Marx used the metaphor of a new society being born. Following this, capitalism is pregnant with communism. The dotp is the actual birthing process. The first phase of communism is the life of a newborn. The higher phase is it more fully developed.

You have, at best, but dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not the same thing as the first phase of communism.

So you are left with someone popularly known to be from Nazareth, and two authors making up stories about how he was born in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth, or some awkward ahistorical census was going on forcing his family to return to Bethlehem coincidentally when he was born.

You don't see a lot of the stories of Jesus' birth in early Christian writings. Paul never talks about it, for example. And the need to invent it is clear when we consider the prophecies any Messiah was expected to fulfill at the time.

Were Jesus an entirely fictional character, the kind of ad hoc and twists and turns wouldn't be needed.

Nah, Engels is so far off base in On Authority he ends up even contradicting Marxism itself. On Authority was just an angry polemic justifying M&E splitting the International. I wrote on it here
judgesabo.substack.com/p/read-on-au...

There are two diametrically opposed claims here about who should control what. They are pretending to be more accommodating, when really what they mean is that they don't care what you do, so long as you uphold capitalist private property. Which is precisely what is in dispute.

Buy this they are trying to claim superiority, claiming that their system allows for all these different types of free association that other anarchists do not. But if an anarchist communist tried to seize the means of production in Ancapistan, they would call their private cops.

People trying to renegotiate the text to be pro LGBT have to make a huge reach, and the excuses you pointed out are just that. The only thing I would warn with saying it condemns homosexuality though is importing modern understanding of sexuality to a culture that did not share that

Sex was less a mutual activity and more something you did to someone else. Penetrating a man violated the system where men are on top. But when the Hebrew Bible gets to sexual ethics for women, it only focuses on sex with slaves, since they are lower on the hierarchy

I'll have to check that out later! But I do think it's worth emphasizing that, while still homophobic, ancient writers had a very different view of sexuality, and the issues they took with things was typically because it violated the patriarchal sexual hierarchy

I think you are mostly correct, and the Bible is certainly very negative at least of male same sex relation and penetration. I would argue that homosexual is still wrong though because they didn't really have an idea of different sexual orientations.

Naming literally any other alternatives he doesn't consider debunks his argument since he's just using process of elimination

This ignores plenty of other alternatives, ironically including John Locke's own stance along with his Lockean proviso. A Proudhonian stance around possession is also missed.

Basically he argues the second option violates his idea of natural law since people have equal human nature while the last one he thinks is practically impossible since any action, he imagines, would need getting everyone's permission to do anything, making it practically impossible.