/lit/ - Literature

What a meaningless question.

>>7242666

>>7242666
He was an intelligent and thoughtful man, so no

>>7242699

>>7242666
Who still cares what that bourgeois silly thought?

>>7242706
>Christianity makes you think
Rationalizing your choices after the fact isn't really productive thinking.

>>7242730
Reason led me to Christianity, though.

Christianity did exist back then you know

>>7242706
Doesn't mater if it's an atheist or a christian because they all take the same road except for the lucky ones.

The bible has a lot of valuable lessons but is generally cancer.

Does making him alive today mean he wasn't alive in the 1800s? Because that already totally changes history.

>>7242733
Is that the same reason you used to discover that all cats have nine tails? Or is it ten?

You can use reason from faulty assumptions and do a lot of thinking to reach a conclusion that could have been avoided with better thought-through assumptions.

>>7242753
>Because that already totally changes history.
According to Marx, it wouldn't

>>7242760
To the extent that you are correct here, Marx is wrong

>>7242771
I'm not a Marxist, but are you suggesting the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened without Marx?

>>7242666
What do you mean IF he were alive today?

>>7242733
I swear to go, if you say that you came back to christianity because there has to be a prime mover, then I will punt you so hard that they'll feel the shockwaves in /b/

Christianity is Platonism for the masses

Marxism is Christianity for the workers

>>7242666
No. He was an anti-humanist and more akin to muh scientismfsgs. Zizek is a humanists.

>>7242666
holy mother of shitposting this is the most /lit/ bait question I've ever seen. You've hit all the hot button issues that dilettantes on this board like to pontificate about.

this should be a juicy thread if the janny doesn't delete it.

>>7242784
No, it was historical apologetics for the Gospels.

>>7242779
I'm not him, but I'd certainly say it would.

Both the Germans and the British wanted Russia out of the picture and they used Marxism to do that. Had Lenin and Trotsky not been around for the Germans and British to fund they would have simply found other Marxists radicals, and if Marxism had not come about then they would have found some other movement. It could be various non-ethnic Russian nationalists, it could be religious extremists (Catholics, Muzzies, and Buddhists are all religious minorities in Russia), some non-Romanov dynasty, republicans, socialists, Randian Objectivists, anarchists, etc etc etc.

Might it have been as bloody or lead to as hilariously incompetent an ideology/state? Maybe, maybe not. But Russia would sooner or later be changed by SOME kind of radical movement that would upset the status quo very firmly.

>>7242812
What porridge you have in that skull.

>>7242812
Just so we're clear, are you talking about Josephus et. al.?

>>7242824
God bless you.

>>7242828
No, extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus actually existing is hardly apologetics for the Gospels as accurate accounts of his life.

>>7242837
>Jesus actually existed
>Ergo he was telling the truth and has been truthfully represented in the scriptures by other parties.
>Naturally, since there was a man known as Jesus causing trouble around 0 AD, Paul and the old testament are also inspired by a god as represented therein
Dude

>>7242852
I never said that. In fact I said the exist opposite if you carefully read my post.

>>7242855
*exact

>>7242855
You have one 4chan post to provide a reason to be a Christian in 2015.

>>7242837
Maybe my brain has been softened by too much 4chan and video games, but I seriously have a hard time imagining any way that you can argue that the Gospels represent a coherent, accurate picture of history. They barely agree with each other, let alone reality.

>>7242861
It's up to you to read them. The first one is about miracles, period. This addresses Hume's main argument against Christianity, which was that even if the Gospels fit every other criteria to be accepted reasonably as historical accounts (for they fit every other criteria), their miraculous content demands any reasonable person reject at least that much of them.

The second is the argument as to whether, apart from miracles the Gospels stand up to the criteria of being historical accounts.

The third is an argument against the Apostles having hallucinated Christ's Resurrection (which would mean that they would have to have consciously and knowingly fabricated it together, and be willing to be persecuted and die for it with no worldly compensation).

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspective

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/visions-of-jesus-a-critical-assessment-of-gerd-ludemanns

>>7242880
>Josephus
>Gospel of Pilate
Your sources both mention known forgeries, anon.

>>7242880
We could write similar musings on the validity of Harry Potter being the actual chosen one and performing all those miracles in the testaments of Rowling.

All it takes is faith.
Porridge head.

>>7242869
Just because the Gospels aren't infallible, doesn't mean they can't be historical works. Heck, the Orthodox Church maintains Christ was born in a cave, not a manger, and that the Gospels simply got this detail incorrect, but the Church still recognizes the centrality of the Gospels. They do agree with each other for the most part, though, more than Plato's vs. Xenophon's account of Socrates' trial, for sure.

>>7242897
Jospehus isn't a forgery. As to the '"Gospel of Pilate", I don't know what you mean by that.

>>7242904
>doesn't mean they can't be historical works
It really does call into question the validity of the whole thing. And once you take stock of the so-called Gnostic gospels and all that early church wrangling, all you get is the spotty history of a cult trying to organize itself. It never did get its shit together. Hence all the million denominations

>>7242666
lel, no. If he were to be alive today he would be far to busy leading the beta proletariat uprising.

>>7242880
Leaving aside that claim, let's focus on the fact that nobody has ever told me my eternal soul rests on whether I accept that Socrates died and ascended into elysium on the third day.

Also, and I more relevantly, I'll hazard that there aren't any supernatural happenings in those accounts of Josephus, and if you are, you dismiss them as the made up bullshit that they are.

>>7242904
*accounts of Plato

>>7242914
It doesn't call it to question at all, every ancient historical work we has has factual errors.

The Gnostic Gospels, yes
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-presuppositions-and-pretensions

>It never did get its shit together. Hence all the million denominations
They all pretty much came out of the Reformation. Without Apostolic succession, you get a lot of issues, of course, because anyone can come up with whatever they want from any part of Scripture. The Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, don't know that the Bible refers to Saturday as the Sabbath but Sunday as 'the first Sabbath' in Matthew 28:1 because they can't read Greek (Young's literal translation is the only one that makes this clear)...but rather than asking a priest, they couldn't, being baptists, so they just assumed the Sunday Sabbath started with Constantine.

>>7242920

No, there aren't. I'm not sure what your point is there, since the apolgetics here aren't using Josephus to suggest that, merely to buttress the argument that Christ was a real person. The argument for the Historicity of things like the Resurrection is separate.

There's not historical evidence that happened with Socrates.

>>7242930
>every ancient historical work has factual errors
And yet you choose to stake your soul on this one.

>>7242938
I meant to say in the accounts of Plato. My point was that, even if we accept the accounts given for Socrates trial as the baseline to accept that someone was a real person

you're still no closer to proving that Jesus was god
you're no closer to proving that he ascended into heaven
you're no closer to proving that heaven is even a real place/thing/dimension that's inhabited by a deity
and you're only any closer to the grave
because you wasted your life
following the precepts of,
not even your own imaginary friend,
but one that someone else made up 3000+ years ago
to control a bunch of autists wandering around the middle east.

>>7242964
that's why I linked the exhaustive arguments.

>>7242954
And there is good reason to, if we accept what the Gospel agree upon as true, which I've linked lengthy arguments for.

>>7242706
Christianity is simply a communal form of Cynicism and/or Stoicism mixed with some Jewish tribal superstitions. If you want unadulterated devotion to God without all the baggage, read Zeno and Epictetus.

>>7242969
>>7242967
Those arguments all apply perfectly to the Koran so far as I can tell. Why aren't you a Muslim? Are you a racist?

>>7242779
I agree with this guy >>7242818, more or less. Revolution was inevitable but the Marxist justification for it and the Marxist views on production led to a different post-revolutionary regime than the one that would have come to power otherwise.

It's impossible to say whether that regime would have been better or worse, but for one thing I'd wager that the far-left wouldn't have such a bad name today if there hadn't been one of the worst totalitarian states of the 20th century acting in their name. Of course, all speculative.

>>7242699
>Marx
>Thoughtful
>Intelligent
U wut m8

>>7243428

This poster has never read Marx

fuck off

>>7243437
But Anon, I have.

>>7243450

His & Engel's early Manifesto? When? In high school?

>>7243468
you seem mad friendo and it's affecting your already shakyability to argue coherently.

>>7243099
Er, the validity of the Koran has nothing to do with Mohammed coming back to life. Or even performing miracles, afaik.

As for the perspective of the Koran, the major issue is that it agrees Christ is the Messiah, but then says he opted out of dying for our sins. But dying for our sins is an essential function of the Messiah in the OT.

>>7243334
The same could be said of the far-right.

>>7243539
Sure. I mean, right-wing views had justified slavery for years, so to me national socialism doesn't seem like a corruption of those views as much as a direct implementation of them, but if you're a right-winger I can appreciate that you might see things differently.

>>7243450
Than you are mentally deficient in some major way. Not surprising since this is 4chan and all.

>>7243492
He doesn't seem mad in the slightest. This is a weak trolling attempt. Here's your response anyway.

>>7243611
>Someone doesn't agree with Marx
>Must be retarded

That's some logic ya got there anon.

>>7243492

I'm just saying it's clear you've never read anything but the manifesto, if anything

The question has to do with a very strange hypothetical situation.
If we take what he wrote, of course he would not be,
but it depends on what you mean by him being alive today.
If you think people have no choice then he may,
but there is no way of us knowing that.

>>7242666
I think he would have completely evolved his political stance
I think he had all those revolutionary idea's because he lived in a time where capitalism had completely run wild and needed to be reigned in
I highly doubt he would consider himself a "communist" if he lived today

>>7242688
lol exact thoughts before even clicking the reply

>>7242706
as if Christ were the only one waiting for you on your return...

biggest mayhaps in the world

>>7243666
I'm not one of the other two anon but i'm posting to call you a retard too. You obviously don't need to agree with someone to think he's intelligent or thoughtful.

>>7243666
And he rolls another Satan get.

No dumbass. He/you are claiming that Marx wasn't "thoughtful" or "intelligent". Not even about where you stand on the issues of the mans political/economical/philosophical ideas. This is just inflammatory bullshit and if you don't know it, you are some kind of mental case. Fact.

Socialism existed before Marx. These ideas don't die because we have been edging towards them for centuries. This is what the majority of us wants even if there's a concerted propaganda machine in place to produce fools like yourself.

I often wonder about what Marx would do today. Like there's this marxist group at my uni that are always trying to get people to sign petitions about gay marriage and stuff. I don't know if Marx would have been homophobic per se, but considering how he disliked the family union I think he'd be opposed to expanding upon the institution of marriage and he'd rather abolish it completely.

>>7243958
They are not Marxists. They are Bourgeois Social-Democrats at best.
A Group of Cuban Homosexuals were asked hoe they felt about not being able to marry in Cuba. They answered that Marriage was an institution that not many people regarded as important in the Cuban society of today. They had no interest in pushing for it.

>>7243958
Marx had the wrong idea. He wanted to restore us to pre-civilization, in the family sense. But you don't do that by 'abolishing family', you do that by extending the fuck out of it.

>>7243717
His conclusions, his ideal the whole rotten thing is what makes him non-thoughtful and non-intelligent. His conclusions from the get go were so horribly wrong that they are self-defeating. And no retard people are not going towards his idea, fucking grow up and wake up.

>>7243980
Restoring pre-theistic notions of "civilization" for a better future.
This would indeed extend the fuck out of the family unit.

>>7244280
>a whole lot of words about how little you know

Good post anon, keep it up

>>7244280
Are you one of those free marketeering types?
Gawdam your econ teacher fucked your head up. Break out of it kid. You can do it.

>>7244290

>>7243970
>le no true scottsman

>>7244380
But he's right. Did you stop reading at the first line or something?
Quit being so damn meme-y

>>7244377
What am I looking at here?
>you in me
kek

>>7244411
I think it's from The Peaceful Warrior.
Might have to see it now

>>7244411
>he hasn't seen the 2003 Hulk that wasn't capeshit and bombed because it actually tried to be for grown-ups instead of manchildren

>>7244434
I have seen Ang Lee's Hulk but it has been a while and I don't recall the scene. It was definitely underrated.

>>7244441
That's the scene where Bruce Banner's dad is talking to him and they're both in military custody. He can adsorb the properties of other things, and it has altered his perspective on distinction between things, so he not only sees things as "one" like we do in A Buddhist way, he has actually experienced a truly physical process of that, and it even affects his memories (like when he talked about stabbing his wife, he says it was as if she and the knife became one). He wants to absorb the properties of the Hulk to become stronger, and that's what's meant by "You in me,' but also in a broader sense: he no longer sees Bruce Banner as his son, but the Hulk as his son, and he wants the Hulk to join forces with him, and his new perspective of his son makes him think of him not as separate, but the same, similar to the Biblical sense: ""Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me" (John 14: 11). The Hulk and the Absorbing Father are gods among mortals, but the father has a very different theology about it than the son does, because Holk's experience is one of feeling total alienation from humanity that can only be bridged through parental connection with his mother (whom he identifies Betty Ross with), whereas the Father feels the complete opposite of alienation, and become disgusted with identity itself, as expressed in his vituperation toward flags and anthems and uniforms.

>>7242666
>If he were alive today, would he be a Christian?
No, he would be a capitalist

>>7244485
As we all are. As we are forced to be.

Fucking limp dicked Stockholm syndrome little sheep-boy

>>7242666
>huge supporter of Feuerbach
No, not at all.

No sane person can believe in the existence or non-existence of god.

>>7244783
Marx was mainly a Feurbach fan in his early writings. He dropped Feurbach's liberalism later on, which is why he no longer came from a humanist perspective.

>>7244799
That I wasn't aware. Seems like it's still up in the air then. Thanks.

Marx is alive today.

To cut off the head is nothing

if the ideology is true

>>7243536
Wasn't Cyrus the Great a messiah?

>>7243536
>Or even performing miracles, afaik.
If Mohammad didn't perform miracles then he obviously couldn't have been the last Prophet.

>>7242880
I'm only partway down the first one, I will give it a fair shake, and I realize that the article probably has a sophisticated justification for this, but I like how the author keeps saying "these philosophers and theologians assumed a priori that these impossible things did not occur."

>>7242880
>'The stupendous order of nature, the revolution of a hundred millions of worlds around millions of suns, the activity of light, the life of animals, all are grand and perpetual miracles.'22 But according to accepted usage, 'A miracle is the violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws'23 ; therefore, it is a contradiction in terms. But, it is said, God can suspend these laws if he wishes. But why should he wish so to disfigure this immense machine?

As a CS major this immediately puts me in mind of back doors.

>>7245082
Kind of important to illustrate that beginning the question on miracles being untrue became a thing with modernism, which is what you're doing right now.

"Miracles are untrue'
'why?"
"Because they are impossible'

>>7245096
*begging

>>7242666
He would peobrably be leading some anti-tpp movenent. Right now he might be screaming; "Proletariat uprising now, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

>>7245096
There might be a language barrier, to me "impossible" means "cannot occur."

Reminder that you have to face reality. You only get one life, don't waste it on wishful thinking.

>>7244361
Break out of what? An understanding of economics?

>>7246535
If you truly understood economics, you are truly one of the enemies of humanity.

I prefer to think of you as simply not fully informed.