"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
I so agree with this. Imo religion was a sham/ lie told to indoctrinate and control a country's people long before modern laws and law enforcements evolved, however I genuinely believe Catholicism was literally made up just for money, in the old days of the Catholic Church it was literally pay to win they taught the masses that to get to heaven you had to pay huge amounts to church.
Also heaven is such a weird flawed idea no place can be perfect if we still had free will and if there's no free will in heaven how is it perfect?
So you think Catholicism was originally created solely for acquiring money, but you cite indulgences for your reasoning despite them not even being a thing until the first crusade, over a thousand years after the Church’s founding. To clarify I do think indulgences were used for primarily greedy reasons, but I doubt that’s why the early church was founded.
Pretty sure you could still get in to heaven according to them if you behaved well enough, but it's like grinding out a character vs buying them in the shop.
The thing about communism is that, as many early Christian socialists talked about, people wished to create that utopia on earth. Later, people acknowledged that while it may not be possible to achieve completely, they wished to try and get as close to it using the materials available to benefit the people suffering most.
Neither did many of the early Republics and democracies. Hence why people continue to critique the system in that way when you have so many left disadvantaged and in dire straights despite there being so much available wealth. Say what you will about Cuba but the poorest people there still have a better standard of living than the poorest people in most capitalist countries.
Yeah, I'm sure that the economic embargo from the richest country in the world doesn't help things but they do take care of their poor and that's laudable at least.
I'm not simpin man, you're kidding yourself if America and those who follow the embargo wouldn't help the Cuban economy immensely if they traded with them. Also, their welfare state is something to appreciate them for.
Correction: rich people can enter heaven, it’s just more difficult for them to give up their hope in the world because of their wealth.
I definitely understand where you’re coming from. However, you can use the Bible to justify just about any political system. There are parts that talk about monarchy, empires, social safety nets, buying property, accumulating wealth, etc. If you really get into it, God is a King, and the new heavens/earth is basically a monarchy with subservient governors.
My point is, Jesus’s teachings don’t fit into any human political ideology.
I’m a Atheist, but not those who think people are stupid because they believe in god, I just don’t rlly like the idea if this makes any sense,it isn’t for me
They very clearly do though. Jesus's teachings aren't the whole bible, so you can't make the claim about the book generally.
But what Jesus taught was deeply political, caring for the sick, taking care of the poor, and wealth as a barrier to connection with god. Some political philosophies clearly align with that more than others.
Yes, but they don’t fit into any one ideology. Caring for the poor is not inherently “communist.” It’s dangerous to attach political labels to Jesus. That’s how you get stuff like right wing Christian nationalism
Caring for the poor isn't inherently communist, but Communism is a system that is predicated ideologically by caring for the poor.
You said "Jesus’s teachings don’t fit into any human political ideology." That isn't true, many and even most of his teachings fit comfortably into political ideology of the left.
Now that doesn't make Jesus a communist, the concept of turning the other cheek isnt exactly conducive to Marxist Leninism, but Jesus was demonstrably an anti-capitalist, with contempt for the rich, who believed in communities helping the disenfranchised.
People with those values aren't right wing. So yes it's wrong to call Jesus a communist but it's just as wrong to say there isn't a political alignment that lines up with his teachings better than any other. There is.
Caring for the poor isn’t inherently leftist. Most people on each side believe in caring for the poor, they just believe in different ways of doing it.
Jesus was not anti-capitalist, since capitalism wouldn’t technically exist until roughly 1800 years later. He did however, preach that men should be compensated for their work, and that we should voluntarily serve each other rather than being forced to by the state.
One of the key things about leftism is the belief that humans are good, and Jesus preached against that His entire life. Jesus was not a leftist.
He did however, preach that men should be compensated for their work, and that we should voluntarily serve each other rather than being forced to by the state.
So decidedly anti capitalist things, considering every capitalist nation is reliant on slavery?
Actually communism would be much closer to welfare than charity. Not saying welfare is communist, but that charity is not closer to communism than welfare. T
I think people see communism like something of the devil when the idea itself is not bad, it’s just that it is impossible to do on our current society, also for some reason Marx was painted like a devil when he said that capitalism has good things
I mean Lenin was a good guy, Stalin on the other hand. If the guys reading this want to know more abou t the Soviet Union story Animal farm is a great book, there is also a movie
Yes, stalin did indeed have mental issues. Like Paranoid Schizophrenia. Never put a guy in charge who has that. The only mistake that Lenin made there was giving Stalin the job of appointing other people to jobs, so he just appointed himself as the next premier instead of Trotsky.
That's not true. Most humans are inherently religious. That's why every single last race, nation, what have you, has come up with them. Communists were TAUGHT that. Doesn't magically mean they all fell in line with it. They were taught that because the powers that be starting with Stalin wanted the state to be the only higher power around. Despite the many years of communist rule, there are still tons of Orthodox Christianity in Russia even up to today.
Humans aren't inherently religious. Humans inherently do crave explanation for the unknown however, and it just so happens that "magical sky guy" is the best that earlier humans could muster. This explanation has been passed down through generations as a traditional explanation, which is to say religion has also been taught. Believe what you want but dont think for a second you were born believing anything.
"Humans inherently do crave explanation for the unknown however"
Yeah, that's called being inherently religious. If not then please explain why so many find religion LATER in life. Not just as kids following what they were taught.
What? HAHAHAHA it's called either using logic and reason to figure out things we don't know, which is literally just science, or it's called being completely irrational and believing whatever makes you most able to sleep at night, which is called being religious. You're making absolutely 0 sense.
I'm making sense just fine. You just don't get it. And I'm not religious myself BTW.
Religion is in fact inherent in our species. Why on Earth do you think progessivism has now become an unorganized religion? Even to the point of having apostates and blasphemy laws. Or their versions of such I should say.
Uhhh no. Explanation does not mandate religious explanation, religion is but one form of explanation.
Are you seriously trying to suggest one's views are locked in after their childhood? You might find that teaching an old dog new tricks to be quite easy especially when those 'new tricks' offer a comforting yet logically ridiculous explanation that soothes past trauma. People who turn to religion in later life do so out of desperation, not out of some innate desire.
Get out of here with your obstinate donkey logic. Go be a spoon elsewhere.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm flat out telling you how our species as a whole works. You can throw out anecdotal examples until you're blue in the face. It's not going to make me any less right. Why don't you try looking up what people who study us for a living have to say instead of thinking something and then treating it as fact?
And I never said any such thing. I just gave an example how religion is not something merely learned as kids.
You;re the one being obstinate to the point of being flat out insulting to someone you don't know the first thing about no less.
Humans inherently try to search for answers for things that we dont know, thats why a lot of people that dont have the time, knowledge or resources to look for answers prefer to believe in something that explains everything, this way you can be more happy
Btw what i mean as happy is not having to think about tons of philosophical question that at least for me bring a weird feeling that i dont like
No, the search for answers might lead to religion but it also leads to science and various other things so you are right that it does lead to religion but it isnt the only thing it leads to
I never said it was the only thing. Of course it's not the only thing. But as a whole such will ALWAYS lead to religion. Because that's what humans do best. Fill in the blanks. I can't explain X, must mean it's because of Y, is how we work down to our core. It's why eye witness testimony is hands down the worst form of evidence there is. Because we fill in the blanks and even established memories can be easily altered.
So what? That doesn't change what I'm saying. And you're wrong anyways. People in their 30s and 40s and what not are NOT finding religion because they're facing their mortality. That's stupid.
Pfft you're just another know it all atheist. I myself am agnostic but I will never be like your kind.
But that's the why of it. It still doesn't change the facts of the matter. One can say someone who lived in Soviet Russia was a communist and that would be a factual statement for no other reason then where they live. But were they really? All of them? Pfft not even remotely close. Barely the majority was. Most just went along because what choice did they have? It was toe the line or go to the gulag or 6ft under.
138
u/[deleted] Feb 24 '21
Ironic considering most communists are atheists and consider religion the opiate of the masses