“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44-45)
Acts 4:35: "[…] to the emissaries to distribute to each according to his need"
Act 11:29 states: "29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea"
Acts 4:32–35 reads: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own"
Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters.Either you will hate the one and love the other or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.You cannot serve both God and money"
Why does the theology have to be Christianity? Why not Islam? Muslims are the only people fighting imperialism right now.
John Nelson
It actually doesn't. However there are no significant anti-imperialist Muslim populations in Latin America. Only christians.
Jaxon Sanders
Literally no one ever said it had to be, But it was invented by catholics to be used by catholics in anti-imperialism in all forms (social/economic/religious/military) which they are doing still. But in the end you COULD be a muslim liberation theologist but muslims tend to choose more islamic tending ideologies like Salafism, Pan-Arabism, Ba'athism and Islamic Socialism.
The dalai lama said he was a marxist and called the chinese central government right-wing capitalists so welcome to the club my dude
Jeremiah Lewis
Ignoring how this rejects assistance from people who would otherwise have no problem with you, you have to understand how supremely stupid this statement is. Anti-imperialism doesn't necessitate being Muslim, but it doesn't exclude being one either.
Just call the other christcom on the bunkerchan IRC, that one anarcho-transhumanist christcom who posted half-a-year ago, and Chaya and we'll have /lefttheology/
It's nice to talk in retrospect about how the bible is communist and all but how do you all so conveniently erase the history of organized religion as it has actually existed? The church supported fascism both at home and abroad (british catholics supported franco, mussolini and hitler) and acted like a 5th column throughout the whole existence of the USSR and other 20th century socialist states (before someone gets mad, going by the M-L definition, and don't pretend 20th century socialist experiments have no merit) Communism should always support freedom of religion. But organized religion has to be destroyed as it's reactionary. Apologists always conflate the two on purpose. You don't need the whole church hierarchy for people to practice religion. Religion under communism would be on a communist basis e.g. equal and free.
the popes that made concordats with the fascists did not support them, the pope actively tried to get hitler to come over to exorcise him and saying he was acting like a demon while the nazis were plotting an SS false flag on the vatican to kidnap him. relations. Their support of franco was an overall reaction to the church burnings of the republican government, they at the time saw franco as the guy who was not letting them continue and later denounced him. The catholics were not a 5th column either, there was 1 pope attempting to create one with little succes. The popes around 1900 and WWI supporter marxist labour movements openly and the pope now is bringing back the book of the acts to the front stage of what the church believes after it being kicked back for a long time after subverters took the church over around 300AD-400AD, the subverters being reactionaries you mention; they're bad dudes and thankfully dying by the stacks as they're all 99 year old incompetent brats.
I gave you arguments on why both sides were bad on that issue and defended neither on it but ok, opinion discarded for desperate need to feel like you're right.
Lucas Peterson
test
Alexander Cox
Doesnt the bible also condone slavery and even gives instructions how you should treat owning another human being?
Camden Phillips
doesn't capital even tell you to abolish property under communism, lenin?
Angel James
Well he has since taken back his marx endorsement but can't blame him, its hard out there in the post-soviet world to openly endorse marx
Easton Morales
the book of peter that says that is not canonical so it doesn't count
Ryder Hernandez
We do have proper quotes from Peter, if the early apologetics are to be assumed as a reliable sources.
I vomited two minutes in at how much of a brainlet he is. If this Zig Forums, try harder.
Isaiah Anderson
The point of the video isn't to BTFO communism, it's to show that the bible isn't compatible with communism, It's easy to misunderstand stories in the bible for the lessons/commands of the bible. Just because he disagrees with communism doesn't mean hes wrong in how the bible doesn't work with communism.
Also the OP is false flagging >>>Zig Forums11679159 hes also spammed this on the Christian boards.
Blake Smith
Nice Tankism there m8. *tips t-34 cannon*
Also, the "if you don't work, you shall not eat line" is literally King James' propaganda. If translated directly from the Greek, the verse is a statement shaming a group of lazy Christians for not contributing to the common (communist) fund, not some authoritative statement of doctrine.
Lel. Thanks for the notice.
Ryan Collins
*"The laborer is worthy of his reward." != communism in his book
Oops, my bad.
Matthew Evans
Okay, that video failed. I was mostly referring to a 'political' sense not regarding Christianity in a communist system. browsing your board it's clear that despite not being sjw or liberals, your movement is still friendly to political 'prisoners', while the bible is still about traditional family values, heterosexuality, and national divisions*.
Gavin Price
This seems to be a relatively new tactic coming from Zig Forums to try to make it seem like the Bible endorses nationalism rather than describing God's sovereignty over all things, which does include nations. The reason Christianity is described as a universalist religion is because, among many other things, you are supposed to put God's laws first before "the national interest" or if national law conflicts with God's laws you are supposed to obey the latter.
It's interesting that you say setting free prisoners is anti-Christian since Luke 4:18 literally mentions it: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free."
Leo Garcia
There are christian pollacks, but they're a hated minority, Christianity will never be conservative enough for the right nor leftist enough for the left. The scripture is ridden with ex-jews despite Jesus having caused Talmudism and being the key to disarming the apocalypse religion. That said the religion can actually exist in a conservative environment than how much it's compromised in a liberal/leftist one. However The majority of pagan, occult and atheists in /poll/ will never accept Christianity.
Having national close borders is part obeying the government, as well as a natural defense against the prophesied world government's globalization. Either way, Acts 17:26 sets up a good scriptural backing for this, even though you're correct that God is the higher power before Satan's worldly law that the bible commands to obey secondarily.
The term political prisoners refers to 'victims' of sexism, sexual orientation, religion. The bible says to love one another and to treat women as if they're related to you, with purity, but it still commands a division of gender and heterosexuality, this is to keep the population of humanity high, in doing so they're more difficult to control. One of the goals of those who control the world is depopulation, homosexuality and feminism is one way to accomplish. Zig Forums seems to not see any danger in these movements for some reason, but they're there.
The total human population is literally the highest its ever been in the history of mankind. Your theory is bunk.
There is no such thing as "natural defense" because when the Antichrist comes all governments will offer him power. All nationalists do in the meantime is close the borders to refugees who need help. Given how the left has been severely weakened with the collapse of the USSR and has not had a significant victory in ages chances are it's going to be a neoliberal or rightist who ends up conceding the power to the antichrist. The Bible explicitly mentions that people will be buying and selling all sorts of luxury goods so capitalism still functions when the AC comes, meaning that the left never recovers or overthrows capitalism.
Chase Taylor
Just because it's high now doesn't change their long term goals. I guess you don't know about the Georgia guidestones and the Denver International Airport. archive.is/LnlYOarchive.li/aF4Cg and it's not a theory when they state it publicly in monuments.
Yes, but a lot has to happen before the planet reaches total globalization. Division helps against unification or globalization. Immigration hurts everyone including minorities, central/south immigrants who cross the border looking for a better life ending up as a victim class of people.
Dude stop. It's all already out in the open. Environmental degradation, rampant corruption, people praising sin as virtue - there is no need to add in conspiracy stuff when it is very easy to see the state of the broken world.
No it won't because nations will still be divided during the time of the AC and he will still achieve ultimate power.
Now you're just not trying.
Camden Gutierrez
Maybe not the perfect thread for this, but does anyone else find paul to be super inconsistent with jesus? I feel like most of the things I dont like about christianity specifically come from him, not jesus.
Thomas Thomas
Paul is literally one of the best disciples of Christ. What issue do you specifically have with him?
Jonathan Campbell
Modifying the laws despite christ saying not to, disobeying the apostles and lying about the letter he and his friend were given, contradictory accounts of his actions in the bible, being rejected by the churches revelations says are good judges of character, preaching about the sins of "others" rather than the sins of all like christ. There are some others that dobt come to mind at the moment.
Cooper Cox
Where are your proofz billy?
Jack Green
Why do the gnostics perpetuate a dualistic paradigm pertaining to masculinity/feminity if Christ said that all is one in Christ and Christ is apparently the divine baphomet; God? Occultists BTFO?
Oliver Parker
You didn't believe in their agenda of depopulation. Besides the bible is conspiracy oriented as well. They're still not done preparing us before a lot of other institutions are corrupted. Not trying at what? A mass of people means less work for the people looking for work, and not just whites saying dey took our jawbs, but also minorities.
Paul's filter could be an example of this, "everything is permissible but not everything is good for me", for this just takes Jesus's word over Paul.
Because they believe that Christ and Lucifer to be two parts of some sort of enlightenment. Don't take what gnostics say about the bible seriously, it's fanfiction that intends to correct the original.
Just to add to what i posted a little, The divine feminine and masculine is a subtle form of indirect worship that belief systems use, but Christianity doesn't treat Adam and Eve as divine, and despite the 'Christian' cross being able to masculine and feminine interpretation as well as saturn worship, it's. They belive this deception, even though the bible does make connections between Jesus and lucifer (because hes suppose to be a conterfeit) Jesus is mentioned to be the true God/light who is brighter than Lucifer. These people are blatantly buying into theosophy which is the belief of the people trying to enslave everyone. Here is just a source of the example i mentioned gotquestions.org/morning-star.html Here is a doc that goes into depth on theosophy and it's connections to the New Age, as well as lucifer worship. hooktube.com/watch?v=F3u4iSVpbBw
Jeez that's fuken bleak. A Jahova witness told me that god would rule for 1,000 years or some shit so does Anarcho-Jesus come and fuck up the fash or what? Come on give me a blood god.
Nicholas Long
OH THAT"S ME I"M FAMOUS THX user
Jason Martin
all you've done is point to several churches being reactionary, you haven't shown any necessary connection. as for your "organized religion" comment it's basically nonsense when dealing w a good amount of religious people. Private profession of faith as separable from any sort of community of the faithful and organization within it is not something you'll find in all religions. tbh it sounds like a prot sort of thing. Forcibly converting all these people in the name of non-hierarchy doesn't sound particularly "libertarian" to me
Ryder Reyes
Lmao really?? It was such a dumb thread but that answer was so nice I had to save it. God bless
Jaxson Flores
daily reminder that atheism is effectively conceding that you no longer believe in the one true god and instead hold up capitalism as the eternal truth
Andrew Williams
Just in case your serious, Jehovah Witnesses are seen as outside of Christianity like Mormons or Catholicism because they have conflicting ideas about spirits and hell. As well as being part of a massive watch tower organization that has some non-biblical pyramid scheme into heaven. Also it was Satan that was imprisoned for 1000 years.
remember that Catholicisms being some sort of hyper conservative religion which lead to the creation of the Vatican where all the top conservatives could go and scheme how to keep humanity in the dark is a Lutheran myth. The church proved incredibly progressive considering the age and still is. The Vatican served as a major place of debate among expert theologians, and were far quicker to accept new revolutionary ideas then the Protestant counter parts.
Julian Long
Christianity is pretty conservative in-itself, depending on who you ask. Protestantism isn't any better than Catholicism with their common female priests. It's important for the religion to have their practices to be scriptural based, or else the church can do whatever it wants. Also the hebrew and greek translation of church meant and assembly of God, it wasn't a specific building. The Vatican is preaching for open borders and the unification of religions, and that God doesn't condemn gays, it's pretty contradictorily progressive.
Liam Jones
ok.
but let me tell you a secret both is pretty dumb shit
Samuel Miller
Not requiring women to sacrifice their lives for men in a similar manner is inherently anti-male and counter revolutionary. Besides, Paul is the only person to really talk about women being "inferior", and most of the reasons he gives are Greco-Roman cultural spooks. The "Gospel of Peter" only gives male physical capacity as the reason for women to submit to their husbands, for instance.
I fail to see that disproves his point, considering that those two things are often reasons I hear the Catholic Church is called the "whore of Babylon colluding to prepare for the return of the antichrist" ect.
