Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

A good analogy is jews and christians. Jews were the original Abrahamic religion, their beliefs go back centuries. Then Christians came along and crowned one jew their king and insisted that his interpretation of things is the only way.

Anarchism has always existed, Marxism is a perversion of it that attempts to control people in ways that just aren't tantamount to freedom. Why do you think Marx was so down on anarchists? He didn't appreciate anyone second guessing his theory.

Burn your idols and we can talk.

Also, we're not all communists. More European anarchists are individualists.

0

WindTalk wrote (edited )

A good analogy is jews and christians. Jews were the original Abrahamic religion, their beliefs go back centuries. Then Christians came along and crowed one jew their king and insisted that his interpretation of things is the only way.

That's teams and groups. You are describing societies. If you look closer, there were free-thinking individuals who were both Jewish and Christian. They were willing to translate A to B, not be so identified by their team logo that they would declare the "other" as failure.

I mean think about what you said: If a man is 35 years old, Jewish, and he meets Jesus and changes to being a Christian - that right there is an adult change in thinking.

If a man is age 35 and moves from Germany to Spain and leans Spanish, does he have to give up his German translation and language? What if ten years later, age 45, he has to learn a new German word about a smart phone to talk to his nephew back in Germany? This whole attitude of religion "membership" makes little sense in some of the ways we have grown accustomed to using it. Unless your goal is to have an enemy group to fight against.

The Spanish came to Mexico and converted most of their religion and language all in one encounter. So this isn't some nonsensical example, this is what we know from world history and looking at what human minds are capable of doing. It's the forced at a sword point (or starvation, etc.) that's kind of the greater issue - and I think the topic being drawn out here.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

I think both religions are hierarchy / ruler based and should be rejected, but Christianity is a lot worse in that respect. It teaches its followers to never question the theology and accept it all on blind faith. It's a religion for sheep.

Judaism, on the other hand, has no almighty messiah or pope to rule the people, and its structured in a less rigid manner. Followers are encouraged to dedicate themselves to studying and the pursuit of logic. Jews are encouraged to fight back at their enslavers and kill them.

Christians are told to 'turn the other cheek' and put up with any abuse, because everything will be better in heaven. It's a religion meant to pacify the workers and keep us from revolting.

But my point was, why go from a minor hierarchy (One true God) to a giant hierarchy (one true god, and his son, and his pope and arch bishop and etc and don't fight back at the slavers or you'll go to hell)

It's the same thing with anarchism vs communism. Anarchism is true freedom, no hierarchy, no rulers, no authoritarian bullshit to keep you in a box. Communism promises to give you anarchism but only if you agree to be ruled by some very special communist kings and obey all their important laws and etc until they eventually decide the time is right for anarchism (i.e never).

2

profusion wrote

i heard that the Roman soldiers (as militant occupying force) were legally permitted to reprimand a barbarian worker -for an offense like stepping out of line and whatever threatening or obnoxious behavior the soldier found agreeable- with a single slap in the face by their left hand. of course they were also lashed and crucified and forced to worship their God and King, but to turn the right cheek was perhaps a display of oppositional defiance against The Law to sabotage that idol-authority and agitate for resistance, refusing to bow down or pay dues instead identifying with that most-high power to rise up against the fear

1

profusion wrote

that is to eventually destroy everything … but the people of Society martyr their favorite children instead of turning their worldview in on itself and so Caesar Western Civilisation recuperates the saga for to glorify His kingdom.

defend our nativity ! for the wild! into the streets !

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Christianity is a lot worse in that respect. It teaches its followers to never question the theology and accept in all on blind faith. It's a religion for sheep.

I don't agree. That's like saying that a Christian at age 22 would have no knowledge of Protestant vs. Catholic and the reformation of 500 years ago. Of course they would encounter that there are alternate ways to interpret the same book. It's also not hard to find a preacher explaining the meaning, or a book discussing ways to interpret the book.

It teaches its followers to never question the theology and accept in all on blind faith. It's a religion for sheep.

I think you are confusing "teachers" of the Roman Empire, the Roman government, with otherwise. As plenty of Christians throughout the ages have offered alternate interpretations - did not go along with their parents or teachers. It almost sounds to me like you don't believe a person has free will, that they are incapable of breaking away from their teachers and parents?

Christians are encouraged to 'turn the other cheek' and put up with any abuse, because everything will be better in heaven.

You are looking at interpretation as a solid thing. Again, free will. Maybe the issue is that people want to believe that interpretation? Maybe it's just the most popular way to interpret it? Peer pressure, group conformity?

There were always free thinkers who did not view heaven as a place after death. A lot of wealthy people act like they are hoarding billions of dollars of wealth for the purposes of an afterlife. You don't need a religion to do that. Seth MacFarlane is only in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but he's a useful example. He is educating people and raking in money doing so - and he is an atheist. The platforms he uses, film and TV, give him a lot of power that you and I do not - and it seems it's based on his popularity - his style. And I'm sure it took him years and years of work to build up that power to be able to say what he wants to millions on of people on broadcast TV. It isn't like his first day he was suddenly at the top of a hierarchy.

My point is along the lines of: if people aren't willing to freely think, and you imply they are slaves to their Christian teaching - what's to keep them from being slaves to ANY thinking? Such as capitalist dictatorships? People are willing to die in oil wells and coal mines to make money for billionaires. You don't need promises of an afterlife heaven for people to have strong faith in things.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Are you saying that hierarchy is justified because Seth MacFarlane (a cishet white bloke in Hollywood) made lots of money? And who is he educating? I don't really follow.

Organised religion isn't very compatible with free-thinking, however you slice it. But the culture and writings of judaism encourages constant analysis of its teachings, while the culture and writings of christianity orders us to not think for ourselves and simply obey. Much like Marxism when implemented by statists.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Are you saying that hierarchy is justified because Seth MacFarlane (a cishet white bloke in Hollywood) made lots of money?

No. I am not saying that. I was giving an example of an atheist. Seth MacFarlane. He has many followers who give him lots of money. His money is not coming from digging gold out of the Earth - he gets his money by people purchasing his content. Those are his audience, his followers. He has power.

And who is he educating?

Anyone who will listen to him. And even if he dies, it's mostly delivered in ways that will survive and can continue to educate.

Seth MacFarlane may only be worth $200 million, but the products he creates - the stories he tells with his teams of artists (apostles) - are into the billions and billions. He probably isn't even getting the largest percentage of it.

Do you think think Jesus was supernatural, or was he just a human man - who had nothing supernatural about him. Just that he was a popular storyteller? Like Seth MacFarlane. And what people are able to do with what is a copyright-free work, The Bible - in telling people what it means 1500 years later.

I don't really follow.

How is that much different from the Bible? if the ideas in the Bible are popular - and people want to believe in heaven in the afterlife - what are you going to do? Force them at sword-point to not believe it? That's why I brought up Mexico and the Spanish - that's how they converted both the language of their culture and their religion. Both are equally replaced.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

Isn't MacFarlane just teaching white douchebags to keep being douchebags though? He's not really teaching anyone anything.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Isn't MacFarlane just teaching white douchebags to keep being douchebags though? He's not really teaching anyone anything.

Jesus hasn't been alive for nearly 2000 years. He just walked around and told stories. Others put it into a book. He's not really teaching anyone anything. It's the popularity of the story that draws the audience.

1

zod wrote

Didn't he also tell people 'live this way' and 'don't do this' though?

3

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Didn't he also tell people 'live this way' and 'don't do this' though?

How many people alive today, 2017, are saying those two things? And how many in the past 2000 years? 'live this way' and 'don't do this', aren't doctors telling people that today in hospitals all over the world? Seth MacFarlane content can have adverts all around it - telling people how to live, and what to do. That's probably how most of his power and money is accumulated - adverts. Why are wealthy and powerful people paying such big money to put their 'live this way' and 'don't do this' in the middle of fiction stories?

It's the popularity of the story itself that is the point I'm trying to make. Jesus isn't anything without his crowd, his fans, his fan-appreciation clubs. That's what is relevant to Spock posting "Why can't leftists just all get along? We're all on the same side, comrades" as a topic.

Is fighting more popular than getting along? Are hierarchies what people desire, want, and even construct? We don't need Jesus to build towers in our big cities.

0

BlackFlagged wrote

Exactly. We oppose all hierarchy. Marxists embrace it and have a long history of killing anarchists that won't accept their authority. We're diametrically opposed.

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

Marxism on its own is an okay blueprint for how to structure society in the 20th century (not that anyone managed to pull it off). But it'll always be limited by the fact that it's an industrial ideology that tells us we should all be granted the spoils of the exploitation of Earth. When industrialism is killing us and everything on the planet, equality for workers to exploit the planet equally and enjoy all the same comforts just isn't much use. There are more important things to achieve than fully automated luxury space communism.

-2

zod wrote

That isn't really Marxism, it's Marxism-Leninism.

0

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

As long as Marx advocated for seizing the state and replacing the rulers with a different set of rulers - he supported hierarchy and thus, tyranny.

There are a lot of communist thinkers that didn't advocate taking over the state - including several that predated Marx. But Marxists choose to identify as followers of Marx, and have little interest in non-Marxist communism, even mocking any ideas that don't originate from their idol and his disciples. So I can only assume they embrace hierarchy.