/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.

>>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]

>>2802021
Jesus was just another jewish schizo. It was Paul that turned this jewish sect into a universalist religion.

you can only be historically progressive, if you are historical in nature, of which Jesus the Christ wasn't

Anyone want to refute this?

>>2802021
>Was Jesus historically progressive?
Yes and anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand history. Pagan and especially Greek and Roman philosophy was a lot more egotistical and "fuck you I got mine" when it came to ethics. Unlimited use of power by the powerful on the powerless was seen as the norm and even as something to be celebrated and encouraged. If there was a check on power it was other powerful men. Even the idea of idea of charity as we understand it was a christian product. Hellenic philosophy only talked about helping the poor in the sense that you will celebrate and elevate your social status by giving to others, or the poor being grateful to you later; or poor getting helped as a side product of some public work in the polis paid by the elite; instead of giving because it's somehow right to help the poor.

The idea of universally helping somebody who isn't your family or friend and you don't even know was really fucking novel idea at the time. We of course don't see it that way because it is the norm in the western culture, despite porky trying it's best to commodify everything, even basic human decency. We probably wouldn't have less public institutions and society would be even more atomized. Also just the idea that we aren't just to be understood as king and commoner, jew and gentile, master and slave, but that there is something universal that binds all of us and that each of us matters, really opened some other interesting philosophical pathways.

Also do I need to remind you that utopian socialism (not Marxism), was just an offshoot of christian radical and proto-socialist movements before them, who sought to emulate the early christians better and organize society more like the early church was not just as a religious obligation, but as a material necessity.

>>2803663
the philosophy of jesus already existed in highly similar forms popular in greece and rome, to pretend that pre-christian europe was this ultra-evil society and actually christians were le nice and good is just repeating christian myths without critical analysis

JESUS WAS A russian saboteur

>>2803664
Christ (as Logos) is basically the culmination of Greek philosophy, since afterwards in the late Roman period, we get neoplatonism and Hermeticism, which appear as reproductions of the same ideas.

>>2803710
not only that but basically nothing was actually new, if christianity was historically productive it would not have been the defining element of a period of stagnation and conservatism leading to the mass destruction of productive forces, pretending christianity was proto-communist or whatever always pisses me off because you have to ignore the demonstrable conservative elements of it, before christinity even took off as a somewhat relevant religion in the 3rd century, you already had almost every idea of it already existing with no relation to christianity

>>2803716
So Christianity is historically reactionary against Paganism?

>>2803663
You are simplifying Greek and Roman philosophy, In both greek city states and in the roman republic, there was opposition and counter powers to the people in charge, neither the patricians nor the plebian could govern alone and they had to work with each other.

Ceasar got killed for not respecting that, this order only ended with many years of consecutive civil wars, where the idea of a strong man emerged as necessary to keep the peace, even then Augustus never officially abolished the republic.
As for the issue of selfishness, it was generally considered wrong to be selfish, altho you aren't wrong that the core of the argument is different then christianity.
“What brings no benefit to the hive brings none to the bee.” Marcus Aurelius
(Meditations 6.54)

Marcus Aurelius argued against selfishness on the basis of the common good, the idea that a citizen must strive for a larger group. Christianity argued on a individualistic perspective of doing what is right for one's soul. The Main difference between greco-roman and christian is the role of religion, Christians view religion as a deeply personal belief, and while religious communites exist, there aren't the center of religion.

Christians pratice their religion because they believe they'll go to heaven. Pagans view religion as a communal issue and as the continuation of ancient traditions, they practice it to keep communal stability.

However, what christianity brought foward the creation of an institution dedicated specifically to helping the poor, with no real equivalent in the pagan world (except Julian's attempt to create such a system for the pagans)

As for the utopianists, this is also a simplification, while some utopian socialist were christians, plenty also took inspiration by enlightement philosophers (Rousseau) and came to the conclusion of equality between all men by this view rather then religious belief, these utopian socialists condemned Christianity, Gracchus Babeuf is a good exemple.

>>2803723
>Pagans view religion as a communal issue and as the continuation of ancient traditions, they practice it to keep communal stability.
Thats not entirely true. Worship to gods is also part of the logic of exchange, where one is rewarded for sacrifice. So, it has its dimension of commoditisation.

>>2803727
So, yes? History has regressed since the time of 100 CE?

>>2803723
>Christians view religion as a deeply personal belief, and while religious communites exist, there aren't the center of religion.
>Christians pratice their religion because they believe they'll go to heaven. Pagans view religion as a communal issue and as the continuation of ancient traditions, they practice it to keep communal stability.
This is really later development, i don't want to say protestant, but that was the logical endpoint of this development. The early Christians put more weight on you doing right by others, the community was the thing in early-Christianity. It was not primarily about personal faith, or personal repentance, obsession of with sins and being sorry for them. That is the later development.

Also what differentiates pagan worship above all from Christianity was that pagan worship was more transactional. Like you do the sacrifices and rituals to get better crop, find love, cure your illness etc or not be affected by your god's disfavor if you don't. Christian god is universal and will forgive all who will seek him, and will set things right after the second coming. You cannot sacrifice, pray hard enough, or be good or virtuous enough for god to earn anything, but they belied that they could take the given grace and could be good enough to other people with that grace. If the could not, then tough luck champ, I guess they weren't true in their faith. However the talk inside your head was never the point it was the walk you would walk because of it. The community, the works and the church was preparation for the second coming, aka. final judgment, aka. "heaven", which was coming soon, on earth, not above the clouds, alternative dimension, or metaphorically. Christianity was not as or less communal than pagan societies, they were more communal by all measures. What they however also were more insular (mostly because charity with limited resources is rationally focused primarily within the in-group) and took the worship away from public spectacles and that irked some of the roman pagans and led to all kinds of conspiracy theories. Those conspiracy theories and Christians denouncing the cults of roman emperors led to the later persecutions.

>>2802023
everytime there's a crisis in capital a reactionary entity of ye olden days will see the writing on the wall and try to ride the wave of change in a last ditch effort to continue existing