Why do right wingers like Jesus when he was a first century Jewish SJW who hated the bourgeoisie?

Enjoy porkie's ISP raking in cash on your metadata

Islam has socialist elements as well. But fuck religion, its a powerful spook.

You do know Holla Forums hates this guy, right?

Technically he was an atheist who simply realized that we are all God. Jesus was one of the first human beings to reach that level of enlightenment but if you spend your life seeking this ultimate truth you will one day find it.

Why was he an atheist? Because God is by definition an atheist. God is not a Christian, Jew or Muslim.

...

Does god believe in god? Then he is not an atheist.

Define 'believe'? Also God does not believe in God(s).

Also technically God is an anarchist as well. Think about the statement 'no Gods no masters' the defining phrase of anarchist thought – by definition God cannot have a God nor a Master. He is the ultimate being. In anarchy, the individual is the ultimate being on top of the hierarchy of power.

An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god. God by the very act of existing would therefore believe in his existence, making him not an atheist.

Let's look at all of the things that SJWs support:
1. Abortion - SJWs love murdering babies. Jesus hates people who murder babies.
2. Genocide - SJWs love the thought of killing every last white person. Jesus loves everyone, even white people.
3. Communism - Jesus preached charity. Charity is when you willingly give some of what you have to help those in need. Communism is when a totalitarian dictatorship takes what you have by force and uses it to fund things like abortion and genocide. (see above)
4. Homosexuality - Jesus said homosexuality is an abomination.
5. Laziness - SJWs love to bitch and moan and demand free shit because "justice".
Jesus preached that if you don't work, you can't eat.
6. Lies - SJWs have no problem lying about virtually anything and everything to get their way. Jesus hates lying. (See CNN & The NYT)
7. Islam - SJWs love Islam.
Jesus said that he himself was God and that if anyone preached a different message, they were lying devils. Jesus also hates pedophiles, which really puts a damper on his relationship with Muslims.
8. Rape - SJWs will say they hate rape, while at the same time inviting millions of Muslims to live in the west. (See "Lies" & "Communism" above)

The image of Jesus as a long-haired hippie pothead who hung out at the local gay bar is entirely a modern invention. Have a nice day ;^)

Low quality shitpost, m8. Only responding so others don't feel the need to.

Jesus never spoke about abortion because it didn't exist in his time. So at most we can say he was neutral on this.
Lol. This is is such a ridiculous statement that it doesn't warrant a rebuttal.
You don't know what communism is. Communism is a stateless society. It is by definition non-totalitarian.
Where?
Going out there protesting and fighting hard for your beliefs is the opposite of laziness. I guess MLK, Malcolm X, the suffragettes all were lazy :^)
Lying about what exactly? Be more specific.
Not really no. I think SJWs support Muslims not Islam. Stopping individual Muslims from being oppressed doesn't mean you love Islam. Most SJWs are secular.
And white men make up most pedophiles, Jesus hates pedophilia therefore he hates all white men :3

...

Most of the "Bible-believing" American religious right don't know or care what the Bible says. For them, being Christian is a way of saying that you're a good person (in their theology, humanity is a fallen, evil race that can only overcome their wickedness through devotion to God, this is also why they treat the irreligious as if they must be unhinged, amoral libertines: within their logical framework, without devotion to God, humanity will revert back to its innate wickedness) and what they really care about is what their preacher says. Many American Protestant churches are these single-church cults that treat their pastor as a little pope, literally the mouthpiece of God. You may remember, if you paid attention at all, that the late, great fundamentalist Southern Baptist preacher, Jerry Falwell, frequently opened his sermons claiming he had directly spoken with Jesus the day before.

That's where the New Atheists got it dead wrong. They took the fundamentalists at their word, not understanding that "Bible-believing" is their ideological jargon for "preacher-believing", and attacked the Bible and Christian religious tenets as if the fundamentalists actually gave a shit about any of that. Ironically, they ended up peeling people away from the more moderate mainline churches than the fundamentalists, making the Christian community more extreme on aggregate.

Christians don't actually read the bible because if they did they would be Atheists.

Why do you say that?

It's nonsensical and self-contradictory ideology.

Oh all right, that's fine then. For a second I thought you were implying something like this guy's bullshit

Jesus is worse than the Bourgeoisie. He's God.

If God created and occupies the universe, does that mean he owns us all?

The concept of ownership is a man-made meme. We're ultimately just made up of a bunch of individual living cells. Do we own the cells in our body? Or do they own us?

yes

This.

The original Jesus movement was proto-socialist. Christianity, meaning the religion developed by Saul of Tarsus based on the life of Jesus which was subsequently codified by the Catholodox Church, has very little to do with the original messianic social movement, though some of the early Church Fathers were still very woke.

Depends on what you mean by right winger.

1) Conservatives: Christianity is (read: was) a carrier of some traditions they are trying to conserve (and believe make societies good to live in). They lost a battle though. Completely.

2) Conservative-Libertarians: Because of self-enforcing moral system rather than state-dictated morality. They view social norms as positive and needed for the masses, and in lack of moral norms mandated by religion masses need a state (meaning: gun instead of hell).

3) Nazi: Here it gets complicated because on one hand it is a part of heritage. On the other, Jesus and his teachings are often seen as weakness. If it's positive view at all then it's mostly on pragmatic grounds.

4) Traditionalists: (ala Evolians) - they don't. At most, they see Catholicism as (partially) positive while Christianity itself is decadent. This might seem odd but do remember that Catholics are often accused of being non-Christian if not outright pagan. The value in this view comes from the structure of Catholic Church and it's doctrines, which albeit pozzed are today the last echoes of Traditions lost long ago. Christianity and Jesus himself are not cool because they appealed to the weak and disenfranchised, and was thus reflection of such beings. In short, Catholicism is (sort-of/maybe) good despite of Christianity.

t. "Right-Winger"

Oh, I'm so sorry. Tell me if there's anything I can do to help.

You can tell me what I gain by being a gommie :DDD

Freedom, my dude.

What freedom do I get?

The freedom that comes from getting out from the boot of class society and the restrictions of property and capital.

Freedom drom the tyranny of choice.

But I don't care about my class and I'm very comfy. Is there anything else?

This is actually not a bad argument tbh lad

You won't be for long. The other reason for opposing capitalism is that it is an inherently erratic and volatile system that has caused nothing but conflict and social upheaval since it's inception as a major economic system roughly ~200 years ago.

Nice to see it's just a radical critique still.

?

I don't care about capitalism, and war has been part of humanity since the dawn of time, capitalism or otherwise.

Still nothing appealing.

Capitalism defines how your society is organized, and conflict isn't just "war".

m80, I asked you for a single positive reason that would appeal to me in order to consider gommunism and all I hear about is supposed evils of capitalism which I don't care about and can't relate to.

Don't be a cunt your whole life

Are you a hermit?

Imagine the development of society contributed to shortening your workday until you didn't have to work anymore, instead of just contributing to making a tiny handful of fucks super rich.

I'd argue that we are mammals that evolved which shaped us both physically and mentally by our environment goes further to explaining human development and "superstructure" and how it forms.

Pretty much. The idea of helping some multicultural proles fight the big bad capitalist in all honesty produces stench in my nostrils. Political activism doesn't come naturally to me, and all the issues I have with the world are reflection of my own shortcomings. Right-wing/more-traditional literature helped me a lot in this regard while the focus of "leftist" thought and the whole mumbo jumbo doesn't pass my hermit test.

Then how do you explain the superstructure undergoing drastic changes with change in the economic modes of production.

Okay, dude, whatever floats your boat. Just stay out of our way.

...

Also, the context of that quote was Jewish priests asking Jesus if people should pay their Roman taxes or give their tithes to the temple (which was a trap because answering the former would have been blasphemy against the Jewish theocratic state and the latter would have been treason against Rome). He just answered "both".

...

Funny to hear that coming from someone who's whole worldview is based around never properly defined "oppression" and feminine instinct to defend the dispossessed lowlifes.

Stay out of my comf, and we'll be good.

So yo don't know shit about leftist thought.

Uh… it's very specifically defined. At least for Marxists.

No.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

I never saw a leftist define oppression in short and simple terms that consequently withstood any examination.

I certainly have "no shit" about your illusion of leftist thought.

Oppression is being in a subordinate position within a class structure.

Slaves are oppressed by masters.
Serfs are oppressed by lords.
Proletarians are oppressed by bourgeoisie.

Is it possible to oppressed voluntarily?

"Voluntary" is a weasel word. A choice between oppression and starvation is technically "voluntary".

But, yes.

Then it is possible to fight against supposed oppression of myself against my will in voluntary relations I myself form. You are thereby making me less free.

Actually, as a point of fact, serfs actually were "voluntarily" oppressed by their lords. Most were had to "voluntarily" swear an oath of fealty to him. The other option, like in capitalism, was becoming disenfranchised and subsequently starving to death or turning to a life of crime, likely ending in your execution.

Good job at completely ignoring my point and just spouting your rhetoric anyway. "Voluntary", once again, is a weasel word.

You don't have the choice, under capitalism, to live outside of capitalist relations. You might have the option of "voluntarily" choosing the the exact nature of your oppression and exploitation, but you don't have the choice to opt out and still remain within society.

You proposed two scenarios, one of which is voluntary, another is not:

1) Doing something on gunpoint isn't voluntary.
2) Accepting terms in order to avoid starvation/lack-of-benefits/inconvenience is voluntary.

[2] still applies to

1) X or death isn't voluntary
2) X or death is voluntary because it was a different kind of death.
Okay.

Factually incorrect. You have no choice under state to live outside of capitalist/socialist relations.

Capitalism requires a state to exist.

Sure thing.

Capitalist relations and Capitalism are two different things.

One is relations, another is form of state. My post still applies.

Perfect demonstration of why "voluntary" is a weasel word.

Sure thing, m80

I would argue that capitalism is a mode of production and capitalist relations are an intrinsic part of that mode of production.

I didn't say it wasn't an actual word, I said it was a weasel word.

And it's not standing in the way of anything. It's basically an all-but-meaningless term used by lolberts.

I would argue that capitalist relations are free exchange under any terms two consenting parties voluntarily agree to.

Weasel word is in your head. I am using the word very specifically. Maybe you want to withdraw your conclusion that oppression can be voluntary?

And I would say that this is a reductionist view that overemphasizes the brief window of equality of the open market to obfuscate the very unequal relations of production that more truly define capitalism.

will leftypol ever be something more than a bunch of edgylords?

I would argue that your reductionist meme is being unable to talk definitions on your part, and returning back to feminine motherly instinct and feels for oppressed lowlifes.

That is correct.
In your view, is it possible to die voluntarily?

It's actually your view that's reductionist, insisting on seeing capitalist relations through one narrow light that seems to justify them without considering anything else.

As a wage earner, I am one of the "oppressed lowlifes". I'm acting in self-interest, not "feminine motherly instinct".

Yes.
Yes. Suicides happen all the time. It should be noted that, in both examples, your death is equally "voluntary". The only difference is the exact nature of your death.

Whoops, I meant.

Explain.

I'm an anti-theist, but not because I hate Islam, but rather because I was raised religious to the extreme (debatably child abuse levels), and I believe it causes more harm then good.
It's pretty clear that religion is a spook, why are the Christ Commies so sensitive? You would rather assume we hate Muslims rather then entertain the idea that we have genuine reasons to believe what we do. I don't hate a single Muslim, Jew, or Christian for their beliefs. I hate the mental barriers that enslave you in your thoughts and actions in hopes of a world which I believe does not exist.
Christ Commies triggered

It's actually your programming from Peter Joseph down to every pseudo-commie ever that makes you incapable to talk definitions and returns you to "but muh oppression". I honestly don't think you're dumb, but if you commies were right you'd already develop a proper response to this besides "muh current oppressive state", "muh narrow light", "muh small box". Theory has to reflect empirical reality in order to be held in high regard and definitions are it's basis. I'm not a prophet in order to say that you won't be able to do that but until you can talk definitions you'll never get there.

That is respectable.

The cause is relevant. It's why we have definition for murder.

Not true, again see definition for murder. Unless you want to expand that?

Let's run a test. Let's say I want to go in the woods and maybe kill myself, when I find myself in your proposed situation.

The man says:
1) Work for me or I'll kill you. I refuse and he kills me.
-He murdered me. My death wasn't voluntary.
2) The man says "want to work for me?". I say no, go live in woods for a few days, and commit suicide as I was contemplating before.
-He didn't murder me. My action was voluntary.

And again, we return to your proposition that oppression can be voluntary and where you can't decide what's oppression anymore.

You mean the Utopian? Marxism is anti-utopian.

I have no clue what you're talking about.

Do you just regurgitate talking points? You asked for a definition and I provided it. It's you who's been scant on the definitions.

Why is the cause relevant? If I locked you in a room, didn't give you any food or water until you died, would that not be murder?

First, this only works if you already wanted to die in the first place. This is meaningless if you're a person who doesn't want to die. In one situation, you're directly shot, in the other you're indirectly killed when society withholds vital resources from you.

I already defined oppression as being in the subservient position within a class system.

If the point you were trying to make was "but what if someone wants to be oppressed", I guess you are limiting their freedom in that absurd situation.

Right… Is that why there was never "no real X" of anything Marx designed?

I defined capitalist relations as "free and voluntary exchange between parties" and you started to moan about muh context. You can add some context all you want, but I am talking about "free and voluntary exchange between two parties".
Just let me know how you want to call that bold thing in quotes, and I'm fine with it but don't discard that thing which you decide to name literally however you want as narrow. You can name it as I did ("capitalist relations"), or you can name it "X". But then prove me how it's morally (or in whatever sense you want) wrong.

Because definition of a murder depends on it?

Yes, it would.
Here's a smartass question for you too: If I locked you in a room and we both died of starvation because there was no food at all, would that be murder? If so, why?

Not true. It works if:
1) I wanted to kill myself in the woods
2) I wanted to go in the woods and didn't know I would die
3) Didn't want to work for the guy because I didn't like his face
4) Literally any case ever

Guess why? Because it's not oppression. Do you still want to insist that oppression can be voluntary?

And again I ask you, can oppression be voluntary? I would like to include that important parameter in your definition.

I'm limiting someone's freedom by limiting their voluntary relationships? If I enjoy being in subservient/lower position in a movement and taking orders, are you freeing me by telling me I can't do that?

I'm expanding someone's freedom*

Marx didn't design anything. His work was dedicated to materialist philosophy and critique of capitalist political economy.

Sounds like idealist conception of free market economics.

It isn't morally wrong. It doesn't exist and has never existed. You might as well be talking about the morality of the Narnian economic system.

Which is intentionally causing someone else's death.

No.

Because you're not withholding vital resources because there are no vital resources. My access to resources is no different locked in that room than outside of it.

I fail to see how any of those change that. You were abusing a loophole where a person voluntarily kills themselves before resources being withheld from them did, making their death voluntary instead of involuntary. That's what I was pointing out.

I defined "oppression" as being in a subordinate position within a class system. Nothing you've come up with has proven that this isn't a subordinate position within a class system. You can "voluntarily" subordinate yourself, it's true.

Yes, a person can want to be oppressed. A person can also want to die, want to feel pain, want to starve, etc. The fact that it can be voluntary doesn't make it socially desirable.

I'm coming from the position that most people don't like being oppressed. I'm not concerned about the odd masochist that might like it. I'm freeing people from the limitations imposed by class society, if that limits people's "freedom" to be oppressed, so be it. The people will be freer on aggregate.

I asked you to name it, not what it sounds like. Please determine how we can call "free and voluntary exchange between two parties"

I asked you to name that thing because you are implying that: "free and voluntary exchange between two parties" doesn't exist. Since you refuse to name it, I'll just keep pasting it.

So, when today I gave a pack of smokes in exchange for cash to the guy I know "free and voluntary exchange between two parties" didn't happen?
Now that I'm talking to you and we are voluntarily exchanging information "free and voluntary exchange between two parties" doesn't exist? Are we in Narnia right now?

Please, explain how those two examples don't real.

Yes, it is. The other person is a vital resource. On the other hand, you do have a point since we did indeed go into a lifeboat scenario. I'll have to meditate on this.

It changes that because I only started with suicide variant as an extreme in order for you to admit that refusing vital work can be voluntary. Then I expanded that onto not knowing about consequences and if that scenario can be voluntary - then it's not "suicide loophole". Then I expanded onto "refusing to work for any reason whatsoever" and you are still clinging onto "it only works in suicide scenario", when I demonstrated how it doesn't.

Let's reiterate (for my sake also, because I'm getting lost):
You claimed that oppression can be voluntary and provided an example of serfs being offered work or go live/die in woods.
I claim that there is an issue with being "oppressed voluntarily", and provide suicide example. You accept that there was no oppression going on because the case is very specific.
I exchange the suicide scenario with "wanting to go to the woods but not knowing the consequences" scenario wondering if that is oppression. At this point, you do not know how it changes anything, and are still calling it "suicide loophole".

I therefore ask you again:
If guy offers me work, and I refuse because I want to go live in the woods, and die not knowing I would - was that oppression?

Is that why your message is resonating so well with the public?

Going off now, will check out the thread tomorrow.

I already said it, free market economics.

Free market economics.

Force is implied based on that transaction. Say the guy took your pack of smokes and just walked away. He'd either be arrested or attacked by you. A degree of force and coercion is implied for transactions to exist, "free and voluntary" transactions don't exist, weasely as "free and voluntary" is in the first place.

Are you suggesting that one person would eat the other person?

Okay, I'm getting a bit tired of vague abstraction land. People have to work to survive, there aren't many people who can just outright refuse all work and survive. I don't care about the relation between just two people. I care about how society functions as a whole.

No one offers someone someone a job or their life on the way to the woods. It's an absurd situation that doesn't reflect on anything.

No, they weren't given the option to live in the woods. Living in the woods would have raised suspicion that they were poaching the lord's game. They would have become beggars, thieves or vagabonds, if they wanted to continue living.

Being offered a job under any circumstance isn't an example of oppression. Oppression is the social condition of being an underclass. I simply agreed that suicide is voluntary. Oppression doesn't go away if it's voluntary.

A dumbass going into the woods and getting themselves killed has nothing to do with oppression.

You don't have the legal option to go live in the woods, at least for free. The woods are owned by someone, or some group of people, just as they are in real life.

Are you trying to imply some kind of "frontier option"? Because that hasn't been viable for a century.

That is a message that resonates well with the public. Usually the biggest charge against communism is that we want them to be oppressed for the sake of some absurd absolute equality, rather than our actual goal of getting the workers to take control of the means of production.

Settled people have slave religion. It's not hard to understand. It's not a matter of whether Jesus appealed to the common social and cultural conservatism many of them had, if he was a Negro Faggot on a unicycle they'd still eat his message up. Constantine that insufferable buttmuncher weighed his options and chose Christianity over the Roman Cult not because of deep faith, because you honestly can't find deep faith in Jesus' words, but rather because the words of that bastard could be used to empower the Empire and bring about better control in the dire times Rome faced. It's an imperial cult, a state religion, a faith used to mask vile intentions.

Fear of being murdered under communism lead religious leaders to deliberately construct a false gospel to support the Republican party, which was seen as more anticommunust

That's not true. I don't want the guy's money unconditionally. I don't want all the world's riches as free shit so I would never attempt to take his money. But let's ignore that completely.

Let's say guy and I are friends. He can take my cigarettes when he needs them, he will give me money when I need it. But we still exchange exactly as I described.

1) Was that "free market economics" AKA "free and voluntary exchange between two parties" and was it therefore real?

2) Does any private property exist in your world?

I took your scenario and will stick to it, but I think I solved your "oppression" problem and resolved the point through which we couldn't previously get along. I will ask you to see the following carefully, because it might be helpful to you much more than to me.

To clear something up (because we can't get an agreement on words without it):
First you said that suicide scenario was both voluntary and not oppressive (because oppression didn't yet take place - or what you call "suicide loophole"). Then you sort-of-kind-of backtracked on it with:
For the sake of discussion I will understand the second sentence as not applying to suicide scenario - meaning, it wasn't oppression. Your stance (as accepted above) is confirmed by you accepting that expanded non-suicide scenario was not oppression:

Thanks for sticking with me, because I have determined the proper definition of "oppression" that fits all your criteria (involving cigarettes for cash). The only reason "in the woods" scenario I described above were not oppression according to you is because of "wants". The reason oppression didn't take place is because the man that went into woods did not want anything the employer had or offered him, but rather actively wanted something else.

So I propose the perfect definition of oppression that is completely free from the issue that word "voluntary" causes:

Oppression: Being denied goods and resources you actively want.

How it solves the problem:
1) Above cannot enter "voluntary" problem because you cannot actively want and not want something.
2) Due to [1], one cannot voluntarily be oppressed.
3) Because of [1] and [2], the man that died in the woods because he wanted to kill himself wasn't oppressed. The man that died in the woods because he didn't want to work but did want employer's stuff was oppressed. Likewise, the guy that wanted my cigarettes in exchange for his money wasn't oppressed. The guy that wanted my cigarettes but had to pay me because I refused to give them for free was oppressed.
4) While class is not necessary in definition itself, a group of people is by (this new) definition itself a lower (oppressed) class if they are denied goods and resources they actively want.

Does this definition describe your positions well?