/edu/ - Education

>>22527
There's still literally no evidence for the existence of god though

>>22529
the same thing was taught by Marx, Mao, and Lenin and they actually existed

That's very interesting and all but Liberation Theology is virtually dead and the single biggest religious force in Latin America right now is the radical, reactionary and pro-Zionist property cult that is Evangelical Neo-Pentacostalism.

Also, god doesn't exist.

>Christianity has plenty of universal values
No

That's been what religion was understood as for most people - ways to form moral value judgements, rather than a belief in a bearded man in the sky throwing thunderbolts because he can. The values are often bad ones and openly malevolent, because religion is there to answer the evil rather than questions of truth. Humans just do not care about the truth and never did in that way, and if they were asking about the truth, they'll be told you're not actually supposed to believe in "unlimited energy from God". It's pretty clear in the study of religion that such a thing is itself a sign of the evil that religion speaks of, and it's a fool's evil compared to what the cults really do in secret - and a warning to people to not actually think like that. The religions which do claim "abundance is a state of mind" are scams and this is a path to evil and doom. That's been inherent in the evil of religion - that there are assholes who will impose that on you and make sure you don't get to say no. With the old religion, this was just what "religion" meant - that religion was a skin-mask for the rulers, and not something ordinary people cared about. It was always imposed on you, and paying fealty to the Roman gods for one example was not about belief, but sacrifice to the rulers. The typical Roman didn't believe that Jupiter would give them a single thing ever, or that any of the aristocratic gods were "for them".

My belief is that Christianity is a thoroughly evil religion, but not for the reasons the retards here usually believe. So is Buddhism and most of the major religions, and the Satan-worship of old isn't intended to be anything else. There isn't a "good religion". My belief is that in the future, religion will be viewed as a path to the evil and understanding it, and that is its proper purview. As an explanation of the world, religion has never been that. So far as religion inveighs on science or reason at all, it is to warn of the sort of tricks used by religion - or grant to the core believers techniques of habitual lying.

And, the major religions will tell you in so many ways that this is indeed the function, rather than the "lie version" taught to outsiders. Most religions will just say you're either born into it or recruited young, and in practice, you don't get to "choose" religion. Not really. They've always treated it like a race basically in the inner circle, with all of the bigotry expected of the evil.

My renewed belief in religion wasn't about embracing Christianity, but fully rejecting it and its claims - that it is indeed evil, and I was right about them from first impressions, verified by their repeated conduct.

I've always found it strange that "God" is believed to hold this authority just from Being. If you really understand what religions say about the entity, it's not meant to be a focal point of abasement in that sense. Usually it's the exact opposite - the invocation of the One is intended to ward off the other demons that religion typically invokes, and exists entirely as a negation of the world of superstition. It is easy to take for granted that humans have religion, and forget that behind religion, they were always an evil race that jumped to the first thing that was useful for them to ruin the world, for little more than a cheap thrill. That is the early history of humans well before civilization - roving warbands shitting up anything good anyone managed to claw back, and then finding a new invention called "civilization" which do so more methodically. There's nothing good in the human spirit.

Religion is for retards.

If there is a "God" in any sense that we would regard such a thing, it does not care about us, has nothing whatsoever to do with us, and wouldn't even think like us - nor should it. If God is taking any personal stake in humanity for any reason, it's a sign that it's some beast that is very clearly a conduit for devilry. I doubt even the description of an "entity" is appropriate, except as a historical placeholder to comprehend the evil of the One. I've never understood why such an entity would have any personal relationship with anything in the world, supposing such a thing could exist, let alone that it would specifically choose one man - a man who didn't exist at all by all genuine historical reckoning - as its representative. It's insane and Germanic. It's very clear that Christ is a stand-in for the philosophers who systematized the religion and used it as a tool for their purposes, and restructured the Roman Empire - and not for anything good if you look at the conduct of all Christians. Still, there was a purpose to doing any of this beyond "the thrill of doing so". That's a form of Satanism peculiar to the lowest filth humanity ever produced, which is the one reason I did take an interest in religion and came to any faith at all. I don't particularly care about a "God" or "gods", most of which would probably ask what in blazes these silly humans are doing taking any of their names in vain or invoking these ritual sacrifices which are clearly humans doing evil to other humans and the world. But, the Satan is very real in human behavior, a thing they manifested for their foul purposes. Even Satan has standards, I believe, but I'm not about to make apologia for Satan - I'd only say that what humanity is aiming for is worse than the Satan, and that is saying a lot.

Really though, I didn't turn to religion out of fear - I've had enough cause for that but that just redoubled my hatred for superstition. My real motives were much more innocent - to be able to speak of what was missing for so long and have a proper grounding to speak of humanity. Most atheists don't have it in them to be actual atheists - they're usually just Satan-worshippers or lousy Christians with the exact same cosmology, spiritual freeloaders and faggots.

>>22544
Corporate personhood is not a moral argument with any seriousness. That has always been a way to begin litigating the authority of monopoly and eugenics.

Abortion is killing and torture and implies something about the state and invasion of private life. There is no way to reconcile it to say there is "justified abortion" as a good in of itself. No one thinks "oh gee it's totally good to have an abortion, and those savages need to agree with me!" It sucks to do that, for the reasons that it is done. They know well that the aborted child would just be killed anyway, and the conservatives don't hide their dripping Satanism when they do their thing. Ultimately it is not something the state can "make good" or justify in any way. Historically it was not something the state inveighed on at all, since it was considered a religious matter and the Church didn't like the state taking its prerogatives on this. It would be the same in many religions, especially where religions explicitly form the law code like in Islam. The law is not about justice or moral right at all, and any concept of justice does not conform to feeling good or "me wantee". Such a belief is anathema to any meaning justice would have, law or no law.

For a long time, the state understood that this was a thing they should not disturb, to make trouble over something that was really none of their concern. But, under eugenism, the claims of the state must be both absolute and unmentionable at the same time, so we're not allowed to speak of why this law and discourse exist, or how it is gamed to ensure that no matter what, eugenics wins.

>>22554
Why would you assume the beginning of the cannibalization of human society was good "just because"? It's been a disaster since it started. It was also latent in Christianity, and this is why it happened there rather than elsewhere as it did. For most of the world, doing this would be a really bad idea for no gain. Evem then, the "great divergence" - which is more illusion and narrative than truth - happened before modernity. If you have a lot of colonies and outposts, you're eventually going to hold an advantage when enclosing the world. What happened after modernity is another thing - that most of the world did not built "nation-states" as such, and the interested parties of India, China, etc. could be turned against each other, their societies demoralized by drugs and avarice. There wasn't an "us" to defend. China held out the longest and not without resistance, but they were ruled by incompetents and the incentives of the state worked against resisting European involvement. Even so, China was still "China" until the RoC began liberalization, and then the civil war happens. This is where you would see a huge American hand intervening in China, something which remains to this day - and it is an American interest rather than a global or distinctly imperial one. So many Americans were and are invested in the China project and wanted to make it theirs. But, you lose that understanding in the narrative theory of history, or why the China Lobby was motivated to do as it did, or how much influence they had. So too do you lose sight of the connections Mao and the CCP had in the US - he had people here who were pretty cool with working with the Communists, and that's a whole history that's difficult to describe, and why Nixon going to China was a big moment in world history. You lose all of that if history is reduced to these narratives or "the Empire always wins". The imperial attitude is to make everyone pay tribute to eugenics and exterminate anyone who isn't white enough for their world order. That's all they ever believed in or cared about, and what they've always oriented the empire to be.

>>22554
Humans are evil, not "sinful", because their deeds are clearly evil and documented enough to eliminate doubt. It's not a hypothetical. Humanity is guilty. History has judged. It's not "natural" either - nature didn't prescribe anything. But, humans certainly pass on their malevolence and the very way they reproduce is malevolent in any form it has been done. There's no "good version" of that, or a "just war". That's more Germanic horseshit.

>>22556
If they celebrate abortion, they are evil and malevolent, for there are clear implications of such a glorification. Morality is not about your feelings if it is to be a real thing. That has been abolished so thoroughly among a Satanic race.

>>22559
It's not the "same difference", and this sort of conflation and false equivocation is a common technique to deny what is meant and recapitulate that you're not interested in truth - only projecting ideology. Pedantry has its proper time and place, and this is an example of such. "Sin" is "error", rather than identical with evil, and this is very particularly defined in Judaism and Christianity.

>Feelings are Real
Yes feelings are real but they do not carry any intrinsic moral weight, other than being valued as what they are. We feel particular ways for reasons, rather than "randomly". Those reasons don't have to be good or justified, but we don't feel for nothing, and if we are driven by whims, we recognize that and know such feelings are not a sound moral basis. Morality always pertains to a world outside of us. It does happen that "us" is a part of the world, but we could in principle judge morality as if we didn't exist.

You don't seem to realize how much of what you do is internalization of the evil morality of the Christians, because you've been trained not to recognize its failures - failures the Christians have long known about and acknowledged by the way, so this is not anything new. Germanism is Satanic of course. They really do not think in that ideology and I will judge them accordingly.

>>22527
Christianity died in the 19th century, what we have now is simply a cool hat for liberals to wear. Laws in "Christian" nations don't refer to God, they refer to abstract liberal morality. The idea of divine law, divine power was crushed by capital and finished off by the Bolsheviks. You can have your Christ gender, but it's just something for you to have fun with. Christianity itself feels liberal, with all the talk of good and evil in this abstract way instead of the more concrete outlook of pagan peoples, Vikings and ancient Greeks being documented the best.

>>22561
Sin = debt. Read Michael Hudson.
>>>/edu/10738

>>22559
"Self-consciousness" is really "self-indulgence" and doesn't work the way you think it does. It's also a much more recent invention - something created out of social engineering and then imposed on the past. If you go back to the 18th and early 19th century, European peoples did not think of the self in this way. It was a different sense of themselves and what they did than the rest of the world, but the rest of the world wasn't made of philosophical zombies or stupid. They understood technology and science, and once invented, modern technology spread around the world with little difficulty as an idea. Books were portable enough, guns could be reverse-engineered. It's another thing altogether to build industry and a supply chain out of nothing if your society is African tribes that spent a lot of their time fighting each other, and their technology had remained primitive for centuries for a variety of reasons. Even if they knew how to make guns and books and everything, that doesn't make a country magically appear.

>>22561
It hasn't died so much as it has been piled on with so much shit and filth, and the rot within it has hatched out. The corpse is still around, and there is memory - personal and institutional - of what it was, and judgements of it by history. Nothing like that really "dies" in that sense. Again, who says this the most? German Satanists who've always held a grudge and never understood what truth is, being a culture ruled by perverts who've always sold out and shit up the world. They've done it since Roman times.

I feel bad for the German people, who couldn't change what history did to them and hated having to be put through this. I really do. The culture, though, that needs to die in a fire. Letting them have their country back was a mistake.

>>22564
>No. The subject itself is what "knows".
We know of a world before we existed, and that such a condition would have to exist for there to be a "subject". Very basic. Children ask where babies come from almost every time, if only for their own sake. We're not natural Satanists.
I'm writing a big book about knowledge and systems and subjectivity in that view. It is not a laborious and totalizing view of "what it means to know" but it explains this fallacy so long as we are speaking of systems - i.e. observable things, rather than imagined ideas about the world. We can of course deny that there are "systems". The German ideology is explicitly "anti-systemic" and designed to retard and destroy such an understanding permanently, and does so flagrantly for self-indulgent faggotry.

>Also you never define this objective evil
Morality always pertains to the world. We may judge morality through knowledge, but anything moral intrinsically pertains to the world. Evil is always evil - we have an understanding of evil that predates opinions about it, and would not value evil as such if were "just a feeling" that had no relevance to the outside world.
Whether someone embraces evil - and many humans do, the great lie is that "everyone is good", when historically humans have freely acknowledged their malevolence, as you are doing now willfully and shamelessly for the thrill of doing so with no remorse - is another question. Usually humanity regards living in a society where evil prevails, and they pin this on "the world" as a dodge for their own culpability. But, the evil of the world was very minor compared to the deliberate malice and willful force that humanity's evil entails, which is institutionalized and glorified by certain people. I call them "fags" for lack of a better term - not fit to be truly evil, but enablers who habitually supplicate to it. The present society does not make gay men. It makes faggots and nothing else.

There is then that evil that doesn't pertain to my existence. I am not a pederast nor was I molested, so I'm not going to pretend that I was or that I have personal experience to steal valor from victims. But, I listen to people who have been through that. Many who suffered that have been willing to talk to anyone who will see it their way and somehow redeem them - or they endure it and build lives in spite of the bastards who willfully promote that malevolence. The same is true of many evils of the world. By your thinking, it becomes impossible to communicate any concept of evil that is mutually intelligible. It's Satanic, Germanic, and retarded. I have no interest in that faggotry.

I mean, I just said that I get the evil of the German race and culture and could see it from their point of view, and obviously I'm not favorable to Germanness. But, if I were, there are plenty of Germans who will say Germany sucks and would be glad to be rid of it. "Team loyalty" is not obligated. The faggotry of "me wantee" encourages that autistic screeching that always has that familiar stink.

I suppose, since I know evil isn't going away any time soon, I've learned to tolerate the intolerable and forgive the evil far too easily. But, forgiveness is not ignorance and I will not admit things I deem evil into my life because others insist I "have to". That's Nazi faggotry. I think reasonable people can understand there has been enough evil in the world, and don't trade in this horseshit if they've seen enough of it.

I can understand how this society forces people to do evil, to be evil, and to internalize it. Still, there is a line where we judge those who went along with it because it was easy, and those who did it because they are true enablers and did it for free, for the faggotry. That's what Trump influencers are - they don't get paid for this, or don't get paid enough. They want to shit up the world because it's all they've ever had to do, and once they taste that Satanist thrill in their party, they know what happens if they break ranks. I have no pity for them and I don't expect them to change. I've never seen a sincere withdrawal once they've been blooded and embrace THAT. Even if they did beg for forgiveness, I will gladly watch them die after what they did to bring this situation about. Satanics are beneath mercy and I care not for them. Of course, if they are begging me to spare them, they've really, really fallen down. But, play Satanic games, win Satanic prizes. If I must, I'll tell them they will be damned and burn forever and ever, but that history has judged, and I care not for their feelings. They want to be faggot animals, I will treat them as such. Unlike them, I don't find pleasure in making animals suffer or any ritual that gives me anything from that. Like I said, I learned to tolerate the intolerable a long time ago. Any fag who embraced that never did and never had to, and even if they "broke", I don't give a shit. It's easy to phone it in and not look to the teacher or school security guard for the okay signal. They chose to do that and go above and beyond to prove that they're Satanic enough for the world they want and prayed for. Nothing compelled anyone to feed this rot and no money would be enough - and knowing how this operates, they aren't paid anything but peanuts anyway. The people who are paid a lot for this have secured themselves and operate on a whole other level of evil. I even grant to them a level of dignity, simply because they actually served an purpose of their own instead of being venal, disgusting fags.

I keep thinking, naively, why they go along with it, when they know the result. But, once they taste that blood, reason is gone. That's what Germanic culture does. That's why I will never shut up about wiping out that retarded culture for good.

>>22571
That's just it - you can't "solve" the problem in the utilitarian way like that, and that wasn't the point of moral claims. First you have to ask why there are "dollars" at all, what money is and what it represents, instead of assuming that this fictitious unit is intrinsically worth anything. Second, you ask why you can make more dollars, or more of the things that dollar represents. You have to ask what in the world places this limit on you. In the case of money, this is an institutional mandate that some must starve and some are entitled to life because Mammon approves. Money is not YOUR tool. It belongs to the bank - to the state, and to the commonwealth. You the commoner just have to live in the world they created. Perhaps you can accept that, but you're given a shitty choice, you're not really given a choice. You know very well there are banks that rely on starvation for this dollar to mean anything. The banks do not pretend that this arrangement is supposed to be nice or fair. Really, there's no moral argument to make about whether anyone should have any food that you can insist others "have" to follow, if you've already accepted that money is sacred. Money entails a belief that you're already fine with unworthies dying, and that you would be obligated to the imperatives money requires. This isn't particular to capitalism - there simply isn't a way you would have money without the implicit assumptions of why such a unit exists. We don't need money for resource accounting - we've done that without money, and usually money makes resource accounting harder. Units in-kind are not mistaken for anything but the goods in question, and we do not need money-units. We need food, water, and things that money would ostensibly purchase.

It's a false moral question about nature though, because we know it is possible for society to produce enough of those materials for everyone. There is not a single argument for why anyone has to starve, except a belief that certain people must be denied existence. It's not like we are too incompetent to grow food, or should watch someone starve while shelves are stocked with food which is just thrown away. That is always a choice of someone. The consequences of giving away food by any scheme are another choice we can make, with knowledge of how people act. But, historically, one of the things that was granted an exception from the market was agriculture, because when people starve, they tend to revolt and kill the king and rich people so they may live, even if their revolt is doomed. The people do not think they are part of a great story. The people only know "will I eat today, while rich assholes brag that no matter what, they're selected to live?" It doesn't matter so much what guilt or fault the working man or woman has, if they didn't get off their ass. They know that there's not a good reason for famine, like we're too stupid to know how to grow food. They know the rich have used this to cull the numbers of humanity and force humanity to agree to horrendous humiliations, war, and so much awfulness. It's not like you're making an idle choice. This calculus predominates over our fantasies about what something should be. Yet, money does represent something more than "the banks are evil and Mammon is a big meanie". That abstraction doesn't register to the multitude who know they've been lied to and locked out of "that world". The people do not care about those excuses or justifications. One way or another, they will find food, or die trying. If they die trying, they've lost nothing, and might die saying they spit in the face of the beast for a time. If they accede to the intolerable, it just makes the situation worse for everyone and the world, and gives the assholes the satisfaction of getting away with it. It's easy to say that people are docile, when the conditions of acceding to it are not too onerous. There's food, life, and something to do, after all. When the rich go out of their way to make sure there is no choice, it's not like compliance is an option. That is what has precipitated every famine in history - almost always caused by wars waged for spurious or real purposes, with the people treated openly as livestock for this purpose.

Morality and justice are not one and the same, either. Justice is the watchword of the historical middle class and commons - people who aspire to usurp the rulers, whomever they may be. When Plato is writing The Republic, he's not writing from the position of a ruler. He's writing from the position of an angry aristocrat who was denied and wanted to kill and torture every democrat in the world so that people like him would establish a permanent tyranny and call it "justice". It never was anything other than that.

What won the power struggle was not him, but other guys who didn't have the "right stuff", the crown of wisdom he assigned to himself. That's why Socrates was put to death.

It is perfectly moral, and perhaps even right, to deny that justice exists at all - that humanity and the world are both cruel, and that this cruelty moderates humanity's vices. Most of the world, and this is really what is said in Plato's writing, makes clear that humanity is evil and beyond redemption. The whole first part of The Republic is saying "justice isn't real" if you really get it's meaning. You could only answer it at the level of society and the state, and if you answer it that way, you get a world that is a horrorshow if you retain your sense of smell.

Christianity has plenty of universal values, like trying to forcefully convert anyone that isn't a Christian
>Christianity is compatible with a leftwing worldview, it just needs to be tempered
Why bother "tempering" Christianity? Why not just do without it? Also, why Christianity out of any other religion? Because you yourself, OP, are a Christian?

>>22608
The world didn't need any "knowledge" to exist before us, any more than our parents needed us to exist to justify the life they lived before they were born.
For knowledge to exist, it recognizes a world prior to it. It does not work the other way around and never did - and if you really pay attention to religion, it never made that cosmological claim about knowledge. Eugenics did, loudly and triumphantly, to announce their war against humanity.
For most religion, God was prior to humanity and is an altogether different enttiy. When "God made Man in His image", it referred not to the knowledge or reason faculty in "base form" as the Germanics implied - that's a Satanic cosmology - but to humanity's spiritual being as something different from its animal origins. That language had become inadmissible, but it was never intended to make any naturalistic claim about knowledge in that way. It's quite clear that religion says the opposite in every case, because a child can see through the naturalistic claim - unless they willfully embrace the lie as the quickest route to power. That, too, is a lesson of the evil that religion teaches - that it is possible to do this and make others obey. They're smart enough to not actually believe this is how the world works. The natural slaves believe in that zealously because they can't not.

Knowledge is entirely our problem, but it has always knew that the world was prior to it, and did not make these grand claims about nature you seem to believe are natural and necessary. I never understand how this logical leap is continuously made, except for the power of violent recapitulation of it - an evil that religion teaches to project power onto the slave race it might imagine.

Really though, humans place themselves in this position for the most retarded reasons, as if they were the center of the universe instead of something incidental to it. Planet Earth will go on without humanity, and humanity has shown its ugliness to each other so many times over that it's a wonder anyone maintains the "just world" fallacy - the insanity of the institutions.

>>22610
Every religion implicitly declares that it is mutually exclusive with other religions, and that believers of other religions are not redeemed until they align with it. That's basic to religion - you don't have "diversity of faith" in any real sense. You either follow the religious truth, or you don't. For polytheism, they didn't grand to "God" this cargo cult power in the same way - basically, everyone believed in basically the same thing about the nature of the gods, whichever one they kept. For the common people, the gods of the rulers were irrelevant, but none of them seriously doubted the cosmology at work. That wasn't controversial to anyone, and the rules were simple - the gods were cruel, and so was humanity, and it wasn't going to be any other way.

Religion was never premised on ideology in the way you're implying, where they believed religion described every iota of space and had to. The Christian dogmas about this were more about the Church's right to control education and how everything was taught, rather than a necessary claim about "fundamental nature" that was unchanging. That is a Germanic corruption.

>>22614

What is it about westoids and making sweeping generalizations about religion. The default form of religious is to believe whatever you want from any random mixture of religious traditions like hippy white women do. You people hand waive this away as "syncreticism" but that's literally how most people approach religion if they're not stuck in some weird abrahamic cult. Most people in China or Japan don't identify as Buddhist any more than they identify as a Mendelian or Newtonist. The default is to simply not give enough shit about religion to try to have dogmatic consistency. Someone visiting both a buddhist temple and a daoist temple in the same week doesn't give a shit that one tradition believes in both reincarnation and an afterlife while the other believes in either.

>>22527
>trying to appeal to people's pre-existing moral values by showing that Christianity agrees, in order to convert them to Christianity
what does your religion offer in terms of ideas then? xD I'm already perfectly Christian I guess, no need to learn anything new or do anything about it

Of course in identifying as a christian you identify with other real people, and you come together to reinforce your shared ideas, and this gives a sense of social validation, which is the real desire catered to by religion. Validation. That's kind of pathetic if you really think about it. Billions of people seeking reassurance that their irrational, repressive beliefs are right. And look, the all-knowing man agrees with us and supports our irrational beliefs! How could anyone disagree with us?

>Being a Christian is a calming experience in some way.
Of course. Because you have can perfect certainty in your beliefs, values, and actions because the all-good all-knowing entity is backing you. Don't mind that you can't verify its existence, believing in things with no proof is also a virtue! Y'all are living under the cultivated hallucination of an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing replacement for daddy and mommy. It's a psychopathology. Straight to jail.

>Christianity is compatible with a leftwing worldview
I invite anyone who falls for this shit to read Henryk Grossmans essay on Christian and Religious Socialism. It can be found in the second volume of his collected works. It goes through a history of attempts to merge Socialism with christianity throughout europe. It paints a bleak picture. It's basically a form of tailism. It's probably good to go to the masses wherever they congregate, with no special discrimination against religious congregations, but we have no use for calling our morals (that we already know are right!) christian morals, or making up immaterial forces that we can imagine cheerleading our every word and deed. It only waters down the potency of our message and we will be fought against by clergy every step of the way, since religious institutions are not democratic. Along with that religion fosters cross-class community and preaches to a cross-class audience, and thus preaches bourgeois values and a class unity message [and for people who this doesn't immediately make sense to, any inclusion of bourgeoisie implies their hegemony because bourgeoisie and proletarians share the ideology of capitalist society in common; e.g. the market, competition, modernism, and so on. But only the proletariat carries another conception, which is antithetical to that. And often it only carries an embryo of such a conception. A bourgeois message preaches to both groups. A proletarian message is always 'divisive', a hated word for Christians for whom 'unity' is the goal. The only time when divisive rhetoric is allowed is when it's aimed by the right (i.e. being based on pro-bourgeois theory) towards identity groups that often are proxies for (or whose oppression aids in) class domination.]

>>22527
>I think whether you're religious or not Christianity has plenty of universal values
Not really no. It doesn't say anything that prior societies didn't already come up with. Christians really love appropriating concepts that are either obvious or much older than Christianity.
And, obviously, God isn't real. Jesus, assuming he was actually a real person, was not divine. The basis of the religion is false, the values it provides are either redundant or harmful. It should be cast off. It's an ancient religion from another land, it has no value to us.

Christianity has been the global religion since the fifteenth century. All the universal values of Christianity are found in older beliefs

yes please

can anyone recommend me lit on christian socialism? what version of the bible can I reference most succinctly and with the best reliability to scripture?

my personal view is I absolutely do not believe in the divinity or at least the omnipotence of god, but I believe jesus was 1000% commanding the proclamation of socialism as both a personal and social mandate, and was incredibly based, and we don't need god for that anyways

and never underestimate the power of christianity to mainline westoid brains into radicalism

thank you comrades, let his truth go marching on