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

[irosie91]

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.

???? try reading the book again

 

[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.

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.

Most people don't understand Marx's philosophy. Especially in America, Marx has been intentionally falsified by the ruling class. Those that his philosophy threatens have successfully made Marx taboo for members of the herd.

What did Marx covet?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Wow, I very surprised. A thread with substance, thoughtful and thought provoking.

 

[irosie91]

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.

Most people don't understand Marx's philosophy. Especially in America, Marx has been intentionally falsified by the ruling class. Those that his philosophy threatens have successfully made Marx taboo for members of the herd.

What did Marx covet?

he got grouped up with unsavory characters by historians. Same thing happened to lots of people-----like Darwin, and even Freud

 

[irosie91]

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.

Wow, I very surprised. A thread with substance, thoughtful and thought provoking.

almost-----the person called "Christ" in the post was abused by CONSTANTINE

 

[there4eyeM]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

 

[Tehon]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

 

[irosie91]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

we are working on it

 

[irosie91]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

the early Christian and the monastic communities of jews during the same era
were not mediated by THE STATE-----they were----break off groups

 

[Tehon]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

we are working on it

It doesn't appear that we are. Not in my lifetime.

 

[Tehon]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

the early Christian and the monastic communities of jews during the same era
were not mediated by THE STATE-----they were----break off groups

The Hutterites are a closed community of people practicing communal living. They have no use for the state either.

The capitalist system of production necessitates the state.

 

[there4eyeM]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

You don't know how to read. The quoted post does not say that Marx required state enforcement. It does state how real social efforts succeed. It does not say that America is any example of how things could (should?) work.
As for capitalism, it is merely one form of economic functioning; not evil and not good of itself. As for competition, it is often most exemplified by brothers. Competition is necessary for stimulation and development. It is not a 'bad thing', though obviously carried to extremes it becomes absurd and destructive.
Capitalism is not a philosophy, religion or faith. It is not something to worship or even propagate. It can be useful as an approach, but, as with the famous examples of socialist failures, there have been many instances of terrible consequences of excess.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Where's that STFU button for this^ Commie here?

 

[Picaro]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

lol Marxists solve their social problems by mass murder and police state oppression. You dumbasses will never admit that, so you're deservingly mocked. lol @ Poor Misunderstood Marx". lol lol lol he was a fraud, just another narcissistic pseudo-intellectual. Engels was no better.

 

[Tehon]

The early Christian communities had Marx beat before his time. It isn't the state the makes real social sharing work, it is the extra-material orientation of a society itself. When people see each other as family the rest is obvious.

You don't know Marx. His theories are not reliant on the state to make sharing work. That is a ridiculous statement.

The capitalist system of production is one of competition. It is driven by the need for profit. How is this conducive to brotherhood?

We are the richest country the world has ever known. Where do you see the wealth being shared? Where is the brotherhood in our supposedly christian nation?

You don't know how to read. The quoted post does not say that Marx required state enforcement. It does state how real social efforts succeed. It does not say that America is any example of how things could (should?) work.
As for capitalism, it is merely one form of economic functioning; not evil and not good of itself. As for competition, it is often most exemplified by brothers. Competition is necessary for stimulation and development. It is not a 'bad thing', though obviously carried to extremes it becomes absurd and destructive.
Capitalism is not a philosophy, religion or faith. It is not something to worship or even propagate. It can be useful as an approach, but, as with the famous examples of socialist failures, there have been many instances of terrible consequences of excess.

I read just fine. And I am telling you, Marx's economic theory is a real social effort, it is not premeditated by the state as you suggested. Its implementation would negate the need for the state. It is a theory of why we will need to develop a system of communal living as the next phase of human social development.

 

[Picaro]

Neitchze was a homosexual suffering from incurable syphilis that he eventually died from. Mentally ill is just a mild observation.

 

[idb]

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.

All three were blonde, blue-eyed bearded Aryan men?

 

[irosie91]

there were LOTS of books on this or that model economic society----
In My Glorious Opinion IMGO they were intellectual exercises.
I do not think that Marx was Stalin. Really dull books. Way back in
my youth I had the patience to read them.-----even "Animal Farm"

 

[Tehon]

there were LOTS of books on this or that model economic society----
In My Glorious Opinion IMGO they were intellectual exercises.
I do not think that Marx was Stalin. Really dull books. Way back in
my youth I had the patience to read them.-----even "Animal Farm"

Marx wrote the book on capitalist production which is the foundation of our social interactions. Understanding it is a practical matter.

 

[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.

Most people don't understand Marx's philosophy. Especially in America, Marx has been intentionally falsified by the ruling class. Those that his philosophy threatens have successfully made Marx taboo for members of the herd.

What did Marx covet?

I agree that most don't understand Marx and simply accept how government presents him.

However, the ideology of Marx was based upon materialism. Marx rejected the spiritual aspect of human existence and cheapened it to merely dollars and cents. For Marx, suffering was due to a lack of materialism.

If not, what is your take?