• Llituro [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Christianity was a life cult. Roman society was a death cult. Which do you think prevailed in Europe, despite the name and trappings. All Henry VIII did was the same as Constantine before him. Transform your death cult to be amenable to the people you need to control. Capitalism is indeed a death cult

      • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Being surrounded by death and choosing to drop out of society to worship your common humanity. Protoancom religious movement. And seeing that you have to universalize your tribe to all of humanity for that to work.

          • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            i don't think that's true really. i'm talking about the original social movement in its historical context. the thing that makes christianity interesting in its original form is that they materially applied this idea meaningfully. a new age religious movement does not have a material opposition to capitalism in the same way that the movement in the Levant and Asia Minor had a meaningful material opposition to being a part of the roman imperialist war machine.

            • Dolores [love/loves]
              ·
              2 years ago

              christians didn't even join the bar kokhba revolt, cmon. people go way too far eulogizing early christianity. you get like 3 degrees removed from the apostles and you had pious christians in the army and state & churches formally interfacing with the imperial system

              • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                i'm not saying that even the earliest, most dedicated form of christianity wasn't without extreme contradictions. i just think it's wrong to say it's akin to a new age religious movement.

                • Dolores [love/loves]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  but where's the meaningful material opposition? christians gotta take up the sword against the empire, not just get hounded by the authorities a few times

                  • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    rejection of economic participation, strict enforcement of communal wealth. i'd consider those good. i don't disagree.

                  • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    everyone who took up the sword against the empire was killed. To give an example to explain what it was like to fight the romans it was traditional in ancient greece to parade their dead killed in battle through the city after battles with the Romans the greeks could not identify the bodies of their loved ones and instead had to sort them into piles of each type of hacked off limb. The soldiers who fought the romans looked more like offal in a butchers shop than the men they had been in life

                    Just overthrow the roman empire with violence is a taller order than you realise. And it is also worth noting that prior to Christianity the ideas that slavery and colonialism are detrimental to human dignity would have been completely foreign to people and were the natural order. An ancient Roman would no more question the morality of slavery as an institution than they would the morality of the tides going out. Even Spartacus as soon as he secured his own freedom took slaves

              • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                Christians and Pharisees were the libs of their times. The real radicals who valiantly struggled to liberate Judea from the Roman yoke were the Zealots.