Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The golden age of Christianity was over quickly from the 30s, Acts 4:32 "they held all things in common". Marx picked up that fallen baton 1800 years later. It's taken not much more than a century to be dropped. For another few millennia.

[Immanuel Can]

The golden age of Christianity was over quickly from the 30s, Acts 4:32 "they held all things in common". Marx picked up that fallen baton 1800 years later. It's taken not much more than a century to be dropped. For another few millennia.

Marxism’s essence isn’t “having things in common.” It’s "the State owns all the means of production", according to Marx. In the early Christians, you’ll find that their sharing was very, very voluntary — see Acts, 5:4, for example; they still could choose private ownership, and without penalty — and that the State owned nothing from them.

So the early Church never compared to Marx’s definition of what was necessary.

[MikeNovack]

The golden age of Christianity was over quickly from the 30s, Acts 4:32 "they held all things in common". Marx picked up that fallen baton 1800 years later. It's taken not much more than a century to be dropped. For another few millennia.

More than once in between for Christianity. For example the True Levellers (Diggers) were 17th Century.

[MikeNovack]

Marxism’s essence isn’t “having things in common.” It’s "the State owns all the means of production", according to Marx.

And while for many Marxists, communism means "state socialism", not true for all of them (to say nothing of communists who are not Marxists). The Marxists only claim to be the start of "scientific" leftism, not that leftism didn't exist before.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

Ummm…no, actually.

Do you ever actually read the Bible? I though you might, but almost everything you say about it really implies you didn’t.

You are rather foolish, Immanuel.

A segment from an article by Tom Finley:

Amos has much to say about oppression and the plight of the poor in Israel, so it is only natural that his book has become a focal point for discussions about social justice.[1] At least three aspects of the issue dealt with by Amos concern the nature of God, the role of the individual, and the role of the social system.

For Amos, justice among people must begin with the Lord himself. That individuals ought to behave in a certain way toward each other cannot be understood apart from a deep awareness of the character of the Lord, who alone can give definition to concepts such as “righteousness” (tsedaka, 5:7, 24; 6:12) and “justice” (mishpat, 5:7, 15, 24; 6:12).

The Lord expects justice first of all because he has created mankind on the earth. He can expect certain standards of conduct to be upheld by all nations (esp. 1:3-2:5) because of his sovereign power. He has appointed each nation to its own sphere (9:7), though he has reserved a place of special honor for his people Israel (3:2). Having formed the nations of the earth, he also has the absolute right to judge them (4:13; 5:8-9; 6:8; 7:1, 4; 9:5-6).

The figure of God as judge dominates the book of Amos, though the Lord is not viewed as a judge without mercy. At the very core of the message, the Lord holds out hope for any who will forsake evil and follow the good he desires (5:4, 6, 14-15). He sends his prophets and his punishments in an effort to stimulate repentance (3:6-8; 4:6-11). He will not destroy “the house of Jacob” completely but will preserve a remnant through much testing (9:9-10). In the end he will restore the former glory of the nation and even magnify it (9:11-15). The justice of God may demand judgment for wrongdoing, but his mercy searches for every conceivable way to bring about a stay of execution.

Then, too, the transgressions that require judgment are nearly entirely comprised of acts of oppression. It is hard to read the book of Amos and not conclude that the Lord is deeply moved when one nation deals cruelly with another, or when the weak and helpless in society are crushed by the powerful. Nowhere in Amos does the Lord ever make reference to poverty as the fault of the poor. Proverbs often teaches about the importance of industry and wisdom in making a man wealthy or poor (e.g., 6:1-11; 10:4-5, 26; 12:24, 27), but Amos and the other prophets do not speak of these issues. This is not a fundamental disagreement between the wisdom and prophetic perspectives on the causes of poverty;[2] it only illustrates two complementary ways of looking at the problem.

Amos desires only to uncover the evil that leads some to impoverish others for their own gain. Why is it evil? The Lord never deals with his creatures in that way; therefore such behavior is offensive to him. If the Lord shows compassion for the widow and the afflicted, he does not expect any less from his own people.

The individual aspects of this social evil can be easily discerned in Amos’s preaching. He presents his listeners with concrete images of those who tamper with scales (8:5), violate the slave girl who should be treated like a member of the family (2:7), or make exorbitant demands that cannot be met (2:6-7; 5:11). The individual merchants and wealthy landowners are dishonest and greedy for more money and power. If they would turn back to the Law of the Lord and meet his requirements, they would be righteous and merciful in imitation of him.

This is why I wrote:

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

Before I turned (back) to high finance, capital accumulation, land investment and dating borderline underage women, I did stay for awhile in a remote Chiapan village with an Italian and an Argentine priest fully committed to Teología de Liberación.

[Immanuel Can]

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

Ummm…no, actually.

Do you ever actually read the Bible? I though you might, but almost everything you say about it really implies you didn’t.

You are rather foolish, Immanuel.

Your interpretation is absurd. There’s no Marxism in Amos. Nothing like. If you think concern for justice and the poor has anything to do with Marxism, then you’re just as gullible as they need you to be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My darling, my brainless, my — oh whatever you are!

I made no such assertion that 2,500 year-old Prophetic literature is Marxist. I said:

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

[Dubious]

You don’t know Marx, if you think he was around “doing good.” He actually was one of the most bitter, spiteful characters in history, and an occultist, to boot.

Saying that religion is is the opium of the people doesn't sound particularly occultist to me compared to believers to whom religion is precisely that kind of opium, illusion and distortion becoming more real than what reality and the rational itself manifests and asserts.

For example, one of your forever favorite quotes....

Jesus: “Love your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully use you.”

How fucking noble! But if one attempts to do just that, without having believed in Jesus as the son god one is doomed to hell nevertheless. So all those of other religions who attempt to be humanly moral are classified persona non grata and jettisoned to the flames! Of course, in a person most would find this to be thorougly Stalinesque or Hitlerian, anti-human, in short, Jesus having thereby proclaimed his unconditional, dictatorial command to be his own Anti-Christ.

What's most amazing in this thoroughly incongruous episode of western history is that without Paul the entire ministry of Jesus wouldn't have amounted to a footnote. The central figure most responsible for the next decrepit 2000 years was Paul not Jesus...a Jewish Jew compared to the Roman one.

[Dubious]

The entire Jesus saga is one built on subterfuge, not worth a single day in the life of one who wrote a decent poem, play or piano concerto.

[Gary Childress]

Churches are probably the most "communist" institutions I can think of. People sit around socializing and help each other through life. Greed is seen as immoral. Charity is the greatest good.

[promethean75]

"then you’re just as gullible as they need you to be"

We may notice that the kind of mind that would believe in supernatural intelligent forces like 'god' may be more likely to fall victim to conspiratorial thinking.

Somebody do a survey and see how many religious people believe in conspiracies and how many nonreligious people believe in conspiracies.

I believe Mannie to be a very troubled mind with an overzealous defensiveness and suspicion toward any fool who would have the audacity to say religion is the opium of the folks. It duddint even matter how big or established the person is. If his neighbor said this to him, Mannie would indict him on satanic conspiracy to enslave mankind and call him a very unsavory and disreputable fellow. He could even be as hot as Brad Pitt used to be, and Mannie would still call him a fat slob deadbeat dad.

There's simply no winning with these people.

Marx was a dick because every time he turned around, he was getting exiled from somewhere because he was so renegade gangsta, and so he was constantly struggling to find work as a journalist.

[Dubious]

Many of the influential had behavior problems. Sometimes it almost seems the rule.

[Belinda]

The golden age of Christianity was over quickly from the 30s, Acts 4:32 "they held all things in common". Marx picked up that fallen baton 1800 years later. It's taken not much more than a century to be dropped. For another few millennia.

An overview from outer space that su its me down the the ground

[Belinda]

Churches are probably the most "communist" institutions I can think of. People sit around socializing and help each other through life. Greed is seen as immoral. Charity is the greatest good.

You are good, Gary! But please beware as even in churches there are a few corrupt people and a few stupid ones.

[Belinda]

You don’t know Marx, if you think he was around “doing good.” He actually was one of the most bitter, spiteful characters in history, and an occultist, to boot.

Saying that religion is is the opium of the people doesn't sound particularly occultist to me compared to believers to whom religion is precisely that kind of opium, illusion and distortion becoming more real than what reality and the rational itself manifests and asserts.

For example, one of your forever favorite quotes....

Jesus: “Love your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully use you.”

How fucking noble! But if one attempts to do just that, without having believed in Jesus as the son god one is doomed to hell nevertheless. So all those of other religions who attempt to be humanly moral are classified persona non grata and jettisoned to the flames! Of course, in a person most would find this to be thorougly Stalinesque or Hitlerian, anti-human, in short, Jesus having thereby proclaimed his unconditional, dictatorial command to be his own Anti-Christ.

What's most amazing in this thoroughly incongruous episode of western history is that without Paul the entire ministry of Jesus wouldn't have amounted to a footnote. The central figure most responsible for the next decrepit 2000 years was Paul not Jesus...a Jewish Jew compared to the Roman one.

But Humanism, and the Enlightenment did not evolve from the Greeks alone, Christianity with all its terror and stupidity did play its part largely via political machinations of Christendom and the Church of Rome(as you say Paul played a large part). From Islam too; Jesus was not the only influential prophet ; Muhammad played a large part.

Jesus is such a vague figure that he serves well as a moveable icon and Christianity through the ages has variously reflected the contemporary view of who Christ was.