Hello, and question

[PCommie]

Hello, I'm new here. PCommie is for "Pure Communist" if y'all hadn't guessed. ;) I liked the look of this forum, folks looked a lot friendlier (and incidentally, more English-speaking) than other communist forums.

Well, my question is this: Marx was hard on religion. So were the USSR leaders, apparantly. I don't believe religion is the enemy of the state. I believe that it is the friend of believers, and their aid to the triumph of communism, but should not get into governing. However, I am a Christian, and not letting the church become a political tool, in my opinion, is simply a matter of common sense and is not for any governing body - state or people's government - to decide. I'd just like to hear some views of modern-day communists like myself.

Thanks, comrades!

-PCommie

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well Marx was against religion, but I see no problem with it as long as it's kept strictly secular. There's nothing I hate more than preachers or religion being mixed into politics. but come to think of it, the need for religion will virtually disappear.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Hello, I'm new here. PCommie is for "Pure Communist" if y'all hadn't guessed. ;) I liked the look of this forum, folks looked a lot friendlier (and incidentally, more English-speaking) than other communist forums.

Well, my question is this: Marx was hard on religion. So were the USSR leaders, apparantly. I don't believe religion is the enemy of the state. I believe that it is the friend of believers, and their aid to the triumph of communism, but should not get into governing. However, I am a Christian, and not letting the church become a political tool, in my opinion, is simply a matter of common sense and is not for any governing body - state or people's government - to decide. I'd just like to hear some views of modern-day communists like myself.

Thanks, comrades!

-PCommie

Marx thought religion would disappear once the economic basis for it's existence disappeared, after we achieved communism, so he wasn't for any sort of actual repression of it, as in his view there is no need. There are a fair amount of Christian Communists on here.

[FuckYoCouch]

Marx thought religion would disappear once the economic basis for it's existence disappeared, after we achieved communism, so he wasn't for any sort of actual repression of it, as in his view there is no need. There are a fair amount of Christian Communists on here.


But wasn't Marx (the Philosopher) the guy that said Philosophy was to life was Masturbation was to sex? did he have a Clue? Did he? DID HE!?! :D jkjkjkjkjk

[Decolonize The Left]

Hello, I'm new here. PCommie is for "Pure Communist" if y'all hadn't guessed. ;) I liked the look of this forum, folks looked a lot friendlier (and incidentally, more English-speaking) than other communist forums.

Well, my question is this: Marx was hard on religion. So were the USSR leaders, apparantly. I don't believe religion is the enemy of the state. I believe that it is the friend of believers, and their aid to the triumph of communism, but should not get into governing. However, I am a Christian, and not letting the church become a political tool, in my opinion, is simply a matter of common sense and is not for any governing body - state or people's government - to decide. I'd just like to hear some views of modern-day communists like myself.

Thanks, comrades!

-PCommie

There are many different opinions within the forum regarding religion and communism. They run, in short:
- Religion and communism are entirely compatible, so long as religion remains a "private affair."
- Religion will die out with the destruction of capitalism (see SocialismOrBarbarism's post) and hence it's a moot point.
- Religion is not compatible with communism for a variety of reasons.

Hope that helps,
- August

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, personally I feel that religion will not just "wither away" when class society is done away with. Religion has always been with humanity and I don't see it going anywhere, personally.

I think that economic influences certainly have a considerable impact on religion, but I think it's incorrect to look at religion as solely a function of whatever system is in place within a given society for the allocation of resources.

[PCommie]

Y'all make good sense. I have to disagree with InsertNameHere, I believe religion will always be with the believers. However, I agree that religion is a private matter and must not get into governing. Thanks, folks.

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

One problem I see is that organized religion tends to be hierarchical in that there is always a priest, rabbi, etc that preaches to the people, and the congregation looks up to the man (hardly ever a woman, which is another issue) as some sort of demi-god.

I think that dismantling churches and temples and the like would be progressive in that it sort of makes the believers practice amongst themselves (in their own homes or something) and as equals - not necessarily being spoon-fed words of scripture by the priest/rabbi/whatever.

[Dóchas]

I liked the look of this forum, folks looked a lot friendlier


prepare to be surprised ;) na im only joking

in relation to your question most has already been said. i think religion should be just left for the privacy of the believers home and have no place in politics. it may wither away or it may hold on to its existance its hard to tell

btw welcome to revleft!! i look forward to seeing more of your posts :)

[el_chavista]

... folks looked a lot friendlier (and incidentally, more English-speaking) than other communist forums.Welcome comrade.
You bet there are more leftist in "the 3rd world". BTW PC is for Partido Comunista in Spanish.

...not letting the church become a political tool, in my opinion, is simply a matter of common sense and is not for any governing body - state or people's government - to decide... Actually the church is a real political actor. The high hierarchy of the church is always in favor of the rich (dominant class). In Venezuela they want to overthrow Chávez.

[Comrade_XRD]

Marx probably attacked religion due to its greed and influence back in his days. The church was very powerful and rich in that time, but I won't deny that it is powerful now as we speak. Religion does intrude on a lot of state matters, presently. Religion is probably the sole reason behind the bannings of gay marriage and stem cell research for example. Since, religion has its own specific ideology, it may not always be compatible with the state's. For example may sects of Christianity that are more fundamental do not believe patriotism is appropriate and believe it to be idolatrous. Religion may also corrupt a democratic society. People tend to take the opinions of their religious leader without a grain of salt, due to the fact that they associate them as closer to their god(s). The leader easily gains the support of his congregation through this reasoning, and he/she could convince the followers to oppose whatever it is he/she opposes thus invalidating their true opinions. It goes way deeper, but these are probably just some of the things Marx was thinking. Or maybe he hated religion for philosophical reasons???

[Steve_j]

I think that the core teaching's of christianity are very compatible with communism. Infact i would go one further and say Jesus was an early form of an anarchist/communist revoultionary. Although im not christian i find alot of Jesus's teachings very comparable. If you look at his actions Jesus was very anti authoritarian, except in regards to god, in which you have your own personal relationship that is not dictated to you by others. He saw himself as above no one, and a servent to the opressed, he was anti establishment, both religious and politically, he preached equality and was strongly in opposition anyone in possesion of excessive wealth or that exploited other humans as a means of gain.

I think the main issue is the established powers of the churches. They are often corrupt, serve their own interests and in many cases they corrupt the actual techings of Jesus.

I'd say keep your faith but abandon the church, you need no middle man :thumbup1:

[Black Sheep]

However, I am a Christian, and not letting the church become a political tool, in my opinion, is simply a matter of common sense and is not for any governing body - state or people's government - to decide.

Why are you a Christian? Apply the same logic that led you to being communist in your theistic beliefs.Even the deist thesis 'governs your body' though in a lesser way.
Anyway,as you have freed your mind from bourgeoisie propaganda, free yourmind from religion and theism as well.

That's what i suggest.

[PCommie]

Frankly, the debate about what to do with religion in a communist society is rather, well, silly. Here's some basic fact:

-Jesus would not have promoted capitalism. He would never have preached that one group of people should rise over others.

-Jesus did imply that we should obey our priests, but would we obey them if they got up in church one day and said "There is no God. Go home." No! I would walk out, myself.

-So, we must find a reasonable limit to teachings. I say, within the scriptures.

-People who blindly obey whatever anyone says are fools. Jesus never said his priests would be perfect.

-If people don't have the common sense to distinguish from good ideas and political opinions from their priests/pastors, they probably don't have the common sense to govern either.

-The conclusion? Leave the churches be, and let groups be started to promote common sense. The truth is, more people have it than don't.


It's simple. No need for the heated religion debate, and no need for communist ideology to say anything more about it than: Make them prove it from the Bible before you start a Revolution over it. Orthodoxy, according to the internet, bases many more of its teachings on Biblical teachings than, say, Catholicism. Now, there's a church that's quite arbitrary. I don't hate it, I don't hate any church, my godfather was Catholic, but they teach Biblically unfounded things. "The Immaculate Conception" comes to mind.

Folks, commies are hated in America because we're tagged "godless." We've got to prove that wrong. The ideas about making people practice in their own home and tearing down the churches are one of our major hinderances in bringing in newcomers. Separation of church & state has got to work both ways, or the Imperialist pigs will rule forever on that basis. My point is, religion is not our enemy. The bourgeoise use our general (seeming) opposition to it as a tool for their progress. They are our ONLY enemy.

The fact that churches seem to favor the capitalists has been mentioned. This is a problem with the church, or more likely, its individual bishops, and not religion. It is to be, quite simply, ignored. When communism is achieved, the church will fall into its old role: Spiritually improving mankind.

Simple, concise. Thanks for reading. :thumbup:

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Frankly, the debate about what to do with religion in a communist society is rather, well, silly.

You brought it up.


Here's some basic fact:

-Jesus would not have promoted capitalism. He would never have preached that one group of people should rise over others.

True.


-Jesus did imply that we should obey our priests, but would we obey them if they got up in church one day and said "There is no God. Go home." No! I would walk out, myself.
That's nice.



-So, we must find a reasonable limit to teachings. I say, within the scriptures.
The scriptures are interpreted in a multitude of ways - how will groups come to an agreement as to what the "reasonable limit" is?



-People who blindly obey whatever anyone says are fools. Jesus never said his priests would be perfect.
Yet religious folk say that the Bible is almost always right - you yourself said that we should look to the scriptures to come to a reasonable limit or whatever. Blindly obeying an invisible deity is just the same as blindly obeying a man.



-If people don't have the common sense to distinguish from good ideas and political opinions from their priests/pastors, they probably don't have the common sense to govern either.
Well, religious people seem to vehemently hate homosexuals simply because of one verse in the Bible, despite the fact that Jesus said to love everyone as your neighbor. That's not distinguishing good ideas (ie. not being a homophobe) at all.

Why should they have to have priests/pastors anyway? If religion is supposed to be a personal search for God and all that, why do you need some old guy to tell you what to understand from the Bible?


-The conclusion? Leave the churches be, and let groups be started to promote common sense. The truth is, more people have it than don't.
What are you suggesting, a group called "Common Sense Crusaders for Christ?"



It's simple. No need for the heated religion debate, and no need for communist ideology to say anything more about it than: Make them prove it from the Bible before you start a Revolution over it.
Nothing of note has been proved from the Bible. Prove God created everything - you can't. Prove Jesus existed - you can't. The rest is just basic morals and ancient stories.


Orthodoxy, according to the internet, bases many more of its teachings on Biblical teachings than, say, Catholicism. Now, there's a church that's quite arbitrary. I don't hate it, I don't hate any church, my godfather was Catholic, but they teach Biblically unfounded things. "The Immaculate Conception" comes to mind.
So you're saying orthodox religion should be the only real religion? Orthodox religion tends to be very inflexible and does not allow one to discern "reasonable limits" or "distinguish good ideas" because the "scripture says so."



Folks, commies are hated in America because we're tagged "godless."
I think that's one of the minor reasons...


We've got to prove that wrong. The ideas about making people practice in their own home and tearing down the churches are one of our major hinderances in bringing in newcomers.
Communism isn't a church that wants to bring in more people to the congregation so we can get more donations and the priest can buy himself a BMW.

What's wrong with practicing in the comfort of your own/a friend's home? My parents go to church regularly, but also have group bible study with their friends on a monthly basis. I think being able to discuss the Bible with peers would allow for more spiritual development than listening to some pompous old guy talking down to you like "Boys and girls, this is what the Bible says!"


Separation of church & state has got to work both ways, or the Imperialist pigs will rule forever on that basis. My point is, religion is not our enemy.
Well, of course you're not biased at all.


The fact that churches seem to favor the capitalists has been mentioned. This is a problem with the church, or more likely, its individual bishops, and not religion. It is to be, quite simply, ignored. When communism is achieved, the church will fall into its old role: Spiritually improving mankind.

Well, I'm not sure about other religions, but the Bible says one should tithe 1/10th of one's earnings to the Church, yes?

How does that not set up churches to favor capitalists who donate tons of money to be seen as a benefactor of the church?

And if it's a problem of individuals, then having a religious structure that is not hierarchical (ie. my example of group Bible study and such) this would alleviate the problem of favoring those who have money.

[ComradeOm]

The fact that churches seem to favor the capitalists has been mentioned. This is a problem with the church, or more likely, its individual bishops, and not religion. It is to be, quite simply, ignored. When communism is achieved, the church will fall into its old role: Spiritually improving mankindIts "old role"? Just how old are we talking here? You'll have to go back a long, long way to find a time when the Church was not a buttress for the ruling class. In fact you'll probably have to go back to a time before there was an organised Church and all you had was various apostles moaning about the evils of women


-So, we must find a reasonable limit to teachings. I say, within the scripturesDefine what this "reasonable limit" is. Now try and get every other Christian (not to mention Muslim, Jew, and 'Miscellaneous') to agree on this. While you're doing this I think I'll rearrange the laws of thermodynamics ;)


-People who blindly obey whatever anyone says are fools. Jesus never said his priests would be perfectWhich is yet more evidence that Christ has very little to with Christianity. This religion isn't about 'doing what Jesus wants' and it hasn't been since St Paul of Tarsus sat down and invented the damn thing

I think you're also significantly misunderstanding how religion works. Like it or not, it is about "blindly obeying" either priests or the Scriptures. Hence the term 'blind faith'. A 'pick and choose' attitude to religion might be popular in some quarters but it is fundamentally incompatible with organised religion. Why on earth should a Catholic believe you when you claim that the Immaculate Conception is unfounded or incorrect? Because your position is, based on your own study, 'more correct' or the 'truth'?

Which is the entire problem with religion - its a set of moral truths that are, by definition, eternal and divine. The Church doesn't need any justification for defend homophobia beyond pointing to the Bible (which is very clear on the subject) or their own derived teachings. God doesn't like homosexuals and therefore they are inherently evil. End of discussion. This is why ecumenical discussions to find common ground between religions are so tedious and difficult - they are attempting to reconcile two, or more, different positions that are both officially the one correct truth

Oh, and welcome to the forum :)

[Steve_j]

A 'pick and choose' attitude to religion might be popular in some quarters but it is fundamentally incompatible with organised religion.

I think that is the fundamental issue with organised religion. It is a "pick and chose" attitude, but it is done so by the church leaders, and they discourage the congregation to do the same.


The Church doesn't need any justification for defend homophobia beyond pointing to the Bible (which is very clear on the subject) or their own derived teachings.

Perfect example. Thats from the book of leviticus in the old testament/torah. The same book that sprouts so much other nonsense that most establishments wouldnt dare practice. Laws like stoning blasphemers like us to death ;) Killing children who insult their parents and burning prostitues alive.

Point that out to any church and they will strugle to justify homophobia. Hence why many major Jewish and Christians establishments are begining to wake up to homophobia and alowing homosexuals to practice in the church and even blessing same sex marriages or ordaining. Muslims are still a long way behind. Although strangely enough they agree that same sex desire is perfectly natural and there is nothing wrong with it. They just condem acting on it :(

I dont think religion is an issue. Existance in a higher being is one of those things that can not be proved or disproved (only in ones own view of reality can it be proved either way) so people must be free to chose either way. The problem is that of religious establishments and their control over their people and the corruption that comes with it. Organised religion's striped of their establishments and power equals people free practice spirituality inline with modern progressive ethics. I can't see it being a problem.

Perhaps another front for any revolution should involve those of faith. Instead of encourageing people to abandon it and alienating people on both sides as a result, wouldnt it not be better to encourage them to work within their own establishments, helping to break down the dogma and hierarchy thats exists with in it. From the looks of the new testament, any existance of such a man was more likely a political and spiritual revoultionary than the "son of God".

So your a Christian? Pcommie. Start acting like it. Seriously, ask yourself what would he do? Confront the church, it's corruption and hierachy? Preach true equality and tollerence and spiritual revoultion? Challenge the justification of established governments and encourage others to do the same? I'd think so.

[PCommie]

The lack of general knowledge about Christianity on this forum is ridiculous, at best. Allow me to enlighten you.

First of all, there have been references to OT books made. Folks, NT was the coming of Christ to redeem all our sins and aleeviate the necessity for those hateful punishments. They are archaic. Those sins are still sins, but not punishable in the old way.

Removing "organized religion" may sound fine, but what about our rights? You atheists don't want to be governed ina religious manner. I respect that, I have had good atheist friends. But we ask the same: Don't come down on us. Leave the churches be. If we are strong enough to revolt and take over, we are strong enough to work out our churches.

Third. Destruction500 made a statement that can be cut down to "money is the church's problem, too." I conclude that with the disappearance of capitalism and thus, the necessity of money, the church will not only have no bourgeoise to favor, but not need to. Again, the churches are not our enemy, capitalism is.

By the way, I've just been reading at marxists.org some of Marx's thoughts on religion. He was not just opposed to its organizaiton, he wished nothing but death to the whole concept, and he dares to speak of human coexistance. His economic theories may be helpful, but when it comes to religion, Karl Marx is nothing but a megalomaniac and I find his opposition to religion distateful and offensive.

Thanks for the welcomes, folks! (I love it. Communists can disagree vehemently and then turn around make friendly statements. Just another way we are better than the Imperialist idiots. :cool:)

-PC

[Vahanian]

Again, the churches are not our enemy, capitalism is.



Organized religion is the problem because it causes a division in it followers. churches usually places the clergy above the common person.Then use this power as a tool to control those below them. why would you in a communist society who had just got rid of class divisions allow them in a belief system. and you could take this even further in an anarchist society.

[Invincible Summer]

The lack of general knowledge about Christianity on this forum is ridiculous, at best. Allow me to enlighten you.

First of all, there have been references to OT books made. Folks, NT was the coming of Christ to redeem all our sins and aleeviate the necessity for those hateful punishments. They are archaic. Those sins are still sins, but not punishable in the old way.

The NT isn't so "new" either... I don't think saying that a 2000-year old piece of the Bible is more legit than a 4000-year old piece of the Bible holds any water. And besides, if the OT is so "archaic," then why do Christians always point to Leviticus and stuff to condemn homosexuals?

They may not stone people to death anymore, but the fact that within Christian discourse, "sinners" spend an eternity in agony and suffering in Hell is not much comfort either for people whose lives don't match the criteria of the Bible.


Removing "organized religion" may sound fine, but what about our rights? You atheists don't want to be governed ina religious manner. I respect that, I have had good atheist friends. But we ask the same: Don't come down on us. Leave the churches be.
Why are you so attached to your churches? They're just buildings, and the nice ones should be kept as historical pieces but used as something else such as meeting halls or something.

The church - a building - is not significant for Christians. All the characters in the Bible didn't go to church, because there were none. Yet they still maintained fellowship and all that through what? Meetings!!


If we are strong enough to revolt and take over, we are strong enough to work out our churches.
Who is "we?" And what are you trying to say here?


Third. Destruction500 made a statement that can be cut down to "money is the church's problem, too." I conclude that with the disappearance of capitalism and thus, the necessity of money, the church will not only have no bourgeoise to favor, but not need to. Again, the churches are not our enemy, capitalism is.
I'm sure you've seen those wealthy televangelists and other American-style preachers. Once their enormous well of wealth dries up when capitalism disappears, I'll bet that almost all of them will stop preaching.

And this isn't an either-or situation. No one is saying that religion is the sole enemy, and that capitalism is off the table. Both are used to control and subjugate people.



By the way, I've just been reading at marxists.org some of Marx's thoughts on religion. He was not just opposed to its organizaiton, he wished nothing but death to the whole concept, and he dares to speak of human coexistance. His economic theories may be helpful, but when it comes to religion, Karl Marx is nothing but a megalomaniac and I find his opposition to religion distateful and offensive.

I'm not a Marxist, but AFAIK, he was against religion as a form of social control. Could you quote/cite what you interpreted as Marx talking of the death of religion?

And of course as a Christian you find his opposition to religion distasteful. That comment is redundant.

[Raúl Duke]

Well, personally I feel that religion will not just "wither away" when class society is done away with. Religion has always been with humanity and I don't see it going anywhere, personally.

I think that economic influences certainly have a considerable impact on religion, but I think it's incorrect to look at religion as solely a function of whatever system is in place within a given society for the allocation of resources.


Actually I've seen some statistics that point out that religiosity, especially in the 1st world, is shrinking (in different degrees depending on country) then it was compared to 1900 while people turning non-religious have been steadily increasing...

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

While the U.S. is slower at it then Europe, even here one can see the trend:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

[Dave B]

(The following views are my own and not a party position)


Well actually the Communist League which Karl and Fred were part of in the early days sprang out of the League of the Just which contained or incorporated Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League)

One of the precursors to the Communist Manifesto, ‘Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith’, Frederick Engels 1847, was even titled in semi religious terms.

including a paragraph on religion;



Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions? Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm#12 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm)

The idea that communist and religious ideas could co-exist together can be found in;

Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence, Engels, October 1844


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm)

Generally to do a brief resume first;

To understand Marx’s concept on religion you unfortunately need to follow the ideas that were kicking around at the time particularly the controversy over the book by David Strauss called the ‘Life of Jesus’ and what followed on from it, Feuerbachs barely readable ‘Essence of Christianity’.

This led to a brief period in which Karl and Fred both embraced Feuerbachianism , in the mid 1840’s, or what is called by some their humanist phase. This led to Stirner to publish The Ego And it's Own as a refutation of Feuerbach and Marx and Engels then held position, essentially.

That resulted in them taking a more materialist position and the writing of Marx and Engels ‘German Ideology’ which ‘dealt’ with Stirners ideas.

Which were basically that it is stupid to behave in any other way than being a selfish git.

In more detail;

The Strauss idea in ‘Life of Jesus’ was basically that it was just a story or allegory, a bit like ‘Animal Farm’ by Orwell, that reflected what people ‘felt’ about things at the time that had turned over time into a myth or belief system.

So you could say the whole story was a symbolic representation of hopes, desires, aspirations and value systems and wasn’t supposed to be taken completely literally.

How much of the story was historical truth was irrelevant.

Although some Christians today are prepared to partially incorporate that idea, it was pretty sensational 150 years ago.

Feuerbach took it further with his ‘Essence of Christianity’; with the idea that the ‘good’ or if you like ‘communistic’ bits in Christianity, like sharing stuff, ‘loving’ each other, and the appeal of it, were a reflection of people’s repressed or frustrated natural or innate desire to live socially or co-operatively.

It is in that context I think that Karl’s famous quote needs to be read, thus;




Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm)



It was pretty close to the ‘social instinct’ theory that appeared in Darwins second book I think and picked up by Kropotkin in his Mutual Aid and later in Pannekoek’s Marxism and Darwinism and his Anthropogenesis. And is alive and kicking today with reciprocal altruism theory etc.




Karl and Fred later rejected it at the time because there was no rational or materialist ‘justification’ or explanation for it. There is now however, whether you believe it or not. Evolved instinctual co-operative behaviour in other animals has been closely studied and documented and more recently the model mechanisms of how instinctual altruistic behaviour can evolve. Eg in the tit for tat game theory studies etc.


And later Fred a least contemplated the idea in the light of Darwin;
Engels to Pyotr Lavrov, In London 1875;



6) On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the "bellum omnium contra omnes" was the first phase of human development. In my opinion, the social instinct was one of the most essential levers of the evolution of man from the ape. The first man must have lived in bands and as far as we can peer into the past we find that this was the case....


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm)

The idea that religion eg Christianity was part of the inner human psyche (social instinct or cultural conditioning) and perhaps a somewhat distorted reflection of frustrated political and economic needs still persisted. eg

Frederick Engels 1894, On the History of Early Christianity.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)


I think you probably need to read the Gospel tracks themselves, and possiblely ‘Acts’, to get a flavour of the anti establishment and communistic content.

I don’t know where this ‘obeying the priests’ comes from.

The priests were the bastards and hypocrites and even worse than the rich.

Paul, ex Gestapo and member of the Roman ruling class was almost certainly a police spy, given his happy knack of miraculously getting out of jail etc, who ended up on a witness protection programme in Rome.

[PCommie]

No one should have to belong to any church. That's the difference between Capitalism and religion. You have to follow the capitalist system, because your country's economy is based around it. You don't have to follow any church unless you want to, they are just there, and that is our right.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be crazy enough to make up such an elaborate tale as the BIBLE just to pour out their hearts. It's called faith. I just believe in it.

Like it or not, communists DO need the support of religious people if we are to succeed. We're in the majority, folks. Church and state should be separated, but we don't want your interferance either. It is not only bad for the cause, it is selfish. We religious folks would but God above communism any day, and so would I. We must throw Marx's theories out the window, come together, and create a new policy on religion, one that allows communism to coexist with it.

-PC

[pastradamus]

Karl Marx's writings on religion were most interesting. The popular belief held is that Marx and Engles were two 100% anti-religious people who despised religion. This as a description is flawed. Marx clearly was not too interested in religion as he would have written a lot more about it if he was.

However, When he did write about religion we get a very realistic and previously unseen image of religion and its impact on productive society and the working class in general. It is of Interest that Marx described religion as “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world" when describing its social impact. Marx describes religion with relation to other social systems, economic structures and class struggle.In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs.

There are 3 main factors as to why Marx dislikes, distrusts and completely dismisses religion.

1) Religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.

2) Religion is irrational.It is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality.

3) Finally Marx's last argument about religion is that it negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Marx adopted as his motto the words of the famous Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.”

It is important that we understand the origin and historical evolution of the great religions. Originally both Christianity and Islam were revolutionary movements of the poor and oppressed. This is something which Marx greatly respected and something that is often left unmentioned by the modern leftist. We see a lot of leftist sentiment in the old testament. But it is said best by Engles:

"The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working class movement...Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the object of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously ahead."

The most evident written aspect about religion comes from one of Marxs' most famous quotes:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people." -Marx

The above section written in boldface shows what is usually quoted and presented as an anti-religious argument. The Italics is what is usually left out. So to conduct a study into this statement is needed .

In some ways, the quote is presented dishonestly because saying “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...” leaves out that it is also the “heart of a heartless world.” This is more a critique of society that has become heartless and is even a partial validation of religion that it tries to become its heart. In spite of his obvious dislike of and anger towards religion, Marx did not make religion the primary enemy of workers and communists. Had Marx regarded religion as a more serious enemy, he would have devoted more time to it.

Moreover, what is Marx saying when he mentions the opium of the people? What connotations does this have with religion? The problem is that opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances now. Even worse, this “drug” is being administered by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering.

On the other hand we have V.I Lenin. In modern socialist and communist theory Lenin plays a major part in formulating philosophies of the left. Lenin was adamantly and staunchly anti-religious. That is clear in a number of his quotes such as:

"The party of the proletariat demands that the state shall declare religion a private matter, but it does not for a moment regard the question of a fight against the opium of the people - the fight against religious superstition, etc., - as a private matter. The opportunists have so distorted the question as to make it appear that the Social Democratic Party regards religion as a private matter."

And he added that "the roots of modern religion are deeply embedded in the social oppression of the working masses, and in their apparently complete hopelessness before the blind forces of capitalism [...] no amount of reading matter, however enlightening, will eradicate religion" from the consciousness of the masses, "until the masses, themselves, learn to fight against the social facts from which religion arises in a united, disciplined, planned and conscious manner - until they learn to fight against the rule of the capitalist in all its forms"

However it is interesting to point out that the famous Father Gapon from 1905. He famously organised the petition and the peaceful demonstration, and who had been working for the tsarist police, himself underwent a sudden transformation after Bloody Sunday. He called for the revolutionary overthrow of the Tsar, and even came close to the Bolsheviks at one point. Lenin did not push him away, but tried to win him, although Gapon remained religious despite Lenin's arguments.

Lenin's flexible attitude was shown by his attitude to strikes. he warned against a sectarian attitude towards those workers who were religious but who participated in strikes: "To preach atheism at such a time and in such circumstances, would only be [I]playing into the hands of the church and the priests, who would desire nothing more than to have the workers participating in the strike movement divided in accordance with religious beliefs."

So it must be said that Religion has no place in leftism but remains a prominent member of society that Leftism must live with and so one must mix with the other on some occaisions even against Marx's will and throughout history we have seen the two live side by side. So yes, A leftist can also be religious. Preferrably a leftist should remain secular and religion should remain a private matter according to Lenin, But who has the right to tell the Individual what and what not to believe in I wonder? It is of my belief that Religion should not to be used against the masses and not to be used to spurn hate and violence against the fellow worker as we have seen in the past and of which we are seeing from every reach of the globe from Ireland to Iraq and from the USA to Uzbekistan. Religion can poison society and can prevent the worker from seeing more fruitful ideas such as socialism. So in this regard religion is a problem, albeit a problem that socialism can and will overcome.

[Raúl Duke]

Like it or not, communists DO need the support of religious people if we are to succeed. We're in the majority, folks. Church and state should be separated, but we don't want your interferance either. It is not only bad for the cause, it is selfish. We religious folks would but God above communism any day, and so would I. We must throw Marx's theories out the window, come together, and create a new policy on religion, one that allows communism to coexist with it.

-PC

It seems you have disregarded what I posted...

You are the majority everywhere (except Berlin and parts of Germany)...but what about in 2020? 2050? I'm not even taking account the many people around the world who state they "believe in xyz religion" or "believe in god" but are for all intents and purposes are like an atheist/agnostic (i.e. don't or rarely go to church, don't pray much or at all, don't let religious doctrine dictate their ethics towards discriminatory/backward views and opinions, etc).
Religion is losing ground, especially in the 1st world areas where Marx said proletariat revolution was more likely to appear/succeed.


I find it hard to believe that anyone would be crazy enough to make up such an elaborate tale as the BIBLE just to pour out their hearts. It's called faith. I just believe in it.What about the other "elaborate tales" that are roughly equal in credibility to the bible such as the koran, the hindu vedas, etc? Do you believe them too? Why not take them also with faith, since you are already incline to do so with the bible?

Faith: belief without proof.
Why not believe in unicorns, the chupacabra, etc...they have little to no proof as well?

[ComradeOm]

I think that is the fundamental issue with organised religion. It is a "pick and chose" attitude, but it is done so by the church leaders, and they discourage the congregation to do the sameIts rank hypocrisy of course (particularly so for anyone who has a knowledge of the actual formulation of fundamental Christian tenets) but, as pastradamus' very good post above mentioned, organised religion faces the charge of hypocrisy on numerous fronts

Now you or I can point out the contradiction in having the 'word of god' decided/selected by Roman committees but such talk is considered blasphemy by religious authorities (literally so in the Catholic Church - see Modernism) which base their entire legitimacy around the divine and exclusive nature of their teachings. If this officially sanctioned dogma is brought into question, such as by relativism or freedom of conscience, then the basis for organised religion withers away


Perfect example. Thats from the book of leviticus in the old testament/torah. The same book that sprouts so much other nonsense that most establishments wouldnt dare practice. Laws like stoning blasphemers like us to death ;) Killing children who insult their parents and burning prostitues alive.

Point that out to any church and they will strugle to justify homophobiaYou'd think that wouldn't you. Unfortunately centuries of dogma remain stubbornly resistant to change. The Catholic Church for example has never based its teachings on a literal reading of the Bible, having its own two millennia of traditions to fall back on, while more fundamentalist churches would probably endorse stoning if it didn't contravene secular law. There are a number of churches that are, thankfully, slowly updating their doctrines but these tend to be relatively rare. Anglicanism springs to mind but then that's hardly even an organised religion these days and approval of homosexuality looks likely to split the Communion

So I suppose that we should be thankful that religious organisations are ever so slowly approaching the point, in relation to homosexuality, where secular society was several decades ago. How progressive


Organised religion's striped of their establishments and power equals people free practice spirituality inline with modern progressive ethics. I can't see it being a problemWell neither can I except that organised religion stripped of "establishments and power" is no longer organised religion

But I am thinking along the same lines. Instead of a complete separation of spiritual and temporal spheres, a workers' state must move to dominate the Church by establishing an imposed concordat that grants the state complete and unfettered control over religious activities. The model of course being Revolutionary France's Civil Constitution of the Clergy

[scarletghoul]

Organized religion is the problem because it causes a division in it followers. churches usually places the clergy above the common person.Then use this power as a tool to control those below them. why would you in a communist society who had just got rid of class divisions allow them in a belief system. and you could take this even further in an anarchist society.
the differance is, the church does not control society, capitalism does.

Religion seems to by dying anyway

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

We must throw Marx's theories out the window, come together, and create a new policy on religion, one that allows communism to coexist with it.

Are you kidding? Have you read anything that was posted?

[Dhul Fiqar]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be crazy enough to make up such an elaborate tale as the BIBLE just to pour out their hearts.

What? You must have read fiction about as crazy as that before, surely. What exactly is it about Superman that makes him a less crazy idea than the Bible and thus easier to make up by your logic? People write weird things, this has been true since people began writing. That's probably why there are thousands of religions - many of them with similar backstories.

The idea of being born of a virgin and dying and rising again for people's sins was around for hundreds of years before Jesus was even born, with more than one religion being based on previous virgin birth resurrection acts.

[pastradamus]

You brought it up.

Well, religious people seem to vehemently hate homosexuals simply because of one verse in the Bible, despite the fact that Jesus said to love everyone as your neighbor. That's not distinguishing good ideas (ie. not being a homophobe) at all.



Surely you cant paint every Christian with the one brush here. Only the fanatical moronic Christian hate homosexuals. Most of the average everyday Christians I know have no problem with homosexuality and even support gay marriage and some even support gay adoption and these people are Catholics!

My point is, sometimes Religion gives birth to fanaticism and fanaticism is a tumor on society. Every time we switch on the news we see Islamist's blowing themselves up because of some ridiculous Fatwa and absurd intrepretation of the Koran. This is my main conflict with organised religion. Religion in my opinion is a personal choice, It should not be forced into someones mind by some brainwashing evangelist nor should young Muslims be listining to fanatical suicidal crap from some unhuman Iman who uses young human lives to further his politically bankrupt agenda.

[PCommie]

I have been reading, SoB. I've been reading sectarian, narrow-minded, authoritarian arguments. There is no reason for the Communist Party to fight "the opium." If we want to be opressed by the evil churches, that's our choice, and no one else's. You can protest it, you can oppose it, but when you write it into law, you're as bad as the capitalists we fight.

There is nothing more I can say. Faith is faith, choose it or don't. It none of the party's/state's business.

-PC

[pastradamus]

There is nothing more I can say. Faith is faith, choose it or don't. It none of the party's/state's business.

-PC
Exactly.

[PCommie]

Pastradamus, please do not come on here and say exactly immediately after posting a statement directly disagreeing with what I just said. I said we need to IGNORE organized religion. We are communists fighting for our freedom, and I will repeat it: Hindering organized religion because Marx thinks its bad and y'all are atheists is as authoritarian as the imperialist policies. Please read before agreeing.

-PC

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I have been reading, SoB. I've been reading sectarian, narrow-minded, authoritarian arguments. There is no reason for the Communist Party to fight "the opium." If we want to be opressed by the evil churches, that's our choice, and no one else's. You can protest it, you can oppose it, but when you write it into law, you're as bad as the capitalists we fight.

There is nothing more I can say. Faith is faith, choose it or don't. It none of the party's/state's business.

-PC

You said we should give up Marx's theories. If you had been reading the thread, you would have noted that Marx's theories said nothing of fighting "the opium" because he didn't see it as necessary.

[pastradamus]

Pastradamus, please do not come on here and say exactly immediately after posting a statement directly disagreeing with what I just said. I said we need to IGNORE organized religion. We are communists fighting for our freedom, and I will repeat it: Hindering organized religion because Marx thinks its bad and y'all are atheists is as authoritarian as the imperialist policies. Please read before agreeing.

-PC

If I choose to worship a god in my private life its of no business of the state and Marx had no real issue with private unorganised religion. Read my above post (the big long boring one) and I hope it'll explain Marxism and religion. As SOB said, Marx believed there was no real need to fight religion.

Where as if you hold a guy like Lenin in high regard he said:

"Religion is the opiate of the people. It is a type of spiritual Gin in which the slaves of Capital drown their Human shape." Showing him as the extreme athiest he was.

[PCommie]

The general opinion is starting to seem more like mine either because I had a misunderstanding of general communist viewpoint or because I am convincing (yeah, right. ;))

Here's my rationale on why communism shouldn't fight religion, organized or not:

-One of our hallmarks is equality for all. Marx also opposed organized religion. It is first in violation of his own method. His research on capitalism was backed by capitalist history to research. However, we have never seen how a church would act in a socialist/communist state, and thus, have no place in judging it.

-I mentioned equality. This makes Marxism contradictory. If we have equality on one hand, and opposition to religion on the other, we oppose ourselves. The difference, again, between the church and capitalism, is that capitalism is written into law, forcing it on the people. As long as we keep the church out of the law, it has no real control over people other than its words, which everyone is entitled to. If the people wish to be "oppressed", "preached at", or whatever term you'd like to use, that's their right, and I can't see how anyone could oppose that right and still call themselves a communist.

-So, since these philosophies are self-contradictory, one must change. Human equality? Certainly not, it is principal to our ideology and that would turn us into a purely religious (or anti-religious) group. So the religious policy must change.

-My proposal for our new, revised policy on organized religion? It's possible for it to influence people for better or worse. If violence is in its doctrine, like Radical Islam, it clearly cannot be permitted, as a whole. If not, then allow it, and work on a church-by-church basis. If an individual church is causing serious problems, a simple "Find this church a new priest/pastor, or he won't have a church to preach in" letter to the head of the church should suffice.

Religion is too big to generalize, especially as we have never seen how it would behave in a truly communist state. I hope this helps to enlighten you.

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Surely you cant paint every Christian with the one brush here. Only the fanatical moronic Christian hate homosexuals. Most of the average everyday Christians I know have no problem with homosexuality and even support gay marriage and some even support gay adoption and these people are Catholics!

Perhaps "hate" is too strong of a word, but many Christians I know either are overtly homophobic or take the "soft Christian" stance on homosexuality - "love the sinner but not the sin" - which is still homophobic in its essence.


My point is, sometimes Religion gives birth to fanaticism and fanaticism is a tumor on society. Every time we switch on the news we see Islamist's blowing themselves up because of some ridiculous Fatwa and absurd intrepretation of the Koran. This is my main conflict with organised religion. Religion in my opinion is a personal choice, It should not be forced into someones mind by some brainwashing evangelist nor should young Muslims be listining to fanatical suicidal crap from some unhuman Iman who uses young human lives to further his politically bankrupt agenda.
I don't see how your argument is against organized religion - it just seems to be anti-Islamic and racist.



I have been reading, SoB. I've been reading sectarian, narrow-minded, authoritarian arguments.
It's only authoritarian because you're a Christian and you don't agree with the arguments presented.

How is my suggestion of making religion more personal and non-hierarchical an "authoritarian" argument?


There is no reason for the Communist Party to fight "the opium." If we want to be opressed by the evil churches, that's our choice, and no one else's.
With your logic, it's like saying "Well if the workers seem to want to be wage slaves and oppressed by capitalism (due to a lack of class consciousness or whatever) then that's their choice."

The reason for Communists (not necessarily a party) to fight organized religion is that it is hierarchical and, as you admit, oppressive.


You can protest it, you can oppose it, but when you write it into law, you're as bad as the capitalists we fight.
How is wanting to get rid of hierarchical, oppressive, organized religious structure as bad as exploiting workers and giving wealth to a small percentage of the population?


There is nothing more I can say. Faith is faith, choose it or don't. It none of the party's/state's business.

That's right - you can choose whatever faith you want, but don't expect to have this grand church where the priest preaches to you. Faith is about a personal relationship with God, yes? Why do you need a priest to tell you how to have faith?


The general opinion is starting to seem more like mine either because I had a misunderstanding of general communist viewpoint or because I am convincing (yeah, right. ;))

I don't see how the "general opinion" is starting to seem like yours - you're not very clear or consistent on your position. I thought you were for organized religion, but in a post to pastadamus you said to ignore it.


Here's my rationale on why communism shouldn't fight religion, organized or not:

-One of our hallmarks is equality for all. Marx also opposed organized religion. It is first in violation of his own method. His research on capitalism was backed by capitalist history to research. However, we have never seen how a church would act in a socialist/communist state, and thus, have no place in judging it.

True, but a church/mosque/synagogue/etc's organization is inherently hierarchical and oppressive. If faith is supposed to be personal, as I've said, why do you need all these priests and stuff?



-I mentioned equality. This makes Marxism contradictory. If we have equality on one hand, and opposition to religion on the other, we oppose ourselves.
I'm not religious, so I'm not opposing myself.

And in terms of opposition to organized religion, many organized religions are not egalitarian (e.g. Lack of female priests, condemning sinners, etc) so being opposed to an institution that is not necessarily for the equality of all is not really contradictory.


The difference, again, between the church and capitalism, is that capitalism is written into law, forcing it on the people. As long as we keep the church out of the law, it has no real control over people other than its words, which everyone is entitled to.
Capitalism isn't written into law, but it supported by it.

And organized religion has plenty of power of people even if it's not part of the state. Like you said, the words have control over people - you admit it. I don't see how "everyone [being] entitled to [religious words]" has anything to do with it.


If the people wish to be "oppressed", "preached at", or whatever term you'd like to use, that's their right, and I can't see how anyone could oppose that right and still call themselves a communist.
Look above to my previous comment, but also I'd like to add that Communism is about liberating the worker from oppression. Maybe you don't understand that.


-So, since these philosophies are self-contradictory, one must change. Human equality? Certainly not, it is principal to our ideology and that would turn us into a purely religious (or anti-religious) group. So the religious policy must change.
I don't understand what you're talking about.


-My proposal for our new, revised policy on organized religion? It's possible for it to influence people for better or worse. If violence is in its doctrine, like Radical Islam, it clearly cannot be permitted, as a whole. If not, then allow it, and work on a church-by-church basis. If an individual church is causing serious problems, a simple "Find this church a new priest/pastor, or he won't have a church to preach in" letter to the head of the church should suffice.


If we accept that radical religious people stem from fundamentalist organized religion, then the problem is obviously organized religion itself.

Also, you have a problem of assuming that all Communists are Marxists, which is not true. Not everyone is a Marx fetishist who simply blindly follows what Marx wrote.

[PCommie]

Destruction500, you have not only twisted my words but your arguments are based on one-sided views.


...as you admit, oppressive.

You've got to be kidding. You seriously must be. Have you not been reading my general opinion? How do you think such a radical change of opinion would come about? I am being sarcastic.


I don't see how the "general opinion" is starting to seem like yours - you're not very clear or consistent on your position. I thought you were for organized religion, but in a post to pastadamus you said to ignore it.

I meant the state should ignore it. I remember the post but I cannot find it.


-So, since these philosophies are self-contradictory, one must change. Human equality? Certainly not, it is principal to our ideology and that would turn us into a purely religious (or anti-religious) group. So the religious policy must change.

It's laid out like a tablecloth. If you can't understand it, that's not my fault, is it?

Well, then, 500, let me put the shoe on the other foot. If I decided that atheism was dangerous and bad for mankind and decided to force Christianity upon you, how would you feel? Wouldn't like it would you? Well, neither do I, so get off my faith. Same goes for Marx. It IS our right to be part of churches if we want to. I would even say it's people's right to be slaves to capitalism, if they must. We speak for ourselves, the only thing is, the revolution against a system goes for all. It is not necessary for the church. Don't bother with it if you're happy without it. Worry about your own happiness. If it makes us happy to listen to preachers "talking down to us" or however you care to put it, that's for us to decide.

-PC

[Vahanian]

Well, then, 500, let me put the shoe on the other foot. If I decided that atheism was dangerous and bad for mankind and decided to force Christianity upon you, how would you feel? Wouldn't like it would you? Well, neither do I, so get off my faith. Same goes for Marx. It IS our right to be part of churches if we want to. I would even say it's people's right to be slaves to capitalism, if they must. We speak for ourselves, the only thing is, the revolution against a system goes for all. It is not necessary for the church. Don't bother with it if you're happy without it. Worry about your own happiness. If it makes us happy to listen to preachers "talking down to us" or however you care to put it, that's for us to decide.

Destruction made a few good points in his last post.We get that you believe that there is a god. we get that or ,at least i get it.we just don't get why you must have a church to practice your belief in. is it necessary to go out on you religious day of the week and glorify your god in some "holy building". And trust me i get the whole you have a right to your beliefs your coming from here- half of my family are devout Roman Catholics.

[Invincible Summer]

Destruction500, you have not only twisted my words but your arguments are based on one-sided views.

One-sided views? How about yours? I'm arguing from an anarchist perspective (in that I'm an anarchist and not religious, not necessarily the mainstream anarchist view) and you're arguing from a Christian perspective.

What am I supposed to do? Make my points wishy-washy and against how I think so that I seem "fair and balanced?"


You've got to be kidding. You seriously must be. Have you not been reading my general opinion? How do you think such a radical change of opinion would come about? I am being sarcastic.

I didn't notice that you said "evil churches" as well, which was more of an indicator that you were being sarcastic. Apologies.



I meant the state should ignore it. I remember the post but I cannot find it.

Define "state." As an anarchist, I do not wish there to be a state in the sense of a body of individuals which have a monopoly of force against others in a given area, is hierarchical and centralized.

Therefore, having the population of a worker's collective willfully turn a blind eye to the hierarchy of organized religion is a silly proposition.


It's laid out like a tablecloth. If you can't understand it, that's not my fault, is it?

Well, the phrasing is a bit odd for me is all. I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm just saying I can't understand your point in that sentence.


Well, then, 500, let me put the shoe on the other foot. If I decided that atheism was dangerous and bad for mankind and decided to force Christianity upon you, how would you feel? Wouldn't like it would you? Well, neither do I, so get off my faith.
Holy fucking hell. Do you not understand? I - and I think most people here - aren't looking to totally abolish Christianity. You can have your faith but you just won't have a building to go to to pray in and have hierarchies involving priests and servant boys and all that, but instead have egalitarian fellowships of believers which I believe is more spiritually rewarding anyway.


Same goes for Marx. It IS our right to be part of churches if we want to. I would even say it's people's right to be slaves to capitalism, if they must.
That's not a very good attitude for a Communist... why are you defending the "right" to be a slave under capitalism?

Again - why are you so attached to a building (the church)? What is wrong with having a Biblical forum amongst Christians as equals?


We speak for ourselves, the only thing is, the revolution against a system goes for all. It is not necessary for the church. Don't bother with it if you're happy without it. Worry about your own happiness. If it makes us happy to listen to preachers "talking down to us" or however you care to put it, that's for us to decide.

Worry about my own happiness? Again, that's a very individualistic attitude that basically suggests that a revolution is not necessary. Why worry about all those exploited and oppressed workers? I should just worry about myself, right?

[Sam_b]

Again, I don't understand why a so-called 'pure communist' would want to change Marxist theory.

[ComradeOm]

Again, I don't understand why a so-called 'pure communist' would want to change Marxist theory.Because Marxism is incompatible with the 'Christian communism' that PCommie is espousing. Who needs class analysis when you already have the word of god?

[pastradamus]

I don't see how your argument is against organized religion - it just seems to be anti-Islamic and racist.



Totally 100% inaccurately Intrepreted and unfounded. You have 2 choices here; Apologise for calling me a racist or explain your viewpoint properly.

Im not religious. I dont believe in god. I dont particularly like the Islamic religion and I dont particularly like the Christian religion as was clear in my post. If criticising a religious or its organisation and set of belief's are against the rules of the board then Im quitting. Everything Religious should be questioned its our right as logical people.

[pastradamus]

Again, I don't understand why a so-called 'pure communist' would want to change Marxist theory.

"pure communist" is a term without any real meaning anymore. Lenin described himself as such in one of his speeches and was far from a pure communist.

[Invincible Summer]

Totally 100% inaccurately Intrepreted and unfounded. You have 2 choices here; Apologise for calling me a racist or explain your viewpoint properly.

I suppose I said that based on the fact that you focused primarily on Islam as your example. Furthermore, you say evangelists are "brainwashing" while Muslims follow "unhuman Iman who uses young human lives to further his politically bankrupt agenda... it just makes it seem that you are more hateful towards Islam than organized religion in general.


Im not religious. I dont believe in god. I dont particularly like the Islamic religion and I dont particularly like the Christian religion as was clear in my post. If criticising a religious or its organisation and set of belief's are against the rules of the board then Im quitting. Everything Religious should be questioned its our right as logical people.

I'm all for criticizing religion, but one must be careful in how the criticism is presented. For instance, calling an Iman "unhuman" - even if some are maniacal - can be interpreted as a racist statement, even if it was not intended to be that way.

I also have realized that Islam is a religion and not a race so perhaps my statement was not the most sound.

I apologise for calling you a racist, but really, I think criticism should be presented in a critical as opposed to hateful way.

[PCommie]

I'd like to first respond to D500's last post on the second page.


...you're arguing from a Christian perspective.

I admit I was arguing Christianity a few posts ago, but this thread has now settled (aparantly) on a debate about the right to freedom of religion, which is what I am advocating, not the beliefs of Christianity.


I didn't notice that you said "evil churches" as well, which was more of an indicator that you were being sarcastic. Apologies.

Thank you, comrade.


Define "state." As an anarchist, I do not wish there to be a state in the sense of a body of individuals which have a monopoly of force against others in a given area, is hierarchical and centralized.

I mean the governing body, whether that be the people or not, though I admit I might have used a better word.


Well, the phrasing is a bit odd for me is all. I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm just saying I can't understand your point in that sentence.


I'm sorry for stating that so ferociously. I really can't think of a better way to word it, thought.


Again - why are you so attached to a building (the church)? What is wrong with having a Biblical forum amongst Christians as equals?

Nothing wrong with that, I'm just here to support the right to church.

I don't see what's wrong with at least waiting to see how a church would behave in a communist society before we pass general judgement on an entire institution. Marx had no previous communist societies to judge how religion would behave. They are only ideas, theories, not proven. If it's true that we don't follow Marx just because he's Marx, let's agree on this. Let's agree to make our own judgement once we get a real communist society.


Again, I don't understand why a so-called 'pure communist' would want to change Marxist theory.

That is ridiculously authoritarian. As I said, if we obey Marx just because he's Marx, we preclude all possibility of better ideas. Just because some of his ideas were good doesn't mean there can be no better ones.

-PC

[Vahanian]

That is ridiculously authoritarian. As I said, if we obey Marx just because he's Marx, we preclude all possibility of better ideas. Just because some of his ideas were good doesn't mean there can be no better ones.



he was commenting on a so called "pure communist" wanting to change Marxian theory. that's not authoritarian thats an observation.

[Invincible Summer]

Marx had no previous communist societies to judge how religion would behave. They are only ideas, theories, not proven. If it's true that we don't follow Marx just because he's Marx, let's agree on this. Let's agree to make our own judgement once we get a real communist society.



That is ridiculously authoritarian. As I said, if we obey Marx just because he's Marx, we preclude all possibility of better ideas. Just because some of his ideas were good doesn't mean there can be no better ones.

-PC

Again, PCommie, not all of us here are Marxists, so if you could please refrain from referring to Marx all the time, that'd be great.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually I've seen some statistics that point out that religiosity, especially in the 1st world, is shrinking (in different degrees depending on country) then it was compared to 1900 while people turning non-religious have been steadily increasing...

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

While the U.S. is slower at it then Europe, even here one can see the trend:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

There's an ebb and flow to it, especially in the United States. In the 1970s people were declaring the inevitable death of God in America...that was before the Evangelical surge of the 1980s.

I just don't see a day when everyone is an atheist. Maybe that's shortsighted of me, though.

[PCommie]

I agree, "pure communist" suggests that I agree completly with Marx, since he coined the term. Therefore, I'd like to take something that got said on chat yesterday, modify it a little bit, and apply it to myself: "Psycho commie." :D


Again, PCommie, not all of us here are Marxists, so if you could please refrain from referring to Marx all the time, that'd be great.

Quit acting like because Marx criticised religion, his criticism must be correct. I could criticize atheism based on my Christian beliefs but I don't, and you know full good and well that if Marx had written differently of religion, or not written of it at all, opinions on here would be completly different.

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Quit acting like because Marx criticised religion, his criticism must be correct. I could criticize atheism based on my Christian beliefs but I don't, and you know full good and well that if Marx had written differently of religion, or not written of it at all, opinions on here would be completly different.

-PC

I don't understand why you assume everyone is arguing against organized religion based on Marx's critique.

I'm not basing my criticism from Marx's critique of religion - I know of his critique, but have never actually read it.

And I'm criticizing from the point of view of someone who grew up in the church, but is now a strong agnostic and anarchist.

I think it's absurd and insulting to assume that everyone on RevLeft except for you is a mindless Marxist who bases all their knowledge and opinion on Marx.

[PCommie]

Alright. I won't assume that. At least you're agnostic instead of confirmed atheist, that's open minded of you.

I'm not sure there's more I can say that isn't repeating my old argument so I won't.

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Alright. I won't assume that. At least you're agnostic instead of confirmed atheist, that's open minded of you.

I'm not sure there's more I can say that isn't repeating my old argument so I won't.

-PC

Let's put it this way - I strongly believe that there is no omnipotent,omniscient force that creates our destinies or whatever, but I don't know there is not one. I think it's a bit hasty to say that there definitively is no god. No one can prove there is or isn't. So that frame of mind is what I believe is called "strong agnosticism"

[pastradamus]

I suppose I said that based on the fact that you focused primarily on Islam as your example. Furthermore, you say evangelists are "brainwashing" while Muslims follow "unhuman Iman who uses young human lives to further his politically bankrupt agenda... it just makes it seem that you are more hateful towards Islam than organized religion in general.


Well explained. However I dont believe that the proportionality of my attack is a sign that I favour one side over the other.





I'm all for criticizing religion, but one must be careful in how the criticism is presented. For instance, calling an Iman "unhuman" - even if some are maniacal - can be interpreted as a racist statement, even if it was not intended to be that way.My Intention in this post was not to attack every Iman but rather the maniacal ones you speak of. I do not advocate an attack on the Arab people.

[/quote]



I apologise for calling you a racist, but really, I think criticism should be presented in a critical as opposed to hateful way.

I understand your argument - Its a good argument. However, I was speaking of fanaticism as opposed to religion in general. I am both Hateful and critical of anyone who undergoes the utilisation of religion as fanaticism. I dont hate religion in general.

On another note I would like to add when in your previous address to Pcommie you mentioned your religious stance and I if I may say im 100% and totally convinced of the same opinion myself so its reassuring to see another here who shares my views on agnosticism.

[PCommie]

See, agnosticism is reasonable. I choose to profess belief in religion, but I don't assume to know. There are Christians who would call me sacreligious for that, including my mom, but it's not a sin to be honest. Jesus advocated honesty. We don't know, we just believe what we believe and remain open minded which is why I respect agnosticism a lot more than atheism.

-PC

[pastradamus]

See, agnosticism is reasonable. I choose to profess belief in religion, but I don't assume to know. There are Christians who would call me sacreligious for that, including my mom, but it's not a sin to be honest. Jesus advocated honesty. We don't know, we just believe what we believe and remain open minded which is why I respect agnosticism a lot more than atheism.

-PC

See PC thats the beauty of Socialism. When one becomes a socialist/communist we immeadietly begin a quest of questioning everything and its rationality. So you are managing and being reasonable with your questioning and thats a good thing to see in anyone.

[Raúl Duke]

See, agnosticism is reasonable. I choose to profess belief in religion, but I don't assume to know. There are Christians who would call me sacreligious for that, including my mom, but it's not a sin to be honest. Jesus advocated honesty. We don't know, we just believe what we believe and remain open minded which is why I respect agnosticism a lot more than atheism.

You are taking "agnosticism" as if it were a separate theological position when it is a epistemological position.
Ever head the term "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist?" Most atheists here are probably "agnostic atheists", even the "agnostics" are, despite what they say, "agnostic atheists."
The reason why they chose to be agnostic atheist instead of agnostic theist may be because its more reasonable, to them (and me), to disregard the existence of an unproven being/concept/etc then to make believe its true. Actually, at least to me, most agnostic theists stick to religion because of the "Pascal's Wager", fear, and other arguments (some which are very faulty/ridiculous/does not apply to me).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Let's put it this way - I strongly believe that there is no omnipotent,omniscient force that creates our destinies or whatever, but I don't know there is not one. I think it's a bit hasty to say that there definitively is no god. No one can prove there is or isn't. So that frame of mind is what I believe is called "strong agnosticism"

I strongly believe that Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but I don't know that it doesn't. I think it's a bit hasty to say that there definitively is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I find it just as silly to say that I don't know that Invisible Pink Unicorns or the FSM don't exist because no one can prove that they don't than to say that I don't know that a god exists because no one can prove that it doesn't.


See, agnosticism is reasonable. I choose to profess belief in religion, but I don't assume to know. There are Christians who would call me sacreligious for that, including my mom, but it's not a sin to be honest. Jesus advocated honesty. We don't know, we just believe what we believe and remain open minded which is why I respect agnosticism a lot more than atheism.

-PC

It's not that atheists are necessarily close-minded, it's that they don't have any reason to be open-minded concerning religion.

[Invincible Summer]

I strongly believe that Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but I don't know that it doesn't. I think it's a bit hasty to say that there definitively is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I find it just as silly to say that I don't know that Invisible Pink Unicorns or the FSM don't exist because no one can prove that they don't than to say that I don't know that a god exists because no one can prove that it doesn't.

Why is it silly? I'd like some proof from theists that a god does exist, yet they cannot provide me with any. However, I also cannot prove that no god exists, so I can't say that.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Why is it silly? I'd like some proof from theists that a god does exist, yet they cannot provide me with any. However, I also cannot prove that no god exists, so I can't say that.

I also cannot prove that the ghost of Marx isn't standing right behind you, so I can't say that he isn't.

See what I mean? You can replace god in what you're saying with any ridiculous thing that you would deny existed if someone claimed it did, like the invisible pink unicorn, Zeus, Marx's ghost, etc.

[Decolonize The Left]

I can say that it's highly probably, to the point of being certain, that supernatural beings do not exist. That is to say that it's 99.99999999999999999% probable that there is no god. It is not fully certain due to Cartesian skepticism and the inability to prove anything to a certainty.

Why? History and reason.
Rationally, the idea of god, is insane. No proof, no evidence, no reason to belief - yet belief.
Historically, almost every idea of supernatural beings has been disproved. Why is this idea of god any different? It isn't.

- August

[Invincible Summer]

I also cannot prove that the ghost of Marx isn't standing right behind you, so I can't say that he isn't.

See what I mean? You can replace god in what you're saying with any ridiculous thing that you would deny existed if someone claimed it did, like the invisible pink unicorn, Zeus, Marx's ghost, etc.


I can say that it's highly probably, to the point of being certain, that supernatural beings do not exist. That is to say that it's 99.99999999999999999% probable that there is no god. It is not fully certain due to Cartesian skepticism and the inability to prove anything to a certainty.

Why? History and reason.
Rationally, the idea of god, is insane. No proof, no evidence, no reason to belief - yet belief.
Historically, almost every idea of supernatural beings has been disproved. Why is this idea of god any different? It isn't.

- August


You both have a very good point.

[Decolonize The Left]

You both have a very good point.

Atheists, who argue intelligently, always have "a very good point." This is because atheist arguments are rational and logical and hence make "good points."

Theist opposition to atheist arguments have no rational or logical content. They always fall back upon faith, and faith is a denial of reason.

A simple reply to this counter-statement is to note how often theists use reason in their everyday lives, and how beneficial reason is to their functioning as a human being.

Ex: If you touch a hot stove, you get burned. Hence it is rational to note that hot stoves burn your hand, and you ought not touch hot stoves.

According to theist belief systems, you might think that the hot stove is magical, imbued with properties by a god who wants you to suffer for previously having killed an ant. Hence, in the future, if you act accordingly and don't kill ants, you might be able to touch a hot stove without burning your hand!

Logic and reason are involved in the latter half of this thought experiment, but they are denied by the fundamental premise that a god exists and is morally judging your character.

- August

[PCommie]

No proof, no evidence, no reason to belief - yet belief.

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism.

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

What atheists have: The idea that it is ridiculous to believe in the possibility of some kind of being such as God.

-PC

[Decolonize The Left]

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

Name one.

- August

[Invincible Summer]

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism.

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

What atheists have: The idea that it is ridiculous to believe in the possibility of some kind of being such as God.

-PC


Eyewitness accounts =/= the Bible.

People believed that dragons that breathed fire existed and wrote down "eyewitness accounts" in times more recent that the Bible, but clearly there is/has not been any animal that is capable of doing this to any extent.

[LeninBalls]

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism.

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

What atheists have: The idea that it is ridiculous to believe in the possibility of some kind of being such as God.

-PC

Does it really fucking matter if people believe in God or not?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism.

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

What atheists have: The idea that it is ridiculous to believe in the possibility of some kind of being such as God.

-PC

Doesn't every other religion also have such "eyewitness" accounts?

[PCommie]

Christianity is the only religion I know of that has a God who has come to Earth.


Name one.

Umm... everything in the NT?

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Christianity is the only religion I know of that has a God who has come to Earth.



Umm... everything in the NT?

-PC


Like I said,


People believed that dragons that breathed fire existed and wrote down "eyewitness accounts" in times more recent that the Bible, but clearly there is/has not been any animal that is capable of doing this to any extent.

[PCommie]

Prove it. Prove to me that no such animal existed, but was taken out of existance somehow. Yes, I am suggesting aliens or some force that could do it. Why? Because we are a spec of dust in a universe we know nothing about. It is foolhardy to say that something is definitely impossible. I'm not saying I personally believe in dragons, but that doesn't make it impossible.

By the way, just what "eyewitness accounts" of dragons, actually breathing fire before a person's eyes, have been written and where can I read a copy?

-PC

[PCommie]

Hmm, forgot to mention: There is more evidence against dragons than for them. Precluding my theory of alien interference, dragons would have to leave bones behind. They have not. Jesus did. Therefor we have eyewitness account and skeletal remains against "It can't be; it's silly" statements. It doesn't take much to see which has more evidence in its favor.

-PC

[Invincible Summer]

By the way, just what "eyewitness accounts" of dragons, actually breathing fire before a person's eyes, have been written and where can I read a copy?

-PC

There are various texts from ancient China that talk about dragons, as well in Norse mythology and Medieval European texts. Just the fact that the image of the dragon is prevalent within western Europe all the way to Asia must mean that people thought something was a dragon.

However, assuming that dragons had evolved from a prehistoric avian/reptilian creature, they are far too large to actually fly and their fire breathing mechanisms make no sense.

I chalk it all up to misunderstanding/fear of the natural world + superstition.


Hmm, forgot to mention: There is more evidence against dragons than for them. Precluding my theory of alien interference, dragons would have to leave bones behind. They have not. Jesus did. Therefor we have eyewitness account and skeletal remains against "It can't be; it's silly" statements. It doesn't take much to see which has more evidence in its favor.
-PC

I'm not advocating that dragons existed - I'm saying that "eyewitness accounts" of things such as Jesus and mythological creatures are tenuous at best.

"Dragon bones" would most likely be dinosaur or reptile bones that earlier civilizations did not understand.

Regardless, instead of dwelling on my admittedly poor example, how did Jesus leave bones behind if he supposedly resurrected from the dead and then ascended into heaven?
If you're talking about the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" thing, the type of tomb they were in and the inscriptions were from a time period 20 or so years earlier than Jesus supposedly died. Besides, supporting the claim that Jesus' bones were found just tells me that Jesus was a man and not the son of God. Therefore, Christianity is a crock.

Whoops!

[pastradamus]

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism.

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

What atheists have: The idea that it is ridiculous to believe in the possibility of some kind of being such as God.

-PC

This is exactly what Marx was on about. This is where religion is used to split workers interests. We are all mouthing off at one another about the existance of god and Jesus etc, etc, etc. We must ignore theological questions like this if we are to benefit one another constructively in class struggle and solidarity. Though there is nothing wrong with respectful theological debate it seems to me people here are taking a vested personal interest in the debate and this is not serving our leftist agenda at all. Leninballs put it best really. Who cares if someone believes in god or not? It has nothing to do with our real concerns.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well said Pastradamus.

[Decolonize The Left]

Umm... everything in the NT?

-PC

The NT wasn't written during the time of Jesus' supposed existence - in fact, it was written hundreds of years afterward and by numerous different people (hence all the contradiction). It is historically impossible for the writers of the NT to have been eye-witness accounts to anything they wrote about.

Sorry... but it's true.

- August

[StalinFanboy]

This is incorrect. In fact, there is more evidence for Christianity than atheism.

What we have: EYEWITNESS accounts of Jesus Christ performing miracles on this Earth.

What atheists have: The idea that it is ridiculous to believe in the possibility of some kind of being such as God.

-PC
Eyewitness accounts relating things such as God or UFOs or other weird things don't mean shit. If someone believes in something like God or UFOs, then when they see something, their mind is going to interpret it in the way they believe. If someone who strongly believes there are UFOs with aliens that visit Earth sees blinking lights on the horizon at night, then their mind is going to interpret it as a UFO.

Atheists have logic and reason on their side.

[ComradeOm]

The NT wasn't written during the time of Jesus' supposed existence - in fact, it was written hundreds of years afterward and by numerous different people (hence all the contradiction). It is historically impossible for the writers of the NT to have been eye-witness accounts to anything they wrote aboutInterestingly enough, and purely as an aside, I was just reading at the weekend that the last chapter of Matthew (which deals with the Resurrection) was only added several centuries after the initial draft was written. And that's not even going into the process by which some works were included in the Bible and other relegated as apocrypha

[Decolonize The Left]

Interestingly enough, and purely as an aside, I was just reading at the weekend that the last chapter of Matthew (which deals with the Resurrection) was only added several centuries after the initial draft was written. And that's not even going into the process by which some works were included in the Bible and other relegated as apocrypha

You are correct, in fact, the entire Bible was written by over 100 people, over the span of 1,000 years, and subjected to countless alterations, changes, etc... not to mention the translations and changes that take place there.

Basically, there's no possible way that anything in the Bible can be reasonably accepted as historical truth.

- August

[Invincible Summer]

I think the absence of PCommie proves we've totally pwned him/her.


+100 XP for Atheists!

[KC]

Eyewitness accounts relating things such as God or UFOs or other weird things don't mean shit. If someone believes in something like God or UFOs, then when they see something, their mind is going to interpret it in the way they believe. If someone who strongly believes there are UFOs with aliens that visit Earth sees blinking lights on the horizon at night, then their mind is going to interpret it as a UFO.

How are we certain that what one claims to see is not actually correct? Conversely, how are we certain that something is actually correct?


Atheists have logic and reason on their side.

Atheism cannot be logically proven.

[PCommie]

I think the absence of PCommie proves we've totally pwned him/her.

Don't start with me. I'm not in the mood for this crap. You've not "pwned" anyone, I was absent because of my stupid band and practice and other life shit, and I get enough from people at school without you.


How are we certain that what one claims to see is not actually correct? Conversely, how are we certain that something is actually correct?

I never claimed God definitely existed, I'm not stupid. I'm saying "logic and reason" and the Bible point to it.

Let me turn this fucking table around: I say Marx didn't exist. Oh, sure, some guy wrote all that stuff about communism and called himself Karl Marx, but I say you prove to me that a man whose name was, in fact, Karl Marx, existed AND wrote the communist manifesto and such. While you're at it, prove to me your name is really yours. I don't care what your parents told you, for all you know, you were put up for adoption before you had a name and your parents never told you. Prove to me that your BIOLOGICAL parents gave you your name.

The point is, history can't be proven without the ability to time travel. When we have that ability, we will know the truth. By the way, that long rant was directly at my opposition in general, not KC or anyone.

Pastradamus brought up an interesting point. Why argue about religion? It's a good point. Here's why: Because I want to know, that when I am living in a communist society, I will still be able to go to church and worship peacefully. No one has the right to deicde that for me. All have the right to promote not going to church, but no one has the right to write it into law.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Don't start with me. I'm not in the mood for this crap. You've not "pwned" anyone, I was absent because of my stupid band and practice and other life shit, and I get enough from people at school without you.


It was a light-hearted comment.




Let me turn this fucking table around: I say Marx didn't exist. Oh, sure, some guy wrote all that stuff about communism and called himself Karl Marx, but I say you prove to me that a man whose name was, in fact, Karl Marx, existed AND wrote the communist manifesto and such.
Again with the Marx stuff!! :blink:

But I'll bite.

It's much easier to prove that Karl Marx existed because he had family members and people interacted with him and wrote about it... there are pictures of him and many many documents showing evidence that he lived. And they weren't written centuries after the fact


While you're at it, prove to me your name is really yours. I don't care what your parents told you, for all you know, you were put up for adoption before you had a name and your parents never told you. Prove to me that your BIOLOGICAL parents gave you your name.

Now this is just getting like... metaphysical and philosophical and ridiculous. DO I EXIST??? IS THIS ALL AN ILLUSION???


The point is, history can't be proven without the ability to time travel. When we have that ability, we will know the truth. By the way, that long rant was directly at my opposition in general, not KC or anyone.
History can be proven when you compare documents and various other anthropological/archaeological evidence; for example, letters written to/by Marx, pictures of Marx, people who are related to Marx, etc can all point to the answer: he existed. But not much (other than some frauds/hoaxes) has proven that things written in the Bible happened/certain people in the Bible existed.



Pastradamus brought up an interesting point. Why argue about religion? It's a good point. Here's why: Because I want to know, that when I am living in a communist society, I will still be able to go to church and worship peacefully. No one has the right to deicde that for me. All have the right to promote not going to church, but no one has the right to write it into law.

H&S forever,
-PC

You haven't told us why you believe a church is so important, as opposed to other forms of worship.

[PCommie]

It was a light-hearted comment.

Okay, I'm sorry for going off on you. It's just, when you go to my school, little stuff makes you insane. ;)


Again with the Marx stuff!!

I'm using him as an example person this time, not saying that you agree with him. ;)


Now this is just getting like... metaphysical and philosophical and ridiculous. DO I EXIST??? IS THIS ALL AN ILLUSION???

Incorrect. I am saying, prove your name, not your existance. ;)


History can be proven when you compare documents and various other anthropological/archaeological evidence; for example, letters written to/by Marx, pictures of Marx, people who are related to Marx, etc can all point to the answer: he existed

Prove it's not some wild scheme. The pictures could be of some random old geezer. Maybe communist ideology was created by some folks who were unhappy with the status quo; maybe they needed some "opium" ;).


But not much (other than some frauds/hoaxes) has proven that things written in the Bible happened/certain people in the Bible existed.

Not much has proven they don't. Ancient history is all based on people's journals and stuff, the only reason people choose not to believe in religion is because it places restrictions on what you can and cannot do. Face it, if we were all religious, and adhered to Biblical principles, it would be a better (morally) world.


You haven't told us why you believe a church is so important, as opposed to other forms of worship.

True, I haven't Here it is, then: The church provides a central means of organization for believers, it helps them to believe. People believe that a church wedding is appropriate. For some faiths, it is necessary (such as Catholicism, who believe that only ordained priests can forgive sins etc.) Maybe it is an opium, maybe it's not necessary, but we should have the right.

Now answer my quesiton, D500, why do the humble churches threaten you so?

H&S forever,
-PC

[Invincible Summer]

Incorrect. I am saying, prove your name, not your existance. ;)

Prove it's not some wild scheme. The pictures could be of some random old geezer. Maybe communist ideology was created by some folks who were unhappy with the status quo; maybe they needed some "opium" ;).

Regarding the picture/wild scheme thing: It's a circular argument that will go nowhere.

Regarding the communism created by random folks: That's fine, and actually some older civilizations/cultures practiced a primitive form of communism before Marx wrote his stuff.


Not much has proven they don't. Ancient history is all based on people's journals and stuff, the only reason people choose not to believe in religion is because it places restrictions on what you can and cannot do. Face it, if we were all religious, and adhered to Biblical principles, it would be a better (morally) world.

Or they could not believe in religion because the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient force watching us is bizarre and not rational.

So you're saying that the world would be better morally only if we followed Biblical principles? How about Buddhist ones? Or Baha'i ones? And "better" is extremely subjective.

But yes, having a religion restricting what one does on an individual level, for sake of pleasing some invisible being isn't exactly a big selling point. People know that they'll be in deep shit if they go around cheating on their spouse - it's common sense and you don't need a book like the Bible to tell you that. But if people want to do that, they should be able to without the threat of "burning in hell" or whatever.



True, I haven't Here it is, then: The church provides a central means of organization for believers, it helps them to believe. People believe that a church wedding is appropriate. For some faiths, it is necessary (such as Catholicism, who believe that only ordained priests can forgive sins etc.) Maybe it is an opium, maybe it's not necessary, but we should have the right.

People can still go into church buildings and have weddings; I think some churches should be kept for historical/architectural reasons. They're definitely beautiful. But in terms of the priest thing... it's hard to say what will be. I think one could just get a guy that reads the exact same thing and suspend disbelief that the guy isn't actually an "ordained priest."


Now answer my quesiton, D500, why do the humble churches threaten you so?

I just don't think the institution of the church/temple/etc is necessary. Like I've said multiple times, if faith is a personal thing, then why can't people just have meetings with fellow Christians/Muslims/etc? I think religious folk focus too much on going to church/etc and being involved in church/etc that it doesn't meet their goal. What's more, the way the church/etc is set up, the priest/etc is giving sermons all the time and is therefore seen as the head of the church/etc.

Of course, there are going to be people who are more well-versed in things than others, but it becomes dangerous when they are looked up to as a leader - people will start talking about how "Pastor John helped me find God" or "Pastor John is so wise and spiritual! I wish I could be as connected to God as Pastor John!" and focus so much on the person and not their belief.

I know many people (including my parents who are devout Protestants) who don't feel very spiritually fulfilled by sitting and listening to some guy speak at the front of a room, but feel more connected when they sit down with fellow Christians and discuss the Bible - it reaffirms their faith.


That's my quick spiel.

[StalinFanboy]

Not much has proven they don't. Ancient history is all based on people's journals and stuff, the only reason people choose not to believe in religion is because it places restrictions on what you can and cannot do. Face it, if we were all religious, and adhered to Biblical principles, it would be a better (morally) world.

Lol ya. We would enslave our enemies, fuck our family members to carry on the family line, women would have zero power... shall I go on?

[Poison]

Again, I don't understand why a so-called 'pure communist' would want to change Marxist theory.

Since when was Marx the sole authority on communism? He was just one of us, with some very intelligent theories. That's all.

[Poison]

Face it, if we were all religious, and adhered to Biblical principles, it would be a better (morally) world.

...Have you actually read the bible?

[Invincible Summer]

...Have you actually read the bible?

Stoning women who are rumored to be prostitutes is the proletarian way! :blink:

[pastradamus]

Pastradamus brought up an interesting point. Why argue about religion? It's a good point. Here's why: Because I want to know, that when I am living in a communist society, I will still be able to go to church and worship peacefully. No one has the right to deicde that for me. All have the right to promote not going to church, but no one has the right to write it into law.

H&S forever,
-PC

Though I am personally against organized religion it should be mentioned that some people - Including leftists see a want and a need in it. I believe that under many conditions people should have a place to worship and a place to gather. Imposing an anti-organized religion policy in a leftist state only serves to bring religion back into scope and can prove divisive in the working class. Religion, organized or not should never be allowed to divide workers. If leftism has to live with it, then so be it. Banning organized religion operates as a tool which can make the working class implode in on itself and should not be given the platform through persecution of its systems or beliefs(within reason).

[Invincible Summer]

http://www.atlah.org/

This is the kind of church that is especially abhorrent to me... there's a certain cult-like praise of the pastor and his wife (they refer to the pastor as the "dynamic Honorable James David Manning PhD" and his wife is "the wonderful Elizabeth" who has a "Master of Divinity Degree" from the seminary that they founded...) and they have their own high school (http://atlah.org/schools/ahs.html) , elementary school (http://atlah.org/schools/gtes.html) and middle school (http://atlah.org/schools/gtems.html). What the fuck? The curriculum is as follows:




http://atlah.org/images/misc/li.gif Monday: Write the Dictionary Day.
http://atlah.org/images/misc/li.gif Tuesday: Remember the Dictionary Day.
http://atlah.org/images/misc/li.gif Wednesday: Learn the Hymns Day.
http://atlah.org/images/misc/li.gif Thursday: World Knowledge Day.
http://atlah.org/images/misc/li.gif Friday: World Events Day.

What kind of bollocks is this?