What does Christ, Marx, and Nietchze have in common?

[Votto]

All three men looked at the world, saw what was wrong with the world, and developed thoughts on how to overcome such wrongs.

All three men were taken out or context and used by the state for the benefit of the state. Christ was used by the Pope turned politician, Marx was used by such wonderful figures as Stalin and Moa and Chavez, and Nietchze was used by Hitler.

I believe all 3 men would have been appalled by the misuse of their various philosophies.

At the end of the day though, most only identify with how the state presents each. They never really bother to dig down and see what they were all about.

 

[Rigby5]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

 

[night_son]

All three men looked at the world, saw what was wrong with the world, and developed thoughts on how to overcome such wrongs.

All three men were taken out or context and used by the state for the benefit of the state. Christ was used by the Pope turned politician, Marx was used by such wonderful figures as Stalin and Moa and Chavez, and Nietchze was used by Hitler.

I believe all 3 men would have been appalled by the misuse of their various philosophies.

At the end of the day though, most only identify with how the state presents each. They never really bother to dig down and see what they were all about.

Not at all alike, the three you've mentioned. I disagree, strongly. Christ did not intend to change the carnal or corporeal world so much as his primary objective was arranging for some kind of immortality for mortals, and then only after their deaths . . . sort of undoing Eve's little boo-boo in the Garden. While his philosophies included a clear, easy to understand and follow code of moral behavior, said moral code was intended to qualify the souls of mortals for entering His Father's kingdom; making the world easier to live in was likely a side-effect. I do not believe Christ wanted to change the mortal world for the sake of making it a kinder, fairer place; rather, his teachings boil down to mortals living their lives in a specific manner which will award them eternal life after death with an overarching theme of asking for and receiving forgiveness for sin.

Nietzsche was no messiah, no Christ-like figure, not really a prophet per se, either. He was a thinker, among the greatest to ever exist, and yet he was no man of action, as was Christ. Nietzsche made predictions about the mind and souls of men. Predictions which turned out to be incredibly accurate if not possibly self-fulfilling to some degree considering the wide publication of his works. He was also a man of his historical era and all the associated baggage of that time period directly influenced his life and writings. Some believe Nietzsche was talking about himself when he wrote the character of Zarathustra into being, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. One could also draw parallels between Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Christ, however, the differences are just to bitter and unmistakable. Where Christ intended to literally save every last man woman and child's eternal soul, Zarathustra as written by Nietzsche was content to prepare all men, women and children for the coming of a more perfect incarnation of human beings, and to convince all the people of the world to go quietly into extinction in preparation for their arrival. In this way, and the way in which Zarathustra cared for the lifeless tightrope walker, he cared only for the dead, while Christ cared for the living and what happened to their souls after death. I'd also get into Nihilism, but I'd be here typing out my post until dawn.

Marx, while a bit of a more cryptic "nut" to crack and understand than the others, was, if you bother to read all of him, driven by hatred of specific races and classes and nationalities of people, pure and simple. There's no arguing he wanted to influence and change the world, it's just very obvious he wasn't out to change the world for the better, not by a very long shot. If Marx should be compared to any mythological or actual being, I'd suggest Satan or Lucifer or whatever they're calling old scratch these days would be a more apt huckleberry for that purpose. Marx is arguably directly responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million fellow human beings, possibly much more than that depending on how one fits abortion into one's analysis of Cultural Marxism and the shit China is pulling these days with organ harvesting.

In conclusion, I must agree with you that the words of both Christ and Nietzsche were both politicized and the men themselves underwent forms of apotheosis against their will after their deaths, but must disagree with you on Marx. Marx's grand meta-narrative ideology and panacea for healing the civilized world by revolutionary bloodshed was a thing politicized by his own hands within his lifetime.

To sum it all up:

Christ: gave hope to all who would listen.

Nietzsche: tried to convince all of mankind to give up hope; although not as malevolent as that sounds.

Marx: gave false hope to hundreds of millions; his were words of great deception.

 

[Rigby5]

All three men looked at the world, saw what was wrong with the world, and developed thoughts on how to overcome such wrongs.

All three men were taken out or context and used by the state for the benefit of the state. Christ was used by the Pope turned politician, Marx was used by such wonderful figures as Stalin and Moa and Chavez, and Nietchze was used by Hitler.

I believe all 3 men would have been appalled by the misuse of their various philosophies.

At the end of the day though, most only identify with how the state presents each. They never really bother to dig down and see what they were all about.

Not at all alike, the three you've mentioned. I disagree, strongly. Christ did not intend to change the carnal or corporeal world so much as his primary objective was arranging for some kind of immortality for mortals, and then only after their deaths . . . sort of undoing Eve's little boo-boo in the Garden. While his philosophies included a clear, easy to understand and follow code of moral behavior, said moral code was intended to qualify the souls of mortals for entering His Father's kingdom; making the world easier to live in was likely a side-effect. I do not believe Christ wanted to change the mortal world for the sake of making it a kinder, fairer place; rather, his teachings boil down to mortals living their lives in a specific manner which will award them eternal life after death with an overarching theme of asking for and receiving forgiveness for sin.

Nietzsche was no messiah, no Christ-like figure, not really a prophet per se, either. He was a thinker, among the greatest to ever exist, and yet he was no man of action, as was Christ. Nietzsche made predictions about the mind and souls of men. Predictions which turned out to be incredibly accurate if not possibly self-fulfilling to some degree considering the wide publication of his works. He was also a man of his historical era and all the associated baggage of that time period directly influenced his life and writings. Some believe Nietzsche was talking about himself when he wrote the character of Zarathustra into being, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. One could also draw parallels between Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Christ, however, the differences are just to bitter and unmistakable. Where Christ intended to literally save every last man woman and child's eternal soul, Zarathustra as written by Nietzsche was content to prepare all men, women and children for the coming of a more perfect incarnation of human beings, and to convince all the people of the world to go quietly into extinction in preparation for their arrival. In this way, and the way in which Zarathustra cared for the lifeless tightrope walker, he cared only for the dead, while Christ cared for the living and what happened to their souls after death. I'd also get into Nihilism, but I'd be here typing out my post until dawn.

Marx, while a bit of a more cryptic "nut" to crack and understand than the others, was, if you bother to read all of him, driven by hatred of specific races and classes and nationalities of people, pure and simple. There's no arguing he wanted to influence and change the world, it's just very obvious he wasn't out to change the world for the better, not by a very long shot. If Marx should be compared to any mythological or actual being, I'd suggest Satan or Lucifer or whatever they're calling old scratch these days would be a more apt huckleberry for that purpose. Marx is arguably directly responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million fellow human beings, possibly much more than that depending on how one fits abortion into one's analysis of Cultural Marxism and the shit China is pulling these days with organ harvesting.

In conclusion, I must agree with you that the words of both Christ and Nietzsche were both politicized and the men themselves underwent forms of apotheosis against their will after their deaths, but must disagree with you on Marx. Marx's grand meta-narrative ideology and panacea for healing the civilized world by revolutionary bloodshed was a thing politicized by his own hands within his lifetime.

To sum it all up:

Christ: gave hope to all who would listen.

Nietzsche: tried to convince all of mankind to give up hope; although not as malevolent as that sounds.

Marx: gave false hope to hundreds of millions; his were words of great deception.

Oh come on, Marx was not at all evil.
In fact he never actually tried to implement anything.
He was correctly outrages at the injustice of the privileged class, politically and economically enslaving the majority.
If anything, he was just too idealistic.
He really believed that if economic and political pressures were taken away, that mankind would become benevolent to each other. He really did believe that the state would whither away, and was unnecessary.
The only bad thing one can really say about Marx is that he lived too early, before other cures for the industrial revolution were invented, like unions and trust busting.

 

[Votto]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

How can man come to know God when we can't even figure out each other?

The man Christ both Marx and Nietchze rejected I believe was largely a contrived one made by religious folks that often misrepresented them.

Remember, Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day, just like Marx and Nietchze did.

 

[Votto]

All three men looked at the world, saw what was wrong with the world, and developed thoughts on how to overcome such wrongs.

All three men were taken out or context and used by the state for the benefit of the state. Christ was used by the Pope turned politician, Marx was used by such wonderful figures as Stalin and Moa and Chavez, and Nietchze was used by Hitler.

I believe all 3 men would have been appalled by the misuse of their various philosophies.

At the end of the day though, most only identify with how the state presents each. They never really bother to dig down and see what they were all about.

Not at all alike, the three you've mentioned. I disagree, strongly. Christ did not intend to change the carnal or corporeal world so much as his primary objective was arranging for some kind of immortality for mortals, and then only after their deaths . . . sort of undoing Eve's little boo-boo in the Garden. While his philosophies included a clear, easy to understand and follow code of moral behavior, said moral code was intended to qualify the souls of mortals for entering His Father's kingdom; making the world easier to live in was likely a side-effect. I do not believe Christ wanted to change the mortal world for the sake of making it a kinder, fairer place; rather, his teachings boil down to mortals living their lives in a specific manner which will award them eternal life after death with an overarching theme of asking for and receiving forgiveness for sin.

Nietzsche was no messiah, no Christ-like figure, not really a prophet per se, either. He was a thinker, among the greatest to ever exist, and yet he was no man of action, as was Christ. Nietzsche made predictions about the mind and souls of men. Predictions which turned out to be incredibly accurate if not possibly self-fulfilling to some degree considering the wide publication of his works. He was also a man of his historical era and all the associated baggage of that time period directly influenced his life and writings. Some believe Nietzsche was talking about himself when he wrote the character of Zarathustra into being, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. One could also draw parallels between Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Christ, however, the differences are just to bitter and unmistakable. Where Christ intended to literally save every last man woman and child's eternal soul, Zarathustra as written by Nietzsche was content to prepare all men, women and children for the coming of a more perfect incarnation of human beings, and to convince all the people of the world to go quietly into extinction in preparation for their arrival. In this way, and the way in which Zarathustra cared for the lifeless tightrope walker, he cared only for the dead, while Christ cared for the living and what happened to their souls after death. I'd also get into Nihilism, but I'd be here typing out my post until dawn.

Marx, while a bit of a more cryptic "nut" to crack and understand than the others, was, if you bother to read all of him, driven by hatred of specific races and classes and nationalities of people, pure and simple. There's no arguing he wanted to influence and change the world, it's just very obvious he wasn't out to change the world for the better, not by a very long shot. If Marx should be compared to any mythological or actual being, I'd suggest Satan or Lucifer or whatever they're calling old scratch these days would be a more apt huckleberry for that purpose. Marx is arguably directly responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million fellow human beings, possibly much more than that depending on how one fits abortion into one's analysis of Cultural Marxism and the shit China is pulling these days with organ harvesting.

In conclusion, I must agree with you that the words of both Christ and Nietzsche were both politicized and the men themselves underwent forms of apotheosis against their will after their deaths, but must disagree with you on Marx. Marx's grand meta-narrative ideology and panacea for healing the civilized world by revolutionary bloodshed was a thing politicized by his own hands within his lifetime.

To sum it all up:

Christ: gave hope to all who would listen.

Nietzsche: tried to convince all of mankind to give up hope; although not as malevolent as that sounds.

Marx: gave false hope to hundreds of millions; his were words of great deception.

I think this to be one of the mischaracterizations of Christ, mainly that his philosophy was only for the after life.

If you read the gospels it says time and again that the kingdom of God had come to earth and the whole emphasis was promoting the kingdom of God on earth.

I agree that by in large though, Christianity has been interpreted by many to be just a get out of hell free card.

And looking at the world after Christ came into it, I would say he has transformed it in many cases. For example, charity to the poor. Take a look at those who give most of their time and money to the poor, it is people of faith, mostly the Christian faith. Those that are mostly atheists tend to lean Left and spend all their time telling us to vote for people who will force them to pay higher taxes with the hopes that they will use that tax money to help the poor.

Conversely, Nietzsche rejected the morality of Christianity which focused on helping the weak in society. In fact, Nietzsche spent a good amount of his time trying to develop a new morality that focused more on human greatness than meekness and helping the weak. This is one of the aspects of Nietzsche Hitler loved, for he also hated the Christian faith that focused on serving mankind to help the less fortunate. In fact, the only part of the New Testament Hitler liked was when Christ drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. For Hitler, it reinforced the stereotype of Jews being greedy and corrupt. The rest of the NT he largely rejected. But Nietzsche never lived to finish his new moral code that focused on trying to bring out human greatness. Not surprisingly, he died with delusions of grandeur instead. It was his sister who idealized Nietzsche who later sold out to Hitler, causing Hitler to use Nietzsche as one of his many tools for his world wide Holocaust.


But alas, Hitler and Nietzsche were both trapped in a culture that on the surface seemed to have rejected the Bible but still were influenced by Christian morals. This is why both Hitler and Nietzsche were desperate to reshape the morality of culture more to their liking. Hitler confided with some that he wished he had been immersed in a society that was mostly Islamic in nature, because that religion was more geared towards jihad and tribal war. As a result, Hitler, like Nietzsche, sought to overturn the Christian morals of his day for a new one and was busily trying to create it. For Nietzsche, however, it seemed too hypocritical to reject the God of the Bible but still admire the morality of the said faith.

As for the Catholic church and their response to Hitler, unfortunately they did not come out and publically condemn the Third Reich for its war crimes. Instead, they chose to lay low and ride the war out by in large in order to preserve their little Vatican empire. This type of behavior was very un-Christ like and I believe was the exact type of behavior that men like Marx and Nietzsche detested and rejected.

Marx, on the other hand, would have been one of those people Nietzsche detested. He was the type that had rejected the God of the Bible, but still held to its morals of trying to help the poor. In the mind of Nietzsche, men like Marx needed to have their morals transformed in order to reach his greatest potential. Marx opposed rigid ideologies like Communism and detested those who stripped the freedom from men at the top like all other socialist governments that came afterward. He would be appalled by the likes of Bernie Sanders and AOC who personally enrich themselves while espousing Marx like philosophies. I think the biggest down fall of Marx, however, was his inability to see that man's innate nature was not good. Both Christ and Nietzsche recognized that human nature was not good. Christ warned his followers of those who would come after him proclaiming to be him and not to follow after them. He also warned that his kingdom was not of this world nor could be, which should have signaled to those in the Catholic church who created a world theocracy that they were on the wrong path. Nietzsche also confided that more than likely his works would be used by others for evil, which is kind of ironic since he had not completed his new moral code of ethics for a post-Christian culture. As a result, Marx trusted in human goodness to right it's own ship. He really believed that man was innately good and could transform itself into a Christian like ethos while still rejecting the Bible which promoted Christian ethics.

 

[Tehon]

Nietzsche is dead.
Jesus is dying a slow death.
Marx is eternal.

Marx provides the antidote to nihilism and the final death blow to Jesus.

 

[there4eyeM]

Jesus and Nietzsche were focused beyond the material to a better human orientation. Marx was entirely materialistic, just as the forces he opposed.
What the first two spoke about is exactly where we should be heading.

 

[irosie91]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

How can man come to know God when we can't even figure out each other?

The man Christ both Marx and Nietchze rejected I believe was largely a contrived one made by religious folks that often misrepresented them.

Remember, Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day, just like Marx and Nietchze did.

Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day? ------your sunday school teacher lied-------After which RELIGIOUS LEADER of his day did Jesus "go after"

 

[Tehon]

Jesus and Nietzsche were focused beyond the material to a better human orientation. Marx was entirely materialistic, just as the forces he opposed.
What the first two spoke about is exactly where we should be heading.

It is the material that sustains human life on this planet.

Marx's theories rooted in historical materialism are diametrically opposed to the materialism of the forces he opposed. Marx rejects the idea that material objects can be owned.

 

[Votto]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

How can man come to know God when we can't even figure out each other?

The man Christ both Marx and Nietchze rejected I believe was largely a contrived one made by religious folks that often misrepresented them.

Remember, Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day, just like Marx and Nietchze did.

Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day? ------your sunday school teacher lied-------After which RELIGIOUS LEADER of his day did Jesus "go after"

Who exactly pursued putting Jesus to death? It was not Pilate and the Romans.

 

[Votto]

Nietzsche is dead.
Jesus is dying a slow death.
Marx is eternal.

Marx provides the antidote to nihilism and the final death blow to Jesus.

All three actually died, but one is said to have arisen.

At the end of the day, the only real hope we have is in such a miraculous event.

But I understand what you are trying to say. Marx at first seemed to be a threat to governments who used elements of the Christian faith to try and control people, but they later realized Marx provided a better way. For you see, Marx provided them with the demagoguery to convince the populace to give the government complete control over the markets and every financial transaction, to be redistributed the way they saw fit. It beat threatening people with hell if they did not obey the state.

In fact, I bet that the people of Venezuela who are now eating out of garbage cans thanks to the Marxist demagoguery are still in love with socialism

You only need to drink the cool aid once.

 

[daveman]

All three men looked at the world, saw what was wrong with the world, and developed thoughts on how to overcome such wrongs.

All three men were taken out or context and used by the state for the benefit of the state. Christ was used by the Pope turned politician, Marx was used by such wonderful figures as Stalin and Moa and Chavez, and Nietchze was used by Hitler.

I believe all 3 men would have been appalled by the misuse of their various philosophies.

At the end of the day though, most only identify with how the state presents each. They never really bother to dig down and see what they were all about.

Not at all alike, the three you've mentioned. I disagree, strongly. Christ did not intend to change the carnal or corporeal world so much as his primary objective was arranging for some kind of immortality for mortals, and then only after their deaths . . . sort of undoing Eve's little boo-boo in the Garden. While his philosophies included a clear, easy to understand and follow code of moral behavior, said moral code was intended to qualify the souls of mortals for entering His Father's kingdom; making the world easier to live in was likely a side-effect. I do not believe Christ wanted to change the mortal world for the sake of making it a kinder, fairer place; rather, his teachings boil down to mortals living their lives in a specific manner which will award them eternal life after death with an overarching theme of asking for and receiving forgiveness for sin.

Nietzsche was no messiah, no Christ-like figure, not really a prophet per se, either. He was a thinker, among the greatest to ever exist, and yet he was no man of action, as was Christ. Nietzsche made predictions about the mind and souls of men. Predictions which turned out to be incredibly accurate if not possibly self-fulfilling to some degree considering the wide publication of his works. He was also a man of his historical era and all the associated baggage of that time period directly influenced his life and writings. Some believe Nietzsche was talking about himself when he wrote the character of Zarathustra into being, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. One could also draw parallels between Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Christ, however, the differences are just to bitter and unmistakable. Where Christ intended to literally save every last man woman and child's eternal soul, Zarathustra as written by Nietzsche was content to prepare all men, women and children for the coming of a more perfect incarnation of human beings, and to convince all the people of the world to go quietly into extinction in preparation for their arrival. In this way, and the way in which Zarathustra cared for the lifeless tightrope walker, he cared only for the dead, while Christ cared for the living and what happened to their souls after death. I'd also get into Nihilism, but I'd be here typing out my post until dawn.

Marx, while a bit of a more cryptic "nut" to crack and understand than the others, was, if you bother to read all of him, driven by hatred of specific races and classes and nationalities of people, pure and simple. There's no arguing he wanted to influence and change the world, it's just very obvious he wasn't out to change the world for the better, not by a very long shot. If Marx should be compared to any mythological or actual being, I'd suggest Satan or Lucifer or whatever they're calling old scratch these days would be a more apt huckleberry for that purpose. Marx is arguably directly responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million fellow human beings, possibly much more than that depending on how one fits abortion into one's analysis of Cultural Marxism and the shit China is pulling these days with organ harvesting.

In conclusion, I must agree with you that the words of both Christ and Nietzsche were both politicized and the men themselves underwent forms of apotheosis against their will after their deaths, but must disagree with you on Marx. Marx's grand meta-narrative ideology and panacea for healing the civilized world by revolutionary bloodshed was a thing politicized by his own hands within his lifetime.

To sum it all up:

Christ: gave hope to all who would listen.

Nietzsche: tried to convince all of mankind to give up hope; although not as malevolent as that sounds.

Marx: gave false hope to hundreds of millions; his were words of great deception.

Oh come on, Marx was not at all evil.
In fact he never actually tried to implement anything.
He was correctly outrages at the injustice of the privileged class, politically and economically enslaving the majority.
If anything, he was just too idealistic.
He really believed that if economic and political pressures were taken away, that mankind would become benevolent to each other. He really did believe that the state would whither away, and was unnecessary.
The only bad thing one can really say about Marx is that he lived too early, before other cures for the industrial revolution were invented, like unions and trust busting.

Marx was a lazy piece of shit, refused to work, sponged off his friend Friedrich Engels, and let 4 of his 7 children die of poverty because he couldn't be bothered to get off his ass and get a job.

 

[irosie91]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

How can man come to know God when we can't even figure out each other?

The man Christ both Marx and Nietchze rejected I believe was largely a contrived one made by religious folks that often misrepresented them.

Remember, Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day, just like Marx and Nietchze did.

Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day? ------your sunday school teacher lied-------After which RELIGIOUS LEADER of his day did Jesus "go after"

Who exactly pursued putting Jesus to death? It was not Pilate and the Romans.

try again. Jesus was crucified for sedition against Rome. The story of the GOOD PILATE (even considered a "saint" by some eastern orthodox sects)
was a product of editing by Constantine---emperor of Rome. I am very interested
in knowing if you consider the person who was the HIGH PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE----to wit Caiaphas to have been one of those "religious leaders" and
recognized as such by the jews of that day? Pilate was, INDEED, a roman
saint------in the course of something like a 10 year career as prelate of
"Judea" he crucified about 20,000 jews----SAINT PILATE. -----not for
"robbery"-------for sedition. Robbery was not a capital crime either by roman or jewish law------remember the "two robbers" of whom barrabas was one?
In fact----back there in Judea----the romans did not prosecute robbers unless they ROBBED something roman. The romans did not even prosecute murder---unless someone murdered a roman. Jews did manage to get rid of a few of their own -----back then and the romans did not blink

 

[daveman]

Jesus Christ, Fanny Brice
Wolfie Mozart and Humphrey Bogart
And Genghis Khan
And on to H. G. Wells

Ho Chi Minh, Gunga Din
Henry Luce and John Wilkes Booth
And Alexanders King and Graham Bell

Ramar Krishna, Mama Whistler
Patrice Lumumba and Russ Colombo
Karl and Chico Marx
Albert Camus,

E. A. Poe, Henri Rousseau
Sholom Aleichem and Caryl Chessman
Alan Freed and Buster Keaton too

And each one there
Has one thing shared
They have sweated beneath the same sun
Looked up in wonder at the same moon
And wept when it was all done
For bein' done too soon
For bein' done too soon
For bein' done

"Done Too Soon", Neil Diamond (1970)

 

[Tehon]

Nietzsche is dead.
Jesus is dying a slow death.
Marx is eternal.

Marx provides the antidote to nihilism and the final death blow to Jesus.

All three actually died, but one is said to have arisen.

At the end of the day, the only real hope we have is in such a miraculous event.

But I understand what you are trying to say. Marx at first seemed to be a threat to governments who used elements of the Christian faith to try and control people, but they later realized Marx provided a better way. For you see, Marx provided them with the demagoguery to convince the populace to give the government complete control over the markets and every financial transaction, to be redistributed the way they saw fit. It beat threatening people with hell if they did not obey the state.

In fact, I bet that the people of Venezuela who are now eating out of garbage cans thanks to the Marxist demagoguery are still in love with socialism

You only need to drink the cool aid once.

I'm talking about the ideas proffered by the three individuals being discussed. But you knew that.

As you stated in your op, Marx's ideas have been falsified. I am saying that despite this, his true ideas live on, awaiting history to unfold.

 

[Votto]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

How can man come to know God when we can't even figure out each other?

The man Christ both Marx and Nietchze rejected I believe was largely a contrived one made by religious folks that often misrepresented them.

Remember, Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day, just like Marx and Nietchze did.

Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day? ------your sunday school teacher lied-------After which RELIGIOUS LEADER of his day did Jesus "go after"

Who exactly pursued putting Jesus to death? It was not Pilate and the Romans.

try again. Jesus was crucified for sedition against Rome. The story of the GOOD PILATE (even considered a "saint" by some eastern orthodox sects)
was a product of editing by Constantine---emperor of Rome. I am very interested
in knowing if you consider the person who was the HIGH PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE----to wit Caiaphas to have been one of those "religious leaders" and
recognized as such by the jews of that day? Pilate was, INDEED, a roman
saint------in the course of something like a 10 year career as prelate of
"Judea" he crucified about 20,000 jews----SAINT PILATE. -----not for
"robbery"-------for sedition. Robbery was not a capital crime either by roman or jewish law------remember the "two robbers" of whom barrabas was one?
In fact----back there in Judea----the romans did not prosecute robbers unless they ROBBED something roman. The romans did not even prosecute murder---unless someone murdered a roman. Jews did manage to get rid of a few of their own -----back then and the romans did not blink

So you are going to rewrite the story in the Biblical text, I then assume you have an even older account to refute the supposed change by Constantine.

Remember, Miohammad edited the story as well, only, his version has God taking Jesus off the cross and putting some other poor shmuck to die their for him.

LOL.

 

[Votto]

All three men looked at the world, saw what was wrong with the world, and developed thoughts on how to overcome such wrongs.

All three men were taken out or context and used by the state for the benefit of the state. Christ was used by the Pope turned politician, Marx was used by such wonderful figures as Stalin and Moa and Chavez, and Nietchze was used by Hitler.

I believe all 3 men would have been appalled by the misuse of their various philosophies.

At the end of the day though, most only identify with how the state presents each. They never really bother to dig down and see what they were all about.

Not at all alike, the three you've mentioned. I disagree, strongly. Christ did not intend to change the carnal or corporeal world so much as his primary objective was arranging for some kind of immortality for mortals, and then only after their deaths . . . sort of undoing Eve's little boo-boo in the Garden. While his philosophies included a clear, easy to understand and follow code of moral behavior, said moral code was intended to qualify the souls of mortals for entering His Father's kingdom; making the world easier to live in was likely a side-effect. I do not believe Christ wanted to change the mortal world for the sake of making it a kinder, fairer place; rather, his teachings boil down to mortals living their lives in a specific manner which will award them eternal life after death with an overarching theme of asking for and receiving forgiveness for sin.

Nietzsche was no messiah, no Christ-like figure, not really a prophet per se, either. He was a thinker, among the greatest to ever exist, and yet he was no man of action, as was Christ. Nietzsche made predictions about the mind and souls of men. Predictions which turned out to be incredibly accurate if not possibly self-fulfilling to some degree considering the wide publication of his works. He was also a man of his historical era and all the associated baggage of that time period directly influenced his life and writings. Some believe Nietzsche was talking about himself when he wrote the character of Zarathustra into being, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. One could also draw parallels between Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Christ, however, the differences are just to bitter and unmistakable. Where Christ intended to literally save every last man woman and child's eternal soul, Zarathustra as written by Nietzsche was content to prepare all men, women and children for the coming of a more perfect incarnation of human beings, and to convince all the people of the world to go quietly into extinction in preparation for their arrival. In this way, and the way in which Zarathustra cared for the lifeless tightrope walker, he cared only for the dead, while Christ cared for the living and what happened to their souls after death. I'd also get into Nihilism, but I'd be here typing out my post until dawn.

Marx, while a bit of a more cryptic "nut" to crack and understand than the others, was, if you bother to read all of him, driven by hatred of specific races and classes and nationalities of people, pure and simple. There's no arguing he wanted to influence and change the world, it's just very obvious he wasn't out to change the world for the better, not by a very long shot. If Marx should be compared to any mythological or actual being, I'd suggest Satan or Lucifer or whatever they're calling old scratch these days would be a more apt huckleberry for that purpose. Marx is arguably directly responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million fellow human beings, possibly much more than that depending on how one fits abortion into one's analysis of Cultural Marxism and the shit China is pulling these days with organ harvesting.

In conclusion, I must agree with you that the words of both Christ and Nietzsche were both politicized and the men themselves underwent forms of apotheosis against their will after their deaths, but must disagree with you on Marx. Marx's grand meta-narrative ideology and panacea for healing the civilized world by revolutionary bloodshed was a thing politicized by his own hands within his lifetime.

To sum it all up:

Christ: gave hope to all who would listen.

Nietzsche: tried to convince all of mankind to give up hope; although not as malevolent as that sounds.

Marx: gave false hope to hundreds of millions; his were words of great deception.

Oh come on, Marx was not at all evil.
In fact he never actually tried to implement anything.
He was correctly outrages at the injustice of the privileged class, politically and economically enslaving the majority.
If anything, he was just too idealistic.
He really believed that if economic and political pressures were taken away, that mankind would become benevolent to each other. He really did believe that the state would whither away, and was unnecessary.
The only bad thing one can really say about Marx is that he lived too early, before other cures for the industrial revolution were invented, like unions and trust busting.

Marx was a lazy piece of shit, refused to work, sponged off his friend Friedrich Engels, and let 4 of his 7 children die of poverty because he couldn't be bothered to get off his ass and get a job.

Yes.




















So what is your point exactly? LOL.

Marx has also become the most useful tool of every despot in modern times, but you ain't seen noth'in yet!

 

[Votto]

Nietzsche is dead.
Jesus is dying a slow death.
Marx is eternal.

Marx provides the antidote to nihilism and the final death blow to Jesus.

All three actually died, but one is said to have arisen.

At the end of the day, the only real hope we have is in such a miraculous event.

But I understand what you are trying to say. Marx at first seemed to be a threat to governments who used elements of the Christian faith to try and control people, but they later realized Marx provided a better way. For you see, Marx provided them with the demagoguery to convince the populace to give the government complete control over the markets and every financial transaction, to be redistributed the way they saw fit. It beat threatening people with hell if they did not obey the state.

In fact, I bet that the people of Venezuela who are now eating out of garbage cans thanks to the Marxist demagoguery are still in love with socialism

You only need to drink the cool aid once.

I'm talking about the ideas proffered by the three individuals being discussed. But you knew that.

As you stated in your op, Marx's ideas have been falsified. I am saying that despite this, his true ideas live on, awaiting history to unfold.

But most people don't care about the ideology of Marx. Most people only care about themselves, which is the appeal of the presented ideology of Marx by the state. It is a celebration of coveting, a virtue Marx held, but one which is considered a sin by men like Christ.

 

[irosie91]

Good points.
I suppose the lesson is to try to be more explicit so that it is harder for ideas to become corrupted and abused?

How can man come to know God when we can't even figure out each other?

The man Christ both Marx and Nietchze rejected I believe was largely a contrived one made by religious folks that often misrepresented them.

Remember, Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day, just like Marx and Nietchze did.

Jesus went after the religious leaders of his day? ------your sunday school teacher lied-------After which RELIGIOUS LEADER of his day did Jesus "go after"

Who exactly pursued putting Jesus to death? It was not Pilate and the Romans.

try again. Jesus was crucified for sedition against Rome. The story of the GOOD PILATE (even considered a "saint" by some eastern orthodox sects)
was a product of editing by Constantine---emperor of Rome. I am very interested
in knowing if you consider the person who was the HIGH PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE----to wit Caiaphas to have been one of those "religious leaders" and
recognized as such by the jews of that day? Pilate was, INDEED, a roman
saint------in the course of something like a 10 year career as prelate of
"Judea" he crucified about 20,000 jews----SAINT PILATE. -----not for
"robbery"-------for sedition. Robbery was not a capital crime either by roman or jewish law------remember the "two robbers" of whom barrabas was one?
In fact----back there in Judea----the romans did not prosecute robbers unless they ROBBED something roman. The romans did not even prosecute murder---unless someone murdered a roman. Jews did manage to get rid of a few of their own -----back then and the romans did not blink

So you are going to rewrite the story in the Biblical text, I then assume you have an even older account to refute the supposed change by Constantine.

Remember, Miohammad edited the story as well, only, his version has God taking Jesus off the cross and putting some other poor shmuck to die their for him.

LOL.

right ----the BIG MO (emperor aka caliph of the Islamic empire) had his agenda and the big CONSTANTINE (emperor of the holy roman empire) had HIS
agenda . It's GOOD TO BE KING. Regarding the crucifixion of Jesus----
just another Pharisee in the HIGHLY NOTCHED BELT of saint pilate.
Now, if you please, perhaps you can give me your take on the person CAIAPHAS