The Communist Bloc

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Okay two things:

One: You cannot meaningfully divorce the concept of 'christianity' in the abstract or foundations from the social practice of christianity as it actually and currently exists.

Two: Bizarre historical revisionism and theological meanderings about how Christianity Was Kinda Socialist All Along are not just, again, ridiculous, but completely worthless. Attempting to develop an ahistorical and theological basis for Socialism is a dead-end, one that leads to nowhere but reactionary nonsense.

It is perfectly good if one's christian principles, whatever they may be, bring one an inclination towards socialism, but they must not be the guiding foundations of one's politics.

I don’t quote the authors and offered my own opinion but just want be clear that the authors I referenced come at the “historical Jesus” issue from a thoroughly Marxist materialist analysis. They are also clear, as I mean to be that the movement was not “socialist”. “Socialism” only comes about in modern times. They might say that early religious movements, such as the Jesus movement can be a means of resistance for common people in other class societies. The nature and form of that “resistance” might be debated. I would suggest looking into the authors if you have time or interest.

On the practice of Christianity vs origins, especially since the Protestant reformation there has been a second look in that sphere at many traditions and ways of understanding things. It has really opened up the possibilities of secular scholarship. Sometimes scholarship makes it’s way into Christian circles. And religion is a constant dialogue, not just traditions. One might be considered heretical if they take a differing opinion, and that is an issue. I think the future of religion may be postmodern. Zizek may not like it characterized this way do to his objections to postmodern thinkers but his, “Christian atheism” may be the new thing.

Second Sovereignty wrote:

I assure you, I have absolutely no interest in what anyone discussing bizarre ahistorical nonsense like 'the jesus movement' have to say about anything at all. The authors you have mentioned are theologians attempting a rebrand and reinterpretation of their theology. It is completely divorced from anything remotely marxist and ought to be ignored outside the theological context, which is utterly irrelevant politically as these sorts of people are fundamentally not meaningful political movement akin to other, overtly reactionary varieties of christianity, nor even the common varieties.

Okay, once more for the people in the back; I obviously and specifically did not say that christianity is unbound through time. I said that it is not worthwhile to try and reach back for a kind of ideal ur-christianity. It is completely meaningless to attempt to divorce the concept of 'christianity' in the abstract or foundations from the social practice of christianity as it actually and currently exists. You talk about the protestant reformation as though it is some magical event in recent history rather than a quite old event that spawned some of the most violent and reactionary brands of christianity to ever exist. Ahistorical nonsense.

'Christian atheism' is the most asinine and insulting concept I have ever heard of and you would do well to disregard such nonsense entirely. There are no secret ideal 'secular' values of christianity, and I cannot imagine where the hell you got that idea.

well, there is no “secret” and there is no “ideal” form. I disagree with a lot of your characterizations. My point on the protestant reformation was on one historical effect of opening up scholarship. And that religion is not just traditions. I do acknowledge more reactionary forms of Christianity divorced from religious traditions developed. but we’ll probably just have to disagree at this point since what I have to talk about is extremely offensive apparently. 😅

Kingdom of Voidstania wrote:

Look, firstly, there is the undeniable fact that the Bible and Christian teachings preach superiority against those who do not follow their ideology, like for example in the book of Revelation when all non-believers are said to be burned. There is no world where Christianity does not claim superior moral authority, in any form that the majority of the theology has followed and accepted.

That is a good point and mostly correct. I think it’s a bit more complicated. For example, before the unification of dogma and view of the Bible as one whole, we could see different authors have differing perspectives. On the whole you are right though. But I think we need to historically situate it. Generally the NT authors thought the “end of the world” was coming right around the corner and God would destroy their enemies. It generally wasn’t about the afterlife. Though there is a bit of reference to a good place and bad place in parable in Luke for example.

Anyways, I just think they were so wrong about the end and that is no secret. So Christians today either have to justify it or take a view of scripture where it isn’t fully sacred. But then religion becomes a bit more unset and perhaps people would have to set what they mean by it again. But if you come from a tradition that uses these texts, you will always be in dialogue and challenged by them even if you don’t always agree with them.

Now, I'm no lawyer (if that even is the correct term), but if a resolution with some loopholes exist, but other parts of it is still good, why not replace it in one proposal instead of having to repeal it and then renew it?

Top 10% economy let's fweaking goooo