So the asshole who posted this claims after we die and go to heaven it's going to be the same shit that we have right now?!
There is a singular authoritarian dictator. You may not disobey. The punishment for your first infraction is eternal torture.
But otherwise...yes. Getting to heaven is about winning, and you can't be a winner without there being losers.
you can't be a winner without there being losers
There's no biblical reasoning why everyone can't go to heaven, losers are not mandatory. In fact in Christianity, "Jesus died for your sins," so supposedly you get a free pass as long as you aren't a big piece of shit.
It's the Jehovah's witnesses that think there is limited space in heaven, it's what motivates them to convert everyone. By converting so many unbelievers, they'll rise up the ranks and get that heaven spot for themself. The people they converted? Doomed to hell, I suppose. A sacrifice to get them into heaven.
JWs are pretty messed up.
Permanently Deleted
Classless? Having almost everyone be forced to eternally worship one dude sounds like classes to me.
Also, not everyone get to go to heaven. Only the "worthy".
And worthy is largely arbitrary and contradictory... So god is a fascist, apparently...
I think it's more classless as in you don't have to pick fighter or wizard... You can just put your points in whatever skills you want and build novel characters. 🤷
Classless?!?! Haha, someone look up the heaven flow chart (yes really) for Mormons. 3 levels of heaven and outer darkness (hell). For those that make it to the top, congrats on being a god! You and your many wives will enjoy eternity as you crush the hopes and dreams of your own creation.
Oh I was gonna say same thing!
Don't forget that in Mormon only heaven, there are three ranks there! Also women swear to serve their husband's.
So to be the highest rank you have to be a male priesthood holder rank 1 of celestial kingdom.
Many believe the early church was marxist ("had all things in common", etc).
Or they just read what is said about Jesus in the bible? Marx didn't invent the concept of helping the poor by sharing.
I mean, yeah probably. Jesus was pretty clearly a socialist, though I'm not studied enough in socialism or the bible to say which version of socialist he was.
Jesus was a communist (even if an utopian/idealist one)
Including their women. There are little hints. Paul seems worked up about permissive sex going around, the earliest Gospel has Jesus spend a surprisingly high amount of time, for a rabbi, alone with women. James and Cephus would need a motivation to keep the failing Jerusalem church going, Mary Magedlian seems to have made enemies where she is accused of being permissive (every conservative accusation is a confession), records of lots of children of James, and a cryptic stuff about how there would be no gender in the future and no gender before Jesus. The last line was uttered by a person who told people to unquestionably follow James.
History of early Christianity makes so much sense if you just treat it like any other cult. Sex, money, power. James and Cephus didn't have money or power so what else could it be?
Gotta pay for your place in heaven of course.
But it's okay because they made everyone else's life a living hell. They deserve it.
/s
And also genderless
It’ll be just like North Korea!
I mean, I get it. But what exactly is being produced in heaven such that the workers own the means of its production?
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that in the natural law all property was part of the commons and that only human law changed this.
I think the major Christian objection to communism is the materialist dialectic.
Communism isn't realistic, you see. Only our realistic and nonfictional god can make something like that and only if you're dead first. Now, get back to work!
If communism isn’t realistic, then why do I live in a community? Checkmate theists!
If communism isn’t realistic, then why do I live in a community? Checkmate theists!
Arguably, in heaven all resources are ready and abundant, while on earth everything takes time and effort.
So yeah, if you can just pick a freshly baked pizza from the next tree anytime, why would you need any incentive to work on anything?
On the other hand, on earth, pizzas take time and resources to make. Hence if one person makes pizza, that person may not want to give it to people who simply choose to do nothing all day.
Concluding, this comparison does not really work.
They're both fantasies
Communism has existed
It is significantly easier to establish communism in a small community, where you can see the people daily that you consider part of your tribe, than a national communism where the work you put in benefits someone on the far side of the country that you've never met, and may consider them as part of your "tribe" on an intellectual level, but not much beyond that.
Communism only in the sense that the need for mobility/a nomadic lifestyle means that private property exists only insofar as you can carry it with you. It doesn't work in settled agricultural societies because once a person becomes attached to a specific piece of land as is necessary in agriculture, other types of private property become possible and personal incentives begin to diverge such that the only way to achieve or maintain communism ends up being through coercion.
Username tracks
Naw, communism is real.
The communism can be build, but so far the attempts required dictatorship type of government to keep the people in line. In future, it might happen though automatically, when our relationship to AI is akin our pet relationship to us now. Pets live under communism.
Pets do what now?
Pets live lives of luxury that they would never be able to afford were it not for somebody else’s toil. They don’t go hungry and they want for nothing, even medical expenses are provided by the people who serve them. Humans do all the work and pets reap all the benefits. They make us feel guilty if we stop providing for them and this is just how things are and have always been.
Pets are the ultimate capitalists.
I agree: it’s stupid of them to criticize communism, because communism is precisely as authoritarian a regime as their religious utopia.
Every Communist that isn't authoritarian would like to disagree with you. Anarchists are not Marxist-Lenninists for example
It doesn’t really matter—it’s inherent to the system. It’s built on a violent overthrow of the current system, followed by a single-party “transitional” government that never actually transitions and violently suppressed all opposition. Every communist movement that has ever taken over a nation state has devolved into an authoritarian dictatorship. Communists-lite like to call that a big, but it’s pretty clear to me and most other people that it’s a feature.
Ah yes, tankies who are so permanently online, they have never been able to ask for sauce in their entire lives - please tell me how to run the world
