Christian Holla Forums?

No. Do you mean humanists?

Christian reward system is always good for a giggle.
Especially when anti-authoritarian leftist look to a sky daddy for salvation lest he punish them with damnation instead.

I guess the question (I often ask myself) is, in how far "socialism" is simply "anti-Capitalism."

This is I why I usually just say that I'm a Christian anti-Capitalist… (Now I'll try out the "Christian Commie" flag just to see how it looks like, tho.) …because if you define "socialism" as a movement/philosophy that teaches that Christianity must be overcome to reach justice etc. … it's hardly compatible, of course.

I don't know much about China (admittedly, I mostly had sub-saharan African and Latin America in mind when I made the thread) … but I kinda doubt that the majority of the Chinese people fall under the definition of "atheism" … they will have folk religions, Taoism, Buddhism, there might be more blurred lines between "theology" and "philosophy" for them, but not actually "atheist."

Holla Forums might mostly secular/atheist, but I don't think religious socialist and commies get shat on too much here, the worst thing you will be forced to cope with is stirnerposting

Christian communism is OK but muslamig communism is not? Not really Muslim BTW, but I was raised as one

For some mysterious reasons islam isn't held in high regard now

Christian socialists are ok in my book.

I don't like however the "Catholic" socialism the Catholic church pushes which involves gaining more power for their billion dollar church and clergy and the Jesuit mafia masterminding it.

What is your definition o "atheist"? Because things are getting confusing. As far as I am aware, "religion" in China is more of a cultural thing. It's like you can enjoy Christmas, but don't actually believe in Jesus or Santa. I.e. it doesn't make you an actual believer.

Chinese don't go full Wahhabite or treat those things seriously. For all intents and purposes they are no different from Americans with Mickey Mouse or Batman. Except their Batman is a bit older.

If Islam reformed itself then I would be ok with it. But look at how much Erdogan is opposed to the Gülen movement so he doesn't alienate his other Sunni allies. In it's current forms both Shia and Sunni are very reactionary.

We could have a general /xtian/ thread on this board but that won't save us from shitposters

Kill em all

Would be nice to have more it around here it was good quality content :)

Jesus loves you. :)

The idea there are no deities and nothing "supernatural" at all - so a Japanese guy who lets himself get purified by a Shinto Priest wouldn't be an atheist from my point of view.

Then again … a Western person who believes in astrology wouldn't be an atheist either then.

So okay, yeah, it's getting confusing. And Japan also has a history of imperialism, of course…

Oh well, anyways.

Christianity is a right religion, fam. Look at the church hierarchy. The KINGDOM of heaven. citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2016/06/deconstructing-maoist-jesus.html?m=1

I won't read this whole article but the website seems to be Orthodox (note the Orthodox cross) and they quote Nicolas Gomez Davila, the hero of all Holla Forumsish "Neo-Reactionaries."

As far as I see it tho, Biblically speaking, The Church (with capital T and C) is neither a building nor an instititution but the invisible body of Christ; and all believers are part of said body and Church.

I'm a Christian reactionary myself, so I don't see the problem with quoting other reactionaries

Btw, fascism is right-wing or reactionary. Holla Forums is cancer

*Isn't

In what way does Christianity not lead to the abolition nations?

I'm welcome any socialist if they are want to work together . But why would a Christian advocate for socialism if what confuses me. It would be a disaster for Christanity. I mean in socdem nations religion is already in decline and a socialist, and even worse in a full communist society religion would lose its function and wouldn't be a widespread phenomenon, probably only a handfull would still practice. Even if you don't believe in a literal hell and just believe in annihilation theory it will deny potentially billions of people enteral paradise with god. What's a few decades of material safety compare to perfect bliss with God forever?

*of

Monarchy has been practiced by Catholic Europe for centuries, and marxism has consistently been decried. Christianity is obviously patriarchal, which naturally leads to the formation of states

The Gospel never promised full churches but promised a small and narrow path for a few.

I'm not denying that state-sanctioned "Christianity" has been in favor of the state (well, duh); I'm asking for actual textual evidence that Jesus would have approved in any way of reaction.

How about no. CounterStrike Lewis is apt here:

"I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."

And if you see socialism as just the extension of democracy into the workplace and further decentralisation of power then you can continue the argument along those lines.

I do however agree that Jesus wasn't a leftist (or rightist) since any 100% honest reading of the New Testament makes him come out as apolitical.

Also, the Gospel and the Lord NEVER makes such cynical arguments like "There should be poverty so people will become religious."
Quite the opposite!

Biblically, Christians are promised to suffer and called to reduce suffering.

And it's not just the New Testament, but also the Old Testament, for example Leviticus 25:35:

Think hard about what you are saying. You are literally wanting more people to die from easily preventable causes just so x quantity of "believers" make it to heaven. And that's assuming they will be true believers instead of sucking up prosperity gospel like Joel Olsteen because they're desperate for any sort of blessing in such a hard life. Now you can literally justify any cessation of the works you do so that "more people will believe." It's a cynical, dare I say even satanic position to take.

Even so why would you want to greatly decrease the amount of people in church and thus heaven?

I'm just pointing out the facts. Religion declines with material conditions improve,your in a catch 22. Christanity
may call to reduce poverty, but doing this to its ultimate state, a communist society would destroy the church.

That doesn't imply leftism

I have never in my life witnessed a mob make a good decision. Democracy is founded the belief that people are rational. Because we are fallen beings, we need a ruler with the authority to actually use his power, but who his restrained by the catholic church.

I think he's very political - most messiah claimants are. But the politics of 1st century Judea don't map onto modern ideologies at all.

If you can set your beliefs aside for a secular unified cause, I literally do not care what you believe. You could be a fucking Free Zone Scientologist for all I care.

one church to hold him back when said church has already demonstrated abuse of power and corruption in its previous history

No thanks.

Such as…?

I'm not a christian, I'm just pointing out the problems that christians has in socialism is achieved, there would decrease in religion, probably the billions if it's worldwide. And if anything the poor are the true believers, and the people in comfortable positions take it less seriously. Getting into more people into heaven seema like it would be the number one priority of any rational christian. As I said what's a few decades of material good conditions compare to eternity with the lord?

Galileo? Pedophile priest coverups? Suspending 3rd party audits of their finances? mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YW1GY

We are supposed to trust them with unlimited power again? No.

Fascists want to go back to the iron age. Reactionary as fuck, fam.

I have faith that the church won't collapse and disappear into a black hole just because material conditions become more abundant. It has survived through the ages and will survive what comes next. The "number one priority" is to love our neighbors, not to cynically plan out ways to increase poverty to ensure a "flourishing" of faith.

Religion is in decline throughout pretty much all 1st world countries, why wouldn't socialism greatly accelerate this. Especially because even fairly well of people can be alienated and frustrated with capitalism and this will go away to.

People could be members of religions as a sort of social club because they like the ceremonies, social aspect and the philosophy and so on.

Organized religion is collapsing because the state is getting more covert. But new religious movements and psuedo-religious thinking are all gaining.

This makes my point even stronger, less would be true believers and more interested in the social or cultural aspects than in the 3rd world. Witch I as have no problem with because they won't be causing any trouble, but as a true believer it would be worrying when most of your church goers just want to socialize and look at art.

>I am a

Gulag, 15 years.
Next!

Sorry, m8. Reason must triumph. Muh history and so on.
Wouldn't people there as members of a social club still benefit from being "in the presence of the lord" or whatever?

...

mfw

All atheism is is lacking a belief in gods. That's it. Only tells you what someone thinks about that single topic. It's not a positive claim that there are no gods, though some atheists may make such claims, and doesn't automatically exclude belief in other shit like things being haunted or bigfoot.

There are Amazonian tribes like the Pirahã that one could call atheists because they don't have a concept of gods or a creation myth, just something roughly akin to ghosts or dangerous nature spirits. Caused at least one missionary to "deconvert" because they kept asking him for proof and dismissed his stories about Jesus due to him admitting to never having met the guy.

Muh prime mover, muh intelligent design.
Who needs empirical evidence when you have superstition?

Materialists BTFO

Observation is all we have.
If the Cartesian Demon were real, if we were living in the Matrix it would be a moot point.

What about actual reason, mate?

It would be awesome if FSM existed, therefore FSM.

That nigga was wrong about everything. Go believe that your body is controlled by humors and that flies are born from the ether if you are going to have a boner for reason.

Reason is nothing without the physical world. We are physical beings performing limited reason within our minds. Our ideals and so on are merely an extension of the real world and our neurons firing.

pls prove empirically

This meme needs to stop. I known the medieval ages where anti science meme is annoying but science and philosophy have moves on from catholic scholasticism. Reason alone can't prove anything about the real world. The mathematics involved in string theory is far more rigorous and a work of pure reason than any abstract metaphysics but its all meaningless until there is an actual observation, witch string theory has been rightfully criticised for not providing

wtf

pls prove empirically

I'd join, man. Although I'm a bit too pacifist for most leftists' sensibilities.

If you didn't have a physical body, none of us could interact with you meaningfully.
If you didn't have fingers or some other means of converting thoughts to shitposting, we couldn't communicate over the internet.
Reason is a product of your brain.

Why is interaction necessary for reason?

String theory, like all theories is based on speculation. It's playing around with equations to what seems reasonable and mathematically fits the bill, it's not until it makes any observable claims till it becomes a proper scientific theory. String theory has been criticized as I said before for not making any testable claims. It's just a bunch of mathematics(ie part of pure reason) inspired by physical problems, and there is nothing wrong with that, many mathematians like string theory for the mathematical advances it inspired, but it doesn't give us knowledge of the real world.

These objection has struck me as a more of a rhetorical trick that takes advantage of the limitations of language more than anything else. All our information about the real world comes from sense data. If you want to know about the world you have to check it. Thinking real hard and logically about something doesn't me it will actually be the case.

i like leftist christians

i mean let's face it you guys actually practice what jesus said more than the majority of the people that claim to be christian on Holla Forums

How can reason exist outside your physical existence?
How can you think without a brain?

I would just say that most forms of socialism, other than Stalinism, have an anti-authoritarian bent to them.
As opposed to Christianity, which I think glorifies it to some extant.
I'm not saying you can't have a Christian socialist, of course.
But thinking it's so crucial to socialism that you have to form an ideology around it I think is a stretch. You have to avoid a lot of monarchical passages in the bible to avoid the cognitive dissonance. If you look at Lenin's writings, the Christianity of his time and place seems to have been used to uphold monarchy. I also realize that every religion picks and chooses what part of their text they adhere to, but that's also kind of my point. If Christianity can be anything you want, then it really doesn't matter as far as socialism is concerned.

Prove that you can't?

How do you deal with how blatantly corporate and capitalist the church is atm?

I apparently draw a lot from Proudhon and Tolstoy

He means the white feminists who go to other countries and say dowry is bad, or prostititoon is bad, or some bullshit against women wearibg hijabs even if the women in fucking secular countries like Turkey wear them often in rebellion to their parents.

Just to point out before modernity africans had different religions and belief systems. Some of them were si.oly philosophies and not literally taken seriously by everyone in that tribe. Theres a textbook on world mythology which says in the intro "dont assume they took these stories literally just because they were preliterate" for the stories from "primitive" tribes and peoples…

An alternate translation of "kami" is soirits, especially nature spirits. As opposed to all divine etc gods. There are stronger sprits like ameratsu and izanami/izanayki (sp?) though which could be gods

SOME religions decline. Others replace tbem. Note thr redurgence of wicca and neopaganism.

You mean invention.

Yeah, but the question is in how far even matters.

I've used a "negative" term (anti-Capitalism) instead of a "positive" term (Marxist-Leninist) and I also don't believe that an "orthodox" leftist atheist etc. and I will ever agree on all things - how should that even be possible…

But we do have a common enemy in capitalism, in imperialism, in the way, people's souls and bodies are destroyed by alienation, shit jobs, etc.

I obviously don't want a society in which I would be put into a Gulag for being a Christian … but wouldn't it be great if the two groups who meet a "Pastor vs. Atheist Debate" event are NOT alienated and angry and can't afford proper health care etc. but are reasonably wealthy and secure and can enjoy a debate without having to worry about how to pay their rent and health care when they come home?

In these debates I (and my opponents) always end up quoting this or that verse from Scripture … but maybe we Christians should simply talk more about EFFICIENCY and less about "ideology", if you know what I mean: Capitalism is simply not efficient when it comes to unemployment, poverty, destruction of nature…

Here's another thing I sometimes think about:

As a Baptist, I obviously have certain ideas about truth and disagree with, say, Catholics about certain topics.

But sometimes I have the impression that religion is terribly flexible. Honestly, I sometimes I almost WISH the Church would be the way these kind of youtube-Atheists describe them to be.

But Churches these days are mostly women, all welcoming to immigration (which I believe is part of the elite's "invade and invite" strategy to get cheap labor etc.), and the average laity for instance is often pretty much SJW and feminist and gay-friendly.

I can't speak for all countries, states, denominations etc. though but it seems to me that the people I know from school and college (not religious) are often even more "conservative" than the people I know from religious events.

So while I one the one hand I think that churches would also adapt to socialism and do well under a socialist regime … I sometimes worry about the fact that so many churches always seem to follow what the specific elites propagate.

why are you a christian leftist? why not muslim? if you werent born in europe and instead in the middle east, would you still be a christian leftist? why specifically christian?

Medieval Catholic Europe was based on dynastic-feudal states, not nations, with an overarching Church providing the basic moral outline and rules that these states must follow. Basically, it's that or you have the church cooperating with a dynastic state as in the Eastern Roman Empire. Or, the Church itself can rule as in a theocracy.

Basically, Christianity is a religion made by a Jewish sandnigger that the barbarian nobles of Europe managed to embrace. It should be abolished in favor of a religion based on Greco-Roman values, such as the Cult of Reason. :^)

Also, the nation-state was initially conceived as a democratic concept by radical revolutionaries, the liberal Whigs just appropriated it in the same way that Social Democrats appropriate shit from communists.

no, jesus would have started scientology or something similiar today.
any fucking con artist can start a religion, it's just that 2000 years ago they had to atleast pretend to be humble

Dude, there are christians in the middle east too.

why so many christfags recently

iktf… ;_;

The atheist left wants to get rid of the economic consequences of capitalism whilst keeping the social consequences.

Aquinas pls go

t. Kierkegaard

The objective accent falls on what is said, the subjective on how it is said.
This distinction holds even aesthetically and is succinctly put by saying
that in the mouth of such and such a person what is true may become
untrue. The distinction is particularly worth noting these days, for if we
were to express in a single sentence the difference between ancient times
and our own, we should most likely have to say that in ancient times only a
few knew the truth, while now everyone knows it, but that inwardness
stands in the inverse relation.e Aesthetically, the contradiction which
occurs in truth becoming untruth in this or that person’s mouth is best
construed comically. Ethico-religiously, the accent again is on the ‘how’,
but not in the sense of manner, tone of voice, style of delivery etc. Rather,
it should be understood as the existing individual’s relation, in his own
existence, to what is said. Objectively the question is merely about
categories of thought, subjectively about inwardness. This ‘how’ at its
maximum is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is itself the truth. But the passion of the infinite is precisely subjectivity, and in this way subjectivity is truth

Jesus was a radical anti-Roman messianic Zealot insurrectionist.

That’s why he hated the Pharisees (the idpol of Roman Judea), the Sadducees (the reactionaries) and the moneychangers (enough said); vowed to destroy the Temple and literally Rome itself; refused to legitimize Roman currency; and was given a political execution (death by crucifixion—they didn’t do that for common criminals).

Paul of Tarsus recuperated Jesus’ revolutionary following into a bootlicking, pro-Roman hybrid of Mithraism and neoplatonism to consolidate the Empire. OP and his coreligionists have been spooked by the ultimate reactionary co-opting.

P.S. Free Palestine

I like some of Badiou's stuff on Paul, but in the end he really was the fucking worst.

i know, but if the family you were born in was a muslim family, youd more likely to be a muslim. your religion depends a lot on the place you were born in, just like your nation/culture/language etc, so why specifically christian?