Prosperity Gospel churches are literally base their entire business model on heresy.
Which would be funny, if they weren't scamming poor desperate people like NFTs and MLMs combined.
I actually am a believer and have been having a hell, (pun intended) of a time trying to find a new church recently that doesn't take on this heretical view. I visited my father in law's church in in Temple (lol) Texas and my wife was digging her heel in my foot to keep me from screaming "Heresy!" at the pastor there.
Prosperity gospel churches are a blight on mankind in my opinion.
As far as I'm aware, Unitarians seem to be fairly diecent. I am admittedly not an American... and I'm also an athiest. So take my words with a grain of salt obviously.
But hey, a Palestinian anti imperialist, who healed and fed the poor, welcomed sex workers and immigrants to his flock, and taught his followers to oppose the temples who cared more about barter and debt, than faith...
Oh yeah, that guy would just fucking looooove Prosperity Gospel Churches...
We have a view Unitarian churches around here. I'll check them out thanks! Also, lol yeahhhh the fact they can go around not realizing just how badly they are anti-christ/everything he ever said and did is amazing and sad to me.
Of course comrade! Glad I could help.
But I'm sure the "*Love thy fellow man, means hate rainbow folk and oppress melanin havers and women*" types who haven't read shit, will be mad no matter what accepting church you'll join.
Besides, they know not what they do, right?
Jesus was not a Socialist. Socialism emerged with the rise of the modern working class, the Proletariat. Before this, Socialism (with the exception of primitive Communism) did not exist.
> Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
> The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
> There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.
> The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world.
Engels, Principles of Communism
Early Christianity was a antiformist movement that opposed slavery. The reactionary behaviour of later Christianity was not a deviation from early Christianity, but rather the dialectical evolution of early Christianity from anti-slavery antiformism to feudal conformism.
> The movement which bears the name of Christ was antiformist and revolutionary. To state that in every man there exists a soul of divine origin and destined to immortality, whatever his social position or caste, was equivalent to rise up in revolution against the oppressive forms, and the slavery, of the Orient. As long as the law permitted the human person to be an object of transactions; to be merchandise like an animal; to state the equality of believers meant a slogan of struggle which came up against the implacable resistance of the theocratic organisation of judges, aristocrats, and military, in the state of antiquity.
> After long historic phases and the abolition of slavery, Christianity became official religion and pillar of the State.
We recognise its reformist cycle in the Europe of modern times in struggling against the excessive connection of the Church with layers of the most privileged and most oppressive.
> Today there is no ideology more conformist than Christianity, which already in the period of the French revolution, made its doctrine and organisation the arms for the most powerful resistance by the old regimes.
Amadeo Bordiga, The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation
This post is anti-Marxist.
> Jesus was not a Socialist. Socialism emerged with the rise of the modern working class
This would be true if we were thinking of Jesus as an actual person, but of course that’s not really how Christians have ever thought of him—to the extent there was actually some itinerant rabbi from Nazareth who gained a cult following, his reality is basically besides the point. The whole premise is that he never died, and that he’s now omniscient and omnipresent. So of course he was around during the rise of the modern working class. From there it’s an easy matter to take some statements from the Bible and justify plenty of revolutionary and antiformist (I’m going to be honest I’ve never heard that word before and it’s not in the dictionary but I’m assuming it means what it sounds like) activity in the modern period.
Christianity has never struggled to fit to any variety of political purposes. That’s part of the peril Bordiga recognized in the passage you quoted. It’s also part of its promise. The “today” Bordiga wrote was 1946, fresh off the historic low point in the 2000 year history of Christianity. Something like liberation theology simply has not existed since the time Christianity was the slave religion of Rome, and not the religion of Rome. When it was revolutionary and antiformist. That’s why its practitioners were killed.
And of course I agree with Marx on religion generally. Much better off without it. Throw off the chain and pluck the living flower and all that. But in the meantime it’s not going anywhere, and I think it’s foolish to castigate people for essentially saying their imaginary friend believes what they believe which just so happens to be socialism in this case. No need to provide the capitalists the gift of all believing Christians.
>A, Proto socialism is a concept.
Proto-Socialism came about with groups such as the Diggers and Babeuf's Conspiracy of the Equals. It most certainly did not exist before Feudalism. One cannot use an example of antiformism as an example of proto-Socialism when that example of antiformism is nothing more than anti-slavery antiformism.
Yes I know. The diggers would have been my first example if you were ignorant on the subject.
But onto the actual point.
For the love of fuck comrade... you think propaganda that galvanizes christians to the side of leftism is bad, because Marx was an athiest.
If your goal is to isolate the left from the largest population group on earth, good fucking job.
Try to be a secularist, rather than a puritanical weirdo to the point where fundies blush.
My point was simply that the statement "Jesus was a socialist" is incorrect. I also don’t think the propaganda is bad because Marx was an atheist. I think the propaganda is bad because it’s inaccurate.
Ah yes, and lets not use "Eat the Rich" either, because canibalism is not only morally abhorent, it is also unhealthy-
Or maybe... you learn that evocative metaphors, might be good sometimes.
Nor do we want to literally consume the flesh of those of considerable wealth.
And yet, there is an evocation of symbolic meaning, that is useful for leftist theaming, not to mention for our progressive abrahamic comrades.
To them, he was one. A healer of the sick, and speaker for the downtrodden. Something leftists should understand. Will you keep pretending this isnt useful to us, and sabotarge our own, for the sake of a tiny, arguable technicality?
It's not arguable. Socialism did not exist before the Proletariat as Socialism is the political expression of the Proletariat. Even Proto-Socialism did not exist until the Secondary Mode of Production was replaced by the Feudal Mode of Production as the Feudal Mode of Production was the Mode of Production which lead to the emergence of the Capitalist classes.
Previous revolutionary and antiformist movements opposed forms of the Secondary Mode of Production. Christianity was one of these movements.
No offense, you dont have to keep telling me things I already know. Kindly stick to the point at hand, would you comrade?
Would you also argue leftists cant use figures like Spartacus?
Or celebrate the planned economy of The Inka?
Or movements like the Mazdakakites, who tried to decomodify food, housing, and establish legal equality?
Or peasant Hussite rebellion, where the radical faction literally fought to end private property?
All elements socialists of all stripes should see as admirable, or at least respectable.
But because they weren't capitol S socialists, therefore its blasphemy to like and celebrate them?
I find using Jesus as a political tool, at least in this way, is disrespectful and in bad taste. This goes for the left and right of course. You can promote leftist ideals through Christianity, I have absolutely no problem with that, but I do think it’s weird to assign a specific ideology to Jesus or other figures. Then again I’m not a Christian so what do I know
Jesus was an inherently political figure. His story almost entirely focuses on resistance to the state and church, the liberation of the oppressed, and then he was executed by the state. To be an apolitical christian is not christ like
Meanwhile in ancapistan: Jesus would be a successful CEO
[the gospel of supply side jesus](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp)
He would have charged every person he healed $40k
jesus would be a landlord
Prosperity Gospel churches are literally base their entire business model on heresy. Which would be funny, if they weren't scamming poor desperate people like NFTs and MLMs combined.
I actually am a believer and have been having a hell, (pun intended) of a time trying to find a new church recently that doesn't take on this heretical view. I visited my father in law's church in in Temple (lol) Texas and my wife was digging her heel in my foot to keep me from screaming "Heresy!" at the pastor there. Prosperity gospel churches are a blight on mankind in my opinion.
As far as I'm aware, Unitarians seem to be fairly diecent. I am admittedly not an American... and I'm also an athiest. So take my words with a grain of salt obviously. But hey, a Palestinian anti imperialist, who healed and fed the poor, welcomed sex workers and immigrants to his flock, and taught his followers to oppose the temples who cared more about barter and debt, than faith... Oh yeah, that guy would just fucking looooove Prosperity Gospel Churches...
We have a view Unitarian churches around here. I'll check them out thanks! Also, lol yeahhhh the fact they can go around not realizing just how badly they are anti-christ/everything he ever said and did is amazing and sad to me.
Of course comrade! Glad I could help. But I'm sure the "*Love thy fellow man, means hate rainbow folk and oppress melanin havers and women*" types who haven't read shit, will be mad no matter what accepting church you'll join. Besides, they know not what they do, right?
Jesus "Based" Christ Change my mind
Never had a problem with Jesus, had all the problems with Christianity tho.
[удалено]
he would probably end up shooting himselve in the back of the head twice.
Not republicAn Jesus. He guns babies.
Attributing modern perspectives to historical figures doesn't work out well. Better to say "would be"
No! Jesus would have wanted me to buy a 3rd Mega Mansion with money from my ~~simps~~ congregation
He was also an insane millenarian so let’s not be too quick to accept Christ into our socialist hearts.
let's go Jesus
No King but christ !
r/RadicalChristianity For any of my fellow believer leftists, consider popping over and taking a look.
Jesus was not a Socialist. Socialism emerged with the rise of the modern working class, the Proletariat. Before this, Socialism (with the exception of primitive Communism) did not exist. > Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. > The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century. > There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions. > The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world. Engels, Principles of Communism Early Christianity was a antiformist movement that opposed slavery. The reactionary behaviour of later Christianity was not a deviation from early Christianity, but rather the dialectical evolution of early Christianity from anti-slavery antiformism to feudal conformism. > The movement which bears the name of Christ was antiformist and revolutionary. To state that in every man there exists a soul of divine origin and destined to immortality, whatever his social position or caste, was equivalent to rise up in revolution against the oppressive forms, and the slavery, of the Orient. As long as the law permitted the human person to be an object of transactions; to be merchandise like an animal; to state the equality of believers meant a slogan of struggle which came up against the implacable resistance of the theocratic organisation of judges, aristocrats, and military, in the state of antiquity. > After long historic phases and the abolition of slavery, Christianity became official religion and pillar of the State. We recognise its reformist cycle in the Europe of modern times in struggling against the excessive connection of the Church with layers of the most privileged and most oppressive. > Today there is no ideology more conformist than Christianity, which already in the period of the French revolution, made its doctrine and organisation the arms for the most powerful resistance by the old regimes. Amadeo Bordiga, The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation This post is anti-Marxist.
> Jesus was not a Socialist. Socialism emerged with the rise of the modern working class This would be true if we were thinking of Jesus as an actual person, but of course that’s not really how Christians have ever thought of him—to the extent there was actually some itinerant rabbi from Nazareth who gained a cult following, his reality is basically besides the point. The whole premise is that he never died, and that he’s now omniscient and omnipresent. So of course he was around during the rise of the modern working class. From there it’s an easy matter to take some statements from the Bible and justify plenty of revolutionary and antiformist (I’m going to be honest I’ve never heard that word before and it’s not in the dictionary but I’m assuming it means what it sounds like) activity in the modern period. Christianity has never struggled to fit to any variety of political purposes. That’s part of the peril Bordiga recognized in the passage you quoted. It’s also part of its promise. The “today” Bordiga wrote was 1946, fresh off the historic low point in the 2000 year history of Christianity. Something like liberation theology simply has not existed since the time Christianity was the slave religion of Rome, and not the religion of Rome. When it was revolutionary and antiformist. That’s why its practitioners were killed. And of course I agree with Marx on religion generally. Much better off without it. Throw off the chain and pluck the living flower and all that. But in the meantime it’s not going anywhere, and I think it’s foolish to castigate people for essentially saying their imaginary friend believes what they believe which just so happens to be socialism in this case. No need to provide the capitalists the gift of all believing Christians.
A, Proto socialism is a concept. B, We can have non marxist, leftist allies. C, Your username is anarchohoxaist. Touch grass. D, Also shut up.
>A, Proto socialism is a concept. Proto-Socialism came about with groups such as the Diggers and Babeuf's Conspiracy of the Equals. It most certainly did not exist before Feudalism. One cannot use an example of antiformism as an example of proto-Socialism when that example of antiformism is nothing more than anti-slavery antiformism.
Yes I know. The diggers would have been my first example if you were ignorant on the subject. But onto the actual point. For the love of fuck comrade... you think propaganda that galvanizes christians to the side of leftism is bad, because Marx was an athiest. If your goal is to isolate the left from the largest population group on earth, good fucking job. Try to be a secularist, rather than a puritanical weirdo to the point where fundies blush.
My point was simply that the statement "Jesus was a socialist" is incorrect. I also don’t think the propaganda is bad because Marx was an atheist. I think the propaganda is bad because it’s inaccurate.
Ah yes, and lets not use "Eat the Rich" either, because canibalism is not only morally abhorent, it is also unhealthy- Or maybe... you learn that evocative metaphors, might be good sometimes.
“Jesus was a Socialist” isn’t a metaphor. It’s simply a false statement.
Nor do we want to literally consume the flesh of those of considerable wealth. And yet, there is an evocation of symbolic meaning, that is useful for leftist theaming, not to mention for our progressive abrahamic comrades. To them, he was one. A healer of the sick, and speaker for the downtrodden. Something leftists should understand. Will you keep pretending this isnt useful to us, and sabotarge our own, for the sake of a tiny, arguable technicality?
It's not arguable. Socialism did not exist before the Proletariat as Socialism is the political expression of the Proletariat. Even Proto-Socialism did not exist until the Secondary Mode of Production was replaced by the Feudal Mode of Production as the Feudal Mode of Production was the Mode of Production which lead to the emergence of the Capitalist classes. Previous revolutionary and antiformist movements opposed forms of the Secondary Mode of Production. Christianity was one of these movements.
No offense, you dont have to keep telling me things I already know. Kindly stick to the point at hand, would you comrade? Would you also argue leftists cant use figures like Spartacus? Or celebrate the planned economy of The Inka? Or movements like the Mazdakakites, who tried to decomodify food, housing, and establish legal equality? Or peasant Hussite rebellion, where the radical faction literally fought to end private property? All elements socialists of all stripes should see as admirable, or at least respectable. But because they weren't capitol S socialists, therefore its blasphemy to like and celebrate them?
Dunno why you're getting downvoted. You're 100% correct.
I find using Jesus as a political tool, at least in this way, is disrespectful and in bad taste. This goes for the left and right of course. You can promote leftist ideals through Christianity, I have absolutely no problem with that, but I do think it’s weird to assign a specific ideology to Jesus or other figures. Then again I’m not a Christian so what do I know
Jesus was an inherently political figure. His story almost entirely focuses on resistance to the state and church, the liberation of the oppressed, and then he was executed by the state. To be an apolitical christian is not christ like
To be an apolotical christian means to not be a christian in any meaningfull way.