/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

What's up with all the Christcuck threads rrecently? Listen glowies, we are communists, we are ATHEISTS.

>>2802023
not the point

He was some half-mad Galilean who thought he was the savior of the world, he probably believed in the prophecy that he would be the one to bring peace to the world and liberate it.
Either way it doesn’t matter what he belived. Christianity has this man’s sayings (which were mostly parables) combined with the stories of Near Eastern tribals and that contains so much material which has been translated, mistranslated, interpreted and misinterpreted in a million ways, so much so that you can justify almost anything with in Christianity, Fascism, Communism, Absolutism and even liberalism, all within reason but more or less you can justify it.

Depends on how much credit you want to give Jesus for Christianity itself, Christianity, for all its flaws and contradictions (smashing noses on statues, burning books, killing Hypatia), was one of the first real attempts at universalist ideology. Those contradictions were part of what was needed for the exit from feudalism.

>>2802050
That’s not entirely true. Ideas of monotheism and henotheism had been growing significantly around the time period of Jesus. People had already started talking about a supreme god, the Greco-Roman ideals that Nietzsche imagined were going to die had begun declining even before Jesus was born. Greeks in Asia Minor started worshipping a specific version of Zeus and claimed that all other gods and versions stemmed from him. Zurvanism in Iran and even Second Temple Judaism which was moving away from earlier henotheistic models. For whatever reason, people in late antiquity seemed to favor the idea of one supreme god and maybe his helpers.

>>2802021
>spread a message of empathy and compassion that many would call Pre-Marxist-Socialism
not even close, jesus went to levant to prostelytize semites away from their tribal totems (god of tribe of abraham) to worship a concept-god instead
at the time patron dieties were already a 1000 years dated as they belong in an age of warring city states and tribes (like bronze age) and roman empire which levant was subjected to was international
>which is why the Romans killed him.
roman judge pontus pilatus decreed jesus innocent in eyes of law, jews had him lynched (john 18:38)

>>2802049
>He was some half-mad Galilean who thought he was the savior of the world, he probably believed in the prophecy that he would be the one to bring peace to the world and liberate it.
Schizo Time: it was a psy-op religion invented by Titus and Josephus in 70CE to defang the actual militant resistance against the roman occupation forces. Read Caesar's Messiah cover to cover before replying.

>>2802021
you should be asking if Christianity was historically progressive rather than the figure of Jesus. in a sense, Christianity rose to prominence as the empire collapse, and Christian governance oversaw the gradual transition from slavery to serfdom. However this transition was very slow and not very revolutionary. The church in the early centuries not only owned slaves, but encouraged fear and obedience of one's earthly masters, since salvation is in the afterlife.

Like other anons alluded to, one could say that Jesus was a conceptually progressive thinker, but whose theory got doctrinally, institutionally and ideologically not so progressive in a very short time, just like german idealism in the time of Marx. Without modernity though, no theory could bring any transformative power anyways, so his religion ended up being just a perfect fit for traditional class relations throughout the ancien regime, continously remixed to cater the ruling class needs in question (including the reformation and all that jam), as any other premodern "theory" would have done.

>>2802050
Roman imperial ideology had become universal by the time of Christianity's rise, Caracalla's edict is a good exemple of it, everyone in the empire (except women and slaves) became citizens. Afterwards what the roman didn't tolerate were christians, as their ideology contrasted directly with the imperial ideology (until it didn't anymore)
>>2802060
You're right about mono/henotheism, but christianity is different in its desire to spread and expand, pagans didn't really try to force other people to their worship, and the romans tolerated and even integrated gods from other pantheons (Isis is a famous exemple) even neoplatonists tolerated other gods, viewing them as the inferior representation of Helios (Jupiter fell from favor during late antiquity) Paganism is less founded on a precise theology then the continuation of ancestral practices.
Christianity (exception gnosticism) is the exact opposite, the beliefs are what is important, not the practices in themselves. This means thats christianity's nature is to expand and spread the religion (same for Islam)
>>2802065
The Transition from roman society to feudalism began with Augustus, with citizens losing many rights after his victory and the creation of a nobility.
While the church offered legitmaty for the late emperors and the early kings, they also became a counter power, something the emperors didn't really have (apart from the army couping from time to time).
The church encouraged obediance in power and revolt when their ennemies were.

>>2802083
Where did you learn all that stuff? Name books pls

>>2802083
>and the romans tolerated and even integrated gods from other pantheons
Except that’s not really toleration, it’s a radically different mindset. The Romans and Greeks genuinely viewed other people’s Gods as their own, just with different names cause In their context, someone from one village to another might see a minor river god as the main deity of that village, on par with Zeus. People worshipped and understood gods in radically different ways, Sparta worshipped Ares and Aphrodite as a war goddess, while Athens viewed her as a goddess of love and saw Ares as a dumb brute. There were no doctrinal councils or organized cultic leadership dictating what people should believe. Instead, religion was defined purely by custom and practice, sacrifices, offerings, votive carvings, things people did on their own, with their households or in small community gatherings.

>We all know that Jesus existed historically
Do we? To me, Jesus is a mythical, not historical figure.

>>2802085
I mostly got it from my studies at university.
Do you speak french ? I have a PDF of a book about this exact subject published in 2024.
>>2802161
Fair enough, toleration wasn't the right word. But I meant that they respected local traditions, roman emperors practiced the traditions of where they were. Nonetheless, it was seen as something evil when the traditional roman cults were changing, as seen with Elagabalus attempt to enforce his god as the supreme god of the roman pantheon. Interestingly enough, pagan traditions were still a way for later rulers to justify their power, despite the christianisation. Even the Merovingian dynasty legitimised itself by both claiming they were the descendents of Troy and by claming that Merovee's father was actually a half-bull half-fish creature.

This is why I think that people overstate christianity's role in setting the bases for the early medieval order, while the church did play a large role, the main institutions (kings, nobility) were based on roman pagan traditions (Germanic ones are overstated except for the names), and while paganism disappeared, its traces remained, the early middle ages was syncretic in the west, not purely christian.

>>2802187
>pagan traditions were still a way for later rulers to justify their power, despite the christianisation. Even the Merovingian dynasty legitimised itself by both claiming they were the descendents of Troy and by claming that Merovee's father was actually a half-bull half-fish creature.
That was a period of Christian history when people believed most Greco-Roman myths actually happened, just not with gods. The default approach was Euhemerism, which is why you could see artwork of Alexander as a Christian king

>While in most respects the ancient Greeks and Roman had been superior to themselves, they had been in error regarding their religious beliefs. An examination of the principal writings in Middle English with considerable reading of literature other than English, discloses the fact that the people of the Middle Ages rarely regarded the so-called gods as mere figments of the imagination but rather believed that they were or had been real beings, sometimes possessing actual power.[21]