Marxism, dramaturgy, Christianity, history

10:57 innit
`puffles: Do you agree that Christ was an early Marxist?
`puffles
I was never taught that innit
electric-skeptic
!kjv psa 148:7
`puffles
amen
innit
`puffles: Christ explicitly rejected traditional notions of production and family in favor of the commune of like-minded individuals who shared an orientation towards life.
TrollT
LOL Banquo
TrollT
I think that was Marx later on.
11:02 ChuckWagon has joined ([email protected])
ChanServ has changed mode: +o ChuckWagon
BibleBot has changed mode: +v ChuckWagon
QST has changed mode: +l 59
innit
TrollT: Do you agree Madison, who lived a hundred years before Marx, was also a Marxist?
`puffles
innit - do you think that is why they called Christ demon-possessed, and punished him on the Cross?
`puffles pounces on ChuckWagon like a kitty.
`puffles
heh
innit
His factional analysis in Federalist 10 is classic conflict theory analysis that would be extremely appropriate to emerge from a 21st century university.
`puffles
lol
innit
`puffles: Humans are by far the worst species in Earth's history. Humans are ruthlessly factional, as both Madison, Christ, and Marx noted.
`puffles
:D
innit
Christ's teachings were to have everybody conceptualize themselves as equal to one another by stating they're all "children of God" and to "love your neighbor as you love yourself".
innit
Madison's solution was to note the causes of factionalism and to work to control its effects by generating a republic that sufficiently met the factional interests of all factions so its worst effects could be stymied.
`puffles
I don't like the word "faction" now.
innit
Marx taught that history is best understood as the dominance by the faction of capital/wealth and generates society as we observe. This faction should be overthrown by having its opponents recognize their solidarity against the faction of material concentration.
`puffles
I think the word "stymied" is funny.
innit
All three teachers, then represent existential threats to the most hardcore chauvinists.
innit
So, yes, I think Jesus was killed because he was a Marxist.
innit
His teachings are naturally revolutionary and risked to overthrow the concentrated power of two systems in his lifetime: the Roman system of governance and a particular Jewish faction that had established religious dominance in the region.
innit
Since humans are the worst species to ever exist on Earth, it's extremely easy to murder a person under these conditions.
TrollT
I conclude that the same reason Jesus was killed was the reason that Dumbledore was killed: it suited the storyteller interests.
innit
Recall from the Catholic sex scandal: raping kids and murdering people is by far not the worst crimes in almost all human systems. This is ex post facto rationalization by proponents of systems in an attempt to persuade others their system is noble in order to deflect criticisms.
innit
The worst crime in almost all human systems is, always has been, and is likely to remain for a long time 'the criticism of the central tenets of power and authority in that system without specific authorization by leaders of that system'.
innit
Murdering people and raping kids rarely leads to loss of power of systems, but unchecked dissidents really can topple centuries old traditions.
`puffles has left ()
innit
For this reason, Martin Luther will always be much worse than George Pell.
innit
TrollT: Why is it recurringly in the interests of storytellers to kill off lead characters?
brad70 has left IRC (Client closed connection)
ChuckWagon has changed mode: -v innit
TrollT
Chuck, That's my understanding, yes. This is the thought process of 'why Jesus (had to?) die(d)'. The evidence doesn't support the contention of historicity, so what we're left with is story construction, especially given the numerous alternate stories.
TrollT
innit, That is correct. That's my understanding.
11:17 april23 has left ()
TrollT
Thus to ask "why was Jesus killed?" is essentially a question about the motivations of the characters in a fiction.
TrollT
Now there are political factions who use this to bolster their prejudices.
QST has changed mode: +l 56
TrollT
Some of these are Christians, such as "Christ-killer" accusations.
TrollT
Jesus of Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. Cf. Dundes and the variety of (hundreds?) tales.
TrollT
That many were buried or destroyed in some way is not a good testimony of historicity.
TrollT
Dundes is a scholar, the dearth of evidence presented by any bolstering their case isn't conclusive.
TrollT
It will probably take 100-200 years to parse this by those who release their superstitious clinging to euhemerism.
TrollT
Also try Hammer's "Alternative Christs" and the Pagels "Lost Gospels" texts, et al.
TrollT
There's no reason to recommend any of them over any other tale, excepting traditional endorsement.
TrollT
The propensity to hope that 'proving something didn't happen' will be convincing is only insularly provided. That is, it isn't conclusive.
TrollT
Better to examine what is known and then conclude that it is inconclusive, then to use the mechanism of the Bishop of Ockham to reduce to reasonable interests. If yours are religious, then you will conclude to that aim, but one cannot expect others to go along when there's little to shore it up.
itsacoupcharliebrown has left IRC (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
TrollT
After all is said and done, the burden of proof is on those who make the claims, and the more extraordinary the claim, the better the evidence to support it should be.
TrollT
Thus, when speaking about Jesus stories, first determine, given that all of them are from anonymous sources, why we ought to select those you prefer.
TrollT
Secondly, it would be helpful to learn what historical foundation there is for supposing any of them are good reflections of the ontological events, such as from contemporaries, and compare its details which are extraordinary with others in history.
TrollT
This is the method which Price and others use to deconstruct the Jesus tales helpfully.
icequeen81_
heya ChuckWagon!
TrollT
Projecting upon me that i have been talking about the origins of Christianity is not helpful. We are talking about the foundations for any Jesus Christ, which is not identified as yet in our conversation, just tilting on 'show me it didn't happen', which is a religious argument without merit.
gingersnap
Must one be affiliated with a university in order to be considered credible?
TrollT
Unsure, but Wikipedia says regarding Price: "He taught theology and religious studies at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary."
gingersnap
I never claimed you said that. I asked a question. Nothing more.
TrollT
Chuck, You're beginning to use the same types of catechismic arguments which are used by Muslims here: asking questions instead of pointing to evidence which supports unusual claims after i challenged them.
gingersnap
Care to answer the question as posed?
gingersnap
ChuckWagon, must one be affiliated with a university in order to be considered credible?
TrollT
Chuck, I think that the Jesus cycle is well-founded now that we have the Nag Hammadi and other tracts assembled from the remains.
TrollT
Folklorists like Dundes have adequately explained it as a remnant of oral traditions. The scholarship discloses the anonymous origins. Religious interests to prop it up aren't well-founded.
gingersnap
I asked the question to clarify your position. Why are you so defensive and hostile?
TrollT
Chuck, Yes, mythic, oral tales regarded through time as historical without good foundations in fact.
TrollT
Chuck, Misunderstood, lies aren't a helpful evaluation. This is why i am talking about cycles. You are talking about something of another character. See the website for this channel where 'lying' is helpfully described.
gingersnap
ChuckWagon, it appears that, like most Christians, you’re motivated not by Jesus Christ but by a combination of arrogance and insecurity. In short, you’re just another asshole. Way to represent your faith.
TrollT
Was J.K. Rowling lying? Were the writers about Heracles lying or telling the truth? By my evaluation they were telling the truth insofar only as they were reflecting something matching in their experience, but not historical claims.
gingersnap
Thanks for proving my point. You’re dismissed.
TrollT
Chuck, Selective response isn't helping our debate. I referred to Dumbledore, and then to Heracles.
`puffles has joined ([email protected])
Profound has changed mode: +v `puffles
icequeen81_
lol
electric-skeptic has left IRC (Ping timeout)
icequeen81_
hehe thanks, although i don't know who you are puffles!
icequeen81_
ooh ok! nice to see you again puffles
t1resias
Thacker-: I don't think so.
t1resias
Or more to the point, I dont think there is any way for us to tell if something is "objectively" immoral.
Paradista has joined ([email protected])
Profound has changed mode: +v Paradista
t1resias
Thacker-: Handy hint for if you ever make it out of ignore and want to talk to me again: Don't tell me what happens in my world. Don't tell me what I think.
t1resias
I don't think that "objective" morality exists, or that we have access to it, any more than "objective" beauty. We can say that we find something moral, or that we find something beautiful. But that is not in any sense an objective claim.
t1resias
And I don't think the existence of a deity would change that either: See Eurthrypo.