There's nothing utopian in believing all men are equal and that there is no God. Its dystopian by definition because both axioms are false.

@Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @shortstories @GoonPatrol @multiversal_gangstalker What about Liberation Theology though?

Judeochristianity the bside.
There's a reason it only (kinda) worked on brown mutts in the new world but nowhere else.

@Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @shortstories @GoonPatrol @multiversal_gangstalker Judeochristianity worry is probably why some of these movements went the secular route (even if later reversing some of those policies) IMO.

marxism is an inherently atheistic religion

@multiversal_gangstalker @shortstories @GoonPatrol @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta Yeah, especially ML types. However it is important to also get to the essence of some of these things. Religion has often been used by the powers that be to enforce the status quo. I don't know if people really would argue that this is always false. However Marx wasn't really obsessed with "proving god doesn't exist" as you'd expect a Atheist to:

Some scholars classify Marx not as a typical "atheist" who is obsessed with proving God doesn't exist, but as a "post-theist" who viewed god-worship as an obsolete stage of history.

it's also a part of the materialist horseshit baked into marxism

@multiversal_gangstalker @shortstories @GoonPatrol @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta Well I "get it" in the sense that you don't really "need" religion to operate a economic and political system. However, I think some of the historical arguments on atheism are a bit dated.

Historical materialism likes to basically think of itself as a science. However, science is neither atheist nor theist in nature. To claim god exists or doesn't exist is a immaterial question. You would first have to define god (something that is probably impossible in a diverse society) and find ways of measuring if god exists or not. These are not scientific questions so therefore it would be a mistake for a modern Marxist to claim to be either atheist or a theist if they are trying to be true to their principles. I think part of this is that atheism meant something a little different before than it does today. More on this here:

@multiversal_gangstalker @GoonPatrol @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @shortstories

Lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism.

Agnosticism is a lack of certainty, atheism is a lack of belief.

I don’t see how “atheism” is “lack of belief“ - as the word clearly means “not-God-ism”.

Most atheists actually believe in God; they just hate him. They never rail against Allah, Buddha, Lord Ganesh, etc... but they've got plenty of venom for Yahweh & Jesus Christ.

I think "American Christianity" has had a lot to do with that problem.

While I’m no Protestant, the general “tone and timbre” of American Christianity, while starkly divided, was actually doing pretty darn bangin at ordering societies up until the 20th Century

It's fundamentalism. There was at least some understanding that religion and science could reasonably coexist with accomodation, and then the Red Scare happened, the Dulles brothers got the bright idea to weaponize religion, and we've been in backslide ever since.

People don't want to listen to it man.

Even when explaining the Jews - the Jews WROTE THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Do you not think it's reasonable to ask where they got this information and how they decided upon it?

But they never look into how the Jews do things. And consider it all "divine" when it's not. It was a bunch of Jews sitting around arguing until they all decided someone had won the argument. The entire jewish religion starts out with Abraham arguing with god and "winning the argument".

This is the basis for their whole religion - this is your old testament. It has nothing to do with divine beings from the sky.

Even if it were true that the OT were ahistorical (a claim I highly doubt), it misses the point entirely.

The OT was written centuries before the Incarnation of Christ, and was positively stuffed with Messianic Prophecy that wasn’t fulfilled until hundreds of years after all the authors had died. No merely-human agency at any level could possibly pull that off. That’s its actual significance

Of course it can be pulled off.

That's like saying "That last domino can't possible fall just because someone pushes over the first domino."

That’s not at all what it’s like; nobody human could possibly have steered events like the God-Man being born in a specific town, to a specific virgin. One doesn’t get to decide things like that about their own birth.

Yeah, they did, because these are narratives being presented within the context of things the narrators could not have witnessed.

Yeah I don’t know what to tell you. Shepherds and peasants and fishermen don’t really have a lot of ability to steer the sorts of narratives that rulers pay to have written down

That would presuppose the lack of a pre-existing oral tradition, which given that the apostles are mostly working-class illiterates, would dismantle the concept of apostolic tradition. I'll trust that's not what you meant to do, because that would be blasphemy to Orthodoxy.

Pretty sure we’re talking past each other; I’m referring to OT Messianic Prophecy

Which came from a bunch of Kabbalah Jews - which 'word for word' come out of the Torah.

So you might want to get interested in how they decided what was in the Torah, and what they mean by "God"

Kabbalah is younger than islam, but close.

No, it's been around for a longass time.

It got moved across most of asia for thousands of years.

That anthropologist guy was constantly going on about it appearing in pre-history.

No. One jew who was part of the muslim spanish ruling class "discovered ancient text" as soon as Spanish started kicking out jews with the muslims.

Yeah and the oral traditions were from 4000+ years ago according to the Jews.

The Hindu religion alone is 5000 years old dude. They simply have different names for the same thing.

I believe that there are ancient shared memories across all civilizations. I just don't think that means what you do. And Kabballah was invented, or possibly whispered in an ear in Spain centuries later.

I'm not talking about shared memory.

This system along with the symbols and chakras and sex magic, are all contained in religions from 5000 years onwards.

The Book of Enoch talks at length about how the Angels, who fell out of sheer lust for human women, corrupted mankind via teaching us "forbidden knowledge," a.k.a. magic, which goes a long way towards explaining why that book eventually became so demonized.

Considering that Eve is thrice cursed and thus more evil than Lillith, I can imagine why fallen angels would lust for them.

Imagine it from their (human women) perspective though. Women have always been fascinated by bad boys, and fallen angels are the ultimate bad boys, and they were also wiser and more beautiful than human men. No way that they could have resisted that.

According to the story, God took both Adam and Eve to the Tree "Hey .. you two! C'mere! See this Tree? Don't touch! Mine!" (yes, I gave God a Brooklyn accent). So Eve knew from the start not to touch, but she wanted it anyway and probably more so now that she was told no. So the Serpent (which is Temptation) talks her into it and she bites the apple. Nowhere in that lore does it say she had to take time to digest this, so we can safely assume her gaining that Knowledge of Good and Evil was instantaneous. She knew now WHY God said no. Now we come to the part everyone glosses over: she had a choice. At that moment, knowing what she did, she had a choice. She could have presented herself to God for judgement, apologizing for eating the forbidden fruit, and kept Adam out of it. Instead, she chose to rope the poor guy into it so she doesn't have to be alone. Shared sin is less terrible, to some minds. Three bad choices, three curses, and bait for fallen angels.

But, the standard interpretation of that event is that Adam should have been paying closer attention to her. Plus, she managed to entice him into doing the deed himself.

"It's no use men; it's ALL and always you're fault!"
~Women The World Over

I have to wonder about the interpretation of that story from, say, 200 years ago, when feminism hadn't been invented and they weren't on a crusade to blame everything on men.

@Dagnar @PodunkPotato @Sovereign @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd @thefinn

The tree provided knowledge of good and evil because eating the tree was defined as evil according to a old commentary I looked up in a library because I was going to talk to Mormons later that day

I can not prove the commentary was from before the nineternth ammendment or even existed but I believe it was