/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>3990

Are Mormons antisemitic in general? I'm curious.

Marx himself, as I'm sure many are aware, saw religion like Christianity as a tool to appease the masses. The idea that the impoverished and downtrodden would be the first into heaven was to his mind a way to keep the working class in their place and prevent revolution.

The bible to my memory doesn't mention economics a whole lot. Besides a few mentions of the perils of being too focused on worldly goods. I don't think this makes them totally incompatible but it is a hindrance. Socialism actually predates Communism so it might be more practical for Christians to call themselves that rather than Communists. Since Communism is intrinsically tied to Marx's philosophy.

>>4014

I have to wonder why you play up marx's jewish heritage so much. His father was a christian convert and marx himself was completely irrelegious and received a secular education.

>>4018

>>4018

Because its an intrinsic part of the whole thing. Its no coincidence that so many early communists were kikes; his father may have converted out of convenience, but Marx and his father are two different people; I could just as easily point out his lineage is that of Orthodox Rabbis for generations back.. An atheist Jew is still a Jew. If they don't accept Christ, 9/10 times they'll still get up to no good, just like Marx.

He's a part of the Synagogue of Satan until he accepts Christ, like all Jews.

>>4019

>>4019

I only brought up his father because the religion of a person's parents is going to have a larger effect than the religion of their ancestors. Karl Marx was never a practicing jew so I don't see why calling out his heritage is relevant. Unless you think there's some especially noteworthy genetic component of jewry.

>>3988

Early communists tried to make Christians think the Communism was Christian, which obviously isn't true. Sadly, the propaganda lives on

>>4020

>Unless you think there's some especially noteworthy genetic component of jewry.

Yes I do. That and, more importantly, Cultural Jewry, which Marx was still a part of as an Atheist. Jews are also more susceptible to satanic interference, and this specific kike in particular brought about the satanic counterpart to the United Order.

Communism is condemned by the Church.

"The Decree against Communism is a 1949 Catholic Church document (by Pope Pius XII) which excommunicates all Catholics collaborating in communist organizations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism

An old book on Church History I saw stated that the early Church life was a "species of communism", indicating a similarity between the two, which people commonly talk about. Whereas Communism forces people to have no property and share resources, the Church allowed for voluntary sharing of resources and property - probably the big difference. There's nothing wrong with sharing at all.

Unless a political position is condemned, I believe an old book on Catholic Action stated that one is free to hold any political position. Thus there was anarchists Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, Ammon Hennacy - I'm not aware of them being excommunicated. There have been Democrat and Republican Catholics. Of course, the Democrats today often support baby-killing/abortion, which Catholics would oppose, but I doubt all support it.

I believe that the Vatican 2 "popes" since 1958 have not been popes, so the "Communist leanings of pope Francis" I would just ignore. Google AA1025 and The Permanent Instructions of Alta Vendita to see how Communists have subverted the Church and created a non-Catholic popular counterfeit.

Alex Jewnes thinks the RCC is communist and that the Jesuits (the gay/jewish order) have staged a coup.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/pope-francis-calls-for-new-system-of-global-government-to-tackle-climate-change-10330124.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/1724574/pope-francis-bring-all-religions-together-concept-of-one-denomination-raises-concerns/

To be fair with Marx, his analysis of the capitalist situation is excellent and worth reading; his remedy for it is another thing entirely and I think we should make a difference between the two.

One must also remember that Marx did not expect the Communist revolution to happen in the countries that did it: he expected it in much more developed countries, which means that the sort of revolution Marx anticipated has perhaps not happened yet.

I haven't personally read Marx so my opinion is very limited on the matter (actually, I've read the Manifesto but found it rather lame).

Whoever pointed out the sharing as either willing or mandatory has hit the nail on the head. That's the whole difference and it's major.

Capitalist societies share willingly also.

>>4052

>To be fair with Marx, his analysis of the capitalist situation is excellent and worth reading;

Not at all. Marx was outdated as soon as he was published. People like Smith had a far better idea of how economics work.

Marx is basically the steem cell for all the shit social marxism brings forth. A rich whiny man-child.

>>4054

>Not at all. Marx was outdated as soon as he was published.

Because of Marx's idea that price was based on time spent on the product?

I heard this at university about ten years ago or more, perhaps it is what you mean.

> A rich whiny man-child.

Marx lost more than one child to poverty, I don't think it's fair of you to say that. Marx was never a wealthy man, and he even got exiled from his country, had to live in London, and not in the nicest of conditions. He was even led to let Engels put his (Engels') name on some of his (Marx's) books for money.

Marx, if I am not mistaken, has felt the pain of the system he describes. What happened afterwards is not something I would blame him for very easily.

>>4057

>Because of Marx's idea that price was based on time spent on the product?

>

>I heard this at university about ten years ago or more, perhaps it is what you mean.

Yes, I was thinking about exactly that among others.

His ideas are not scientific, he just made up his dream world in order to fit his agenda. Very Hegelian after all.

>Marx lost more than one child to poverty

Because he was a lazy good-for-nothing that deemed it more important to shape his ideology than to actually contribute to mankind and supply his family. As a human being he was as irresponsible as it gets.

>>4066

>Because he was a lazy good-for-nothing that deemed it more important to shape his ideology than to actually contribute to mankind and supply his family. As a human being he was as irresponsible as it gets.

Point taken. I don't know much about Marx.

>>4069

>Point taken. I don't know much about Marx.

He came from a rich family but was too edgy for da exploita sh*t. So he decided to become a leftist Bohème and leech of his friends and publishers to acquire the fundings needed for the books he wrote that no one was interested in. It's not the way a man should take care of his family.

It bears no argument on how valid communism or socialist theory in general is, of course. But it is intriguing that very few people criticise Marx' lifestyle, yet many claim to use him as a rolemodel politically.

>>4054

This. The day that I start taking some lazy Jew seriously; who never worked a day in his life and spent all his time at the pub while his wife and children went hungry; on something like economics will be the day I'm to be sent away to the looney bin.

Every meaningful criticism of capitalism, and of communism, can be found within the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the words of the Prophets.