Protestant extremism

Hey guys, I’ve noticed a trend where the new word for Protestant extremism is now “Evangelicalism”. I think this is a mistake. Relatively moderate or even liberal Protestant denominations are technically “Evangelical”, like the Methodist and Lutheran churches. I don’t know why we drifted away from Fundamentalism to this, Fundamentalism actually referred to hardline Protestant positions, but I don’t think even that was quite adequate because it refers mostly to largely dying traditions like the Southern Baptists. I think these days you’re looking at three tendencies with a good degree of overlap.

1) Pentecostalism. You already know what this is even if you haven’t heard the term before. These are the guys who handle snakes, speak in tongues, drink (highly diluted) poison, dance around in the church while the preacher yells and casts out demons from the crowd. There’s a name for all those crazy churches you may have seen in internet videos and documentaries, and it’s “Pentecostal”

2) Premillennial dispensationalists. The Protestant Zionists. Basically a doomsday cult trying to reinact their interpretation of the events of the book interpretation of the events of the Book of Revelation and bring about the apocalypse.

3) Prosperity Theology. These guys believe that material wealth is a sign of God’s favor. Very often, this is the theology of megachurches and televangelists. Very often claim that by donating to their church your financial woes will end. In relatively recent times, some of them have doubled down and advocate for what is essentially capitalist neo-feudalism in the form of “Dominionism”. A lot of the preachers associated with this tendency have been exposed as out-and-out con artists (eg - Robert Tilton, Peter Popoff)

We need a term for this particular tendency, and that word isn’t “Evangelical”. Especially considering that it’s now being exported out of the United States and promoting far-right politics across the globe, and thus needs to be directly combatted and suppressed.

Attached: 2DB307A7-3301-4804-A807-00B3CCFC9729.jpeg (640x640, 75.23K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1847/09/12.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Forgot to mention: Bolsonaro is an adherent of this tendency. This is partially what made me bring it up.

Where did it all go wrong?

Attached: 8AFEEA13-4962-4EEB-908B-DEF8ED43955E.png (500x500, 73.96K)

Probably when Rome adopted Christianity as the official faith. As an ex-christfag who's still somewhat sympathetic to christianity, I feel that a secular state/immediately-recallable-elected-body-of-representatives would be beneficial for Christianity.

Pentacostalism is basically a fetshism of the supposed miracles, and (from what I see) some belief that trying to mimic them will make them better christians. I bet many of those people really do believe they're speaking in tongues. Prosperity theology seems to just be bourgs cherry picking hard to justify their wealth. That's pretty obvious. All in all can Christians of all denominations not just agree that reading and following the example of Jesus should be all that's necessary to be christian?
why do I type this, I'm not religious

A lot of this is purity tests and tribal signifiersthat has little to do Jesus beyond the fact that believing in him puts you in the special group that gets to go to heaven. In fact, Jesus said some shit that wouldn’t sit well with this bunch.

Namely,

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

…

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[j]
but deliver us from the evil one.[k]’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

…

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

…

Now [a]early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, [b]this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now [c]Moses, in the law, commanded us [d]that such should be stoned. But what do You [e]say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, [f]as though He did not hear.

7 So when they continued asking Him, He [g]raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being[h] convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up [i]and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers [j]of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

11 She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more

It's not a trend, it's what these words actually mean in the English language.


Also


Who the fuck cares? You can't be a revolutionary on earth and a reformist in heaven.

It’s a particular movement gaining steam. Bolsonaro is one, like I said.

It's a particular movement currently gaining steam in SOUTH AMERICA. Evangelicalism is a well-established term in the English language. If you weren't originally aware of that then it's due to your lack of proficiency. You know what's actually a very recent and global trend? 'Moderate' or 'liberal' Protestant denominations. Anyway, who the fuck cares about all these useless and sectarian distinctions except for small minds that are desperately trying to reconcile the remains of their reactionary indoctrination with their new-found socialist political ideology? Again you can't be revolutionary on earth and a reformist in heaven.

An attack on all religion simply on the grounds of it being religion isn’t Marxist and would be a fool’s errand besides. I’m talking about this as a particular reactionary current that is active and gaining power in the here and now.

Not the person your talking to, but never understood this. What does this even mean? You cease to be a person when you die, your existence ceases to be material. Theologically and metaphysically, the idea of reform wouldn't even matter. The conditions for what make up "you" would be different, and any matter of "reasoning", material or otherwise, regarding economic systems is defunct. If anything, it would be the ultimate form of idealism to think you would even have a choice in such a situation. It would just be.

Not literally when you are in heaven, you dolt. You are using all these fancy words and then fail to comprehend a simple metaphor? It means that you can't be a Marxist while at the same time trying to reform the idealist bullshit you call religion and reconcile them with your Marxist ideology because at their core they'll still remain idealist bullshit. Being revolutionary in this context means rejecting religion all-together. This is why it's funny to observe self-professed leftists and religious apologists like OP arguing about religious sectarian bullshit and bringing up that shit up here. No real leftist cares about your petty theological squabbles dealing with which version of the Iron age doomsday you call your faith is the most valid one.

Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

CRAWLING IN MY SKIN THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL

Attached: atheisttard.png (500x300, 86.67K)

Why do you so many Christian 'communists' expose themselves to be illiterate poltards? Is this some kind of half-state in their transition from full-blown fascists or do they just naturally flock to these threads? The second part of my post is a famous copy pasted Lenin quote that is quoting Marx, lmao.

OP was talking about religion that does do what your's saying as opposed to, what I assume he's implying, more radical forms that do not.
You might want to read the sentence before the opium quote. Also, you seem to be viewing religion in a vacuum exempt from the material conditions it exists in. While religion has been used to justify capitalism, religious practice and the narrative it takes on in an area is very much shaped by the conditions it's within. Of course you'll see religious rhetoric justfying capitalism in capitalism, just like you'll find media, literature, personalities, and people justifying capitalism. You'll also find in places where people are pushed to their limit and conditions are poor, people shaping their theology to be opposed to capitalism. Hell, the middle east is a great example of religion being shaped by conditions to justify certain actions. Religion at it's worst or best is simply a cover for people to act on the material interests they already want to act on. It isn't something onto itself that does things.

“For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
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.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.”
t. Marx

Attached: 12213A4B-A894-41B8-AD8C-0A958B72FE80.jpeg (299x169, 23.4K)

Gringo Christianity.

Attached: DtQfadwXoAAWJCB.jpg large.jpg (1410x1766, 244K)

Probably when your image was a gigantic straw man in the first place

Can someone name one historical example of a conflict when organized religion didn't team up with reactionary forces?

"muh Americans"

every. single. time.

The non-Evangelical sects within Protestantism are dying, tho. The Baptists and Pentecostals are the only significant political force left, so they're going to retain the title by default.

The Buddhists in the Vietnam war?

The conflict between the Shah and the people of Iran.

Protestantism is a laughable failure as a historical project and a mistake. Literally the only decent denomination which isn't Cathodox is Anglican, because it's basically half-Catholic in form with doctrinal concessions.

Acts 2:44-45

Acts 4:32, 34, 35

Notice how Christians never have actually arguments beside le fedora?

marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1847/09/12.htm

Attached: marx.jpg (1263x1600, 1.28M)

For me, it's more the insistence that we shouldn't focus on this particular movement as an active movement of reaction gaining power because "all religion is bad lol"

Liberation theology.

Just repeating what Marx said about religion, as if nothing has happened in history and philosophy since the 19th century, is a bit mindboggling. Honestly, communists have been largely wrong on this subject and it continues to be a sticking point. It's not true that religion is simply the expression of real suffering translated into the ideological realm - this is basically Feuerbach's naive point which Marx should have seen through, but Engels probably did when I look at his later writings on Christianity… I find it very doubtful that religious impulses will die off once people are materially satisfied or widely educated. Almost certainly the superstitious pop-versions will disappear, but the actual developed theology which is believed by masses of educated Catholics, for example? I don't think so. Enduring religious traditions are so because they are rich in literature and encompass a wide spectrum of philosophical thought, Christianity has proven itself very resilient despite all expectations since the Enlightenment.