FAO Conservatives - is God a socialist? [Archive]

Kronos

16th May 2009, 18:30

God helps those who help themselves.

....Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e., nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together. Consider, I pray you, the result: among the many helps of nature they were bound to find some hindrances, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases, etc.: so they declared that such things happen, because the gods are angry at some wrong done them by men, or at some fault committed in their worship. Experience day by day protested and showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant, and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an axiom, that God's judgments far transcend human understanding.

- Spinoza The Ethics

You see here how well those, like TomK, who experience good fortune desire to attribute such fortune to a God. But when those who try so hard to "help themselves", and are struck my great misfortune, people like Tomk explain this away with reasoning such as "well God works in mysterious ways."

If this were actually true (and it isn't because God does not exist), then it would be impossible to distinguish between divine acts of reward and punishment, since in conceding that "god works in mysterious ways", one also concedes that they therefore cannot know what human acts are "good" or "bad", and what is good fortune or bad fortune, because they define those things as things they know for certain through God's existence and commandment.

....and yet he is "mysterious".

When things work out for a man, he calls it "God given reward". When they don't, he calls it "the mysterious work of God".

After men persuaded themselves, that everything which is created is created for their sake, they were bound to consider as the chief quality in everything that which is most useful to themselves, and to account those things the best of all which have the most beneficial effect on mankind. Further, they were bound to form abstract notions for the explanation of the nature of things, such as goodness, badness, order, confusion, warmth, cold, beauty, deformity, and so on; and from the belief that they are free agents arose the further notions praise and blame, sin and merit. - Spinoza

Bud Struggle

16th May 2009, 18:37

Kronos, I must admit to the embarassment that for a Communist (CPUSA) I do rather well financially. I've worked hard a bit, but mostly smart. But overall it was God's grace that gave me the opportunities and God's grace that gave me the drive to succeed.

I know my weaknesses and my faults and I couldn't have succeeded without him. But really and truly the point is NOT financial success. Not in the least.

It's happiness. And that for me in my wife and children and my business and my health--is just a blessing from God. I'm happy--and that is all God promises or gives. The rest in the end is only chimera. You and Spinoza miss the mark about what life is all about completely.

With warmest regards,

Tom

rednordman

16th May 2009, 18:44

Ha ha, this figures, because if god is a socialist...than all capitalists are satan:lol:.

rednordman

16th May 2009, 18:45

God helps those who help themselves. :) Thus is very bad at doing his job properly.

Kronos

16th May 2009, 18:50

I don't doubt that you may have worked hard at some point in your life. But the moment you begin employing wage workers, your profit is no longer merited, and although you may continue laboring yourself (as petite bourgeois), you are categorically different than the proletariat.

But overall it was God's grace that gave me the opportunities and God's grace that gave me the drive to succeed.

No, it was the market that gave you the opportunities and your belief in God (as a Pascal's wager) that drove you to succeed.

I know my weaknesses and my faults and I couldn't have succeeded without him.

No, you couldn't have succeeded without the working classes you exploit.

You are thanking the proletariat for your success, not God, because God does not exist. The difference is, you are not afraid of the working class, so your thanks is a mockery....while you are afraid of God...in which case you are thankful to avoid being forsaken.

The mind of a religious person wavers between clumsy ignorant musing and opportunistic manipulation and deceit.

The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.- Nietzsche

Bud Struggle

16th May 2009, 18:51

Thus is very bad at doing his job properly.

No. Read my response to Krony. God does not have a million dollars. Praying to him for that is pointless. He doesn't have a supply house of new sweaters--so why bother? He has one thing---love. That's all he has and all he gives and if you tap into that--you can have an excellent and happy and loving and meaningful life.

Nothing else matters.

Bud Struggle

16th May 2009, 18:54

No, you couldn't have succeeded without the working classes you exploit.

I WAS working class--but at one point I decided it wasn't advantageous to remain so, so I converted. In America anyone could do the same. The choice is yours. But you missed the entire point of the post you quoted.

Money, from a Capitalist or a Communist point of view is meaningless. It's only joy, only joy that makes life meaningful--and God gives that in abundance. All you need to do is ask.

This should be moved to Religion------------------;)

Kronos

16th May 2009, 18:56

You and Spinoza miss the mark about what life is all about completely.

On the contrary, if you would have avoided the church and whatever minimal theological education you may have received, and instead read Spinoza, you would be as sharp as a razor.

The past is done though, Tommy. You cannot unlearn the nonsense floating around in your head.

Il Medico

16th May 2009, 18:57

I am assuming that the conservative from OP was a christian. I think that a good argument could be made for Jesus being a socialist (before socialist existed) if not necessarily God. Kind of funny how most of Christ's followers follow Adam Smith who said "Greed is Good", while they worship Jesus who said that "Greed is the root of all evil". I can only smile when I think if people like Jerry Farwell are right, they are all burning in hell!:lol:

Bud Struggle

16th May 2009, 19:17

On the contrary, if you would have avoided the church and whatever minimal theological education you may have received, and instead read Spinoza, you would be as sharp as a razor.

The past is done though, Tommy. You cannot unlearn the nonsense floating around in your head.

Now that you've become permanent resident of OI Kronos, I suggest you refrain from the personal invective and discuss the issues not the people involved. We can all bring our life issues to the discussion, but it's best if we don't bring in dismissive comments about other people.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

Kronos

16th May 2009, 20:12

Jack, you might like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcE2dq3YD0

Also check out two more songs called "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing" and "Heavenly Bank Account", on the album "You Are What You Is" by Frank Zappa.

I'd link you to the youtube videos but the live versions are bad quality. The studio stuff is far better.

Lynx

16th May 2009, 21:37

You sound grateful, Tom. Maybe you're happy because you're grateful?

Bud Struggle

16th May 2009, 21:45

You sound grateful, Tom. Maybe you're happy because you're grateful?

Maybe. Not something I can easily explain. I'm not going to pretend I have some easy answer. But I trusted in God to give me a good life. And this is what he gave me. I showed up a bit, and did OK financially but that is not in the least what has been important in my life. Ever. God gave me my wife and my kids--and they brought me happiness, that and my faith in God and the Catholic Church.

Money is nice, but it's really nothing important.

rednordman

17th May 2009, 17:03

No. Read my response to Krony. God does not have a million dollars. Praying to him for that is pointless. He doesn't have a supply house of new sweaters--so why bother? He has one thing---love. That's all he has and all he gives and if you tap into that--you can have an excellent and happy and loving and meaningful life.

Nothing else matters.Though I can agree with you on that, what about the many many people who simply want more money so they can think they are better than the person next to them? To alot of people, money is all that matters, getting them away from that line of thought is a leap of faith on its own merit. But that contradicts the whole ideology of capitalism. I do wonder why the republican christian rightwing, live their lives as if god is for capitalism and against anything else?

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

17th May 2009, 17:19

Belief in an Abrahamic god and unrelenting greed should, hypothetically, be contradictory, but you're forgetting something that pervades all rigid, institutionalized religions: "hypocrisy."

Bud Struggle

17th May 2009, 19:31

Though I can agree with you on that, what about the many many people who simply want more money so they can think they are better than the person next to them? To alot of people, money is all that matters, getting them away from that line of thought is a leap of faith on its own merit. But that contradicts the whole ideology of capitalism. I do wonder why the republican christian rightwing, live their lives as if god is for capitalism and against anything else?

But the thing is people that go after money so that they can lord over people or feel like they are better than the next person have demons in their life that have nothing to do with "money." Just like people that have to have sex with everyone they can conquor. It's not about the money or the sex--it's about a sense of personal inadequatecy that is making them constantly unhappy.

As to God's economic philosophy--As a Catholic, I really don't think he cares in the least about any particular system. Christianity is about what you are not what you have. There are plenty of verses in the New Testament that explain that point over and over again. The Christian rightwing (IMHO) have co-opted God and the Bible for their own purposes--a long time honored tradition in Christianity. It's wrong--but it's been done since the beginning.

Jesus drove the money changer from the Temple but the Christian Right want to make him the head cashier of the Temple.

rednordman

18th May 2009, 00:21

Jesus drove the money changer from the Temple but the Christian Right want to make him the head cashier of the Temple.Thanks for the reply. Yep that line from the bible has baffled me because it imo showed that Jesus was against capitalism. It reminds me of an ironic episode of the simpsons where liza protest because the church is taken over by mr burns and to make profit from it they allow gambling on the premises. Low and behold it becomes very tacky very quick. Thinking of it, its a good episode.

Radical

18th May 2009, 00:28

The Christian God is a fascist.

Plagueround

18th May 2009, 01:17

"1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you."

James 5:1-6

RGacky3

18th May 2009, 11:16

Why does it matter? If your an atheist, you could care less whether the god you don't believe in is a socialist or not. If your a christian, it does'nt matter either because its your personal religion and really has nothing to do with social politics.

MikeSC

18th May 2009, 13:47

There are some (http://www.conservapedia.com/Bible_Retranslation_Project) conservatives who seem to think the Bible is a little too socialistic, and are re-writing it.

They say it's because language has changed and so on, which is fine. Except they're translating it from the English to Right-Wing English- none of them are actually proficient in Greek, changing things like "false idols" to "the media", "kill" to "murder", "rich" to "miserly" rather than actually translating anything.

It's quite a funny little website.

WhitemageofDOOM

18th May 2009, 14:10

Jesus was most definitely a lefty. Being rich was in and of itself a sin, since it meant insufficient charity. He spoke often against wealth and exploitative.
If anything greed is what jesus viewed as the second greatest sin.

Belief in an Abrahamic god and unrelenting greed should, hypothetically, be contradictory, but you're forgetting something that pervades all rigid, institutionalized religions: "hypocrisy."

Which he clearly viewed as the greatest sin.
If anything, jesus at least knew the kind of crap that would get thrown around in his name.

If your a christian, it does'nt matter either because its your personal religion and really has nothing to do with social politics.

Isn't that being a hypocrite? If you believe jesus is the lord and you should obey him. Not basis your politics on his teachings is fundamentally ignoring them.

RGacky3

18th May 2009, 14:15

Not basis your politics on his teachings is fundamentally ignoring them.

The whole point of christianity is about how YOU are going to be saved personally, and how god wants you to live your life and about his kingdom in heaven, it has nothing to do with how to organize society politically and economically.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

18th May 2009, 17:15

I enjoyed "Paradise Lost" immensely, but not for the reasons laid out by the author.

graffic

18th May 2009, 22:10

OP: Sounds like a typical brainwashed American Republican.

I don't like it when people talk about the"government" helping people out, or the "government" intervening in "our" affairs. The bigger the government the more WE are part of the system. WE can decide things and bring democracy to us. State ownership means WE OWN it.

The negative stereotype idea of the "government" doing this and doing that is typical right wing propaganda enjoyed by big business types because it essentially weakens trade unions and strengthens private profits.

Freedom of the market, or laissez-faire means to freedom to exploit and gain illegitimate power.

And with regards to Jesus, I suppose he was a socialist at heart. Although I've heard many stories of Jesus saying "all authority must be obeyed" but then he said "love your neighbor as yourself" among many other things.

At the end of the day Christianity teaches that eternity in heaven awaits so money does not mean anything in this world. So why try and re-organise and re-distribute wealth when money and possessions are meaningless to yourself. Basically God will be the judge of the rich man so leave him alone... That's hardly socialist

Forward Union

22nd May 2009, 11:51

Kronos, I must admit to the embarassment that for a Communist (CPUSA) I do rather well financially. I've worked hard a bit, but mostly smart. But overall it was God's grace that gave me the opportunities

So you believe God gave you opportunities. I must ask, with the goal of understanding what you're on about, how this manifests. Did he place Job ads in the paper? Did he control bosses minds so they would sack someone and hire you? If he has the power (and uses it) to provide some people with opportunities, does that mean the Invisible hand of the market only has limited influence over capitalist opportunities?

Also, in debate it is polite to reference the evidence. Particularly in regard to claims that a magical sky man provides job opportunities.

and God's grace that gave me the drive to succeed.

Not evolutionary imperative?

I'm happy--and that is all God promises or gives

Don't remember that bit in the bible. I remember the bit where he promised to burn people forever if they didn't worship him.

apathy maybe

22nd May 2009, 12:10

God helps those who help themselves. :)
But, God help those who are caught helping themselves. (I've only been caught helping myself once, and that was stupidity, haven't been caught since...)

Don't remember that bit in the bible. I remember the bit where he promised to burn people forever if they didn't worship him.
Probably Revelations. Quite a nasty bit of work. I suggest everyone read it, the "Christian God" is not a nice God. (TomK, have you read Revelations? Do you believe in it?)

Anyway, didn't someone once say something about a camel and a needle?

On that note, according to this website (http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html):

Many fundamentalists seek to explain away the obvious hostility to wealth in the saying attributed to Jesus, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Fundamentalists today constantly tell each other that the "eye of the needle" was a narrow gate into Jerusalem through which a camel could just barely squeeze, implying that even rich people can get into Heaven, provided that they walk a straight and narrow path.
Except, if you aren't taking that literally, then why take any of the bible literally?
More commentary: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/43.htm

Oh, and didn't God say something about selling all your goods, giving them to the Church and living in poverty?

Bud Struggle

22nd May 2009, 12:54

Probably Revelations. Quite a nasty bit of work. I suggest everyone read it, the "Christian God" is not a nice God. (TomK, have you read Revelations? Do you believe in it?)

Yes AM, I have and I do. But as I've said before I'm a Catholic so I don't believe all theat stuff literally. It's something of a metaphor. But over all there are three ways you can take that book.

1. It's about things that happened in the first 100 years of Christianity. While the "message" appiles to the present time the events depected in the book are long over and done with.

2. It is about the future. There's going to be wars and all kinds of nasty stuff before Jesus comes back to earth. This is the Fundamentalist take, and the one you here all over the TV and radio--but it's not something that I take very seriously.

3. The book is strung out over the entirity of history taking little bits here and there for meaning (Hitler was the Antichrist, etc.) In reality it's a kind of washed down version of #2.

I personally am a proponent of #1 way of looking at the book.

S.O.I

25th May 2009, 04:56

Il Medico

25th May 2009, 05:14

Kronos

25th May 2009, 13:05

[ laughing ]

"Would he really choose Tammy to do his work?"

One thing I am suspicious of is the fact that the majority of people who are religious are not that bright. Now even if I gave God the benefit of the doubt and believed he existed, I'm still torn by the fact that his people are dip-shits. I wonder why this is so (actually I don't wonder why...I know why...but for the sake of the thought experiment here...). Seems to me that God would want to impress the smart ones.....and one doesn't do that by letting the idiots carry his banner.

God has to be sitting up there right now thinking to himself "oh shit....I'm getting terrible reviews down there!"

Kronos

25th May 2009, 13:11

I personally am a proponent of #1 way of looking at the book.

But see you don't get to do it that way. You cannot "pick and choose" what you think is legitimate in the bible. Either the whole thing is right, or the whole thing is a farce. Why would God let a book be written about him where only 27.653% is true?

Again your reasoning is based entirely from consequences....not rational thinking. You think to yourself "I don't know what God was doing when he had that strange book written....but I better not think critically about it because that might land me in hell".

Seriously man, is it not obvious that the text is nonsense? How many different interpretations CAN THERE BE of ONE TEXT?

Which interpretation is the right one? How would you know anyway?

Wake up , dude!

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 14:33

But see you don't get to do it that way. You cannot "pick and choose" what you think is legitimate in the bible. Either the whole thing is right, or the whole thing is a farce. Why would God let a book be written about him where only 27.653% is true?It's not true of false--it's interpretation. Just like your pal Nietzche--a well know precurser of Natiional Socialism and a big favorite of Nazis of all sort. His writing were a great inspiration to Himmler and the like. Do you take Fritz for a Nazi? Are you a Nazi because you are a devote?

Again your reasoning is based entirely from consequences....not rational thinking. You think to yourself "I don't know what God was doing when he had that strange book written....but I better not think critically about it because that might land me in hell". I'm not a worrier about hell, but if there wasn't a God--it would be pretty obvious that I am quite better than most people. I for the most part am a lot more successful--and I guess that means I'm smarter and a more worthwhile person. I'm really good at aquiring happiness AND money. But I know my abilities--and I know what is a gift and what isn't. [Edit] this is no defense of Christianity--just an ad hominem in response to your and hominem. ;)

Wake up , dude! That sounds like preaching! :D

communard resolution

25th May 2009, 15:53

trivas7

25th May 2009, 15:58

TomK, could you explain to me what the words "Jesus died for your sins" means? It's the most frequent phrase I hear Christian preachers proclaim on the street, but I never really understood it.

Religious nonsense is by definition meaningless, NTE.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 17:34

TomK, could you explain to me what the words "Jesus died for your sins" mean? It's the most frequent phrase I hear Christian preachers exclaim on the street, but I never really understood it.

I can think of several possibilites:

1) Jesus died on the cross for all the sins committed in the past, present, and future, so that we could all go unpunished for our sins.
Consequentially, we can now sin as much as we please and have no punishment to fear - Jesus has already been punished on our behalf.

2) Jesus only died for the sins already committed by that time. So, everybody's sin balance went back to zero, and everyone had the choice whether they wanted to continue sinning or live without sin. Those who were already dead by that time were at a distinct advantage because they had been absolved and weren't running danger of sinning again.

But the phrase "died for you" contradicts that because it addresses me personally.

3) Maybe he died for our collective 'original sin', which I believe involves Adam and Eve eating an apple they has been banned from eating. The apple was a 'forbidden fruit' from the 'tree of knowledge' (or similar). Metaphorically speaking, this may mean that humanity's original sin is sticking their noses in god's business and trying to find out his secrets.

Via Jesus's death, god absolved us all collectively from our sin of being hungry for knowledge - a sin we keep committing against god. Therefore, we have no punishment to expect for education, scientific achievement, human progress and the like, because we've already been forgiven for that. But for all the sins we commit against each other (murder, stealing, etc), we're still likely to expect nothing less than eternal damnation after we die.

4) The Catholic church, which you are a member of, has introduced the sacrament of confession. You report your sins to a priest who absolves you on god's behalf as long as you agree to say a few prayers. Does this mean that your sin balance goes back to zero every time you confess?

It strikes me as unfair: had Hitler, who never left the Catholic church, gone to confession just before his death, he would have gone sin-free. A muslim who lives in Teheran and has never been exposed to Catholicism in his life, on the other hand, will have to answer to god for much lesser crimes (perhaps he stole a Yusuf Islam CD from the local mom and pop store once).

Which one is it?

Edit - I don't intend to disrespect you or your beliefs, I just genuinely have no idea what that phrase is supposed to mean. And I have a feeling that the Christians who try to convert people in the street never really thought about it either.

Ok. I'm no theologian, so forgive me if I miss a point or two. Also, I'm speaking from a Catholic perspective--so my answer won't always agree with Fundamentalist or a Protestant view.

Essentially all people are flawed and sinners and becuse of these flaws are deserving of etermal damnation. There are two sources of sin, 1. original sin--we are born imperfect from the sin of Adam and Eve and 2. our own failings.

Jesus payed the penalty for all these sins (past and future) by his death. So what Jesus did was "justify" us before God--so we can stand before him as blameless. He died so each person--by his belief--could claim to be sinless. The problem is that even though Jesus made us justified, we still sin and that must be reconciled--for for that there's Confession. Confession sanctifies us. We specificly name the sins we commit and resolve to not commit them again and are forgiven by Jesus for them.

Your point about Hitler is dead on, though if he confessed his sins and truly was sorry for killing all those millions of people and all of that--he would have been forgiven. It would have to have been quite a change of Heart for Hitler to do that. I'm not saying it's impossible--but I just can't imagine him doing it.

Dr Mindbender

25th May 2009, 17:55

God helps those who help themselves. :)

...So if i break into your house and help myself, will God help me? :)

Lynx

25th May 2009, 18:10

Can God tell if you're sincere?

Kronos

25th May 2009, 18:12

Just like your pal Nietzche--a well know precurser of Natiional Socialism

If anything Nietzsche would be classified as an aristocratic fascist who condoned eugenics (careful, disciplined breeding)....but certainly not a "socialist" or a patriot to the Germany of his day.

His association with National Socialism was a result of his "Nachlass" published posthumously by his sister, an anti-semite, as "The Will to Power".

So in fact, no, this isn't a result of interpretation, but rather believing a blatant forgery of ideas.

Il Medico

25th May 2009, 18:30

Can God tell if you're sincere?
I would imagine so, he is supposed to be omniscient. From my understanding of Catholicism, people can't just pretend to be sorry during confession, it does count if they are insincere.

Kronos

25th May 2009, 18:34

Essentially all people are flawed and sinners and becuse of these flaws are deserving of etermal damnation. There are two sources of sin, 1. original sin--we are born imperfect from the sin of Adam and Eve and 2. our own failings.

Jesus payed the penalty for all these sins (past and future) by his death. So what Jesus did was "justify" us before God--so we can stand before him as blameless. He died so each person--by his belief--could claim to be sinless. The problem is that even though Jesus made us justified, we still sin and that must be reconciled--for for that there's Confession. Confession sanctifies us. We specificly name the sins we commit and resolve to not commit them again and are forgiven by Jesus for them.

The priestly type (the decadent) must first make the strong feel guilty so that they can make the strong dependent on them to be "forgiven". The formula for this initial Christian stimulus is one of the most cunning, most poisonous psychological attacks on the strong ever conceived of in history. Born out of resentment from one's own weakness, the priest inverted the truth of the world so that he might not perish- he made the "good", which was originally an evaluation made by those of refined power and tastes, into a "bad", which was originally to mean "weakness"....those who did not have power. The concepts of "sin", "freewill" and "redemption" are the catalysts for this abomination. Religion has waged war on life itself and has corrupted and slandered every truth about this world. But why? The strong never feared or resented this world, even in its most horrible and brutal nature. It is those who are weak that resent this world....that want another world to redeem this one. Man suffered....and did not want to suffer in vain- therefore he invented the idea of heaven. But there is no heaven, so religious belief is the purest form of nihilism possible. It is a will to nothingness, to the extermination of life.

A few words from The Moustache:

The Christian concept of a god--the god as the patron of the sick, the god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit--is one of the most corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy! . . .

Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?

Kronos

25th May 2009, 18:39

Ah, this one is more concise and to the point (from Twilight of the Idols):

The error of free will. Today we no longer have any tolerance for the idea of "free will": we see it only too clearly for what it really is — the foulest of all theological fictions, intended to make mankind "responsible" in a religious sense — that is, dependent upon priests. Here I simply analyze the psychological assumptions behind any attempt at "making responsible."
Whenever responsibility is assigned, it is usually so that judgment and punishment may follow. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any acting-the-way-you-did is traced back to will, to motives, to responsible choices: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially to justify punishment through the pretext of assigning guilt. All primitive psychology, the psychology of will, arises from the fact that its interpreters, the priests at the head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves the right to punish — or wanted to create this right for their God. Men were considered "free" only so that they might be considered guilty — could be judged and punished: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental psychological deception was made the principle of psychology itself).
Today, we immoralists have embarked on a counter movement and are trying with all our strength to take the concepts of guilt and punishment out of the world — to cleanse psychology, history, nature, and social institutions and sanctions of these ideas. And there is in our eyes no more radical opposition than that of the theologians, who continue to infect the innocence of becoming by means of the concepts of a "moral world-order," "guilt," and "punishment." Christianity is religion for the executioner.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 18:40

His association with National Socialism was a result of his "Nachlass" published posthumously by his sister, an anti-semite, as "The Will to Power".

So in fact, no, this isn't a result of interpretation, but rather believing a blatant forgery of ideas.

Not so fast! Heidegger (who was well known to look quite dapper in a black uniform himself) considered his Nachlass as being the TRUE Nietzche. You may very well be the one misinterpreting your friend.

Il Medico

25th May 2009, 18:46

But see you don't get to do it that way. You cannot "pick and choose" what you think is legitimate in the bible. Either the whole thing is right, or the whole thing is a farce. Why would God let a book be written about him where only 27.653% is true?
Why would god allow war and genocide? He wouldn't, however, I think God probably has no power over human action because we have freedom of choice. To make us do something would counter act that and by contradicting God, destroy all of creation. That is if I remember my theology correctly.

Again your reasoning is based entirely from consequences....not rational thinking. You think to yourself "I don't know what God was doing when he had that strange book written....but I better not think critically about it because that might land me in hell".
People think critically about it all the time, there is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to it, it is called theology. Plus, to look at the Bible as a literal piece is foolish to the extreme, the stories in the Bible are mostly moral tales and idealized Hebrew history.

Seriously man, is it not obvious that the text is nonsense? How many different interpretations CAN THERE BE of ONE TEXT?
People interpenetrate text in a myriad of fashions, not just the bible. Hell in Junior year I got into a argument with my teacher over the underlying points in The Old Man and the Sea.

Which interpretation is the right one? How would you know anyway? there probably isn't one. If you believe, then you pick the one that most appeals to you personally. I doubt that if there is a God that an religion (with the exception of Scientology because that is just plain made up with no real historical basis) is false. The different religions probably just see different sides of God. None complete and none wrong.

Kronos

25th May 2009, 18:49

Let me get this straight. You're telling me the Rector (a washed up Charlie Chaplin look-alike disciple of Husserl the phenomenologist) provides the correct interpretation on Nietzsche's work, and that Nietzsche was either lying....or accidentally meant what he said?

Tom, Tom, Tom. What am I going to do with you? Listen man, if you want to know how and why the Nazi ideology came about, ask me.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 18:55

The priestly type (the decadent) must first make the strong feel guilty so that they can make the strong dependent on them to be "forgiven". The formula for this initial Christian stimulus is one of the most cunning, most poisonous psychological attacks on the strong ever conceived of in history. Born out of resentment from one's own weakness, the priest inverted the truth of the world so that he might not perish- he made the "good", which was originally an evaluation made by those of refined power and tastes, into a "bad", which was originally to mean "weakness"....those who did not have power. The concepts of "sin", "freewill" and "redemption" are the catalysts for this abomination. Religion has waged war on life itself and has corrupted and slandered every truth about this world. But why? The strong never feared or resented this world, even in its most horrible and brutal nature. It is those who are weak that resent this world....that want another world to redeem this one. Man suffered....and did not want to suffer in vain- therefore he invented the idea of heaven. But there is no heaven, so religious belief is the purest form of nihilism possible. It is a will to nothingness, to the extermination of life.

Interesting thing is--I am the "strong". I have no problem in taking Capitalism or Communism or whatever political philosophy that comes along and climbing to the top of it. I know the world is horrible and brutal and I accept that for the world, but not myself. As a Christian I am "other" than the world. It's the "weak" that favor the idea of the world becoming a place of brotherhood and kindness. I suffer from no such illusions.

That's why I'm not a Communist.

Anyway, here's this from the Epistle to Diognetus to explain the Christian position.
:

CHAPTER 5
5:1 For Christians are not distinguished from the
rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in
customs.
5:2 For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their
own, neither do they use some different language, nor
practise an extraordinary kind of life.
5:3 Nor again do they possess any invention
discovered by any intelligence or study of ingenious
men, nor are they masters of any human dogma as some
are.
5:4 But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and
barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the
native customs in dress and food and the other
arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their
own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous,
and confessedly contradicts expectation.
5:5 They dwell in their own countries, but only as
sojourners; they bear their share in all things as
citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers.
Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and
every fatherland is foreign.
5:6 They marry like all other men and they beget
children; but they do not cast away their offspring.
5:7 They have their meals in common, but not their
wives.
5:8 They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they
live not after the flesh.
5:9 Their existence is on earth, but their
citizenship is in heaven.
5:10 They obey the established laws, and they
surpass the laws in their own lives.
5:11 They love all men, and they are persecuted by
all.
5:12 They are ignored, and yet they are condemned.
They are put to death, and yet they are endued with
life.
5:13 They are in beggary, and yet they make many
rich. They are in want of all things, and yet they
abound in all things.
5:14 They are dishonoured, and yet they are
glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of,
and yet they are vindicated.
5:15 They are reviled, and they bless; they are
insulted, and they respect.
5:16 Doing good they are punished as evil-doers;
being punished they rejoice, as if they were thereby
quickened by life.
5:17 War is waged against them as aliens by the
Jews, and persecution is carried on against them by
the Greeks, and yet those that hate them cannot tell
the reason of their hostility.

Kronos

25th May 2009, 18:57

I think God probably has no power over human action because we have freedom of choice. To make us do something would counter act that and by contradicting God, destroy all of creation. That is if I remember my theology correctly.An ontological impossibility. My point is not that a human can either do something or not. My point is that God must already know what will happen...and in this sense, knowing is synonymous to deciding, in God's case. If something can happen in the universe that God cannot foresee in advance, then God either a) created laws which he does not understand prior to creating them, or b) created laws which he does understand, and therefore created a teleological fatalism at the same time, since whatever happens is a result of the laws which he created while understanding precisely how they would work, causally- but- somehow suffered from self induced amnesia.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 19:02

Plagueround

25th May 2009, 19:03

Interesting thing is--I am the "strong". I have no problem in taking Capitalism or Communism or whatever political philosophy that comes along and climbing to the top of it. I know the world is horrible and brutal and I accept that for the world, but not myself. As a Christian I am "other" than the world. It's the "weak" that favor the idea of the world becoming a place of brotherhood and kindness. I suffer from no such illusions.

That's why I'm not a Communist.

Anyway, here's this from the Epistle to Diognetus to explain the Christian position.
:

Interesting. Are you still a Catholic? I seem to recall catholics being very much into the brotherhood and kindness bit and the Protestants being the "fuck everyone else, I believe in god" types.

Kronos

25th May 2009, 19:05

Interesting thing is--I am the "strong". I have no problem in taking Capitalism or Communism or whatever political philosophy that comes along and climbing to the top of it. I know the world is horrible and brutal and I accept that for the world, but not myself. As a Christian I am "other" than the world. It's the "weak" that favor the idea of the world becoming a place of brotherhood and kindness. I suffer from no such illusions.

Excellent! Finally, an honest capitalist (albeit still confused).

If this is your contention, why and how do you have "morals"?

Kronos

25th May 2009, 19:12

Tom, what the fuck are you doing reading Heidegger, anyway? He is wayyyyyy out of your league. You need to be reading Atlas Shrugged or something.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 19:22

Tom, what the fuck are you doing reading Heidegger, anyway? He is wayyyyyy out of your league. You need to be reading Atlas Shrugged or something.

I don't own any Rand--I do own Being and Time and What is Metaphysics. :)

Excellent! Finally, an honest capitalist (albeit still confused).

If this is your contention, why and how do you have "morals"? I have morals because I'm a Christian. It's received information. Ten Commandments and all of that. I then choose to obey those Commandments--out of obedience for God and out of love for my fellow man. It doesn't stop me from being one of the "strong" (your term) but it tempers the way I am strong.

And Plague--Yup--I'm still a Catholic.

Il Medico

25th May 2009, 19:34

. It's the "weak" that favor the idea of the world becoming a place of brotherhood and kindness. I suffer from no such illusions.

You do not have to be weak to want a better world, however, you have to be strong to fight for one. That is why communism will eventually triumph and capitalism will fall. It is the truly weak who see the world and say "Oh well I'll just live with it". And Tom K if you are a capitalist, then you are a christian in name only.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 19:53

You do not have to be weak to want a better world, however, you have to be strong to fight for one. I'm talking in Kronos' terms--strictly. I don't mean to imply that Communists or anyone else that wants a better world is weak.

It is the truly weak who see the world and say "Oh well I'll just live with it". My point is (in Kronos' terms again) I don't want to live in the world, but since I'm here, I will make it so that I can rule it.

And Tom K if you are a capitalist, then you are a christian in name only.

http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/philosophy/denominations/catholic/history/pius12.htm

Pope Pius XII was an outspoken critic of Communism throughout his tenure. In July 1949, he formally excommunicated all members of the Communist party and anyone who aided or abetted it. He furthermore declared that it was not permissable for any Catholic to publish, distribute or read books, periodicals, paper or pamphlets preaching the doctrine of Communism, or to write in them, and that those who did so faced excommunication.

Il Medico

25th May 2009, 22:20

Pope Pius XII was an outspoken critic of Communism throughout his tenure. In July 1949, he formally excommunicated all members of the Communist party and anyone who aided or abetted it. He furthermore declared that it was not permissable for any Catholic to publish, distribute or read books, periodicals, paper or pamphlets preaching the doctrine of Communism, or to write in them, and that those who did so faced excommunication.
You mean the same Pope that did nothing to help the Jews in WWII? And was happy having tea with Nazis and fascist? Wouldn't speak out even when Nazi atrocities were at his door step? Wow, that guy was a great christian!:rolleyes: He is an embarrassment to Catholicism, he should be excommunicated!

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 22:31

You mean the same Pope that did nothing to help the Jews in WWII? And was happy having tea with Nazis and fascist? Wouldn't speak out even when Nazi atrocities were at his door step? Wow, that guy was a great christian!:rolleyes: He is an embarrassment to Catholicism, he should be excommunicated!

Well, things have calmed down a bit since then. As a matter of fact the Catholic church has a rather large Marxist segment called Liberation Theology that favors a way of looking at Christianity from a political viewpoint that favors the oppressed and the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

You have to remember that Fascism never tried to outlaw religion like Communism did.

Decolonize The Left

25th May 2009, 22:54

I have morals because I'm a Christian. It's received information. Ten Commandments and all of that. I then choose to obey those Commandments--out of obedience for God and out of love for my fellow man. It doesn't stop me from being one of the "strong" (your term) but it tempers the way I am strong.

You don't choose to do anything of the sort. More from the moustache:

Is there anyone who would like to take a little look down on and under that secret how man fabricates an ideal on earth? Who has the courage for that? . . . Come on, now! Here’s an open glimpse into this dark workshop. Just wait a moment, my dear Mr. Nosy and Presumptuous: your eye must first get used to this artificial flickering light. . . . So, enough! Now speak! What’s going on down there? Speak up. Say what you see, man of the most dangerous curiosity—now I’m the one who’s listening.—
—”I see nothing, but I hear all the more. It is a careful, crafty, light rumour-mongering and whispering from every nook and cranny. It seems to me that people are lying; a sugary mildness clings to every sound. Weakness is going to be falsified into something of merit. There’s no doubt about it—things are just as you said they were.”
—Keep talking!
—”And powerlessness which does not retaliate is being falsified into ‘goodness,’ anxious baseness into ‘humility,’ submission before those one hates to ‘obedience’ (of course, obedience to the one who, they say, commands this submission—they call him God). The inoffensiveness of the weak man—cowardice itself, in which he is rich, his standing at the door, his inevitable need to wait around—here acquires a good name, like ‘patience,’ and is called virtue itself. That incapacity for revenge is called the lack of desire for revenge, perhaps even forgiveness (‘for they know not what they do—only we know what they do!’). And people are talking about ‘love for one’s enemies’—and sweating as they say it.”
—Keep talking!
—”They are miserable—there’s no doubt about that—all these rumour-mongers and counterfeiters in the corners, although crouched down beside each other in the warmth—but they are telling me that their misery is God’s choice, His sign. One beats the dog one loves the most. Perhaps this misery may be a preparation, a test, an education, perhaps it is even more—something that will one day be rewarded and paid out with huge interest in gold, no, in happiness. They call that ‘blessedness’.”
—Go on!
—”Now they are letting me know that they are not only better than the powerful, the masters of the earth, whose spit they have to lick (not out of fear, certainly not out of fear, but because God commands that they honour all those in authority)—they are not only better than these, but they also are ‘better off,’ or at any rate will one day have it better. But enough! Enough! I can’t take it any more. Bad air! Bad air! This workshop where man fabricates ideals—it seems to me it stinks of nothing but lies.”
—No! Just one minute more! So far you haven’t said anything about the masterpiece of these black magicians who make whiteness, milk, and innocence out of every blackness:—have you not noticed the perfection of their sophistication, their most daring, most refined, most spiritual, most fallacious artistic attempt? Pay attention! These cellar animals full of vengeance and hatred—what exactly are they making out of that vengeance and hatred? Have you ever heard these words? If you heard only their words, would you suspect that you were completely among men of ressentiment? . . .
—”I understand. Once again I’ll open my ears (oh! oh! oh! and hold my nose). Now I’m hearing for the first time what they’ve been saying so often: ‘We good men—we are the righteous’—what they demand they don’t call repayment but ‘the triumph of righteousness.’ What they hate is not their enemy. No! They hate ‘injustice,’ ‘godlessness.’ What they believe and hope is not a hope for revenge, the intoxication of sweet vengeance (something Homer has already called ‘sweeter than honey’), but the victory of God, the righteous God, over the godless. What remains for them to love on earth is not their brothers in hatred but their ‘brothers in love,’ as they say, all the good and righteous people on the earth.”
—And what do they call what serves them as a consolation for all the suffering of life—their phantasmagoria of future blessedness which they are expecting?
—”What’s that? Am I hearing correctly? They call that ‘the last judgment,’ the coming of their kingdom, the coming of ‘God’s kingdom’— but in the meanwhile they live ‘in faith,’ ‘in love,’ ‘in hope.’”
—Enough! Enough!

Emphasis added by,
- August

Il Medico

25th May 2009, 22:59

Well, things have calmed down a bit since then. As a matter of fact the Catholic church has a rather large Marxist segment called Liberation Theology that favors a way of looking at Christianity from a political viewpoint that favors the oppressed and the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

You have to remember that Fascism never tried to outlaw religion like Communism did.
The Soviet Union (who wasn't really communist to start with) only tried to outlaw religion because of the control of religion by the ruling class (as demonstrated by Hitler's Pope). I know of the branch that favors Marxist ideology in the Catholic church I am one of them. And you can quote any capitalist puppet Pope you want, you can get past this:
Adam Smith the philosophical founder of capitalism said "Greed is good"
Your supposed lord and savior said that "Greed is the root of all evil"

And considering your defense of capitalism, I would imagine your fairly well off. So here is some more words of wisdom from Jesus...
"It would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle then it would be for a rich man to get to heaven".

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 23:19

You don't choose to do anything of the sort. More from the moustache:
Emphasis added by,
- August

But the irony! I as a Capitalist am full of submission to God, but don't really submit to any other masters. In the materialist universe (which you seem to think is the ONLY universe) I am master of my fate and of my life. I've made my own way in life. I take (as a Capitalist) what I want and do what I want--my limitation are those imposed by God. Without those limitations I might not have any basis of morality and I might be rather unpleasent.

On the other hand Communists eschew the individual master of fate and seek the shelter of collectivization. They seem afraid of the darkness of men's hearts and rely on a universal brotherhood of unions and soviets.
Without a divine morality (i.e. all men are God's children) they seek equality--and the problem is there may be no such thing. Nietzsche leaves us with the problem of the Ubermensch that I can't see any way of getting around without God.

Decolonize The Left

25th May 2009, 23:27

But the irony! I as a Capitalist am full of submission to God, but don't really submit to any other masters. In the materialist universe (which you seem to think is the ONLY universe) I am master of my fate and of my life. I've made my own way in life. I take (as a Capitalist) what I want and do what I want--my limitation are those imposed by God. Without those limitations I might not have any basis of morality and I might be rather unpleasent.

"I am the master of my fate and of my life" is not only an absurd phrase, but it's also simply wrong. You control very little of your own life, your choices perhaps, but that's about it. The conditions of your birth, your upbringing, socialization, education, indoctrination, conditioning, you controlled none of that. Your present conditions, you control little regarding these. It is merely an illusion that you are in control.

Your statement was absurd because "fate" is necessarily outside of your control.

On the other hand Communists eschew the individual master of fate and seek the shelter of collectivization. They seem afraid of the darkness of men's hearts and rely on a universal brotherhood of unions and soviets.

Nonsense. Communism and individualism are not mutually exclusive.

Without a divine morality (i.e. all men are God's children) they seek equality--and the problem is there may be no such thing. Nietzsche leaves us with the problem of the Ubermensch that I can't see any way of getting around without God.

I apologize for the patronizing tone, but you (as a Christian) would certainly not be expected to 'get around the problem.' The problem is precisely people like you.

- August

Bud Struggle

25th May 2009, 23:43

"I am the master of my fate and of my life" is not only an absurd phrase, but it's also simply wrong. You control very little of your own life, your choices perhaps, but that's about it. The conditions of your birth, your upbringing, socialization, education, indoctrination, conditioning, you controlled none of that. Your present conditions, you control little regarding these. It is merely an illusion that you are in control. Well in that way then NO ONE can ever be in control. Anyway I shouldn't have said "fate"--I was using it as a metaphor. But as a Capitalist and a business owner I control my economic life. I control when and how my life is spent, I can work or not work. in certain large aspects of my life I answer to no one. People answer to me. As to improtance--here in Commietown from what I've seen the only improtant thing isn't location of birth or education, etc. what's important revolves around one's economic status--either proletarian or bourgeoise, worker or owner and in that regard I am in control.

Your statement was absurd because "fate" is necessarily outside of your control. Actually as I said I shouldn't have used the word--there really is no such thing.

Nonsense. Communism and individualism are not mutually exclusive. Communism and economic and political individualism certainly exclude each other.

I apologize for the patronizing tone, but you (as a Christian) would certainly not be expected to 'get around the problem.' The problem is precisely people like you.

- August Or rather the problem is people getting getting in my way. It all depends on how you look at the question. Some people would wish to do as they please and it's the collectivized men that seek to stop him all huddled together in unions and governments. And the thing about God is that he is a limitation I place on myself--not something from the outside. For me to be a Christian is MY choice.

Il Medico

26th May 2009, 00:11

in certain large aspects of my life I answer to no one. People amswer to me.
One you should down load firefox, it has spell check. Two, am I to take this as you admitting to taking freedom from others and thus willing oppression of the working class? Also, as a have I suggest that you enjoy your spoils while you can, your God has condemned you.

Bud Struggle

26th May 2009, 00:24

One you should down load firefox, it has spell check. Two, am I to take this as you admitting to taking freedom from others and thus willing oppression of the working class? Also, as a have I suggest that you enjoy your spoils while you can, your God has condemned you.

Technically I own a factory (and employ people) and own a good bit of rental real estate. But don't miss the point that I'm arguing with Kronos and August. I don't mean to say that I am the grandiose "I" that I and talking about here--I'm trying to argue in terms of Nietzche's idea of what constitutes a free man and what constitutes idealogical slavery. I'm not discussion the real "me" at all.

If that makes any sense.

And yea, I'm kind of typing in a hurry--we're cooking a pizza in the kitchen and I have to run in there and check on the crust ever three seconds. Sorry about the spelling errors.

Il Medico

26th May 2009, 00:33

It thin you should read this Tom K. It may convince you of the error of your capitalist ways.

The "Religious Right" (Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, etc.) gets so much media attention for its conservative political activism that a casual observer would think conservative Christianity somehow equates to conservative politics. This is not the case. In fact many people with left-leaning political views find a solid basis for their positions in the Bible. There are many sides to this topic, but we will limit our focus to attitudes toward the rich and the poor.
America is as much an economic phenomenon as it is a nation. It is built on a system whose driving force is the profit motive. Our economy blatantly rewards greed. In classic economic theory greed is good. A person who is motivated by greed will create, as unintended byproducts, benefits for everyone, such as employment and the development of new goods and services. Let the rich get richer, the saying goes, and the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us. "A rising tide raises all boats." Under a pure capitalistic system the government keeps hands off and allows the market to decide how the money flows. The problem is, as we have found in this era of deregulation, the money flows to the top. [The original article contained a variant on the graph shown on the L-Curve web site (http://www.lcurve.org/).] Tampering with the market system to redistribute the wealth or assure that the poor are protected is labeled "socialism."
By these standards Jesus was a socialist.
Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," (Luke's version). To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. In the parable of the last judgement he welcomes the righteous into heaven saying, "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." When the righteous answered that they didn't recall doing any of these things, he said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."
We are to "forgive our debtors" and "give to every one who begs from you." But don't handouts contribute to moral decay? Jesus was more concerned about the moral decay in those who are so attached to their wealth that they would hoard it for themselves. In our better moments most of us recognize that giving does not corrupt. We sacrifice to give good things to our children and do our best to provide them with years of carefree existence as they grow up. We do this to give them a sense of security and a foundation for growth. People who have been devastated by misfortune, or for whatever reason are down and out, may need even more help because they may not have what it takes to recover on their own. Many of us will help a friend in hard times, even though we know we will never be repaid. It is when dealing distantly with people in the abstract that we fall back on the "moral decay" argument.
What's wrong with trickle-down economics? Every time I hear that phrase I think of the story Jesus told about a rich man and the beggar Lazarus "who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table." Needless to say, the story ends with Lazarus going to a better place than the rich man. Trickle down theory is about crumbs. Those who say we should settle for crumbs would make us a nation of beggars.
Greed may be a driving force for the economy, but Jesus saw it is as destructive to community. Greed may leave a few crumbs behind for the poor, and it may do some unintended good, but it destroys compassion. Compassion is in short supply in our society today where workers are being downsized in the name of efficiency, prisons are being expanded to insulate society from its underclasses, and the middle class is abandoned by the rich to fight it out with the poor for the table scraps.
Jesus' response to economic inequality is very direct: we are to share the wealth. I once heard a talk about world hunger. The point was that we produce far more food than is needed to feed everyone on earth. The problem is not lack of supply; it is maldistribution. Many people are simply too poor to buy the food they need. This talk gave me a new perspective on the story of the feeding of the 5000. Jesus was out in the desert followed by a huge crowd. The disciples were concerned that it was getting late in the day and they didn't have enough food to feed the crowd. My suspicion is that Jesus sensed there was plenty of food in the crowd, but whereas some had plenty, others had nothing. Sensing an opportunity to make a point, he instructed his disciples to take their five loaves and two fish and distribute them freely to the crowd. By the sheer audaciousness of this act he induced those with food to join him in giving it away. The result is everyone was fed that day with twelve baskets left over. If Jesus simply did a magic trick and made food appear, what's the point? Whoopee! He's divine. He's not like us. But if, by his act of giving away all he had in the face of the overwhelming crowd, he demonstrated the power of a sharing community, he achieved a real miracle! Sharing is a lesson we especially need to learn today.
Is concern for the poor to be simply a private matter to be handled by charity, or does it have anything to do with politics or government? The Bible calls upon the rulers to create a just society. In a democracy, we are the rulers. We have the power to make the rules. The actions of the nation are extensions of our own actions. By our active participation or passive consent we share responsibility for what our nation does in our name. We have inherited a system that works efficiently to produce tremendous wealth, but fails to distribute that wealth equitably. It neglects the poor and it corrupts the rich. On both counts it destroys community. A decent life for all is a matter of simple justice, not charity! There are remedies that will make the system work better in the interests of all the people, but it takes active political involvement to bring them about.
Is this "bleeding heart" liberalism? You bet it is! Jesus is the definitive bleeding heart, and he calls us to follow him.

Bud Struggle

26th May 2009, 01:26

Jack, being a Capitalist is just my day job till the revolution. Then I'll settle in to my real job as Chairman of the Vanguard.

Seriously, making money and greed are two different things. Sometimes one is just successful at what one does. I've alway sbought and sold real estate--bout and sold and then after 35 years you end up with some property. That's not greed that's just wise investment.

Big difference.

trivas7

26th May 2009, 03:39

Seriously, making money and greed are two different things. Sometimes one is just successful at what one does. I've alway sbought and sold real estate--bout and sold and then after 35 years you end up with some property. That's not greed that's just wise investment.

TomK, you confuse success w/ making money. You are successful at screwing your fellow man, congratulations.

graffic

26th May 2009, 11:17

That's what success is. In a game of tennis you have a loser and a winner. In a game of football (soccer in America) 11 players are winners and 11 players are losers.

Human beings are naturally competitive and egocentric, thats why communism will never work. If you disagree look at the track record so far. I think liberalism is the best ideology, no race, freedom of religion, eventually no borders and nation states but human beings comply within rules and success is rewarded + unfortunates are helped

RGacky3

26th May 2009, 11:33

I think liberalism is the best ideology, no race, freedom of religion, eventually no borders and nation states but human beings comply within rules and success is rewarded + unfortunates are helped

Libralism is'nt really a unified ideology, classical liberalism, social liberalism, neo-liberalism and so on and so forth. So I'm not sure what your refering too.

BTW, without nation states whos making the rules, and whos rewarding and he's helping?

That's what success is. In a game of tennis you have a loser and a winner. In a game of football (soccer in America) 11 players are winners and 11 players are losers.

First of all, life is'nt a "game", success is mainly an individual thing about what makes you happy. Also, to TomK, if you equate making money with success, then Jesus and all of his apostles were the biggest loosers around, they failed miserably.

Human beings are naturally competitive and egocentric, thats why communism will never work.

464 posts and your still giong to try this rediculous argument?

Bud Struggle

26th May 2009, 13:44

First of all, life is'nt a "game", success is mainly an individual thing about what makes you happy. Also, to TomK, if you equate making money with success, then Jesus and all of his apostles were the biggest loosers around, they failed miserably.

I don't believe I've ever said anything even remotely like that. Success is happiness. For me that's my family and contentedness in my life. Lack of money worries is nice, don't get me wrong about that, but it's incidental. As someone once said and I think it's true--it's just a way of keeping score in the competition of life.

I agree with graffic on that--the real fun in life is the competition.

RGacky3

26th May 2009, 13:51

the real fun in life is the competition.

And buy competition do you happen to mean the 5% of the world being Capitalists, playing economic chess with one another using the other 95% as their pieces? Because thats really what so called Capitalist "Competition" is.

World war I was probably a lor more "fun" for the general than it was for the trench soldiers.

Bud Struggle

26th May 2009, 14:33

And buy competition do you happen to mean the 5% of the world being Capitalists, playing economic chess with one another using the other 95% as their pieces? Because thats really what so called Capitalist "Competition" is.

World war I was probably a lor more "fun" for the general than it was for the trench soldiers.

You could also say that until you Commies get your acts together and do your Revolution we Capitalists (while imperfect) do pay wages and do keep people in plasma TVs and Tommy Hilfiger jeans for the time being.

Kronos

26th May 2009, 14:33

I do own Being and Time and What is Metaphysics.

Then I demand you buy Sartre's Being and Nothingess and Existentialism is a Humanism. Actually, here is the link to the last one (it is a very short essay).

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

B&N is a monster of a book, like Heidegger's B&T. Sartre's phenomenology is far more clear than Heidegger's, and Sartre steers clear of much of the metaphysical jargon that Heidegger relishes in. You will notice that they have many ideas in common, but you will see that Sartre's existentialism is more of a direct realism while Heidegger borders on Platonism.

When you get a good grasp on Sartre's ideas you might try out The Critique of Dialctical Reason. In this he reconciles his "ontology" with Marxism.

graffic

26th May 2009, 15:00

Libralism is'nt really a unified ideology, classical liberalism, social liberalism, neo-liberalism and so on and so forth. So I'm not sure what your refering too.

BTW, without nation states whos making the rules, and whos rewarding and he's helping?

Well you could have a proportionally representative government for each local area. Then separated powers at the top. Total transparency and freedom of information so that if anyone is caught bending the rules they are gone.

First of all, life is'nt a "game", success is mainly an individual thing about what makes you happy. Also, to TomK, if you equate making money with success, then Jesus and all of his apostles were the biggest loosers around, they failed miserably.

I'm not saying money defines success.

I think it's immature for communists to scorn at all business men and all authority as being corrupt. There are many perfectly decent business men who have worked hard and made a fortune from nothing. I don't judge anyone, race or creed, wealth or status. The whole judgmental thing that many communists have going on based on wealth and status is counter-productive I think.

464 posts and your still giong to try this rediculous argument?

Well prove it wrong then

Kronos

26th May 2009, 15:08

Whether you know it or not, Tom, you have beliefs very similar to Calvinism. Calvinism, as I see it, is a kind of reformed Christianity with a "sour grapes" attitude....a kind of "saving face" self-justification with a fatalist perspective on the universe.

You seem to use the idea of predestination to save you from the possibility of feeling guilty, as a capitalist, and from becoming perplexed by what you consider the intrinsically "unfair" nature of the universe.

To come to terms with these afflictions you might want to believe that on earth there must be failures, there must be those who will be exploited, and that this is ordained by God....part of the design of life. This way you don't have the question on your conscience; could it be that God exists and capitalism is not the political system he had in mind for earth....and that this is in fact a fall from grace?

Your belief system is composed of a three part tier, it seems. First, it is based on faith alone....no proof, no evidence. Second, it becomes reasonable faith in the sense that Pascal viewed it- belief in God, even if he doesn't exist, is still no loss. Finally, belief in a God that approves of the political atmosphere here on earth.

Then you summarize your morals to fit something extraordinarily simplistic- the ten commandments- which are as ambiguous as they are insipid. As if the entire world could be so easily run by referring to ten demands on a stone tablet.

Sociologists and ethical theorists have spent entire careers traversing through the dilemmas and quagmires present in most any moral principle or imperative.....and all they had to do was follow the ten commandments?

Tom, I want you to consider that maybe the ten commandments are not any substantial support for morals....and that maybe morals are far more difficult to understand than the religious want to believe.

RGacky3

26th May 2009, 15:17

There are many perfectly decent business men who have worked hard and made a fortune from nothing. I don't judge anyone, race or creed, wealth or status.

I don't judge business men either, I judge the system, there were plenty of kings and dictators who also worked hard to gain their power and wielded it fairly.

Well prove it wrong then

Ok, first of all there is no proof for that (humans being naturally selfish and ego-centric), infact proof goes the other way, seeing as we live in a system that encourages and rewards selfishness and egocentrism, and yet still many many people choose to forgo that for solidarity and altruism, and the fact that studies with children have shown otherwise.

Also considering your statement is true (which there is no proof of), how would that justify a system that allows those selfish and egocentric people power over others? The ability to exploit and oppress. Infact your statement being true is an argument AGAINST Capitalism, because if that is human nature we would want to give individual human the least amount of power over other humans, and money, resources and capital, IS power.

This has been gone over again and again, and that argument has NEVER stood its ground, yet you Capitalists keep bringing it up as if it were a new idea.

You could also say that until you Commies get your acts together and do your Revolution we Capitalists (while imperfect) do pay wages and do keep people in plasma TVs and Tommy Hilfiger jeans for the time being.

No you don't, you keep a VERY VERY small percent of the population in that situation in exchange for a unequal amount of work, the rest of the population you barely keep alive.

I'll say it again, Capitalism is global, and as such, must be judged globally.

You capitalists are not "imperfect" your doing what your supposed to do in a class system ... make profits, providing for society/workers has nothing to do with what your supposed to do.

And Kronos, for Gods sake, please give real concrete arguments instead of condesending philisophical masturbations. (PS: Still waiting for your "enlightenment" in the learning section)

Kronos

26th May 2009, 18:25

And Kronos, for Gods sake, please give real concrete arguments

Oh, sorry. I'll try something easier....more your speed.

Dear TomK,

I think that capitalism is bad and stuff and I think God doesn't exist and I think you shouldn't think God exists. I don't know why I have these opinions...nor would I TRY TO CRITICALLY ANALYZE IN A PHILOSOPHICAL MANNER these opinions I have. I give concrete arguments and honestly I don't even know how I do it......and stuff.

PS: Still waiting for your "enlightenment" in the learning section)

I will not caste pearls before swine. Go play in the road.

Il Medico

26th May 2009, 18:54

Human beings are naturally competitive and egocentric, that's why communism will never work. If you disagree look at the track record so far.
I find it hard to believe that you can criticize a philosophy that has faced nothing but resistance from the ruling class for not immediately establishing itself the way it is supposed to work. Especially when your own ascribed ideology has never been implemented correctly, despite the open embrace of the bourgeois. Try reading The Wealth of Nations and then argue capitalism to us. Adam Smith's idea of capitalism is far different (and completly absurd) then the one that rules the world with an iron fist today. Learn your own shit before you even attempt to critize ours.

Bud Struggle

26th May 2009, 22:18

Then I demand you buy Sartre's Being and Nothingess and Existentialism is a Humanism. Actually, here is the link to the last one (it is a very short essay).
I have and read the first but not the second.

B&N is a monster of a book, like Heidegger's B&T. Sartre's phenomenology is far more clear than Heidegger's, and Sartre steers clear of much of the metaphysical jargon that Heidegger relishes in. The problem there is that Heidigger is phenominologist and only by extension an Existentialist. His Existentialism comes as a product of philosophy not as an end.

You will notice that they have many ideas in common, but you will see that Sartre's existentialism is more of a direct realism while Heidegger borders on Platonism. Hiedigger is far from Platonism--as a matter of fact something much more prehistoric. He's a true Pre-Socratic. His Phenominology is elemental in its understanding of causation and reply.

When you get a good grasp on Sartre's ideas you might try out The Critique of Dialctical Reason. In this he reconciles his "ontology" with Marxism. Never read it. At this point I would say there is nothing ontological about Marxism, but I'm here for learning.

Thanks for talking and not preaching.

Bud Struggle

26th May 2009, 22:31

I don't judge business men either, I judge the system, there were plenty of kings and dictators who also worked hard to gain their power and wielded it fairly. And I judge Communism on Stalin and Honiker and Pol Pot. Makes sense, right?

No you don't, you keep a VERY VERY small percent of the population in that situation in exchange for a unequal amount of work, the rest of the population you barely keep alive.

I'll say it again, Capitalism is global, and as such, must be judged globally.
So was Communsim and it failed. Maybe Capitalism has failed, too. Hey, I may be much like the Paris Commune or Civil War Spain for Capitalism.

But I am here, where's the Commune?

nightazday

27th May 2009, 03:03

if god is a socialist than why are there deserts

RGacky3

27th May 2009, 08:28

And I judge Communism on Stalin and Honiker and Pol Pot. Makes sense, right?

Those guys had nothing to do with communism.

You missed my point, Capitalism can have good bosses and bad bosses phanthropic rich people and power hungry rich people, the point is, a system which allows that type of power, and infact encourages it, is a bad system.

So was Communsim and it failed. Maybe Capitalism has failed, too.

Communism was global??? When was that???

Hey, I may be much like the Paris Commune or Civil War Spain for Capitalism

No such thing, and a rediculous idea.

Bud Struggle

27th May 2009, 12:17

Those guys had nothing to do with communism. You should visit this site called "RevLeft" and see all of the Leninists and Maoists and Stalinists and Trotskyists and Hoxhaists.

You missed my point, Capitalism can have good bosses and bad bosses phanthropic rich people and power hungry rich people, the point is, a system which allows that type of power, and infact encourages it, is a bad system. You impose a double standard. For you Capitalism is every good boss or bad boss good country or bad country that exchanges money for services, but Communism is only this pure system that just about never happened. You discount all of the numerous "attempts" at Communism.

Capitalism is both a theory and a reality and Communism is both a theory and a reality. Neither are what their theory states when translated into real life.

Communism was global??? When was that??? At one time they about 1/3 of the world's population.

No such thing, and a rediculous idea.Exxon and the such in Capitalism are similar to Stalin and Kim and their ilk. "Nice" Capitalist are similar to The Paris Commune.

You should read Kronos's posts. He and Nietzsche make a very interesting point. All this Communism and Capitalism are only vehicles for people to live their lives in either an actualized or non actualized way. Stalin was no more a Communist than Rockefeller. Rockefeller was no more a Capitalist than Stalin. Both sought the will to power and both used the system at hand to achieve what they desired. Capitalism and Communism and Feudalism for that matter are nothing in themselves--they are just means to an end. And that end is power.

RGacky3

27th May 2009, 13:24

You discount all of the numerous "attempts" at Communism.

Those "attempts" did'nt have even the most basic aspects of communism in them, i.e. direct worker control and direct public control. So they arn't "attempts" really.

You impose a double standard. For you Capitalism is every good boss or bad boss good country or bad country that exchanges money for services

Both Bad Bosses and good bosses follow the same basic system, and come from the same Capitalist power structure. Capitalism is global so its not about good country and bad country they are all intertwined. The world right now, for the most part, is structured pretty much by the basic Capitalistic principles. The Leninist countries did'nt have basic communist principles, at all.

but Communism is only this pure system that just about never happened.

It has happened, and in different forms. Just because it was'nt huge does'nt discount it.

Communism was global??? When was that??? At one time they about 1/3 of the world's population.

1/3 of the worlds population lived in a free classless society without private property (state property is the same as private property, especially if the state is'nt democratic)?

Exxon and the such in Capitalism are similar to Stalin and Kim and their ilk. "Nice" Capitalist are similar to The Paris Commune.

No because Exxon and "Nice" Capitalists work in the same system, under the same principles. Stalin and Kim and the Paris Commune were 2 absolutely differnt systems running by differnt principles.

You should read Kronos's posts. He and Nietzsche make a very interesting point

I do, he's a condesending philisophical wanker, who fancies himself more "enlightened" than anyone else while at the same time not knowing what he's talking about, and replacing actual substantail reasoning with psudo-philisophical nonsense.

All this Communism and Capitalism are only vehicles for people to live their lives in either an actualized or non actualized way.

Thats bullshit, Capitalism is a form of institutionalized tyranny and Communism is as set of principles wanting to dismantel that tyranny. Thats like saying that Democracy and Dictoatorship are just 2 different ways of letting people live their lifes, its bullshit, they are 2 different forms of power structures one being tyrannical one being free.

Stalin was no more a Communist than Rockefeller. Rockefeller was no more a Capitalist than Stalin. Both sought the will to power and both used the system at hand to achieve what they desired.

Stalin did not use Communism, Rockefeller used Capitalism. There was Capitalism in the US at rockefellers time, there was no Communism in Russia in Stalins time (it had been killed of years before by Lenin).

Capitalism and Communism and Feudalism for that matter are nothing in themselves--they are just means to an end. And that end is power.

Your right, the difference is Capitalism concentrates power in the few, and Communism is an attempt at equalizing that power and eliminating it.