorry, I forgot that I should lick the boots of the religious institutions, serve them, or I would be granted with a fedora and a katana.
deleted by creator
Wait, let them answer
deleted by creator
I will not give the name of the party I’m on, like, wtf, AFTER ALL THIS!?
I told you, after Wednesday. And I was not being ironic.
Real talk:
Religion is bad.
And I think communists shouldn’t be so tolerant of it; we concede too much to other communists who are religionists.
Religion is not inherently bad. It can be a progressive cause in certain instances. Second Thought did a great video on that topic. Anti-theism on the other hand, is a reactionary position, as it ignores materialism, and dialectics.
I am an atheist by the way, so don’t call me out.
Also the alt right is full of atheists, and they aren’t progressive in the slightest.
And many feminists are also terfs or reactionary as fuck. Under your constant rule of three, sexism must be protected at all cost too. You’ve been called out already.
Hey man, you might wanna take a break and stop putting words in my mouth. I get you are emotionally invested but calm down, jesus christ (no pun intended)
Nice touch poisoning the well, but it was a rational thought what made me realize that religion are not to keep safe if we want to achieve communism.
But nothing to be impressed to use this sort of tactics against a crític when you’ve been also non stopped using soecial pleadings and ignoring fucking literally history to defend your point. How does it feel to make you understand the gravity of what you are saying? Hitting the cognitive dissonance, or still not?
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
You know the thread is getting heated when the tankie reply bot is getting downvoted.
Lmao, innocent passing robot tank caught in crossfire
Lmao, even the poor bot!?
Second Thought’s video was pretty weak.
How the fuck is reactionary a concept labeled by Anarchists and continued by Marx and Lenin, which confronts worldviews that are the most contrary form of Dialectics and Materialism!? Nice poisoning the well to precisely protect at all costs the FIRST and OLDEST form of classism, idealism, and reaction since its bare conception as being the opposite of what it is! BRAVO! CHAPÓ!
Anti-theism is reactionary because most people who pose as anti-theists “MLs” (specifically Hoxhaists as Hoxha banned religion) don’t see that people are still religious. They also pose that the religion is always reactionary from the very start, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. (That second thought video). The existence of religion fits well within the dialectics of nature.
I would like to bring one counter-point which shows that religion would still exist in a socialist society. And one counter-point that not everything in religion is reactionary. Stalin allowed the autonomous region of Dagestan to adopt Sharia:
We are told that among the Daghestan peoples the Sharia is of great importance. We have also been informed that the enemies of Soviet power are spreading rumours that it has banned the Sharia. I have been authorized by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic to state here that these rumours are false. The Government of Russia gives every people the full right to govern itself on the basis of its laws and customs. The Soviet Government considers that the Sharia, as common law, is as fully authorized as that of any other of the peoples inhabiting Russia. If the Daghestan people desire to preserve their laws and customs, they should be preserved.
So, your only defense is that banning religion is bad because reactionaries will react. OH WOW AND STILL YOU CAN’T SEE IT. The only valid excuse is “if you outright bann this at the get go, reactionaries will react, it needs tact, like you discussed below”, or “think like the Communists + ROC in China when fighting against the Japanese”. Or something like that, but no, you still prefer to not understand why is it that Lenin condemned religion even more than I do.
Also, again, no. Religion to be progressive needs and demands to rupture the three omnigod concept, to rupture “universal truths” and many, many more shit it has already. Buddhism defends that women are inferior and that bad Karma will literally make you reincarnate in lower classes. Abrahamism as a whole is… Have you ever fucking read any sacred text, to begin with? Religion is by nature reactionary because it’s rooted in traditions and alleged eternal unmutable powers that must be continued or “humanity doomed”, and WILL ALWAYS BECOME REACTIONARY the same way Capitalism could be seen as progressive… COMPARED WITH FEUDALISM. But sure, some video has the universal truth, nice cultist behavior.
Third. “muh human nature”. Really? This is another argument? The fact that we as an species developed a neurology from our primate ancestors THAT MAKES US SEE SHIT THAT IT ISN’T THERE?
You know what’s also “human nature”? Drug abuse, hormone abuse(being addict to serotonine, oxitocine, etc, nothing to do with transitioning), habits in general, like slacking off, or dangerous behavior. Is “muh human nature” excuse enough for letting drugs, sexual slavery, being lazy or a cheater, alcohol abuse, etc, etc, etc run wild without any control nor trying to eradicate problems derived from taking profit from this? Why not, bro? They will get angry too!
So, your only defense is that banning religion is bad because reactionaries will react.
I never said that. There can be reactionary people in religion. Those reactionary people must be purged. But not people who believe in religion as a whole. They can (and usually are) progressive.
you still prefer to not understand why is it that Lenin condemned religion even more than I do.
Source? Also Stalin clearly allowed religion within the USSR. Does that mean he’s a revisionist now?
Religion to be progressive needs and demands to rupture the three omnigod concept, to rupture “universal truths” and many, many more shit it has already.
For religion to be progressive, it must cause an advancement in some way towards a communist or Socialist mode of production. Religion definitely fits this category. You seem to have more a Liberal definition.
Religion is by nature reactionary because it’s rooted in traditions and alleged eternal unmutable powers that must be continued or “humanity doomed”
It looks like you never read the sacred texts yourself. Curious.
Also I don’t really care about your rambling at the end as it is nothing but strawmanning.
“Source?”
My guess is that their source is Lenin’s “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” but it would be much appreciated if @VictimOfReligion can verify. (This reply is also a response to VictimOfReligion)
"The most important thing — and it is this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions.
On the other hand, take a glance at modern scientific critics of religion. These educated bourgeois writers almost invariably “supplement” their own refutations of religious superstitions with arguments which immediately expose them as ideological slaves of the bourgeoisie, as “graduated flunkeys of clericalism”.
The summary goes that we should know how to get the masses to question religion (and especially its structural form) in an intelligent manner (as opposed to the Liberal’s form of militant atheism, which handles this issue in a more classist manner and has failed to address the ideological weaponry of the Church which is also used by the ruling class)
However, in his “The Attitude of the Worker’s Party to Religion” he denounces attempts at a “war on religion” (the active and forced suppression of religion) as this would only revive interest in religion and prevent it from really dying out.
“And in 1877, too, in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion, Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring’s pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society. To declare such a war on religion, Engels says, is to “out-Bismarck Bismarck”, i. e., to repeat the folly of Bismarck’s struggle against the clericals (the notorious “Struggle for Culture”, Kulturkampf, i.e., the struggle Bismarck waged in the 1870s against the German Catholic party, the “Centre” party, by means of a police persecution of Catholicism). By this struggle Bismarck only stimulated the militant clericalism of the Catholics, and only injured the work of real culture, because he gave prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck’s folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion.”
[…]
“We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way.”
So yeah. From what I can tell going by what’s going on in these threads, the question of religion seems to be a very divisive topic within Left-wing discourse. (iirc these discussions also existed back in the GZD subreddit prior to its quarantine) I personally believe religion holds us back generally but that doesn’t mean we should immediately dismiss religious socialist movements (i.e. Sandinistas, Gaddafi, Ba’athism, etc.) as long as they are anti-imperialist. (Note: Patsocs, which are also religious “socialists,” are not anti-imperialist as they live in (and support) an imperialist country and thus they never experienced struggle against imperialism. Thus patsocs are undeserving of support)
Once Socialism wins, the decline of religion would be inevitable anyway, as more of the masses find less reason to take the Opium which is religion. Let a drug addict reform by providing them with basic necessities in life and they will no longer find need in the drugs which they used to fill that gap. Take their drugs forcefully instead and you only get an angry drug addict suffering from withdrawal.
ik this is a controversial topic by the looks of it so if I have made any errors and/or misinterpretations feel free to correct me.
You provided a more insightful answer than anything VictimOfReligion provided. This is one of the few arguments that I actually agree with. Thanks for your answer in the midst of a warzone, comrade.
This is how I see it.
I kind of answered this in another thread in this post, if you look further down, which is a condensed and simplofied version of this, but here people think I am for giving religious a taste of their own medicine without even having asked the right questions nor anything else than assumptions while I was speaking only of religions themselves.
Lmao yeah, theocracism is closer to socialism, and I’m using the liberal definiton.
And strawman? You dream, I’m demonstrating to you how your reasoning sounds, oh, by the way, I had to read the Bible four time as a theist, one as a questioning agnostic, and the fifth time was when I understood that the mere Bible is evidence AGAINST Abrahamism. Not to mention the whole three timdza week of having to study Bible related stuff time and time again. Now I see you hold not a bit of an idea about what you are trying to defend nor what I even say, since I never said “prosecute and kill believers” or whatever they had, are, and will do to unbelievers, even being other branches of theism. “cUrIoUs”
Did you really just say “religionists”?
People can have spiritual beliefs apart from the material world y’know. Hell the Global South, which is the most prone to revolution, is deeply religious. Shit like this is what prevents people like Gaddafi from further radicalization.
It’s okay to be religious, and this is coming from a non religious person.
I disagree.
Fuck off, do you know what is called in the phylosophical context “muh spirituality”? IDEALISM. THE OPPOSITE OF MATERIALISM. THEY ARE OPPOSITE. THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MIX, BECAUSE MATERIALISM DENIES SPIRITUALITY, AKA, IDEALISM.
Is it not idealism to suggest that Communists can dismiss religion and religious people in a world where religion is so widespread?
As idealist as dismissing fascism, whip I never said to dismiss, but to educate against as communism educates against monarchism, capitalism, feudalism… And THEOCRACIES. “But mu-” shut up, if religion held no political power, explain Vatican, Meka, Tibet, and all the theocracist power and states ruled in all of history. “but muh spiri-” shut up. Why is it something man made and not free from both materialism and dialectics, forced to be considered special and not be regarded as idealist reactionarism a la socdem, nazbol, etc?
Thank you.
No prob!
"Noooooooooooooo! It doesn’t matter that religion is reactionary idealism!!! It has nothing to do with Dialectical Materialism!!! Marx and Lenin never said anything bad about religion!!! Noooooooo!!! I don’t know what history is!!! I am physically unable to study modern religions unless it is un a vacuum in the most liberal way to do shit noooooooooo!!! "
This alleged ML forum.
Going against religion is undialectical. It presupposes that religion has no inherent change, and that its base is always reactionary and unchanging. Religion has changed, and always will change. It can be progressive, or it can be inherited by reactionaries for the purpose of fulfilling their own reactionary ideology. This is what marxists should oppose. Reactionary people who utilise religion for their own benefit, but not religion itself.
Completely agree, comrade
Okay, why religion gets a free pass when literally socdem, nazol, patsoc, monsoc, etc also exists? Isn’t it “aNtIdIaLeCtICaL” to want a change in the system when its obvious that capitalists ideologies ALSO change? For example, Carlists, (Spanish Imperialists, basically) also portray themselves as something “progressive teehee”, yet we know it can’t be. Or even there are also Gustavo Buenismo, also called “Atheist Catholicism” (an incredibly reactionary bullshit about protecting traditions and cristofascism and whatnot). Isn’t it oximoronic too?
Let me tell you something so you get it: To bent is to be the most reactionary. This is why “Socdem is the soft hand of Fascism” and “Scratch a Liberal and a Fascist bleeds”. Hey, guess what! The soctheo is the soft hand of Theofascism. And scratch a progressive theist, and a bigot fundamentalist bleeds.
why religion gets a free pass when literally socdem, nazol, patsoc, monsoc, etc also exists?
Religion is not an ideology. It is based on faith on a being with certain customs, not political ideas that a person must follow. Also monsoc is a joke ideology, with very few people actually supporting it.
Isn’t it “aNtIdIaLeCtICaL” to want a change in the system when its obvious that capitalists ideologies ALSO change?
Strawman, yet you accuse people of fallacies. Curious. Also you didn’t read anything I wrote. I know the laws of dialectics.
For example, Carlists, (Spanish Imperialists, basically) also portray themselves as something “progressive teehee”
Here’s a quote from Lenin:
Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
Progress isn’t about what you say. Your actions matter more than your intentions. Progress is about advancement. Reactionary is about regression. The spanish imperialists may have been progressive at one point, but they certainly are not nowadays especially since socialist nations exist. You congeal an idea that is based on the rigid structure, yet you concern yourself about dialectics. Curious.
scratch a progressive theist, and a bigot fundamentalist bleeds.
This is fundamentally not true. Let’s take LGBT people as an example. LGBT people are ‘clearly’ progressive according to your definition, so according to statistics, 42% of LGBT people belong in Christianity in the US. Are the LGBT christians now bigot fundamentalists? Some (a small minority) may be. But most of them certainly aren’t. Just because people identify with a religion does not mean it affects their lives on a daily basis. I identify as an atheist. I don’t see this affecting my life in a significant manner. And so many others will follow the same even if they follow a religion or not (for the most part).
not political ideas that a person must follow.
That is literally the case though. Islamic Sharia for example is a political framework for how to run a state Islamically, it also tells individuals how to live their life down to the most minute details. It’s not a separate text, the rulings are compiled from the Quran and Hadith and collectively referred to as Sharia (it literally means law in Arabic). As far as I know, this kind of legal framework exists in some Jewish sects as well as the Old Testament for Christians (the sects that still recognize it as Christian text).
I’m not claiming that those three religions are the only ones to exist but Christianity and Islam are number 1 and 2 respectively on a global scale and they are followed by over 50 percent of the world population source.
So, a man made set of rules, that explain in dogmatic ways how the world and politics must be understood and run, isn’t in any sort an ideology.
Because it can be mixed with “actual ideologies” Good thing people don’t mix ideologies, like Nazism and Socialism even if just trying, and ends being just Nazism with aesthetics… Oh, no, it happens. I wonder what happens with TheoSocialists… Oh no, theocracism with aesthetics.
Dude. Stop. You’re just ignoring history since Mesopotamia while diving in echo chamber attitudes just to keep jerking off with the same people that ain’t able to get shit like why both Marx and Marxists and Anarchists were rabid Anti-Theist.
It’s like saying “oh, no, I know evolution real, but still it’s all creation, aleluya” and see no problem with that.
BTW peope is capable of holding contradictory beliefs, like being even black and a white supremacist, this argument of LGBT people holding to Christianity due to indoctrination says nothing. Christianity at its core is still bigoted, yes.
So, a man made set of rules, that explain in dogmatic ways how the world and politics must be understood and run, isn’t in any sort an ideology.
Religion isn’t an ideology. Religion (especially the larger ones) isn’t made by just one person, but usually a collective of people who have the same faith. They believe in God.
TheoSocialists… Oh no, theocracism with aesthetics.
Stop going to the polcompball political ideologies and actually think for a second. Does that ideology actually exist, if so, does a significant number of people uphold it? “TheoSoc” does not fit either of the categories.
the same people that ain’t able to get shit like why both Marx and Marxists and Anarchists were rabid Anti-Theist.
You think Marx is an anti-theist? Such “schoolboy behaviour” as Marx put it:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Also anarchists are not marxists, and Anarchists are individualists who share nothing alike with Marxism. “MLs” who are anti-theist are not marxist at all, but rather revisionist. Enver Hoxha is one example. Same with the leaders Post-Stalin USSR which banned religion.
BTW peope is capable of holding contradictory beliefs
So every LGBT Christian is a bigot fundamentalist? Good to know that you despise Christianity so much it actually overshadows your opinions on the characteristics of the person because of what they believe in. Also you fallen into the trap of Identity Politics, which is exactly what I feared would happen.
Aren’t religions manmade? Really? Are you saying seriously this? Or, if you refer to individual… Oh, boy, you haven’t heard of Josiah’s reforms in Israel, the birth of the current notion of Abrahamic god…
Religions ARE ideologies, and it has been like this since ancient times. You’re just special pleading nonsense. You have no argument regarding this, only “faith and God”. So? Fascism in Italy and Spain and Portugal was also “faith and god”, they just added patriotism to the equation, being even more similar to when theocracy was implemented in city states of the Crescent Fertile and many other regions.
“theosocialism doesn’t exist!!” well, they go by names such as “theology of liberation”, for example.
Also, nice quote from Marx describing Religions as a palliative drug that is given to people to stop complaining and make their miserable lifes a little more easy to handle, by calling it literally OPIUM, which, I hope you don’t go full apologetic and try to spin it to have a different meaning, which… Have you read the rest of it? About how only after getting rid off religion happens something?
Oh, and I see that Lenin was a revisionist by your own standards, nice bullshit you made there, “comrade”. I’m the revisionist for understanding that religions are manmade ideologies.
Then,you go crying because you ain’t capable of distinguish individuals from ideology, cried “Idpol” when we thought there was consensus on class reductionism, yada yada.
Frankly, it shows how literally you’re all brainwashed by religion to the point you’re doing their job for free.
Yep
Jesus was the first communist, all his teachings and speeches show it, but the church was created by the merchants that Jesus threw out of the temple. Of course they are now the antagonist who uses Jesus nailed to the cross as a company brand.
deleted by creator
Is he wrong though? Render unto Caesar, the croutons and the parmesan.
Render unto Caesar…
“This Romans are crazy”
Sure, but I did have some things in this direction that are consistent with communism. Let’s say he was a proto-communist, maybe if he had read Marx…
Protocommunist. Yeah. That’s why he was into full theocracist, never condemned slavery, wanted women to be subjected, considered non of their own ethnicity to be worthless dogs, spread anti-scientist bullshit and even wanted poor people to give everything they had to the temple, and to wait for the end of the world to come and the paradise was described as a theocracist / monarchist utopia. Also he said again and again how you had to believe in Moses and the “Law”, being Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
Meanwhile, there was Zoroaster, who condemned slavery, being waaaaaaaaaaay more “commmunist” than Jesus, and even the religion is so ancient that Hebrews copied them.
This is what the bible describes, as I said edited and censored by the clergy, much later. None of the current evangeliso was written at the time when such a character lived, all of them date from between 100 and 300 AD. Although the recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls describe this character quite differently, many of these scrolls were therefore immediately removed to the Vatican cellars. What continues to spread was what you describe, but it sure does not coincide with the facts spread by the first Christians, Gnostics, they were even eliminated and persecuted by the church, precisely because they denied its authorship, believing that all humans, whether men or women, they are equal because the same divine spirit reigns in all of them, which requires neither spokespersons nor temples. This naturally was declared as heresy by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, when questioning its existence. The same ones that later set themselves up as the absolute leaders of Christianity, using grossly forged documents (Donatio Constantini) that were later even approved by dictators throughout history, the last Mussolini. That is to say, the church is a monumental fraud from start to finish, a simple instrument of power to keep the people submissive and ignorant, the only proposit.
Regarding ancient Christians, they were not much different from Johnstown, if you search for it…
deleted by creator
It isn’t at all what he said. Read the whole Bible, and compare it to other religions. It’s all about theocracists struggling to maintain power while also being reactionary assholes in comparison to even other religions. Beginning by how the father of Jesus will make every race to be SLAVES of the descendants of Abraham/Jacob, to the “most perfect and loving man ever being the son of God” being a racist ididiotic sexist asshole.
Christians like to pretend Old Testament don’t exist. I wonder what their (reminder: omniscient) god have to say about it?
Oh yeah:
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!” — MATTHEW 5:17-20
The general ideology of putting an end to social injustices was quite clear, although it is clear that in society at that time it could only pretend to move in the margins of the possible and walk on lead feet. Even so, it has been the victim of a tremendously retrograde society with Abrahamic laws and occupied by the Romans in an oppressed society. It is enough to see the ideology of the ultra-orthodox Jews today, which has changed little since then, to know that a drastic change was impossible and would not even have been understood by the population, who already had problems with the few advances that he proposed, as has been shown. Sort of like traveling to a Taliban settlement and promoting the communist manifesto.
Jesus was the first communist
No. Not even in the primitive communism sense, humans lived in communism all the time before class society, there were also things like palace economy which could be considered primitive communism (mostly in decay into monarchy or oligarchy but still at some level), and various religious communes, all before Jesus.
And sure as hell i hope you are not suggesting he was communist in scientific, marxist sense.
Communist or not, Jesus had that crucifixion coming. The antichrist, on the other hand, is based.
Jesus didn’t exist
He existed, just he was you know, a normal human.
We have literally zero evidence of his existence beyond the Bible and literal forgeries. It’s normal to be skeptical about this character, frankly.
Considering how many preachers swarmed I century Judea he was probably made from amalgamation of many of them. I mean even new testament mentions some of them like John the Baptist and there is that very suspicious but pretty logical thing with Barabbas.
Well we don’t know if he had magical powers or something but he existed
(i didn’t downvote u BTW)
We know FOR SURE that if he didn’t had powers, wtf?
aaand im not arguing that, just saying that this guy existed, magical powers or not
Your argued that “we don’t know if magic man was magic”.
I said that a guy that existed 2000 years ago existed, where did I say that he had wizard powers?
There’s no historical evidence of his existence lol
There is sound archaeological proof for his existence, again I’m not arguing that he was a wizard that discovered a duplication cheat or something, But there’s more than enough evidence that he existed
No, there is literaly no proof at all, lt’s go one by one:
-
- Alleged
-
- It’s not even know if he was really jesus brother or thaw was just how he was titled, religious sects love titles like “father, brother, mother etc.”
-
- Assuming it’s really John, which is also doubtful, John is still not Jesus. You could as well argument that because Pilatus was real, therefore Jesus was real?
-
- A house for judaic prayer in judaic town? Definitely proof that certain preacher existed!
-
- Seriously?
-
- Was it signed? How many boats were there in those years?
-
4, 3 and 2. LMAO called it in 8.
-
- Did you even read that article? It’s utter nonsense, way below the usual level of argument for that problem. NONE of that is any proof and the only one that is even possibly linked is point 9 - and that guy is the best existing proof period - which is not up to standard, just as for example alleged sons of Lodbrok are not definitive proof of Ragnar Lodbrok existence.
EDIT: I fucking hate lemmy formatting, i have no idea how to make that look not like shit.
(You can use numbered bullet points. Start a new paragraph with the number and a full stop, e.g. “1.” and delete the hyphen.
- Testing.)
To be fair that article was just an aggregator of sort, here’s more stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
(and just to be clear, I am not arguing that Jesus was a wizard with magical duplication powers, just a guy that existed 2k years ago and probably got crucified, not an uncommon thing at the time)
Still nothing though. The only thing really confirmed it that christians in second half of I century in Rome believed in his existence, which was half century from his death and half of known world from the place.
Also the article in wiki is incredibly biased, starting from “Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.” which is blatantly false, unless they asked only evengelical USA fanatics, by which this article is cleraly written, and then include super nonsense like “nuclei of truth” in testimonium flavianum, which is commonly agreed to be completely false by, this time for real, all serious scholars which are not fanatical christians. And so on and on and on. They even list their methodogy which is basically theology, not history research. I’m not even mentioning logic like “John existed so the NT says the truth here, so it’s all true” which is such a poor fallacy.
No proof at all, only conjectures, fallacies and lies.
-
I see a lot of “it’s possible” and “it’s believed” but none of that looks like crdible historical evidence, by any scholars
I would not at all be surprised If there was some dude in Rome who preached for poor people and against imperialism, who ended up on a cross and as the basis for a religion, and an important figure in others.
There is a theory that Jesus and Barabbas was one and the same person. I like to think this is true, because not only he would be way more based then, but it also resolves literally all the ahistorical nonsenses and improbablities of the trial.
Yeah, this happened many times, but Jesus never said anything against imperialism, nor being a revolutionary. The character was about obeying rulers, for slaves to not rebel against masters, to women be subject to their husbands, and patiently wait for the end of the world… 2000 years ago.
Tacitus wasn’t really fond of Christians, Yet his reference to christ is one of the first in the known history
And yet again, to make my point even clearer, I ain’t saying that Crist was a druid with magical wizard powers, for all I know he was just a guy with a following.
It only talks about the Christians, and where are the evidences from that text?
It’s only people talking about Christians and forgeries. You’re right on this.
This is just bullshit and catholic tradition… Manhattan is real, does this make Spider-Man real? Hey! A bunch of scrapped iron! This is for sure Dr. Octopus remains!.. Dudee…
Appeals to tradition, non sequitur and even “documents” that even have as “fact” the literal resurrection of thousands… Riiiiiiight.
It is not known, at least not as described in the Bible many years later, edited by the Curie to fit their dogma. Although if there were some at this time who were leading the resistance against the Roman occupation, I could have been one of them perfectly, ending badly like everyone who wanted to change the depraved system throughout history.
There was no one to fit the Biblical description of Jesus, who you called “protocommunist”, to fit any description of a historical Yeshua that was a revel.
Also, it’s literally called Jesus because some prophecy of a Yeshua that was shoehorned in the narrative, so if it was ever some real man (probably as real as Mythra or Hercules or Moses) it wasn’t even called Jesus.
I think that was a joke
I hope so.
If it was I didn’t get it, I’m autistic 🤷🏿♂️
It wasn’t, comrade. And I’m autist too lol.
Victim of Abrahamic laws!? What the fuck are you talking about?! WHAT IS THIS ANTISEMITIC NONSENSE!?
Where the fuck do you think even the name of Jesus comes!? Or the alleged fact of him being the Messiah!? Or the fact that he is non stop saying that he came to fulfill the law of Moses, which people thought at the time to be Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and even said that you had to literally believe what Moses said, which was fucking Genesis having to take it literally.
