#121
[account deactivated]
#122
[account deactivated]
#123

stegosaurus posted:

babyfinland posted:

im actually getting around to reading kierkegaard now and I dont understand why old lf was so into him. maybe im imagining that but it seems like kierkegaard as I understand him was a poor fit for the subforum at the time



kierkegaard owns, he invented pomo in the 19th century

#124
the other day some christians came up to me and asked me if i believe in god and i started talking about bloch and eschatology and the holy spirit and eternal Ideas and they ran away lol. although that might have just been because of my foul breath and the extensive amounts of airborne spittle
#125
this new av fucking owns. ty goey
#126
[account deactivated]
#127
For a while in 1939 Yezhov still retained the token position of Commissar of Water Transport but rarely attended meetings. When he did so he never intervened but spent his time making paper birds or planes, launching them into the air and then scrabbling under chairs to retrieve them. When the NKVD finally came to arrest him, he stood up, placed his gun on the table, and declared: ‘How long have I been waiting for this!’
#128

deadken posted:
the other day some christians came up to me and asked me if i believe in god and i started talking about bloch and eschatology and the holy spirit and eternal Ideas and they ran away lol. although that might have just been because of my foul breath and the extensive amounts of airborne spittle



its gibberish

#129
youre a muslim
#130

deadken posted:
youre a muslim



alhamdulillah

#131
my christianity is very important to me babyfinland, it is perhaps the most prized of my affectations. mock 'n' scoff not
#132

babyfinland posted:

deadken posted:
youre a muslim

alhamdulillah



see this isnt even english. what the frond

#133

deadken posted:
my christianity is very important to me babyfinland, it is perhaps the most prized of my affectations. mock 'n' scoff not



im sorry i didnt know. it seemed like a fashion accessory but who am i to judge. my bad

#134
well i still maintain my commitment to the revolutionary potential of christianity, obviously this for the most part exists only as potential and in practice is as dead as classical marxism-leninism, but just as i still uphold the example of the soviet union and the cultural revolution i still believe in christianity with every fibre of my being
#135
the other day i was thinking about the abrahamic faiths with judaism as like the conservative bedrock, christianity as the radical deterritorialization and islam as the balanced completion
#136
[account deactivated]
#137
how hegelian. of course there can never be a completion.... also judaism has significant radical potential imo, for a while it looked as if judaism might actually escape its ethnic identification, if it had then it might have turned into something actually worthwhile instead of the crude tribal survival mechanism it is today and has been for 2000 years
#138
of course when judaism was in vogue it was always the greek and roman aristocrats who converted and never the slaves
#139
[account deactivated]
#140
[account deactivated]
#141

tpaine posted:
i was thinking about the aberahamic faiths the other day, and something occured to me: holy shit, i'm fucking gay as a tangerine!



i like tangerines

#142

deadken posted:
how hegelian. of course there can never be a completion.... also judaism has significant radical potential imo, for a while it looked as if judaism might actually escape its ethnic identification, if it had then it might have turned into something actually worthwhile instead of the crude tribal survival mechanism it is today and has been for 2000 years



completion of faith, not the gay revolution of gays

#143

babyfinland posted:

Groulxsmith posted:
"zizek is a liberal" - parroting of a parrot

there is really no difference between zizek and jon stewart. zizek just caters to a more bookish market


yeah that's a good way to put it. if people just treated him as a left-leaning funnyman rather than The Most Relevant Social Theorist Today then it wouldn't bother me at all.

#144
christianity is not radical lol.
#145
No doubt I will be told that, though religion is a poison and institutionalized Christianity the greatest enemy of progress and freedom, there is some good in Christianity "itself." What about the teachings of Christ and early Christianity, I may be asked; do they not stand for the spirit of humanity, for right and justice?

It is precisely this oft-repeated contention that induced me to choose this subject, to enable me to demonstrate that the abuses of Christianity, like the abuses of government, are conditioned in the thing itself, and are not to be charged to the representatives of the creed. Christ and his teachings are the embodiment of submission, of inertia, of the denial of life; hence responsible for the things done in their name.

I am not interested in the theological Christ. Brilliant minds like Bauer, Strauss, Renan, Thomas Paine, and others refuted that myth long ago. I am even ready to admit that the theological Christ is not half so dangerous as the ethical and social Christ. In proportion as science takes the place of blind faith, theology loses its hold. But the ethical and poetical Christ-myth has so thoroughly saturated our lives that even some of the most advanced minds find it difficult to emancipate themselves from its yoke. They have rid themselves of the letter, but have retained the spirit; yet it is the spirit which is back of all the crimes and horrors committed by orthodox Christianity. The Fathers of the Church can well afford to preach the gospel of Christ. It contains nothing dangerous to the régime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every indignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind.

Here I must revert to the counterfeiters of ideas and words. So many otherwise earnest haters of slavery and injustice confuse, in a most distressing manner, the teachings of Christ with the great struggles for social and economic emancipation. The two are irrevocably and forever opposed to each other. The one necessitates courage, daring, defiance, and strength. The other preaches the gospel of non-resistance, of slavish acquiescence in the will of others; it is the complete disregard of character and self-reliance, and therefore destructive of liberty and well-being.

Whoever sincerely aims at a radical change in society, whoever strives to free humanity from the scourge of dependence and misery, must turn his back on Christianity, on the old as well as the present form of the same.

...

The Christian religion and morality extols the glory of the Hereafter, and therefore remains indifferent to the horrors of the earth. Indeed, the idea of self-denial and of all that makes for pain and sorrow is its test of human worth, its passport to the entry into heaven.

The poor are to own heaven, and the rich will go to hell. That may account for the desperate efforts of the rich to make hay while the sun shines, to get as much out of the earth as they can: to wallow in wealth and superfluity, to tighten their iron hold on the blessed slaves, to rob them of their birthright, to degrade and outrage them every minute of the day. Who can blame the rich if they revenge themselves on the poor, for now is their time, and the merciful Christian God alone knows how ably and completely the rich are doing it.

And the poor? They cling to the promise of the Christian heaven, as the home for old age, the sanitarium for crippled bodies and weak minds. They endure and submit, they suffer and wait, until every bit of self-respect has been knocked out of them, until their bodies become emaciated and withered, and their spirit broken from the wait, the weary endless wait for the Christian heaven.

Graphic Rule

Christ made his appearance as the leader of the people, the redeemer of the Jews from Roman dominion; but the moment he began his work, he proved that he had no interest in the earth, in the pressing immediate needs of the poor and the disinherited of his time. What he preached was a sentimental mysticism, obscure and confused ideas lacking originality and vigor.

When the Jews, according to the gospels, withdrew from Jesus, when they turned him over to the cross, they may have been bitterly disappointed in him who promised them so much and gave them so little. He promised joy and bliss in another world, while the people were starving, suffering, and enduring before his very eyes.

It may also be that the sympathy of the Romans, especially of Pilate, was given Christ because they regarded him as perfectly harmless to their power and sway. The philosopher Pilate may have considered Christ's "eternal truths" as pretty anaemic and lifeless, compared with the array of strength and force they attempted to combat. The Romans, strong and unflinching as they were, must have laughed in their sleeves over the man who talked repentance and patience, instead of calling to arms against the despoilers and oppressors of his people.

The public career of Christ begins with the edict, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Why repent, why regret, in the face of something that was supposed to bring deliverance? Had not the people suffered and endured enough; had they not earned their right to deliverance by their suffering? Take the Sermon on the Mount, for instance. What is it but a eulogy on submission to fate, to the inevitability of things?

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Heaven must be an awfully dull place if the poor in spirit live there. How can anything creative, anything vital, useful and beautiful come from the poor in spirit? The idea conveyed in the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest indictment against the teachings of Christ, because it sees in the poverty of mind and body a virtue, and because it seeks to maintain this virtue by reward and punishment. Every intelligent being realizes that our worst curse is the poverty of the spirit; that it is productive of all evil and misery, of all the injustice and crimes in the world. Every one knows that nothing good ever came or can come of the poor in spirit; surely never liberty, justice, or equality.

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

What a preposterous notion! What incentive to slavery, inactivity, and parasitism! Besides, it is not true that the meek can inherit anything. Just because humanity has been meek, the earth has been stolen from it.

Meekness has been the whip, which capitalism and governments have used to force man into dependency, into his slave position. The most faithful servants of the State, of wealth, of special privilege, could not preach a more convenient gospel than did Christ, the "redeemer" of the people.

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled."

But did not Christ exclude the possibility of righteousness when he said, "The poor ye have always with you"? But, then, Christ was great on dicta, no matter if they were utterly opposed to each other. This is nowhere demonstrated so strikingly as in his command, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

The interpreters claim that Christ had to make these concessions to the powers of his time. If that be true, this single compromise was sufficient to prove, down to this very day, a most ruthless weapon in the hands of the oppressor, a fearful lash and relentless tax-gatherer, to the impoverishment, the enslavement, and degradation of the very people for whom Christ is supposed to have died. And when we are assured that "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled," are we told the how? How? Christ never takes the trouble to explain that. Righteousness does not come from the stars, nor because Christ willed it so. Righteousness grows out of liberty, of social and economic opportunity and equality. But how can the meek, the poor in spirit, ever establish such a state of affairs?

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven."

The reward in heaven is the perpetual bait, a bait that has caught man in an iron net, a strait-jacket which does not let him expand or grow. All pioneers of truth have been, and still are, reviled; they have been, and still are, persecuted. But did they ask humanity to pay the price? Did they seek to bribe mankind to accept their ideas? They knew too well that he who accepts a truth because of the bribe, will soon barter it away to a higher bidder.

Good and bad, punishment and reward, sin and penance, heaven and hell, as the moving spirit of the Christ-gospel have been the stumbling-block in the world's work. It contains everything in the way of orders and commands, but entirely lacks the very things we need most.

The worker who knows the cause of his misery, who understands the make-up of our iniquitous social and industrial system can do more for himself and his kind than Christ and the followers of Christ have ever done for humanity; certainly more than meek patience, ignorance, and submission have done.
#146

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:

Groulxsmith posted:
"zizek is a liberal" - parroting of a parrot

there is really no difference between zizek and jon stewart. zizek just caters to a more bookish market

yeah that's a good way to put it. if people just treated him as a left-leaning funnyman rather than The Most Relevant Social Theorist Today then it wouldn't bother me at all.


i think he occasionally says some interesting things interspersed among the incomprehensible and the self-parody like his tedious movie reviews

#147
[account deactivated]
#148
[account deactivated]
#149

tpaine posted:
where does coily fit into gods plan for us


i love this one

#150

Groulxsmith posted:

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:

Groulxsmith posted:
"zizek is a liberal" - parroting of a parrot

there is really no difference between zizek and jon stewart. zizek just caters to a more bookish market

yeah that's a good way to put it. if people just treated him as a left-leaning funnyman rather than The Most Relevant Social Theorist Today then it wouldn't bother me at all.

i think he occasionally says some interesting things interspersed among the incomprehensible and the self-parody like his tedious movie reviews



generally things other people have said first though

#151
[account deactivated]
#152
[account deactivated]
#153
[account deactivated]
#154
[account deactivated]
#155
[account deactivated]
#156
link to friend staying over one plz
#157
[account deactivated]
#158
[account deactivated]
#159
[account deactivated]
#160
[account deactivated]