Have you accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior?

I fucking love Liberation Theology movements, but I'm not spooked enough to believe in religions.

Was Marx Jewish? I know Leon and Rosa were at birth.

Marx was a Jewish Rothschild Lizard Alien sent to establish the NWO.

How do we get the christian right to become left ?

Comrade Jesus was our guy, yes.

he's a big guy

He died UUUU

4u

Ambrose of Milan, 340-397 A.D.
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 A.D.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 A.D.
The Didache
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.

You don't. Culture warriors have spent the last forty years trying to make people do things that piss off Christians and lead to mutual alienation. See war on Christmas, gay marriage (it has to be called marriage you bigots!), and abortion. If you could kill off the dumbest liberals you might have a shot, but they're not going anywhere.

marx was jew-hating jew. he was also baptised.

Marriage being something deeply Christian is also pure revisionism in the first place. Jesus said that it was better to "live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" and that whilst this was not obligatory, "The one who can accept this should accept it.” Paul is also very clear that “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” and that "It is good for [the unmarried and widows] to stay unmarried, as I do" only recommending marriage for the weak-willed who cannot control their urges as it is "better to marry than to burn with passion." And even then he notes that he says that "as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am." Early Christianity was an ascetic sect which rejected pagan society and awaited the imminent end of the world when Jesus would return to judge all the masters and create paradise on earth.

That's true, but the aim was to mobilize an identity group against Christianity and conscript a bunch of new culture warriors by playing on defensiveness, as well as giving progressive atheists something to feel morally superior over. It was sheerly political.

Jesus was original MGTOW.

I always forget he fucked up some bankers in the temple. Any coincidence he got murdered like 4 days later?

Banking conspiracy confirmed

Do you remember that God's good friend Abraham was wealthy? "Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold," Genesis 13:2 informs us. Job was the richest man in the land. Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, David, Solomon — all loaded. Those whom God loved in the Old Testament, He often favored with a level of wealth that would have put Bill Gates in a coma. Solomon was so rich that his entire kingdom was awash in gold. Yes, how about that? — "Trickle-down economics" in the Bible. Silver was so plentiful that it was no longer a precious metal.

renewamerica.com/columns/popp/091009

It doesn't get more /ourguy/ than this

Yes but unironically

...

It amazes me how people don't understand theology

...

...

What the hell is this nonsense?
I'm not rich or middle class.
So this is saying that the food in my fridge, my clothes, my fucking shoes all arbitrarily belong to the poor/anyone.

Reminder that left wing political movements in Abrahamic religions are universally considered to be heresy and that the altruistic language of Christianity is the arbitrary demands of an otherwise monolithic and authoritarian belief system and not an endorsement of collectivism

This is why I cannot support this batshit insane movement.
I'm working class, and you morons want to give my house, my clothes, my food all away to the poor, that no one owns anything.

Damn, looks like some right-wing moralfag got triggered to Sheol and back by this thread

...

We're coming for your toothbrush and we'll paint it pink.

Don't forget his wife who will become a concubine for Commissar Jamal.

So you admit that you don't give a damm about other people's "personal property"?
So you want to seize the home of every working class person, their clothes, food?
If people realize this, they will never support communism/anarchism.

I guess comrade Jesus is talking about that if you don't use shit, and someone needs shit, it is morally justified to take your shit and give it someone who really needs it

like all those ancient communal laws about how arable land should not be idle

Calm down, you're sperging out.

Or just keep sperging out.

Man you just need to relax and have a Striner meme.

We aren't seizing people's personal property.

Ok, this is bate, but imagine for a second it wasn't. This would mean "we" the left are not illustrating these theories in meaningful ways to normies, or larpers or people new to leftism. "We've"created an echo chamber where an individual cannot tell sarcasm

from reality.

If this is not bate then we have failed this person in helping them understand public,private,personal property. you know. "Our" whole thing.

Here's the "communist" Jesus telling unhappy workers to be thankful they even got a wage and lecturing them that the land owner is a "goodman" for employing them in his vineyard, from Matthew 20:

Also:

And also if you have anything against homophobia or are a proponent of men and women doing equal work and having equal social status, I have about 50 more verses for you.

yes you idiot

The toothbrush joke is a running one about that very same straw man which you're advocating right now.

We want to collectivize what is not actively used by people themselves and institute production for use. That's it.

Listen to your own retarded rants about redistributing the homes of working people. Isn't that ridiculous on the face of it?

Why is your first thought that anyone could be that utterly, moronically, beyond-all-reason, pants-on-head retarded? We're not Nazis.

Centuries of effort undone. You've done it user, you've uncovered the vile secret of communism. You're a hero. You didn't read a single page of theory, or engage critically with any ideas, or even discuss with anyone knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialist political science. No, all you had to do was wait until someone made a shitpost on a forum, and you managed to disarm the ruse, revealing communism for the sham that it was.

Now we'll just have to shut down Holla Forums, pack it all in, because you've uncovered what socialism is all really about. You, user, the Holmes to Karl Marx's Moriarty. Well done.

Where does Pope Francis land politically?

You're misinterpreting the story. It's primarily about not being jealous and thinking that someone else's gain is your lose. If a penny is a day's wage, why are you bitching about someone possibly being overpaid and not you being underpaid? Not to mention that since these are poor labors, they very well needed that penny to provide for their families, so in another sense its someone complaining about charity.

Also quotes from Paul doesn't really say anything about Jesus.

I like this thread :)

His father was jewish but he converted to Lutheranism even before Karl was born.

So technically Karl was raised as Lutheran.

so how can we convince your fellow chirstfags to accept Commissar Jesus in their heart?

When thinking in reformist terms, I can't help but see religion as a useful tool of political control. When your government tells you to breed more-or-less for a political outcome, it's oppression. When your pastor does so, it's just god's will. The church has been overlooked as a useful apparatus of the state.

Moreover, I'm inclined to believe that the church was intentionally discarded as the world slid towards neoliberalism, as such power over personal lives was no longer required and Christian moralising became a possible risk to greed. (The US is a bit different to my reference model of the UK here, since the religious right allied with Reagan, but even then the wedge-issue approach would seem to back up the general idea that Religion has been hollowed out into sheer tokenism where once it was a useful apparatus for the state as a whole.)

Without Jesus, could we have Keynes? It's an open question. In any case, both are dead and only one may return.

marxists always bashed the church as an instrument of the class control

socdems their natural habitat everyone

Yeah but Marxists don't run western countries via winning elections under bourgeois democracy, which what I find interesting. As an arm of the state, it has been left to wither since the 60s.
Interested in what you mean by this.

That's as legit as communism gets. By the grace of God, were taking dat toothbrush whitey.

dunno, sometimes my hands just type something on their own

I hate when that happens. It's all fun and games until you start telling liberals that Pol Pot's only mistake was losing power and that if you don't burn banks, the banks burn you.

This, the lordsmiles upon a NAZBOL nation

Unironically this.

If you want a discussion on communism that isn't commentary on a shitpost thread, the ball is in your court.

I just find it strange when Leftypol has previously defended the idea of "personal property" and now most posters want to scrape that idea, that no one has their own home, not even their clothes.

There are nearly a thousand people that post on this fucking board, dumbass. You think they all think the same fucking things? You think that what they think or say has anything to do with what communism means? Read a fucking book you cockburgling megachode.

Yes. Jesus was the best socialist.

FTFY

Combination of dialectics, this board and the way my life has been going despite my efforts the last few years I am getting closer to renouncing any faith in a higher being.

Property is a spook

More into Buddhism.

He said that in the context of divorce, to those seeking easy divorce and treating marriage frivolously it is better to be eunuchs. Context matters.

Christianity is very much pro-family and pro-patriarchy and pro-hierarchy, first it suggests the divine-right of Kings exists and implies monarchism is quite a good form of government.
Secondly, women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands as husbands are to Christ, and women are supposed to remain silent in churches and not hold authority over men. And men, as a general rule, ought to leave their families and start their own, binding to one (female) wife, in heterosexual union.

Abstinence is for the rare few who would not manage the family life well, not a prescription or ideal.

Except he was against revolution, "render unto casear what is caesar's" and he didn't come to establish an earthly-political kingdom.

One of the many problems Jesus poses for Commie/Lefties is he wasn't against the master-slave relationship, in fact scripture instructs slaves to obediently follow their earthly master's even if they are unjust.

As an anti-materialist Jesus doesn't fit into either Capitalist or Communist ideologies; capitalism and communism both reduce life to economic caluclations, man worries primarily about how to "relate" to his property, his wages, his production; one camp thinks X is more efficient the other camp thinks Y is more efficient. Jesus said that stuff will basically take care of itself and doesn't matter, what matters most is how man relates to God, how man develops virtues of the soul, how man receives salvation.

And we all know how Marxism/Communism/Leftism views God and moral virtues.

Jesus couldn't explicitly be revolutionary because of the environment he lived in. Had he started preaching about smashing the romans, his movement would have been quashed quite quickly.

The Church Fathers are essentially being Proudhon here and rejecting absentee ownership. Anything which you legally "own" but do not actually use is not to be regarded as your property.

Christianity is against everything. It was an apocalyptic doomsday cult which was subsequently recuperated by the powers that be to support the existing hierarchies. Not to mention that there's a significant distinction between Jesus and Paul within the New Testament, as the second is honestly far more influential than the first. Half the New Testament is written by Paul, who had never met Jesus and was a rather controversial person in the early Jesus movement by his own admission on conflicts with James the brother of Jesus and whatnot. Furthermore, like the half the letters he supposedly wrote are blatant forgeries when you consider the style and vocabulary. You know where Paul states that "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet"? Yeah, universally recognized forgery, and one which runs counter to historical fact. Not to mention that lots of useful documents from this time period which shed light on the circumstances of life within Early Christianity aren't in the Bible at all. Take the Acts of Paul and Thecla, for instance, which depicts Paul as a controversial preacher who is hated by the established order for preaching virginity and abstinence, breaking the hold of traditional authority on women and allowing them to escape being married to some guy and spending the next decades as a breeding sow, with a decent chance of dying in the process. So clearly some writers around the year 100 didn't quite perceive this modern pro-family, pro-patriarchy Christianity you see. You can't just take everything that's in the Bible as God's word and the end-all, be-all of research into Christianity. It's not. It contains forgeries, it contains writings by people who disagree with one another, it lacks a lot of historical information which is nevertheless useful.
I'll agree that it is not socialist in any sense, as it rejected the business of this sinful world altogether. But actually accepting that this hilariously contradictory bastardization we have today is an accurate reflection of what the movement Jesus started was all about is a fucking joke. Here, have a little education on the development of early Christianity:
youtube.com/watch?v=dtQ2TS1CiDY&list=PL462B0F2345C29AFA

distinction but not disagreement.

road to damascus.
if we reject the divinity of Christ and the basics of Christianity, then this thread and debate are pointless.

uhh no.
what are you babbling about? There are some "controversial' verses that don't appear in the earliest manuscripts, but that isn't one of them and it certainly isn't a forgery.

more nonsense without substance.

Then this discussion is pointless since you're arbitrarily cherry picking what is and isn't Christianity.

> youtube.com/watch?v=dtQ2TS1CiDY&list=PL462B0F2345C29AFA

Dale Martin suffers from homosexuality and is proud of it, so he’s not conservative or traditional on what the Bible teaches and clearly can't interpret it properly. He strikes me as one of these liberal postmodern Jesus Seminar people who uses religious words, but is a materialist-hedonist at heart who can't accept the reality of a conservative, historical Jesus because of his worldview and mental disorder.

...

The story explicitly supports the concept of private property and even considers the owner of that property virtuous despite exploiting laborers for their wages. Of course, the central point of the story isn't a political narrative regarding the virtues of capitalism, it's a moral narrative about envy, but the themes found in the story show explicit support for the concept of private property and exploitation of labor through wages.

It doesn't get any more fundamental than the language used in that parable as to how utterly anti socialist Jesus was. He loved the poor, fine, he was a very generous capitalist or feudalist, but certainly not a socialist, in fact, he's more or less saying be content with being exploited for a wage, just be thankful you have a wage.

It's tankie tier revisionism to claim Jesus was a proto-socialist. And it's stupid shit like this that doesn't help when talking to people out there who know their stuff.

If you reject Paul you may as well reject the testimony of the other apostles.

...