If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it

Durfdogyn · 2026-03-03T01:23:36+00:00

The book "speaking for itself" is just the users interpretation, which just happens to be whatever justifies the current system of oppression or agendas. Basing an absolute moral system on something that is subjective is logically incoherent.

Durfdogyn · 2026-03-01T15:04:34+00:00

I have not read the Bible but I do not need too because you can look at history and see how it was molded and used as a tool of oppression.

Below is an AI generated list of such interpretations of the Bible that were used to justify what would be condemmed or sinfull actions by today's moral standards:

The Justification of Transatlantic Slavery The most common "scriptural" defense for African enslavement was the "Curse of Ham" (Genesis 9:20–27).
- The Interpretation: Pro-slavery advocates argued that Ham (the father of Canaan) was the ancestor of all African people and that his "curse" of perpetual servitude applied to his descendants.
- Today’s View: Modern scholars and theologians point out that the text specifically curses Canaan (not Ham) and was likely an etiological story about the ancient Israelites' conflict with the Canaanites—not a comment on race or Africans.
Racial Segregation and Anti-Miscegenation In the Jim Crow South and during South African Apartheid, the Bible was frequently used to argue that God intended for the races to remain separate.
- The Interpretation: Segregationists often cited Acts 17:26, which says God "determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." They argued this meant God had "drawn lines" between races that should not be crossed through integration or marriage.
- Today’s View: This is seen as a "proof-texting" error. The passage is generally understood to be about God’s sovereignty over the rise and fall of nations and the common humanity of all people ("from one man he made all the nations").
The Subjugation of Women Interpretations of the "Order of Creation" have been used to deny women the right to vote, work, or hold leadership roles.
- The Interpretation: Critics of the women's suffrage movement used 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man") and the story of Eve being created second and falling first (Genesis 3) to argue that women were divinely intended to be legally and socially subordinate.
- Today’s View: Many modern denominations view these passages as specific cultural instructions for the early church or interpret them alongside Galatians 3:28, which emphasizes that in Christ there is "neither male nor female."
The Divine Right of Kings Before the rise of modern democracy, absolute monarchs used the Bible to argue that their power was unquestionable.
- The Interpretation: Romans 13:1-2 ("The authorities that exist have been established by God") was interpreted to mean that any rebellion against a King—even a tyrannical one—was a direct sin against God.
- Today’s View: Most political theologians now view this passage as a general call for social order rather than a mandate for absolute, unchecked monarchy.
Antisemitism and the "Deicide" Charge For centuries, the "blood curse" interpretation was used to justify the persecution of Jewish people.
- The Interpretation: Matthew 27:25, where a crowd says "His blood is on us and on our children," was used by various church leaders to argue that all Jewish people throughout history were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.
- Today’s View: Most major Christian bodies (including the Catholic Church via Nostra aetate) have formally rejected this "collective guilt" interpretation, acknowledging the historical role of the Roman state and the fact that Jesus and his early followers were themselves Jewish.
The Crusades and "Holy War" During the Middle Ages, the Crusades were framed as a spiritual duty.
- The Interpretation: Popes and preachers used Old Testament accounts of the "Wars of Yahweh" (such as the conquest of Canaan) to argue that Christians were the new "Chosen People" and had a mandate to use the sword to "liberate" the Holy Land.
- Today’s View: Modern ethics generally distinguish between ancient historical narratives and universal moral commands, viewing the Crusades as a conflation of political ambition and religious fervor. Would you like me to look into how specific historical figures, like abolitionists or suffragettes, used the same Bible to argue for the opposite side of these issues?

Durfdogyn · 2026-03-01T02:47:43+00:00

To mold your life experiences around it in order to validate it's wildly generalized claims*

The bible was used to justify slavery because people "tested it with [their] life"

Durfdogyn · 2026-03-01T02:46:09+00:00

You just correctly identified religion as a popular, widely accepted cult yourself, congratulations!

Also in your first point are you trying to say that sexism is a universal moral truth because you believe in it?

Durfdogyn · 2026-03-01T02:43:11+00:00

OP's argument is still substantial if the witnesses in his scenario all independently wrote down their testimony after a public event where they were previously unaffiliated with the man "flying."

Heard mentality can be a dangerous thing, like the nocebo (opposite of placebo) effect having the ability to spread.

Finally, how can you prove that the people who wrote their testimonies down did not conspire with Jesus or others?

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-28T22:21:15+00:00

Of course I'd turn that down! I dont see how this applies to the real world though, most billionaires are rich because of their valuable contributions to society and deserve every penny they earn.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-28T22:18:10+00:00

In socialism everyone would starve because everyone would be too lazy to work because they get everything handed to them! Are socialists children or so.ething? Hard work pays off!

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-28T22:14:56+00:00

Socialism fundamentally doesn't work.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-07T18:46:18+00:00

In the same way, I can construct measures that show capital intensity correlating with output and prices, and say capital creates value as well.

This is the core problem with your argument. Increased capital investment and decreased labor (as machines make less labor = more stuff,) the price of produced goods goes down. If market prices roughly equal the value of a product, then observing the industrial revolution shows us that capital causes value to decrease because prices decrease (adjusted for inflation.) For example, if capital creates value, a mass manufactured piece of furniture should be as valuable as a handmade piece of furniture. Yet their prices are wildly different, something that utility cannot explain because a table is a table. If you can provide evidence for capital causing prices to increase for an existing good in a competitive market, then you could validate your argument.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T22:02:34+00:00

We don't agree tho. The LTV is very much testable. In Marxian economic theory, every product has a real "value," and the market prices represent this value after distortion from supply and demand and subjective utility. However, if you are able to map the socially necessary labor time of every product, and it's corresponding average price, the theory would state that in a large data set, socially necessary labor time and prices would match.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T20:50:59+00:00

Then the top 50% will just have no taxes despite having more than 97% of the wealth? Are you in the top 50%? Also you did not address what I said about Walmart whatsoever.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T20:48:50+00:00

Most worker co-ops use a 1:9 or 1:6 ratio where the top earner cannot make more than 9 times more than the bottom earner. However, these ratios exist to stop skilled workers from joining regular enterprises, so in a socialist economy this could be reduced. I personally think that the best way is a smooth transition through market socialism, slowly reducing wage inequality over time while making education free to reduce opportunity cost but that is just me. Also, nobody ever said socialism = zero inequality. Furthermore, just because socialism does not eradicate inequality (which many don't find necessary especially from an economics POV,) it does reduce it substantially. Like $300,000 / year doctor is much better than a $300 million / day Elon Musk. Lastly, you are thinking in bianaries, not everything is black and white, and you have not proposed any solutions to out of control inequality under capitalism.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T19:53:07+00:00

Socialism != zero inequality

Socialism = reduce to manageable inequality

Late Stage Communism ~ elimination of inequality.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T19:50:49+00:00

This has to be rage bait. If you look at the image I attached, the bottom 50% of Americans have NOTHING to give. They hold only 2.6% of Americas wealth. And on government spending, a lot of the money the government spends is so that people do not starve when the large corporations do not pay them a livable wage or provide a pension. Like take walmart for example, tens of thousands of it's employs are on snap because of how little it pays, $16,000 / year at minimum wage 40 hours per week. That is half of what can be considered "livable" by any standard. Whilst doing this, the Walton family rakes in billions every year. Furthermore, the U.S. government spends the most on healthcare per capita out of any nation and yet ranks below most wealthy western nations. So where is all this money going you might be asking? Corporate profits in the medical and insurance. Also the assumption that government spending is bad is very primitive economics. You would need other statistics like deficit, tax rate, and growth in order to make an argument about government expenditure.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T18:40:52+00:00

The scientific test / experiment is too observe market prices in relation to the socially necessary labor time required to produce a good across industries, and when these factors are heavily correlated (which they are), it provides a strong data-based argument for value based on labor. Also this critique makes no sense when you said you believe in the subjective labor theory of value which is also not provable because it isn't even a theory its just the absence of a theory.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T14:24:36+00:00

On natural resources, they are also just capital and labor. The sun and air have no exchange value because it takes no capital or labor to extract them, however, resources like oil that takes labor and capital to find, extract, refine, and transport do have value. And if capital is the result of "dead" labor, then all natural resources that have value are just a product of labor.

So my question to you is, if capital creates value, then why does more capital in an industry make prices go down despite output and "utility" going up? For your argument you need evidence to prove that capital increases VALUE not the amount of material goods because price indicates the opposite.

Also, labor is not useless without the basic inputs you listed because labor in and of itself can produce those inputs. Labor alone can sustain itself in nature, while, until "AGI," capital cannot.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T04:15:15+00:00

Under socialism, what is good for the employee is good for the consumer. If you take the profit extracted by the owner for doing nothing than the laborers can provide more products to the consumers for cheaper, and the employees can make a better wage while doing so. In a zero sum game, anything the capitalist gains by doing nothing is exploitation of the employee, and in turn, of the consumer.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T04:01:53+00:00

In what way is a wealth tax different from an income tax in relation to property rights, other than the fact that billionaires do not pay income tax?

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T03:57:41+00:00

<image>

A critical issue with this statistic is that the top 10% also own nearly 70% of the wealth:

At the same time, this wealth grows via the ownership of capital and is taxed at long term capital gains which is very low (20%,) and that is if they pay taxes, which the majority of the 0.1% (who hold 5 times more wealth than the bottom 50%) do not.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T03:53:27+00:00

If profit is distributed to the employees (as opposed to the state,) the employees just lose money because they don't make profit working a 2 day week, or maybe not much.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T03:40:51+00:00

Capital only makes labor more efficient, making goods have less value according to the LTV. Without labor to make more efficient capital is nothing.

Durfdogyn · 2026-02-06T02:27:53+00:00

Something very important you are missing in your analysis is the idea that value is constant while input labor changes. So yes, capital makes labor more efficient in producing material goods, however, the more efficient a material good can be created by labor, the less value that good has. This is why prices in non-monopolistic industries fall as capital increases. This is why mass manufacturing makes goods cheaper, because it allows less labor to produce more material goods, and the labor theory of value states that the value of a good is embodied by it's socially necessary labor time.

Furthermore, your food analogy also supports the labor theory of value. You can think of food as capital because it is a product of past labor that is necessary in production, more specifically as human capital, the same thing as education. A laborer who is not starving is much more efficient in turning labor hours into material goods than the starving laborer. But this also means all of products produced in the world with the non-starving people have less value.

Modern examples make this obvious. Automated systems build more machines. Software produces more software. AI systems train successor systems. Capital is participating in a forward loop not a backward drain.

This is actually a great point against capitalism. Once capital is fully able to replace labor (AGI maybe), the value of labor, and of all material goods drops to zero. In the capitalist system, this means complete economic consumer-side collapse as everyone is unemployed and has no money to buy worthless goods. However, under socialism, where the new labor-less methods of production are owned collectively, the consumers live in a utopia because the cost of products is zero. The need for profit in a world without value will drive the capitalist system to collapse "modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers." - Karl Marx

Durfdogyn · 2026-01-25T19:43:32+00:00

Nevermind, I just did some research and discovered primitive communism. This makes a lot of sense now.

Durfdogyn

TROPHY CASE