[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1706808924895.png (4.63 MB, 1536x2048, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1746923[View All]

if pacifistic incrementalism and winning people over by being nicer than the other guy doesn't work, then how did Christianity take over the Roman empire?
556 posts and 90 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1754310

>>1754295
Vanguards represent the will of the working class. There's plenty of religious organizations that help out the poor - so fucking what, are they suddenly the vanguard of the working class? And if we talk about the amount of help given, then both republicans and democrats vastly outperform any anarkiddie organization. What vanguards of the working class those parties are!

 No.1754590

>>1754143
>Most Christians don't think any part of the Bible was written by God
i wish

 No.1754591

File: 1707419005145.png (217.79 KB, 866x866, ClipboardImage.png)

found another bible gemmy today

 No.1755312

judges 19 is a good bed time story btw

 No.1755317

>>1754591
gemrald

 No.1756206

>>1753109
you haven't seen "silly" until you've seen samson kill 1000 philistines with a jawbone

 No.1756207

>>1754143
>Most Christians don't think any part of the Bible was written by God. They merely state that the people who wrote the various passages of the Bible were divinely inspired.
I think every Christian would say the 10 commandments and all the red letter text are the word of God.

 No.1756208

>>1753464
That's pretty hilarious. I vaguely remember that title but I had no idea it was a bible parody.

 No.1756210

>>1756207
And every other part that starts " and God spaketh" as well.

 No.1756275

>>1756208
>I had no idea it was a bible parody
It's just a few scenes that riff on the Bible, most of it is an entirely different story. Definitely worth watching if you like Jack Black.

 No.1756335

>>1754590
There are some Christians who believe that the Bible was literally written by God, but this isn't a part of actual, official theology, but widespread ignorance mainly among Protestants. It's this sort of ignorance that's causing some sections of Protestantism to have a backwards slide into a sort of monotheistic shamanism. I'm unaware of any actual church with an educated clergy that officially believes that the Bible was authored by God himself.

>>1756207
Yes, but those are the parts that are supposed to be directly written or spoken by God. Most Christians acknowledge that the God did not write every word of the Bible, that it was instead written by human beings under divine inspiration.

 No.1756389

>>1756335
>There are some Christians who believe that the Bible was literally written by God, but this isn't a part of actual, official theology, but widespread ignorance mainly among Protestants. It's this sort of ignorance that's causing some sections of Protestantism to have a backwards slide into a sort of monotheistic shamanism. I'm unaware of any actual church with an educated clergy that officially believes that the Bible was authored by God himself.
I mean doesn't it follow logically
<God created the universe
<the universe eventually resulted in the bible
<therefore God created the bible
simple as
call this "Monotheistic Shamanism" all you want, but it's pretty airtight. Cath and Ortho clergy are just bootyblasted that prots are taking the monopoly on theology from them.
>written by human beings under divine inspiration.
Ok so God used some people as pens

 No.1756409

>>1756389
Christianity usually holds that humans have souls and some kind of free will and aren't just the meat puppets of God.

 No.1756413

>>1756409
see the following >>1750246

 No.1756418

>>1756413
That is a quote from the Bible. That has nothing to do with actual church dogma, even if you think that the quote somehow contradicts the existence of free will within Christian theology.

 No.1756650

>>1756418
>the bible has nothing to do with actual church dogma
wait until the churchgoers find out about this

 No.1756656

>>1756335
>Yes, but those are the parts that are supposed to be directly written or spoken by God. Most Christians acknowledge that the God did not write every word of the Bible, that it was instead written by human beings under divine inspiration.
You said "don't think any" now you're backpedaling to "don't think every."

 No.1757098

>>1753493
>What kind of a mage uses stone tablets?
and just what the hell do you know about magecraft, huh?

 No.1757487

>>1747006
> By the end of the Babylonian captivity they had become monotheistic, but old testament scripture still contains traces of the polytheistic Yahwism.
ironically while railing against polytheism throughout. In the early books of the Old Testament you get these traces of polytheism. The earliest passages in which Yahweh is said to speak about other Gods, by the authors, Yahweh acknowledges that they exist, but forbids worshiping them. He says he will drive them out of Canaan and give that land to the proto-Jewish Yahwists returning from Egypt. So that is henotheistic Yahweh, and henotheistic Yahweh has very interesting contradictory themes. Only later, in the last books of the old testament, written after the Babylonian captivity, do we start to get traces of monotheistic Yahweh which claims that the other Gods are merely statues and don't really exist, but even when we get traces of monotheistic Yahweh, he is still called "lord of hosts" and the heresy of worshiping the hosts is brought up over and over. The theme emerges of Yahweh punishing infidelity on the part of the proto-Jewish Yahwists by giving them into the hands of enemies whenever they or their leaders stop worshiping Yahweh and/or start worshiping foreign Gods. So the Gods of the canaanite pantheon Yahweh originally came from were reenvisioned as first foreign Gods, but this leaves Yahweh without his hosts that he lords over, so the idea developed that there were angels that Yahweh ruled over, like the archangel michael. So even in Christianity, with its tripartite nicean trinitarian God (no longer Yahweh explicitly, but only implicitly) , and its many named angels and saints, you still see elements of henotheism in a religion nobody dares call anything but monotheistic.

Let's examine contrary themes:

1. He will drive out the "foreign" Gods of the Canaanite pantheon, along with their worshippers
2. He will give the land back to the foreign Gods and their worshipers and allow his own worshipers to be carried off into captivity if they lapse in faith and works.

So Yahweh not only gives and takes from his own worshipers, in order to reward and punish, but Yahweh also gives and takes from foreign pagans who don't even necessarily know he exists. This creates a very strange accounting system, where people who fail to worship Yahweh are punished by… being carried off into a land where nobody worships Yahweh, where there is no Yahwist superstructure to turn them back on the path to Yahwism, and the Yahwists essentially become pagans. And pagans are rewarded for lapses in faith on the part of Yahwists. Pagans are given the lands of the Yahwists as punishment against Yahwists… becoming pagans. So pagans are rewarded when Yahwists are punished, and Yahwists are punished by becoming embedded in a pagan superstructure. This narrative allowed Yahwism to become very powerful, because any time anything bad happened to Yahwists, the priesthood was obligated to attribute it to a lack of zealotry, and to chronicle that in their histories, so that in hindsight, any kind of material failure was transformed into a spiritual failure. Did a famine happen because everyone kept sacrificing their vegetables and meat on Yahwist altars? No! The famine happened because people weren't sacrificing enough food! And now we have starved for our sins.! Was our city taken by the Philistines and put to the sword because we did not build good enough fortifications? No! We failed to fortify our hearts by worshiping Yahweh.

 No.1757885

>>1746923
"If you are too poor to own a sword, then sell your clothes and buy one"

 No.1757959

>>1756650
>>1756656
Okay, so are you guys looking to discuss Christianity as a real, living social system or are you just fishing for cheap dunks? I'm talking about the positions of really existing churches and you guys are trying to make it about strictly Biblical theology.

When you're discussing a religion, its better to look at the beliefs of the major organizations that religion is built around and its official positions, not the positions of every uneducated hick that happens to adhere to that religion because their beliefs are funnier or more outlandish.

And, yes, very often many Christian theological positions aren't based on the Bible (or are even contradicted by the Bible.) Want to find the part in the Bible that forbids abortion? You won't find it. It isn't there. In fact, on the contrary, there's a prescribed ritual in the Bible that's meant to induce a miscarriage (though this is intended as a punishment for infidelity.) Every instance where you see some church or church organization make some big, cumbersome prayer in a public space is contradicting Christ's statement that prayer should be private primarily if not solely of the Lord's Prayer. So on and so forth. That said, I don't see how God messing with Pharaoh disproves the existence of free will in Christian theology. Were you once a part of some Protestant sect that was using that as a proof for something? That sounds like the start of the weird moon logic some Protestant cults use instead of the observation of a neutral observer.

 No.1757962

>>1757959
>That said, I don't see how God messing with Pharaoh disproves the existence of free will in Christian theology.
How do you figure? Christians often argue that evil in the world is the result of humans making their own decisions and thus God can't be blamed for it. Yet one of the primary antagonists of the Old Testament is very clearly being compelled by God to behave in an evil way.

 No.1757976

>>1757962
Once again, that's just a dunk. This has nothing to do with the existence of free will in general within Christian theology.

 No.1757993

>>1757959
> as a real, living social system
But it’s not one.
It’s more like a leech on a real, living social system.

 No.1757999

>>1757976
It’s a dunk but it’s also true.

 No.1758066

>>1757993
>>1757999
So, you're not here to discuss Christianity as a religion and social institution, you're just anti-Christian contrarians (as I originally thought).

There are people whose beliefs are based entirely on mimicking some group, and then there are contrarians, whose beliefs are based entirely on taking the opposite or opposing position of the beliefs of some group. These two are basically brothers to each other and both deserve to be thrown naked into cages and put on display for the public's amusement like the fucking chimps they are.

 No.1758070

>>1758066
Imagine calling people "anti-Christian contrarians" on a communist forum

 No.1758074

>>1758070
Communism is materialist, but it isn't inherently anti-Christian. It isn't the ideology for people who believe the opposite of whatever the Christians happen to think or whatever happens to make Christianity look bad.

In a word, communism is not a part of the Western counterculture movement. In many ways, the counterculture movement is as deeply reactionary as the Christian conservatives. Your "Californian Ideology" and techno-fascism movements coming out of Silicon Valley is largely a product of the counterculture movement, and counterculturalists are now and have been ardently anti-communist.

 No.1758130

>>1757959
> its better to look at the beliefs of the major organizations that religion is built around and its official positions, not the positions of every uneducated hick that happens to adhere to that religion because their beliefs are funnier or more outlandish.
Incorrect. It is the consensus of academics in the field of religious studies, the field of academics focused on the nonsectarian study of religion, that there is an over-emphasis of studying religions purely through the lens of institutional dogmas, and not enough emphasis on looking at religions as internally diverse, constantly changing, and emerging not just from the top-down orthodoxy of the clergy, but from the living practice of the believers, or "uneducated hicks" as you are calling them.

 No.1758138

>>1758130
Yes, but that's folk religion, not religion as an institution.

What you have here in this thread is people who want to imply that the uninformed opinions of random, uneducated rednecks is the same as actual church doctrine based on the fact that this makes Christianity look worse.

Looking at the folk beliefs and practices surrounding the Christian religion is an important aspect of understanding the religion as a whole and as a living movement, but that's not what people are trying to do in this thread.

 No.1758139

>>1758074
The thesis of divine revelation is at odds with the life of men being determined by their material conditions for this includes within it all religious ideals as well. Religion doesn't get some magical exemption, it's a product of the real world, of society.

 No.1758140

>>1758066
Scientific materialism is not simply a set of propositions. It's a unitary doctrine, the critique of religion as a socially ordained structure is included within it.

 No.1758142

File: 1707702882084.jpg (179.12 KB, 720x999, 1.jpg)

As Marx correctly noted, the criticism of religion is the basis for all other criticism, for it transforms the divine into the real world.
More annoying than ordinary religious people are self-professed "religious communists" or religion-sympathizing ones. How one claims to synthesize two polar opposite outlooks is beyond me. Pure cancer.

 No.1758145

File: 1707703118458.jpg (208.08 KB, 720x1094, 2.jpg)

Also religion will disappear after class society has been abolished, plus there will always be a need for immediate measures that can be taken against religion. I.e. 1917-22 Russia required violent offensives against religious institutions.

 No.1758147

>>1747119
>>1747077
>muh basis for morality
This at a time when workers are decidedly becoming less religious over time, especially in the West but even generally. It's evincive of a middle-class preoccupation with 'respect'. One wonders where the dictum of 'ruthless criticism' went, because it's clearly missing in this thread.

 No.1758149

>>1748675
>Marx's take was never "Christianity le bad" but rather "Christianity is a drug for people who haven't become class conscious yet."
For starters actual marxists don't speak in terms of "good" and "bad", and Marx himself stated religion in general is completely at odds with scientific socialism. >>1758142

 No.1758150

>>1758139
>>1758140
I'm aware that materialism contradicts most if not all religions. My point was that communism (and Marxist materialism) isn't an ideology of being contrarian against Christianity. It is not something that is specifically anti-Christian beyond the general refutation of all non-materialist ideologies and worldviews. Communism and materialism aren't ideologies that would endorse the claims that Jesus was an alien on the grounds that it makes Christianity look silly or that the Roman state religion was based actually because it had conflicts with the early Christian church.

 No.1758151

>>1758150
You're right in this regard. If someone's best criticism of religion is that i.e. Jesus didn't exist, then he's a retard.

 No.1758157

>>1758141
>>1758142
>>1758145
Marx saw religion as a coping mechanism. It was something people turned to when people couldn't accept the reality of their situation.

>This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.


>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.


He also believed that people giving up their religious beliefs would make people fundamental re-evaluations of their assumptions about the world, society and their relationship to their fellow man, and in doing so would find the world intolerable and seek to change it instead meekly accepting the status quo in hopes for a better life in Heaven.

>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.


>Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.


This was actually the belief of many radical thinkers of the period and goes all the way back to Jean Meslier's Testament which expressed proto-communist ideas and expressed the belief that the common people would overthrow the established order if they weren't lulled into complacency by religion.

However, I think this belief is somewhat outdated. As it turns out, "Nature" can be a completely suitable replacement for God. People can very happily believe that the status quo is ordained by a supposedly self-evident set of natural laws rather than descending from divine law. In the here and now, I see more arguments for capitalism and the current world order appealing to nature than to religious doctrine. Even among the religious right, you're more likely to see the capitalist order justified by allegories to lions, wolves and anthills than by religious doctrine. We just had a wave of "New Atheists" who, quite contrary to the idea that their rejection of religion should have turned them into radicals, instead became arch-reactionaries claiming that all the old social order was mandated by nature.

 No.1758162

>>1758157
Fwiw there are only models and forms of thought that better correspond to reality as we experience it but the idea that there's one that perfectly corresponds to reality in an absolute sense is exactly the idealism marxists are opposed to.

 No.1758702

>>1758066
I don't see what is so contrarian about pointing out internal inconsistencies of Christian philosophy. I'm not rejecting religion, Christian moral teachings, the value of scripture (at least some of it) as a source of spiritual wisdom. I'm just saying that conventional Christian philosophy that tries to reconcile its own premises and principles with the entirety of the Bible ends up twisting itself into knots trying to explain all the inconsistencies. If anything my point is that this adherence to certain scriptures is a millstone around the neck of Christianity, and it would be vastly improved by discarding it.

 No.1759031

>>1758702
Because it's an irrelevant dunk. The Bible contradicting certain parts of Christian theology or even itself has nothing to do with if Christian theology upholds free will or if it claims that the Bible was authored directly by God or a group of divinely inspired humans.

To put it in perspective, this would be like if you were having a discussion on Islamic views on morality and someone came in with a "But Muhammad was a pedo so who are the Muslims to talk about morality?" This would be completely irrelevant to the topic. It's just a dunk. This sort of person, in my view, would just be an anti-Islamic contrarian. Bonus points if this same person openly upheld any distortion of Islamic theology or crackpot theory that happened to make Islam look bad.

 No.1759067

>>1758702
there aren't internal inconsistencies only poor protestant presuppositions

 No.1759068

>>1759031
> this would be like if you were having a discussion on Islamic views on morality and someone came in with a "But Muhammad was a pedo so who are the Muslims to talk about morality?" This would be completely irrelevant to the topic. It's just a dunk. This sort of person, in my view, would just be an anti-Islamic contrarian.
what would be the appropriate time to bring it up

 No.1759190

>>1759068
If you were critiquing Islam or the figure of Muhammad, or talking about Islamic views on sexuality. Or maybe having an argument with a person who claimed that Muhammad lived a perfectly moral life.

 No.1759192

>>1759190
where do christians get their theology of free will from and why is bringing up what their central religious scriptures say irrelevant?

 No.1759251

>>1759031
>Because it's an irrelevant dunk.
But it isn't if you follow the thread. Christians cite the doctrine of free will to defend against allegations that God is responsible for the evil in the world, so I think it's appropriate to point out elements of scripture which contradict this doctrine. Christians could easily respond by arguing that the passage is allegorical, or they could admit that they are openly going against scripture, but ITT we've seen numerous attempts to reconcile the obvious contradiction in absurd ways. This is what I mean about a dogmatic adherence to scripture being a millstone around the neck of Christian philosophy, which otherwise has many merits.

 No.1759259

>>1759192
Because
1) Church doctrine and theology isn't necessarily the same as scripture. Even if you find it hypocritical or contradictory for churches to hold doctrine outside of or contradictory to scripture, they still hold that doctrine. If Christian churches generally believe something that isn't supported by scripture, they don't suddenly stop believing it just because it's Biblically unfounded.
2) The scripture being quoted there doesn't actually prove what the poster was trying to say. It was just pointing out a contradiction of a (mostly Protestant) Christian talking point as a dunk, not proving that free will is contradicted by scripture.

 No.1759448

By dancing

 No.1759492

>>1759259
>where do christians get their theology of free will from


Unique IPs: 28

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]