I’m a Christian. I’m a communist. Stone my ass

[spiltteeth]

Marxism is a type of scientific modality of interpreting social events, therefore it is outside the realm of individual beliefs. It can interpret forms of religious organizations and their power constructs, but not actual belief in God itself.

There are plenty of famous, respected, reputable scientists who are Christian and it does not affect their work.

Please don’t bring up contradictions in the bible. It is not science and never was meant to be interpreted as such. Here are two quotes from typical priests of the third largest Christian denomination, Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way.”

It’s like saying you can’t be commie and also like poetry because it is not correct to compare “thee to a summer breeze” because a woman is completely different the wind, you can’t screw the wind, its not corporal etc so poetry is false!

It confuses categories of knowledge. You can say “a flower is a plant” and this belongs to ‘positive knowledge’ since it is empirical. Another category of knowledge is to say “flowers are beautiful. It would be incorrect to come along and say, “We’ve dissected the flower and have found no ‘beauty cells’ or ‘beauty structures’, therefore flowers are not beautiful and furthermore beauty does not exist.”

And as Kwisatz Haderach points out “God cannot be a dictator, because - as you can see - he is not visibly present on Earth to dictate anything to anyone.”

Incidentally, I think the impulse toward God is the same toward science, poetry and art and Communism’s prominent atheist attitude is why there is such a poverty of creativity and art in communism compared to anarchism.

Convert me.

[Pogue]

Marxism is a type of scientific modality of interpreting social events, therefore it is outside the realm of individual beliefs. It can interpret forms of religious organizations and their power constructs, but not actual belief in God itself.

There are plenty of famous, respected, reputable scientists who are Christian and it does not affect their work.

Please don’t bring up contradictions in the bible. It is not science and never was meant to be interpreted as such. Here are two quotes from typical priests of the third largest Christian denomination, Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way.”

It’s like saying you can’t be commie and also like poetry because it is not correct to compare “thee to a summer breeze” because a woman is completely different the wind, you can’t screw the wind, its not corporal etc so poetry is false!

It confuses categories of knowledge. You can say “a flower is a plant” and this belongs to ‘positive knowledge’ since it is empirical. Another category of knowledge is to say “flowers are beautiful. It would be incorrect to come along and say, “We’ve dissected the flower and have found no ‘beauty cells’ or ‘beauty structures’, therefore flowers are not beautiful and furthermore beauty does not exist.”

And as Kwisatz Haderach points out “God cannot be a dictator, because - as you can see - he is not visibly present on Earth to dictate anything to anyone.”

Incidentally, I think the impulse toward God is the same toward science, poetry and art and Communism’s prominent atheist attitude is why there is such a poverty of creativity and art in communism compared to anarchism.

Convert me.

Why did God make cancer?

[Blake's Baby]

There's no way we can convert you. As William of Ockham said in the 14th century (or whenever it was) science and religion operate in two different realms of existence. Rationalism and revealed religion can never intersect.

Didn't bother him, he was quite happy to believe in God, while investigating the universe. Pissed of Thomas Aquinas or one of those other mystics though.

Anyway, God has no place in science, just as fact hs no place in religion. You can believe in invisible unicorns that sing you to sleep in your own cocoon of fairy-jelly if you want, we can't stop you.

Doesn't mean that your beliefs have anything more to go on than someone who believes in Superman or Gandalf though.

[spiltteeth]

Pouge -
We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.
When you get down to it, unlike new age bs, Christianity doesn’t provide many clear answers, rather it offers a way to approach suffering.
Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.
We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us-that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence.
I don’t believe in Christianity because it offers answers. In fact if it did, I’d probably think it was a bunch of made up crap with easy answers just to console people.

Blake's Baby -
I mean show me why I cannot be a communist and a christian, or why communists always preach atheism and try to convert others.

[Blake's Baby]

What are you talking about? There have been many christian communists, from Jesus onwards.

If you mean why can't you be a marxist and a christian, it's because the struggle for communism is meaningless if non-existant invisible magic-man can make it all better. Is that what you wanted?

[Pogue]

Pouge -
We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.
When you get down to it, unlike new age bs, Christianity doesn’t provide many clear answers, rather it offers a way to approach suffering.
Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.
We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us-that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence.
I don’t believe in Christianity because it offers answers. In fact if it did, I’d probably think it was a bunch of made up crap with easy answers just to console people.

Blake's Baby -
I mean show me why I cannot be a communist and a christian, or why communists always preach atheism and try to convert others.

How can God be all loving, all knowing and all powerful but also create cancer?

[spiltteeth]

Well, I am a Marxist and a Christian. I don't believe God is going to make the revolution happen, though He can offer love,strength and courage. He has put his faith in us. We must make it happen. Many communist's/Maoists/Marxists on this forum have said Christianity, or even simple belief in God, in incompatible with Marxist theory.

[Pogue]

Well, I am a Marxist and a Christian. I don't believe God is going to make the revolution happen, though He can offer love,strength and courage. He has put his faith in us. We must make it happen. Many communist's/Maoists/Marxists on this forum have said Christianity, or even simple belief in God, in incompatible with Marxist theory.

Through what physical process does god put 'faith', love, strength and courage in us?

And oncemore why did he choose to make cancer?

[Bud Struggle]

And oncemore why did he choose to make cancer?

Yea, kinda in the same way that Marxist "chose" to make Stalin. :D

[marxistcritic]

Yeah, splitteeth. Answer Pogues question!

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I am a Marxist and a Christian. I don't believe God is going to make the revolution happen, though He can offer love,strength and courage. He has put his faith in us. We must make it happen. Many communist's/Maoists/Marxists on this forum have said Christianity, or even simple belief in God, in incompatible with Marxist theory.

Well stone me, I agree with something a Maoist has said, apparently.

Marxism is incompatable with mysticism, because marxism is materialist, and religion isn't. You can't be both a materialist and an idealist. If you think you are, you haven't understood at least one or possibly both of them. Either, god created man, or man created god. It can't have been both of things. Which do you believe, really?

[Pogue]

Yea, kinda in the same way that Marxist "chose" to make Stalin. :D

I'm an anarchist so this has no bearing on me but I don't see how 'Marxist' (wtf is that a person or something or are you just being dense) chose to 'make' Stalin.

I know Catholicism tends to be a bit shit on sexual matters but I assure you the only people to make Stalin was his mum and dad.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm an anarchist so this has no bearing on me but I don't see how 'Marxist' (wtf is that a person or something or are you just being dense) chose to 'make' Stalin. I know all that about you being an Anarchist--but in the end Marxism "created" Stalinism--who may not be to everyone's liking. Stalin was an interesting variation of Communism--no matter what you think.


I know Catholicism tends to be a bit shit on sexual matters but I assure you the only people to make Stalin was his mum and dad. Hey, I post a pic from "Che Magazine" of a reasonably sexy woman in a bathing suit on Gulag-chat and the picture was deleted in a heartbeat by the powers that be. Definitely on topic (Che Magazine!) and but with a sexy woman, yet deleted. Who has the sex problem here?

And you don't think Stalinism is a natural outgrowth of Marxism?

[Blake's Baby]

Stalinism is the natural outgrowth of marxism in exactly the same way that cancer is the natural outgrowth of a lung.

[Pogue]

I know all that about you being an Anarchist--but in the end Marxism "created" Stalinism--who may not be to everyone's liking. Stalin was an interesting variation of Communism--no matter what you think.


I think Stalin was a counter-revolutionary. I think Bolshevism created Marxism. I also think Bolshevik practice was a contradiction of Marixst principle, and Stalin certainly was no Marxist.


Stalin was an interesting variation of Communism--no matter what you think.

No matter what I think? Stop arguing like a Catholic!


Hey, I post a pic from "Che Magazine" of a reasonably sexy woman in a bathing suit on Gulag-chat and the picture was deleted in a heartbeat by the powers that be. Definitely on topic (Che Magazine!) and but with a sexy woman, yet deleted. Who has the sex problem here?


So I heard condoms are the devil?


And you don't think Stalinism is a natural outgrowth of Marxism?

This depends on your definition of Marxism. Stalinism was a natural outgrowth of Bolshevism/Leninism, but not Marxism. But then Marx was one man and his theories are open to debate and perspective. Either way, I'm not a Marxist, although I agree with alot of it.

[spiltteeth]

As far as cancer, as I refer to my above answer. Christianity dozen't provide many clear answers. Since I don't know and Christianity doesn't provide any answer (as i said above one reason I like Christianity is its avoidance of easy answers), and scientist's and Marxists do not indulge in questions of 'meaning' as art,poetry and religion does - I can't say.
Incidental pouge, {"Through what physical process does god put 'faith', love, strength and courage in us?"} Marxism does not explain biological/physiological processes - neither does religion. That is the realm of biological science. It's like someone asking you to point out where your 'ego' is, or sense of self, when 'mind' is inscribed into dynamic processes of the outer world as well as brain activity. Since religion operates in realms of 'meaning,' I don't see why I cannot interpret the processes of the world with Marxist theory, and then construe the personal meaning-to me- through the constructs of religion. Orthodox Christians, unlike many Hindu's etc, are very much non-dualistic materialists - we don't believe in a soul apart from the body.
So - there is no contradiction between being a materialist/Marxist and a Christian.
I firmly believe that God "made" man the animal with a soul, and it is materialistic social processes that shape his self-conception and consciousness. God made man so that he could activley make himself.

[Pogue]

As far as cancer, as I refer to my above answer. Christianity dozen't provide many clear answers. Since I don't know and Christianity doesn't provide any answer (as i said above one reason I like Christianity is its avoidance of easy answers), and scientist's and Marxists do not indulge in questions of 'meaning' as art,poetry and religion does - I can't say.
Incidental pouge, {"Through what physical process does god put 'faith', love, strength and courage in us?"} Marxism does not explain biological/physiological processes - neither does religion. That is the realm of biological science. It's like someone asking you to point out where your 'ego' is, or sense of self, when 'mind' is inscribed into dynamic processes of the outer world as well as brain activity. Since religion operates in realms of 'meaning,' I don't see why I cannot interpret the processes of the world with Marxist theory, and then construe the personal meaning-to me- through the constructs of religion. Orthodox Christians, unlike many Hindu's etc, are very much non-dualistic materialists - we don't believe in a soul apart from the body.
So - there is no contradiction between being a materialist/Marxist and a Christian.
I firmly believe that God "made" man the animal with a soul, and it is materialistic social processes that shape his self-conception and consciousness. God made man so that he could activley make himself.

But Christians say God is all loving, all powerful and all knowing. How does this fit in with the fact that he created cancer? Surely it contradicts your religion.

It doesn't provide any answers because it was the scribblings of a bunch of nutters in an age long past.

[New Tet]

Marxism is a type of scientific modality of interpreting social events, therefore it is outside the realm of individual beliefs. It can interpret forms of religious organizations and their power constructs, but not actual belief in God itself.

Before I adhered to Marxism I was an atheist. Before that, I was raised a Roman Catholic. I even tried my hand at evangelical Christianism as a teenager.

As I matured in my knowledge of Marxism, I became a little more moderate in my opposition to spirituality. What I was really against, I discovered, was the ritualism, superstition and political and psychological manipulation that organized religion inflicts on people, in the name of "spirituality".

One of the things I like about Marxism is that it respects the individual right to make up one's mind about spiritual matters. I like Christianity too because it was founded on the notion that all persons can achieve justice in life and spiritual salvation.

Unlike atheistic philosophies, Marxism is not rationalistic. That is, it takes into account that humans possess both rational and irrational components and that both are required in order ensure their survival.

After I read "The Art of Loving", by Erich Fromm, I became convinced that it is impossible for any well-grounded Marxist to be a militant atheist.

I am no longer a Christian, but I think that if there really is a God and if Jesus was his prophet, then He must surely look down kindly on Marxist as his modern-day apostles and socialism as their doctrine.

Anyway, Thanks for your words.

[spiltteeth]

Bud struggle - I feel you ought to paste that pic of the sexy girl here so we can...um...debate etc

[Bud Struggle]

I must say "Pogue" (as you call yourself these days :rolleyes:) I do appreciate your thoughts and your attitude. We'll never agree on most things, of course, but I really do learn a lot from your posts (when you're aren't specificly YELLING at me.)

You thoughts on Stalin and the SU are in complete argeement with mine (hopefully our thinking alike on something will give you a sleepless night or two. :D)

You are a good man.

[Pogue]

I must say "Pogue" (as you call yourself these days :rolleyes:) I do appreciate your thoughts and your attitude. We'll never agree on most things, of course, but I really do learn a lot from your posts (when you're aren't specificly YELLING at me.)

You thoughts on Stalin and the SU are in complete argeement with mine (hopefully our thinking alike on something will give you a sleepless night or two. :D)

You are a good man.

why thank you

[New Tet]

Why did God make cancer?

"A fool has more questions than a wise man can answer"--Confucius

[Havet]

why oh why did you have to make a thread showing your irrationality regarding religion.

[Pogue]

"A fool has more questions than a wise man can answer"--Confucius

he was called confucius for a reason









cos he was confused


I'm not a fool, I'm very clever, i passed all my GCSEs

[spiltteeth]

Pouge - I don't know even know IF God created cancer. But -if he did, could there possibly be a loving reason? Again, don't know - but i can speculate : Our maladies
define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live-fully, richly, exuberantly-no matter how their days may be numbered.
It draws you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter-and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
. It gives the chance to learn that life is not about us-that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in the love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy.
But again - if I don't know the answer how can my faith contradict what I don't know?

[Pogue]

Pouge - I don't know even know IF God created cancer. But -if he did, could there possibly be a loving reason? Again, don't know - but i can speculate : Our maladies
define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live-fully, richly, exuberantly-no matter how their days may be numbered.
It draws you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter-and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
. It gives the chance to learn that life is not about us-that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in the love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy.
But again - if I don't know the answer how can my faith contradict what I don't know?

But God created everything. Science proves radiation always existed and always caused cancer, so God must have made it.

The fact you say you cant explain it shows the weakness of Christianity.

Also lets be logical here - how can there be a loving reason for it? There isn't - rather than adapt your ideology around the evidence against it, drop it. Christians change so much with their view of God they end up saying nothing - God becomes so abstract he becomes meaningless. Just give it up, its a stupid ideology.

If God was put on trial how dyu think he'd justify cancer?

[spiltteeth]

Poge "Christians change so much with their view of God they end up saying nothing"
I am an Orthodox Christian - my faith is consistent and old. My God is not abstract or philosophical - he is not an answer, Truth is a man, a man one need only love.
In the Christian tradition God made everything perfect then something man did fucked it all up -hence cancer,death etc - as i explained in my 1st post this is supposed top contain a truth that transcends rationality (psychologists call this type of thinks Trans-rational) and is not meant to be a scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe.
The fact that it chooses not to give an easy answer is its strength - it forces us to deal and struggle with these issues.
However - all your comments revolve around a basic misunderstanding so I'll say it a third time - my faith's function-like much of poetry and art-is not to give answers but meaning. Confusing these categories of knowledge (positive vs whatever) was explained in my very first post. If you read it you'd see how mistaken it is to ask these questions - anymore than a biologist turns to Walt Whitman to investigate the properties of grass.

[Pogue]

Poge "Christians change so much with their view of God they end up saying nothing"
I am an Orthodox Christian - my faith is consistent and old. My God is not abstract or philosophical - he is not an answer, Truth is a man, a man one need only love.
In the Christian tradition God made everything perfect then something man did fucked it all up -hence cancer,death etc - as i explained in my 1st post this is supposed top contain a truth that transcends rationality (psychologists call this type of thinks Trans-rational) and is not meant to be a scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe.
The fact that it chooses not to give an easy answer is its strength - it forces us to deal and struggle with these issues.
However - all your comments revolve around a basic misunderstanding so I'll say it a third time - my faith's function-like much of poetry and art-is not to give answers but meaning. Confusing these categories of knowledge (positive vs whatever) was explained in my very first post. If you read it you'd see how mistaken it is to ask these questions - anymore than a biologist turns to Walt Whitman to investigate the properties of grass.

But cancer has always existed. Man didn't make it, its a natural phenomenon.

Also why would God punish all of humanity for the actions of some humans long ago? And why do nice people suffer?

[Hit The North]

Marxism is a type of scientific modality of interpreting social events, therefore it is outside the realm of individual beliefs. It can interpret forms of religious organizations and their power constructs, but not actual belief in God itself.


Actually, that's exactly what Marx does try to explain. He argues that people believe in God and Heaven for a variety of reasons. They are alienated from their species being and ruled over by forces they create but don't control. They personify these forces, which are both natural and social, and seek symbolic and ritualistic means of affecting those forces.

Moreover, he writes:


Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Therefore, according to Marx, once you transcend the miserable and alienated condition of living in a class society, your personal belief in God will vanish.


Incidentally, I think the impulse toward God is the same toward science, poetry and art and Communism’s prominent atheist attitude is why there is such a poverty of creativity and art in communism compared to anarchism.
Why do you suppose that anarchists are less atheistic than Marxists? In fact, the opposite is true. Anarchists are far more concerned with carrying on the critique of religion than Marxists are. For Marxists, the point isn't to critique religion, but to critique the material conditions which sustain religion. And the purpose of this isn't to win some ontological argument about the existence or otherwise of a 'Creator', but to bring mankind back to some realisation of its true nature. Because religion sows illusions.



Convert me.

To what? You've already said you're a communist.

[Rosa Provokateur]

How can God be all loving, all knowing and all powerful but also create cancer?

How can humans be so intelligent, so advanced as to need no God but also create cigarettes that cause cancer?

[Rosa Provokateur]

I think this article in the YCL's Fall 2008 issue of Dynamic settles the argument between theistic and atheistic communists.

http://yclusa.org/article/articleview/1882/1/346/

[spiltteeth]

Pogue - I'll say it a fourth time, Christianity does not-and is not meant to- give answers. Again, for the fourth time, to expect rational answers from non-rational modes of apprehension (such as trans-rationality that is exhibited in poetry,religion,art or even split second decisions -see the book Blink) does not make any sense, for reasons in my first post (confusing categories of knowledge) just like a "a biologist would never turn to Walt Whitman to investigate the properties of grass."
As far as : "why would God punish all of humanity for the actions of some humans long ago? And why do nice people suffer?"
That is not how original sin works - anymore than children are "punished" with diabetes because of their parents "sinful" genetic structure.
Since you won't read my very first post I'll quote it :
Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly."

[Pogue]

Pogue - I'll say it a fourth time, Christianity does not-and is not meant to- give answers. Again, for the fourth time, to expect rational answers from non-rational modes of apprehension (such as trans-rationality that is exhibited in poetry,religion,art or even split second decisions -see the book Blink) does not make any sense, for reasons in my first post (confusing categories of knowledge) just like a "a biologist would never turn to Walt Whitman to investigate the properties of grass."
As far as : "why would God punish all of humanity for the actions of some humans long ago? And why do nice people suffer?"
That is not how original sin works - anymore than children are "punished" with diabetes because of their parents "sinful" genetic structure.
Since you won't read my very first post I'll quote it :
Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly."

And you beleive all that shit because its written down in a 2000 year old book? Thats all you base it on?

Of course Christianity doesn't give answers! Its a WORK OF FICTION!

[Bud Struggle]

Of course Christianity doesn't give answers! Its a WORK OF FICTION!

As is Marx isn't? :)

Seriously. Chrisianity is a wonderful philosophy for living one's life. There's a real beauty in living one's life by and ideal. Christianity is one of the better one's out there. There's something good about a family and a husband and wife and a couple of kids sitting around a dinner table. A faith in God and the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount give one a ap perspective into a real happiness.

I must say even if I didn't believe in God--I'd be a Christian and a Catholic.

Just for the joy it brings. Jesus gives us hope and happness. I'm sitting here in my office and my daughter is playing cello in the next room and my wife going over scales wither her--the other daughter's cooking kluski in the kitchen. We're all doing our thing, but talking and joking--and we'll all start dinner with thanks and praise to God for the life he's given us.

Christianity gives one a good life.

[spiltteeth]

Bob the builder –
You are correct – but Marx tries to explain the specific forms of religious consciousness in terms of originating from specific social constructs.

“Therefore, according to Marx, once you transcend the miserable and alienated condition of living in a class society, your personal belief in God will vanish”

And we now know this is wrong – we’ve uncovered much evidence that points to the fact that the primitive societies Marx described as communistic did indeed have supernaturalistic beliefs.

That doesn’t mean under different class conditions the inherent need for the transcendent-now expressed in specific religious forms – will not manifest itself differently.

It doesn’t mean he was wrong about his other ideas, in his time psychology and anthropological studies were surly in their infancy. Today there are plenty of Marxist –sometimes called Radical- psychologists – Ian Parker for one.

I guess I’m not a dogmatic Marxist but see Marxism as a process.

As far as anarchists – I could easily be wrong, they just always seemed more tolerant less preachy about atheism.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.

[Pogue]

As is Marx isn't? :)

Did I not already say I don't base my ideology solely on the writings of Marx?

[Pogue]

Bob the builder –
You are correct – but Marx tries to explain the specific forms of religious consciousness in terms of originating from specific social constructs.

“Therefore, according to Marx, once you transcend the miserable and alienated condition of living in a class society, your personal belief in God will vanish”

And we now know this is wrong – we’ve uncovered much evidence that points to the fact that the primitive societies Marx described as communistic did indeed have supernaturalistic beliefs.

That doesn’t mean under different class conditions the inherent need for the transcendent-now expressed in specific religious forms – will not manifest itself differently.

It doesn’t mean he was wrong about his other ideas, in his time psychology and anthropological studies were surly in their infancy. Today there are plenty of Marxist –sometimes called Radical- psychologists – Ian Parker for one.

I guess I’m not a dogmatic Marxist but see Marxism as a process.

As far as anarchists – I could easily be wrong, they just always seemed more tolerant less preachy about atheism.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Actually we're well known for burning down Churches, especially in Spain.

Of course, nice priests were spared.

[spiltteeth]

Pouge -"Of course Christianity doesn't give answers! Its a WORK OF FICTION!"
Again, that misses the point that its not supose to - anymore than a Picasso painting.
But do not put down truth in fiction, Picasso said : "Art is a lie, but it is a lie that tells the truth."

[Pogue]

Pouge -"Of course Christianity doesn't give answers! Its a WORK OF FICTION!"
Again, that misses the point that its not supose to - anymore than a Picasso painting.
But do not put down truth in fiction, Picasso said : "Art is a lie, but it is a lie that tells the truth."

But its the believe that God loves everyone and can do anything.

Surely then if you believe in it so strongly and its so wonderful it should be able to account for cancer?

[ZeroNowhere]

How can humans be so intelligent, so advanced as to need no God but also create cigarettes that cause cancer?Because some humans like using cigarettes, and are not omnipotent enough to make cigarettes which don't? Perhaps God finds people with cancer entertaining, I don't know, but that would make him something of an asshole. And an ant doesn't 'need' a god, whatever that means, so I don't especially see why one needs to be advances for that.

[spiltteeth]

Listen - I'm very much against the Right Fascist Pat Roberson Christianity in America and I'd be lying if I said I haven't, in my wilder days, killed a cop for Jesus or set a pregnant nun on fire or infected holy water with aids.
But I'm more mature these days.

[Pogue]

Listen - I'm very much against the Right Fascist Pat Roberson Christianity in America and I'd be lying if I said I haven't, in my wilder days, killed a cop for Jesus or set a pregnant nun on fire or infected holy water with aids.
But I'm more mature these days.

what?

[Pogue]

How can humans be so intelligent, so advanced as to need no God but also create cigarettes that cause cancer?

But I'm not saying humans are perfect. Christians say God is perfect, but God created cancer, and Christians can't account for this.

[ZeroNowhere]

what?They were a rebel in the FDG, and they say only god in heaven knows.

[Decolonize The Left]

We are fallen.
Says who? And what does "fallen" mean?


We are imperfect.
Says who? And how can "perfection" be a) defined, b) attained, c) measured?


Our bodies give out.
So?


Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live-fully, richly, exuberantly-no matter how their days may be numbered.
It draws you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter-and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
. It gives the chance to learn that life is not about us-that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in the love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy.
But again - if I don't know the answer how can my faith contradict what I don't know?

I agree that sickness helps define health, pain helps define pleasure, etc... but I fail to see how god gets stuck in there somehow.

- August

[New Tet]

Comrades, let's not forget that for a long time Christianity was a revolutionary ideology!

[spiltteeth]

Pouge - for the FIFTH time it does "account" for cancer but not in a scientific or child-like ease of knowledge or answer. There is NO way you could have read my previous posts where I responded FIVE times now and still be expecting an "answer."
I already explained why a child-like answer to cancer is, in my opinion, inferior to the profound approach to suffering contained in Christianity.
The most profound response -not answer- to cancer I have encountered is in the poetry of LL Sissman in his book 'Hello Darkness.'

[Pogue]

Pouge - for the FIFTH time it does "account" for cancer but not in a scientific or child-like ease of knowledge or answer. There is NO way you could have read my previous posts where I responded FIVE times now and still be expecting an "answer."
I already explained why a child-like answer to cancer is, in my opinion, inferior to the profound approach to suffering contained in Christianity.
The most profound response -not answer- to cancer I have encountered is in the poetry of LL Sissman in his book 'Hello Darkness.'

But surely if you believe God is all powerful and all loving you have to account for why he created cancer? Thats what I am asking, how does the Christian viewpoint account for that fact god created cancer whilst still maintainig he is loving and supremely powerful.

[Bud Struggle]

Comrades, let's not forget that for a long time Christianity was a revolutionary ideology!

Hell, A long time ago Marxism was a Revolutionary Ideology! :D

[Pogue]

Hell, A long time ago Marxism was a Revolutionary Ideology! :D

I think it still is, but alot of the people who call themselves Marxists sadly are not.

[New Tet]

Hell, A long time ago Marxism was a Revolutionary Ideology! :D

Oh, and it still is!

Marxian socialism is yet to accomplish its lofty goal.

[Decolonize The Left]

But surely if you believe God is all powerful and all loving you have to account for why he created cancer? Thats what I am asking, how does the Christian viewpoint account for that fact god created cancer whilst still maintainig he is loving and supremely powerful.

You can stop baiting this member whenever you please.

The classic theist argument against the classic 'problem of evil' is that a) evil as we understand it is relative and b) god's plan supersedes our understanding of evil. You can see how the theist cleverly evades the problem of evil by positing beyond it.

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest - fallen just means we are corruptible bodies that die. Perfection can't be measured. I was just responding to Pougue who challenged me to present a possible reason that if God existed AND he were the cause of cancer (I have no idea if he is or isn't) that there could possibley be a loving reason he created it. Thats all off the top of my head, pure speculation to show that something good and of love could possibly come out of something so terrible as cancer. Pure speculation though, it could all be BS.

[Decolonize The Left]

AugustWest - fallen just means we are corruptible bodies that die. Perfection can't be measured. I was just responding to Pougue who challenged me to present a possible reason that if God existed AND he were the cause of cancer (I have no idea if he is or isn't) that there could possibley be a loving reason he created it. Thats all off the top of my head, pure speculation to show that something good and of love could possibly come out of something so terrible as cancer. Pure speculation though, it could all be BS.

What does "corruptible" mean, in regards to our bodies? Does this not imply some form of 'purity?' What is this purity? And if perfection can't be measured, how can you claim that we are imperfect?

Also, if you wish to quote the piece of text you wish to respond to, in the box of that post (bottom right corner) there is a little box which says "Quote." Click that (say, for example, this post which I have just made) and see how the forum will provide the text which you wish to respond to.

- August

[Hit The North]

Bob the builder –
You are correct – but Marx tries to explain the specific forms of religious consciousness in terms of originating from specific social constructs.


Yes, religious belief is rooted in social relations. It has no reality outside of this. The Gods and angels and devils and ghosts, exist only as figments of imagination. However, Marx was very respectful of the power the human imagination can hold over the affairs of human beings, so he isn't making light work of it by pushing religious belief into the imaginary life of men and women.


“Therefore, according to Marx, once you transcend the miserable and alienated condition of living in a class society, your personal belief in God will vanish”

And we now know this is wrong – we’ve uncovered much evidence that points to the fact that the primitive societies Marx described as communistic did indeed have supernaturalistic beliefs.
Yes, but this primitive communism (really just a fancy term for nomadic hunter-gatherer societies) was on the basis of an extremely low level of means of production - including not only material resources, but also stocks of learning and knowledge, or culture. Mankind's relation to nature was subordinate and precarious. We were at its mercy. Interestingly, in primitive communism where people are at the mercy of nature, the religion tends to be animism. In class society, where we are at the mercy of landlords and bosses, the dominant religion is a personification. In other words God becomes the big boss. Under the final abolition of class society, we will have mastery over nature and huge stocks of scientific knowledge. We will have abolished our bosses. We will have no need to create demons or angels and summon up supernatural imposters to act out our fears and failures. We won't need the redemption of our imagination.


That doesn’t mean under different class conditions the inherent need for the transcendent-now expressed in specific religious forms – will not manifest itself differently. Not sure what this means. If you're referring to that transcendental moment when you get that feeling of connection with everything, I get that sometimes when I've done some good drugs, or I'm having great sex or eating a great sandwich, or read too much Walt Whitman, or for no particular reason at all. I love the tricks and special effects of human consciousness. I don't need to validate them by raising up personalities from the netherworld.


As far as anarchists – I could easily be wrong, they just always seemed more tolerant less preachy about atheism.


Then maybe you've only met the nice ones. :)

[Pogue]

You can stop baiting this member whenever you please.

The classic theist argument against the classic 'problem of evil' is that a) evil as we understand it is relative and b) god's plan supersedes our understanding of evil. You can see how the theist cleverly evades the problem of evil by positing beyond it.

- August

You can stop following me around trying to find fault in anything I do just because you have a personal grudge against me based on the fact I called you out for being a patronising hypocrit.

[Decolonize The Left]

You can stop following me around trying to find fault in anything I do just because you have a personal grudge against me based on the fact I called you out for being a patronising hypocrit.

Actually, I answered your question for you. See?


But surely if you believe God is all powerful and all loving you have to account for why he created cancer? Thats what I am asking, how does the Christian viewpoint account for that fact god created cancer whilst still maintainig he is loving and supremely powerful.


The classic theist argument against the classic 'problem of evil' is that a) evil as we understand it is relative and b) god's plan supersedes our understanding of evil. You can see how the theist cleverly evades the problem of evil by positing beyond it.

I'm sorry you take everything so personally (honestly, you're really not that interesting of a poster) - as moderator of this forum I tend to spend a bit more time here than other forums.

- August

[spiltteeth]

I don't avoid evil, which is different and is the realm of theology, - I can't avoid it because I strait have NO idea how to rationally explain it. I have NO answers. For the sixth time, I don't use religion for answers. It seems that nobody here realizes basic philosophy or science or that such a thing as poetry and art -which are non-rational- exist despite being non-rational. Here : there are different categories of knowledge - see Kant, Spinoza, etc Science is in the 'Positive' category. It all in my very 1st post.
but :
. You can say “a flower is a plant” and this belongs to ‘positive knowledge’ since it is empirical. Another category of knowledge is to say “flowers are beautiful.” Confusing the 2 you might say it is a scientific FACT that flowers are pretty. Then come along and say, “We’ve dissected the flower and have found no ‘beauty cells’ or ‘beauty structures’, therefore flowers are not beautiful and furthermore beauty does not exist.” Both deny all modalities of knowing except for the scientific one and in so doing diminish what it means to be human.
Finally, here are some words from Slavoj Zizek, a modern philosopher/cultural critic who is a die-hard atheist. He has written many books on Christianity, including one recently where he debates with Christian theologian John Milbank, who happens to have a PHD and a firm grasp of postmodern philosophy, unlike the people Maher approaches who are either uninformed or incapable of defending themselves intellectually or dismissed out of hand. The italics are mine.

“Both liberal-skeptical cynics and fundamentalists share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe, in the proper sense of the term. What is unthinkable for them is the groundless decision which installs every authentic belief, a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge. …the status of universal human rights is that of a pure belief: they cannot be grounded in our knowledge of human nature, they are an axiom posited by our decision. (The moment one tries to ground universal human rights in our knowledge of humanity, the inevitable conclusion will be that men are fundamentally different, that some have more dignity and wisdom than others.) At its most fundamental, authentic belief does not concern facts, but gives expression to an unconditional ethical commitment.
For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them.
… its [religious fundamentalism’s] true danger does not reside in the fact that it poses a threat to secular scientific knowledge, but in the fact that it poses a threat to authentic belief itself” (4).
In other words, disregarding any symbolic mediation between humanity and a reality transcendent of logical apprehension equally undermine true belief and reject those more rarefied modalities of understanding and being.

Pouge - you've finally answer a question I can answer : "Thats what I am asking, how does the Christian viewpoint account for that fact god created cancer whilst still maintaining he is loving and supremely powerful."
Answer : by responding with love and gratitude.
How can this be justified? It is "an unconditional ethical commitment."

[Pogue]

I don't avoid evil, which is different and is the realm of theology, - I can't avoid it because I strait have NO idea how to rationally explain it. I have NO answers. For the sixth time, I don't use religion for answers. It seems that nobody here realizes basic philosophy or science or that such a thing as poetry and art -which are non-rational- exist despite being non-rational. Here : there are different categories of knowledge - see Kant, Spinoza, etc Science is in the 'Positive' category. It all in my very 1st post.
but :
. You can say “a flower is a plant” and this belongs to ‘positive knowledge’ since it is empirical. Another category of knowledge is to say “flowers are beautiful.” Confusing the 2 you might say it is a scientific FACT that flowers are pretty. Then come along and say, “We’ve dissected the flower and have found no ‘beauty cells’ or ‘beauty structures’, therefore flowers are not beautiful and furthermore beauty does not exist.” Both deny all modalities of knowing except for the scientific one and in so doing diminish what it means to be human.
Finally, here are some words from Slavoj Zizek, a modern philosopher/cultural critic who is a die-hard atheist. He has written many books on Christianity, including one recently where he debates with Christian theologian John Milbank, who happens to have a PHD and a firm grasp of postmodern philosophy, unlike the people Maher approaches who are either uninformed or incapable of defending themselves intellectually or dismissed out of hand. The italics are mine.

“Both liberal-skeptical cynics and fundamentalists share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe, in the proper sense of the term. What is unthinkable for them is the groundless decision which installs every authentic belief, a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge. …the status of universal human rights is that of a pure belief: they cannot be grounded in our knowledge of human nature, they are an axiom posited by our decision. (The moment one tries to ground universal human rights in our knowledge of humanity, the inevitable conclusion will be that men are fundamentally different, that some have more dignity and wisdom than others.) At its most fundamental, authentic belief does not concern facts, but gives expression to an unconditional ethical commitment.
For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them.
… its [religious fundamentalism’s] true danger does not reside in the fact that it poses a threat to secular scientific knowledge, but in the fact that it poses a threat to authentic belief itself” (4).
In other words, disregarding any symbolic mediation between humanity and a reality transcendent of logical apprehension equally undermine true belief and reject those more rarefied modalities of understanding and being.

Pouge - you've finally answer a question I can answer : "Thats what I am asking, how does the Christian viewpoint account for that fact god created cancer whilst still maintaining he is loving and supremely powerful."
Answer : by responding with love and gratitude.
How can this be justified? It is "an unconditional ethical commitment."

No, you misunderstand my question. I think we're on a different wavelength here.

As a Christian, how do you account for the contradicion seen in how God can apparently do anything and loves everyone, yet he created/refuses t cure cancer?

[spiltteeth]

Bobthe Builder - all I can say is that surly there is reality outside of social relations, even outside of what our consciousness can touch, and no one -not me certainly-can logically claim to know what that is.
As far as science, ultimately - as an 'absolute' it is so tied to social relations as to be un-objective- see Thomas Kuhn. And - as is the case in Quantum physics - it can be irrational and illogical -even non-linear! (we've sent a particle back in time)
Yes, I too have satiated my thirst foe transcendence in Walt Whitman and good drugs, but these are sometimes irrational and society needs a place for the irrational. If Marx's point is that we won't NEED religion, but perhaps that will be once place, alongside Whitman and drugs, where we can seek meaning and 'answers; that science, by its own definition precluding 'meaning', can never account for.
I realize this Doesn't really engage and answer you satisfactorily but 1)I'm at my limit and I will think on what you wrote
and 2) My girl just asked me why I'm not coming to bed and I answered 'because someone on the Internet needs my opinion!" and a coffee mug has just whizzed by my head.

[New Tet]

I think it still is, but alot of the people who call themselves Marxists sadly are not.

Be that as it may, my point is this: It is thanks to the revolutionary elements that Christianity once possessed that we have Marxian socialism today. Christianity laid the foundation upon which Marxism stands.


"Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."


I would like to think that I too am poor in spirit and need support of my fellow worker; that I always mourn for the victims of capitalism's tyranny; that I am humble enough to know when I am wrong and meek enough to be instructed in what is right; that I can still hunger and thirst for righteousness enough to fear no power; that I can be merciful even against my former oppressor; that I can be pure of heart and resist corruption; that I can be a peacemaker by helping to end the class struggle, and that if I am persecuted because of the righteousness of my cause, that I can hold up my head and look my oppressor in the eye and say: "You too shall one day be free."

[spiltteeth]

Pouge - u still don't understand that there are diff categories of knowledge so i don't resolve those contradictions.
Also, you should think about the fact that when anthropologists discover a new people they measure their mental advancement in terms of how able they are to hold two contradictions in their mind at the same time (instead of not wrestling with these things and abdicating responsibility by saying - gods did it, god is just mysterious so lets not engage these questions etc)
OK Thanks ever body my girls pissed and now I'm not getting laid. Fuk

[Decolonize The Left]

Be that as it may, my point is this: It is thanks to the revolutionary elements that Christianity once possessed that we have Marxian socialism today. Christianity laid the foundation upon which Marxism stands.


I would like to think that I too am poor in spirit and need support of my fellow worker; that I always mourn for the victims of capitalism's tyranny; that I am humble enough to know when I am wrong and meek enough to be instructed in what is right; that I can still hunger and thirst for righteousness enough to fear no power; that I can be merciful even against my former oppressor; that I can be pure of heart and resist corruption; that I can be a peacemaker by helping to end the class struggle, and that if I am persecuted because of the righteousness of my cause, that I can hold up my head and look my oppressor in the eye and say: "You too shall one day be free."

What you have offered here is pure idealism. Marxism is a materialist theory. They stand in contradiction, despite the similarities in supposed 'goals.'

- August

[New Tet]

What you have offered here is pure idealism. Marxism is a materialist theory. They stand in contradiction, despite the similarities in supposed 'goals.'

- August

I'm talking here on the purely personal level, which is all I can really do when discussing issues of spirituality.

I totally agree with the materialist conception of history, as far as our material history is concerned. But I also understand that Marxian materialism is dialectical, that is, it attempts to reconcile seemingly opposite things. Somewhere I read something attributed to George Sand in which she pointed out that the trick was not merely to find the difference in things but where they were similar. That sounds like dialectics to me.

[spiltteeth]

OK last thing - I see those more as 'ways of being/approaching the world through your inner-being' instead of idealism.
Paradox's and even contradictions can be true.
Many Leftists feel all people should be afforded equal right. But wait? Does that mean all people are equal? Does a child molester deserve the same rights as me or you? Isn't there a contradiction.
But you can be for equal rights and believe some people are more deserving of them.
Do not be scared or limit yourself because of contradictions - sometimes they lead to the same place, or are just different veiws of the same mountain!

[Bud Struggle]

What you have offered here is pure idealism. Marxism is a materialist theory. They stand in contradiction, despite the similarities in supposed 'goals.'

- August

Lifestyle issues. Who cares? Neither can preach actual truth. Communist Lifestyle, Capitalist Lifestyle, Dancers, Poets, all the same, all lifestyles, all true to those who believe in them, not so much for those that don't.

August, you don't actually believe you are preaching the TRUTH about reality do you? :D

[trivas7]

What you have offered here is pure idealism. Marxism is a materialist theory. They stand in contradiction, despite the similarities in supposed 'goals.'

I disagree. Rosa Lichtenstein persuades me that all philosophy is idealist.

[9]

Marxism is a type of scientific modality of interpreting social events, therefore it is outside the realm of individual beliefs. It can interpret forms of religious organizations and their power constructs, but not actual belief in God itself.

There are plenty of famous, respected, reputable scientists who are Christian and it does not affect their work.

Please don’t bring up contradictions in the bible. It is not science and never was meant to be interpreted as such. Here are two quotes from typical priests of the third largest Christian denomination, Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way.”

It’s like saying you can’t be commie and also like poetry because it is not correct to compare “thee to a summer breeze” because a woman is completely different the wind, you can’t screw the wind, its not corporal etc so poetry is false!

It confuses categories of knowledge. You can say “a flower is a plant” and this belongs to ‘positive knowledge’ since it is empirical. Another category of knowledge is to say “flowers are beautiful. It would be incorrect to come along and say, “We’ve dissected the flower and have found no ‘beauty cells’ or ‘beauty structures’, therefore flowers are not beautiful and furthermore beauty does not exist.”

And as Kwisatz Haderach points out “God cannot be a dictator, because - as you can see - he is not visibly present on Earth to dictate anything to anyone.”

Incidentally, I think the impulse toward God is the same toward science, poetry and art and Communism’s prominent atheist attitude is why there is such a poverty of creativity and art in communism compared to anarchism.

Convert me.

I think you've made many excellent points. I am an atheist, but I am frequently disgusted by the lefts behavior toward religion. The only problem I have with religious people is when they think that the scriptures are to be interpreted literally, and therefore use them to 'crusade' against science and logic. Clearly you do not fall under that category.
And I especially appreciate your points about poverty of creativity and art in communism (though I think it is quite prevalent in anarchism as well, unfortunately). Though, for obvious reasons, I would personally choose a different analogy than "the impulse toward God" to account for creative expression, I completely agree with where you are coming from. The left is too quick to deny any legitimacy to all expression that results from utilizing the parts of the brain which operate on the basis of intuition, spontaneity, subjective perception, emotion, etc. and I agree that it has resulted in creative poverty which only contributes to the overall state of paralysis on the left.

[New Tet]

I think you've made many excellent points. I am an atheist, but I am frequently disgusted by the lefts behavior toward religion. The only problem I have with religious people is when they think that the scriptures are to be interpreted literally, and therefore use them to 'crusade' against science and logic. Clearly you do not fall under that category.[...]

As I see it, some of the Judeo-Christian scriptures can be taken literally and some of it metaphorically. For example, when the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill", I take that to mean you should not kill anyone, literally. When Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven", I take that metaphorically.

We have to try to study everything with a critical mindset. Even some atheists treat their disbelief as a form of religion wherein critical thinking is excluded. Even science (and dare I say Marxism) is treated that way by many and that, I fear, is dangerous.

[spiltteeth]

Bob the builder - as far as Marx saying people won't need religion in a classless society I believe, since he is speaking socially, that people will not need religion to function in the same ways - as a substitute for science or logic. So people will not look to religion to answer such questions as why it rains, how old is the universe, where does cancer come from etc
Science and religion, since they operate in different realms ought to be separated.
However, one can still be religious even if one is not alienated, in fear, etc
Marx used that famous line -religion is an opium of the people- because opium was just invented and he meant as a painkiller.
Life will always have aspects of the tragic.
One can say the same thing about love - it is not fully explained by biochemical processes or psychology (many psychologists insist it can never, by the nature of its subjective experience be symbolized) and love is irrational.
William Burroughs said - "Love-what is it? The most powerful painkiller on earth."
If one feels less alone when in love - even if objectively we are always ultimately alone and love is a unprovable 'illusion', as long as it does not touch science or theory whats the harm.

I've also noticed anarchist's speak about love and creativity much easier than communists - why is that?

[Lolshevik]

Though I myself am an atheist, I'm not sure it is a good idea to turn away religious people from our movement just because they're religious.

[Revy]

Marxism is a type of scientific modality of interpreting social events, therefore it is outside the realm of individual beliefs. It can interpret forms of religious organizations and their power constructs, but not actual belief in God itself.

There are plenty of famous, respected, reputable scientists who are Christian and it does not affect their work.

Please don’t bring up contradictions in the bible. It is not science and never was meant to be interpreted as such. Here are two quotes from typical priests of the third largest Christian denomination, Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way.”

It’s like saying you can’t be commie and also like poetry because it is not correct to compare “thee to a summer breeze” because a woman is completely different the wind, you can’t screw the wind, its not corporal etc so poetry is false!

It confuses categories of knowledge. You can say “a flower is a plant” and this belongs to ‘positive knowledge’ since it is empirical. Another category of knowledge is to say “flowers are beautiful. It would be incorrect to come along and say, “We’ve dissected the flower and have found no ‘beauty cells’ or ‘beauty structures’, therefore flowers are not beautiful and furthermore beauty does not exist.”

And as Kwisatz Haderach points out “God cannot be a dictator, because - as you can see - he is not visibly present on Earth to dictate anything to anyone.”

Incidentally, I think the impulse toward God is the same toward science, poetry and art and Communism’s prominent atheist attitude is why there is such a poverty of creativity and art in communism compared to anarchism.

Convert me.

Interesting post, but I must object to the line where you claim that creativity and art are lacking in atheists.:blink:

Also, throughout the history of Christianity, the Bible was not interpreted metaphorically, but quite literally, and still is for many people. Naming a few people I have never heard of doesn't change that.

If the Bible is not literal, then it was written by men, therefore how do you know what's God's word and what's the word of men? In my opinion, Christianity should get rid of the Bible entirely if it wants to evolve. A book written thousands of years ago isn't for the modern era.

Though I have no problem with a Christian claiming to be a Marxist or communist.

[Hit The North]

Spiltteeth:


Marx used that famous line -religion is an opium of the people- because opium was just invented and he meant as a painkiller.Yes. He was also alluding to the opium trade, where the British Empire forced the trade on the Chinese on pain of military intervention and where opium addiction was undermining the very fabric of Chinese society:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/09/20.htm


I've also noticed anarchist's speak about love and creativity much easier than communists - why is that?I think your observation may be based on a lack of knowledge as there is a long tradition of Marxist discussion on art and literature:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/index.htm

Meanwhile, what about the great Marxist poet, Pablo Neruda, who wrote many love poems?


I can write the saddest poem of all tonight.

Write, for instance: "The night is full of stars,
and the stars, blue, shiver in the distance."

The night wind whirls in the sky and sings.

I can write the saddest poem of all tonight.
I loved her, and sometimes she loved me too.

On nights like this, I held her in my arms.
I kissed her so many times under the infinite sky.

She loved me, sometimes I loved her.
How could I not have loved her large, still eyes?

I can write the saddest poem of all tonight.
To think I don't have her. To feel that I've lost her.

To hear the immense night, more immense without her.
And the poem falls to the soul as dew to grass.

What does it matter that my love couldn't keep her.
The night is full of stars and she is not with me.

That's all. Far away, someone sings. Far away.
My soul is lost without her.

As if to bring her near, my eyes search for her.
My heart searches for her and she is not with me.

The same night that whitens the same trees.
We, we who were, we are the same no longer.

I no longer love her, true, but how much I loved her.
My voice searched the wind to touch her ear.

Someone else's. She will be someone else's. As she once
belonged to my kisses.
Her voice, her light body. Her infinite eyes.

I no longer love her, true, but perhaps I love her.
Love is so short and oblivion so long.

Because on nights like this I held her in my arms,
my soul is lost without her.

Although this may be the last pain she causes me,
and this may be the last poem I write for her.

Pablo Neruda http://www.redpoppy.net/pablo_neruda.php

Meanwhile the Marxist revolutionary, Che Guevara, had this to say on the subject:

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.

The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to say “daddy”; their wives, too, must be part of the general sacrifice of their lives in order to take the revolution to its destiny. The circle of their friends is limited strictly to the circle of comrades in the revolution. There is no life outside of it.

In these circumstances one must have a large dose of humanity, a large dose of a sense of justice and truth in order to avoid dogmatic extremes, cold scholasticism, or an isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity is transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm

[Havet]

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9895/godsmallljp4.jpg

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why did God make cancer?
Perhaps it was because of Original Sin, or perhaps it was because there was no way to create the kind of biological life he wanted without allowing for the possibility of cancer.

You mentioned that radiation causes cancer. Do you have any idea how much the universe would need to be changed in order to eliminate high-energy electromagnetic radiation? All the laws of physics would need to be modified. And yes, God could do that, but then he would be making an entirely different universe, not our own.

So what you're really asking is "why did God make this universe, and not a completely different one?"

I do not know the answer to that. But I suspect that God did, in fact, create every possible universe, and we just happen to be living in this one.


Marxism is incompatable with mysticism, because marxism is materialist, and religion isn't. You can't be both a materialist and an idealist.
It is possible to apply materialism to certain aspects of the universe and idealism to others.


Either, god created man, or man created god. It can't have been both of things.
Well, actually, it can. It is possible that God created man, and then man proceeded to invent all sorts of other gods.

And it is possible to look at the social role of religion from a materialist standpoint without the implication that religion is false.

[Pogue]

Perhaps it was because of Original Sin, or perhaps it was because there was no way to create the kind of biological life he wanted without allowing for the possibility of cancer.

You mentioned that radiation causes cancer. Do you have any idea how much the universe would need to be changed in order to eliminate high-energy electromagnetic radiation? All the laws of physics would need to be modified. And yes, God could do that, but then he would be making an entirely different universe, not our own.

So what you're really asking is "why did God make this universe, and not a completely different one?"

I do not know the answer to that. But I suspect that God did, in fact, create every possible universe, and we just happen to be living in this one.


It is possible to apply materialism to certain aspects of the universe and idealism to others.


Well, actually, it can. It is possible that God created man, and then man proceeded to invent all sorts of other gods.

And it is possible to look at the social role of religion from a materialist standpoint without the implication that religion is false.

Surely because God could do anything he could remove cancer and keep everything else the same.

Your religion system is so ridiculously stupid. Original sin? So once more, God punishes all of humanity, with particular suffering for some people randomly, based on the fact that some of us apparently 'sinned'.

Absolutely ridiculous, I don't see how an intelligent person like you would degrade yourself into believing such insane bullshit. You've basically said that 'God couldn't make a world without radiation/cancer', in which case he is not omnipotent. Pathetic.

[Havet]

Surely because God could do anything he could remove cancer and keep everything else the same.

Your religion system is so ridiculously stupid. Original sin? So once more, God punishes all of humanity, with particular suffering for some people randomly, based on the fact that some of us apparently 'sinned'.

Absolutely ridiculous, I don't see how an intelligent person like you would degrade yourself into believing such insane bullshit. You've basically said that 'God couldn't make a world without radiation/cancer', in which case he is not omnipotent. Pathetic.

Well said Pogue

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and a contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.

To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of Christianity.

To keep on ranting:

What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state christians consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment.

The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love-he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to christians, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What you have offered here is pure idealism. Marxism is a materialist theory. They stand in contradiction, despite the similarities in supposed 'goals.'
As a matter of political strategy, being hostile towards people who share your goals just because of the underlying reasons why they support those goals... well, that's unbelievably stupid.

And I know you don't do that, August, but many others do.


Surely because God could do anything he could remove cancer and keep everything else the same.
[...]
You've basically said that 'God couldn't make a world without radiation/cancer', in which case he is not omnipotent. Pathetic.
If you define "omnipotence" as being able to do literally anything - even the absurd, such as creating a square circle or a universe just like ours but lacking gamma radiation - then God is not "omnipotent" in this sense.

I don't have a problem with that. My belief only requires God to be powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.


Your religion system is so ridiculously stupid. Original sin? So once more, God punishes all of humanity, with particular suffering for some people randomly, based on the fact that some of us apparently 'sinned'.
Actually, all of us sin. Humanity as a whole is sinful. That's the point of Original Sin. And it is true that some people get punished for their sins more than others in this life. You don't need cancer for that; it's plainly obvious that the world is unjust. But Christians believe that justice will be restored in the next life - and that, in the mean time, we should try to make this world as just as we can.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and a contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.

To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of Christianity.
I strongly suspect that those were Ayn Rand's words, because it sounds very much like her style - including the fact that the argument is based on a strawman - but this time I'm not sure.

In any case, that argument shows a complete lack of understanding of Christianity. Who said anything about sin without volition? Who said man has no will? No, we sin willingly. We have a choice, and we all choose to sin. We could live without sin, but we don't, and we won't. To say that Mankind is fallen is simply to make the observation that, given the choice, all humans choose to sin.

Oh, and for the record, that which is outside the possibility of choice is not outside the province of morality. We were just talking about cancer. Cancer is evil. Yet cancer is outside the possibility of choice.

[Havet]

In any case, that argument shows a complete lack of understanding of Christianity. Who said anything about sin without volition? Who said man has no will? No, we sin willingly. We have a choice, and we all choose to sin. We could live without sin, but we don't, and we won't. To say that Mankind is fallen is simply to make the observation that, given the choice, all humans choose to sin.

I though we were talking of the ORIGINAL SIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)? I'm not talking about choices here, i'm talking of the original sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin).


Oh, and for the record, that which is outside the possibility of choice is not outside the province of morality. We were just talking about cancer. Cancer is evil. Yet cancer is outside the possibility of choice.How is cancer EVIL? Yes its bad, harmful and painful, but how is it EVIL? I thought only living beings (because they can act purposefully) could be judged as good or evil? Is a hurricane evil? Is the asteroid that mightve killed the dinosaurs evil? Like wise, cancer is neither good nor evil.

[Hit The North]

or perhaps it was because there was no way to create the kind of biological life he wanted without allowing for the possibility of cancer.



He ain't much of a God, then:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-496751/Meet-supermouse-bred-genetic-scientists-CANT-cancer.html

[spiltteeth]

Actually, in my tradition, Orthodox Christianity, the 3rd largest form of the Christian faith, the bible has NEVER been treated literally, hence my quote by the well know famous theologian St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D, who wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way.”
Science was invented long after the bible, anyone who confuses meaning with science is confusing modality's of knowledge.
I know I keep repeating myself, but since virtually everyone here keeps ignoring it, once again I'll say its like a biologist going to Walt Whitman to discover the biological details of grass.
Pouge - it is clear you are not taking any of this seriously and are obviously just jerking around.
There is no way you could be asking the same question in the same framework after I've said -8 times!- that Christianity is not designed to give those answers, it is not its function, instead of child like easy answers it offers a response, a way to approach these mysteries without abdicating the necessity and responsibility of wrestling with them, a way of suffering. You have already said that you consider this Christianity's weakness, and I have already said why I consider this it's strength.
As anyone who has studied philosophy can tell you, it is not answers, but rephrasing the question that is the task of the philosopher (to bastardize Zizek's self-proclaimed mission)
To put it as simply as possible, religion (and poetry, and art) = meaning. Science = positive knowledge.
Pouge - either you are just screwing with people or that avatar is your actual photo, either way I am done repeating myself ad nauseum to you and will no longer respond.
Incidentally, there are 2 types of intellectual atheist; -Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris with simple minded devotion to acknowledging reality only in its most pared down anemic ideology of literal-minded rationality. And intelligent atheists -Zizek, Badiou etc, many prominent philosophers and cultural critics, who correctly set their claims in the realms of meaning and symbolic knowledge. They dismiss the formers sophomoric atheism because it actually pushes the same ideological framework as the people on the Christian right who believe in talking snakes, as I also explained in an above post.

[spiltteeth]

[QUOTE=hayenmill;1492794]I though we were talking of the ORIGINAL SIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)? I'm not talking about choices here, i'm talking of the original sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin).

Just to let you know, theologically speaking - which means it involves concepts metaphorically stated to posit truths transcendent of rationally (which of course doesn't mean that it is true) - original sin is not humanity being punished for the sins of its parents, anymore than a child is being 'punished' for being disease-prone because of a passed down genetic illness from its parents. I'm not trying to justify original sin, since it is by nature outside the purview of rational justification, I'm just correcting a mistaken notion.
But I'm no theologian, probably asking a bunch of revolutionary leftists theological questions is not exactly the wisest thing.
The only thing I can, and have been, offering, is why I see no contradiction between Orthodox Christianity and Marxism and what christianity does to me personally.
I am not qualified to answer theological questions nor would I want that job.

[Agrippa]

-
We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.
When you get down to it, unlike new age bs, Christianity doesn’t provide many clear answers

In short, Christianity lacks an answer.

The reason there is no answer to the question is because the concept of an anthropic, anthropocentric creator-and-operator-of-the-universe who holds humans above all its other creations and does not wish them to suffer is unscientific and unfounded, as demonstrated by the existence of human cancer cells.

Of course, the atheists are secretly disappointed that there isn't a loving, caring god to take care of them and protect them from suffering and hardship.

My answer's simple: God doesn't give a shit about humanity, at least not enough to give us special exemption from the natural circle of life. We cause suffering in order to perpetuate our existence, (by killing plants, animals, and fungi to live) why should we expect cancer-cells not to do the same to us?

[Rosa Provokateur]

But I'm not saying humans are perfect. Christians say God is perfect, but God created cancer, and Christians can't account for this.

Bollocks, I'm a Christian and I dont think God is entirely without blame. A theory of mine is that Jesus died not only for men but for God as well.

[spiltteeth]

In short, Christianity lacks an answer.

The reason there is no answer to the question is because the concept of an anthropic, anthropocentric creator-and-operator-of-the-universe who holds humans above all its other creations and does not wish them to suffer is unscientific and unfounded, as demonstrated by the existence of human cancer cells.

Of course, the atheists are secretly disappointed that there isn't a loving, caring god to take care of them and protect them from suffering and hardship.

My answer's simple: God doesn't give a shit about humanity, at least not enough to give us special exemption from the natural circle of life. We cause suffering in order to perpetuate our existence, (by killing plants, animals, and fungi to live) why should we expect cancer-cells not to do the same to us?


Damn. I'm disappointed their is not ONE intellectual atheist on this website. I answered NINE times that why the question does not make rational sense, and the I pointed out the two types of atheism. There has not been ONE rational argument for atheism (a la Zizek, Badiou etc etc)
It's all grade school child-like banalities on the lowest level of reasoning - the thinking is not even dialectically informed!
{ As a simple example of being 'dialectically informed' I mean, for instance, that the notion of 'me' makes no sense without an 'other,' for both to exist a third notion is created 'we' or the notion (weather it exists or not) of society - so each person (and this is going all the way back to Hegel not even gonna bring up Heidegger) can only exist self-consciously/subjectively in triune interaction - one of the things AI scientists are grappling with to create an artificial subjectivity.}
Not to say anyones arument is wrong and mine write, just that the intellectual position makes no rational sense i.e. Kant etc
Ah..back in 3rd grade!

[Hit The North]

Bollocks, I'm a Christian and I dont think God is entirely without blame. A theory of mine is that Jesus died not only for men but for God as well.

In the absence of any evidence to support your 'theory', I guess you just pulled it out of your ass?

[Hit The North]

{ As a simple example of being 'dialectically informed' I mean, for instance, that the notion of 'me' makes no sense without an 'other,' for both to exist a third notion is created 'we' or the notion (weather it exists or not) of society - so each person (and this is going all the way back to Hegel not even gonna bring up Heidegger) can only exist self-consciously/subjectively in triune interaction - one of the things AI scientists are grappling with to create an artificial subjectivity.}


What does this have to do with a belief, or non-belief, in the existence of God?

[Decolonize The Left]

Damn. I'm disappointed their is not ONE intellectual atheist on this website. I answered NINE times that why the question does not make rational sense, and the I pointed out the two types of atheism. There has not been ONE rational argument for atheism (a la Zizek, Badiou etc etc)
It's all grade school child-like banalities on the lowest level of reasoning - the thinking is not even dialectically informed!
{ As a simple example of being 'dialectically informed' I mean, for instance, that the notion of 'me' makes no sense without an 'other,' for both to exist a third notion is created 'we' or the notion (weather it exists or not) of society - so each person (and this is going all the way back to Hegel not even gonna bring up Heidegger) can only exist self-consciously/subjectively in triune interaction - one of the things AI scientists are grappling with to create an artificial subjectivity.}
Not to say anyones arument is wrong and mine write, just that the intellectual position makes no rational sense i.e. Kant etc
Ah..back in 3rd grade!

If Christianity doesn't provide an answer, as you have argued (rightfully) numerous times, then it is merely another way of understanding existence. And if it is another way of understanding existence, then it is subject to rational inquiry. Given that you have admitted that it is entirely irrational, it ought to be discarded along with any other theory which makes no sense - unicorns, Santa Claus, magical toast, etc...

See my point?

- August

[trivas7]

If Christianity doesn't provide an answer, as you have argued (rightfully) numerous times, then it is merely another way of understanding existence. And if it is another way of understanding existence, then it is subject to rational inquiry. Given that you have admitted that it is entirely irrational, it ought to be discarded along with any other theory which makes no sense - unicorns, Santa Claus, magical toast, etc...

This missing the point of religion, which is religious practice. They use devices of ritual, mystery, drama, dance and meditation in order to enable us better to cope with the vale of tears in which we find ourselves. Religion is therefore properly a matter of a practice, not of intellectual understanding, and may be compared with art or music. These are similarly difficult to create, and even to appreciate. But nobody who has engaged either would doubt that something valuable has happened in the process. We come out of the art gallery or concert hall enriched and braced, elevated and tranquil, and may even fancy ourselves better for it.

[trivas7]

Deleted - Double Post.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

This missing the point of religion, which is religious practice. They use devices of ritual, mystery, drama, dance and meditation in order to enable us better to cope with the vale of tears in which we find ourselves. Religion is therefore properly a matter of a practice, not of intellectual understanding, and may be compared with art or music. These are similarly difficult to create, and even to appreciate. But nobody who has engaged either would doubt that something valuable has happened in the process. We come out of the art gallery or concert hall enriched and braced, elevated and tranquil, and may even fancy ourselves better for it.

The point of religion cannot be practice itself, else explanations for X, Y, and Z would not be necessary. One could simply have people eat crackers, hold their hands to their head, have water dropped on them, etc... and this would suffice.

The point of religion is clearly two-fold:
1) To pacify existential anxiety
2) To control individuals

Rituals are the method through which these purposes are accomplished for through repeated actions, the mind becomes habitual and rational thinking is suppressed.

- August

[Agrippa]

Damn. I'm disappointed their is not ONE intellectual atheist on this website. I answered NINE times that why the question does not make rational sense, and the I pointed out the two types of atheism. There has not been ONE rational argument for atheism (a la Zizek, Badiou etc etc)
It's all grade school child-like banalities on the lowest level of reasoning - the thinking is not even dialectically informed!
{ As a simple example of being 'dialectically informed' I mean, for instance, that the notion of 'me' makes no sense without an 'other,' for both to exist a third notion is created 'we' or the notion (weather it exists or not) of society - so each person (and this is going all the way back to Hegel not even gonna bring up Heidegger) can only exist self-consciously/subjectively in triune interaction - one of the things AI scientists are grappling with to create an artificial subjectivity.}
Not to say anyones arument is wrong and mine write, just that the intellectual position makes no rational sense i.e. Kant etc
Ah..back in 3rd grade!

I think I was agreeing with you about atheists being irrational and anti-dialectical. I was also just pointing out that modern Christianity is also irrational and anti-dialectical.

[spiltteeth]

Those are not the point of religion, even if you personally beleive that is its function.
And ritual does not supress rationality, it supspends it so other experiences the the ego would normally not let surface do surface. To explain it scientifically, we can say suspending rationality in a ritualistic ordered way allows unconsious content to arise -a Jungian psychologist mioght say this puts you into a particular constellation of unconcoius identifications, or it could be compared to freudian assosiational therapy that bypasses rational ego driven concepts which is suppressed BY rationality.

Jung defines a ritual as "the practice and repetition of the original experience" which initiated a religious tradition. Such ritual can have varying effects ritual can be of "extraordinary importance" as a method of "mental hygiene." It can be a necessary means of keeping one from an "immediate experience" which might prove overwhelming. On the other hand, it can lose its efficacy for others who do seek immediate, original experience, or it can be the means to an experience one does not anticipate. "Through the ritual action," wrote Jung, "attention and interest are led back to the inner, sacred precinct, which is the source and goal of the psyche and contains the unity of life and consciousness."
In his essay, "On Psychic Energy", Jung wrote of the rituals of "primitive man" to illustrate what he calls "the canalization of Libido." We might understand this as a purely psychological phrase for the action of ritual. Ritual channels psychic energy in a particular fashion toward a particular focus. When our natures are left to themselves, their energy produces random, natural phenomena. When we give ourselves to a ritual, we channel these energies with a specific focus toward which they would not naturally flow. The ceremonies of so-called primitive people, Jung wrote, show how much is needed to divert the libido from its natural river-bed of everyday habit into some unaccustomed activity. The modern mind thinks this can be done by a mere decision of the will and that it can dispense with all magical ceremonies - which explains why it was so long at a loss to understand them properly. Through these ceremonies the deeper emotional forces are released.
To saves ritual from emptiness and meaninglessness and give it life and substance - What distinguishes virtual repetition from ritual repetition- is as Jung suggests, is the stepping aside, even defeat, of the ego which, when it can no longer impede the process, allows the act of repetition to penetrate "into the heart, where it can take up residence and begin to resound on its own." (to Quote a sufi metaphor)
This is done
"only by keeping an openness which permits the flow of energy between the unconscious and consciousness can the redeeming symbol continue its creative act of transformation. What we do to maintain such an openness, must be done over and over like laundry, like liturgy."
and
"The serious problems in life are never fully solved. If ever they should appear to be so it is a sure sign that something has been lost. The meaning and purpose of a problem seem to lie not in its solution but in our working at it incessantly. This alone preserves us from stultification and petrifaction."

-Jung

[trivas7]

The point of religion cannot be practice itself, else explanations for X, Y, and Z would not be necessary.

"Explanations" clearly explain nothing. Necessary to what end? Anyone who has engaged in religion realizes that explanations are not to the point at all.


One could simply have people eat crackers, hold their hands to their head, have water dropped on them, etc... and this would suffice.
This sufficed for the first three hundred years of Christianity.


The point of religion is clearly two-fold:
1) To pacify existential anxiety
2) To control individuals

Rituals are the method through which these purposes are accomplished for through repeated actions, the mind becomes habitual and rational thinking is suppressed.
Agreed as to your first point: religious methods are meant to pacify existential anxiety. As to your second point: to control individuals to what end? Controlled by whom? "Control" is a vague and uninformative term here.

[Decolonize The Left]

Those are not the point of religion, even if you personally beleive that is its function.
And ritual does not supress rationality, it supspends it so other experiences the the ego would normally not let surface do surface.

What is "the ego?"


To explain it scientifically, we can say suspending rationality in a ritualistic ordered way allows unconsious content to arise -a Jungian psychologist mioght say this puts you into a particular constellation of unconcoius identifications, or it could be compared to freudian assosiational therapy that bypasses rational ego driven concepts which is suppressed BY rationality.

Ok. But you are still illogically attributing this 'unconscious content' to god.


Jung defines a ritual as "the practice and repetition of the original experience" which initiated a religious tradition.

Religious tradition generally does not follow from its prophets. It is the followers of the prophets which established tradition - remember that Jesus was fundamentally anti-church, how can you justify tradition (which always occurs under the direction, or following the command, of the church) in this light?

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

"Explanations" clearly explain nothing. Necessary to what end? Anyone who has engaged in religion realizes that explanations are not to the point at all.

If this was the case, then these explanations (god created the universe in seven days, etc...) would be pointless and superfluous. They would only weaken and hamper the religion itself.


This sufficed for the first three hundred years of Christianity.

And?


Agreed as to your first point: religious methods are meant to pacify existential anxiety. As to your second point: to control individuals to what end? Controlled by whom? "Control" is a vague and uninformative term here.

To the end of gaining power, money, influence, etc... Controlled by the hierarchy of the church - those who make the decisions under the guise of 'speaking for god.' Look no further than the pope.

- August

[trivas7]

If this was the case, then these explanations (god created the universe in seven days, etc...) would be pointless and superfluous. They would only weaken and hamper the religion itself.

How do you know this? Doesn't religion engage the whole person, including the intellect?


To the end of gaining power, money, influence, etc... Controlled by the hierarchy of the church - those who make the decisions under the guise of 'speaking for god.' Look no further than the pope.
How powerful do you think religious hierarchies are in this day and age? To quote Stalin: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

[spiltteeth]

What is "the ego?"



Ok. But you are still illogically attributing this 'unconscious content' to god.



Religious tradition generally does not follow from its prophets. It is the followers of the prophets which established tradition - remember that Jesus was fundamentally anti-church, how can you justify tradition (which always occurs under the direction, or following the command, of the church) in this light?

- August[/FONT]

In this specific instance I use ego as the mechanism whereby irrational content is rejected, and only rational content is allowed to build ones conception of identity and world constructs.

The unconscious content is transcendent of ego, I personally do- not exactly attribute- but connect it with God, this is not to 'prove' anything about this experience 'really' coming from God –anyomore than anyone could ‘prove’ they were ‘really’ in love in any absolute sense, (as Badiou explains it is necessarily a subjective truth and unable to be communicated objectively, : In Badiou’s ontology truth emerges from an “event”; and this event comes from the “empty set”, or void. These “truth-events” can be produced within four possible fields, or “generic procedures”. For Badiou the four fields, or conditions, for a truth’s emergence are Science, Art, Politics, and Love. A truth can only emerge through an event in one of these categories. Each new inaugurates a new ‘situation’ with it’s own set of rules. Each situation has a ‘count’, and any element of the situation is a part of the ‘count’ of the situation. Thus, each element of a situation ‘counts’ as a part of the whole. For example; the inception of Jazz music was an event that took place within the “generic procedure” of Art. The initial occurrence of Jazz music emerged from a void, which was nothing but the empty space existing in the absence of what would later come to be known as Jazz music.
The event of Jazz subsequently changed the situation in which it emerged; before its founding event Jazz simply didn’t ‘count’ as part of the situation, but after this emergence Jazz inaugurated a new situation in which it was included in the ‘count’ of elements within the situation.For Badiou, truth and subjectivity are intertwined in a fashion quite similar to that of Kierkegaard; and each emerges from the founding of an event. Subjectivity takes place when an individual claims fidelity to an event; and the truth of that event is proclaimed in a subject’s “militant proclamation” of that event and the truth it has inaugurated.The proclamation must be militant because nothing is ‘real’ or ‘settled’ in the situation, so a subject must make things happen, or make ‘shape’, of the situation. This can be seen in marriage. Although two individuals participate in a ceremony on a certain day and at a certain time, nothing truly happens. The next day each remains the same person they have been their entire life. Thus, they must live in a militant fidelity to the ‘event’ that was their marriage, and subsequently ‘make shape’ of their new situation through this fidelity.Thus, at the inception of the music which would come to be known as Jazz, certain individuals witnessed the founding event, and were subjectivized through their witnessing and subsequent fidelity to this event. The “truth” associated with this new form of art emerges through the faithful proclamation of this founding event.)
I only brought it up to correct you that ritual 'suppresses' rationality, instead of suspending it.

Justifying tradition – to do so you would first have to share my beliefs, so short answer : I can’t. We describe tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.
Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church.
The bible is always interpreted from within the Tradition which was the context for their writing, which is why the Orthodox can say even if there was no bible the Orthodox tradition would not be changed.

[spiltteeth]

How powerful do you think religious hierarchies have in this day and age? To quote Stalin: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

I have to agree. Whenever religion gets mixed up in politics it becomes degenerated by power and control. I do not believe this was the churches original intention but it happened -mostly in the Catholic church which has a pope and was involved in a theocracy.
The Orthodox has no pope or centralizing ultimate authority but it does have a hierarchal structure and it's often shameful how those in power argue with pettiness.
In Orthodoxy priests usually sign their names 'sinful priest' to preserve humility but this is a weak deterrent.

[spiltteeth]

If this was the case, then these explanations (god created the universe in seven days, etc...) would be pointless and superfluous. They would only weaken and hamper the religion itself.



And?



To the end of gaining power, money, influence, etc... Controlled by the hierarchy of the church - those who make the decisions under the guise of 'speaking for god.' Look no further than the pope.

- August

And 'god created the universe in seven days' etc was never suposed to be an explanation -I think I've already shown that ie

Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:
…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'
Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way.”

[Bud Struggle]

How powerful do you think religious hierarchies have in this day and age? To quote Stalin: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

Sixty years after Stalin's comment Communism is gone from Stalin's Russia. A Pope still sits in Rome. Pope John-Paul II was instrumental in the downfall of Communism in Europe.

There is power and there is POWER.

Be careful who you mess with.

[trivas7]

Sixty years after Stalin's comment Communism is gone from Stalin's Russia. A Pope still sits in Rome. Pope John-Paul II was instrumental in the downfall of Communism in Europe.

You're a fool if you think that the Pope has much moral authority nowadays, Bud.

[Bud Struggle]

You're a fool if you think that the Pope has much moral authority nowadays, Bud.

That was kind of Stalin's line, don't you think? :laugh:

The Pope's authority comes and goes. It always has--but he's always there when lesser philosophies fail. And they fail, don't they? Consistantly and regularly. And the Pope always remains.

Just the way it is.

[SouthernBelle82]

Pouge -
We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.
When you get down to it, unlike new age bs, Christianity doesn’t provide many clear answers, rather it offers a way to approach suffering.
Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.
We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us-that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in love for others. Sickness gets us partway there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence.
I don’t believe in Christianity because it offers answers. In fact if it did, I’d probably think it was a bunch of made up crap with easy answers just to console people.

Blake's Baby -
I mean show me why I cannot be a communist and a christian, or why communists always preach atheism and try to convert others.

I'm a Christian who happens to be a Communist as well. To me after a lot of reading and searching and all that I came to the conclusion that both spiritually and politically these two are the best fit. A lot of what Jesus talked about so do Communist's such as helping the poor, sick, not seeing race, gender, separation of church and state. The thing with communism is it's a political ideology. It's about how to govern a country. Religion is about your soul. Personally I don't see how one, if they are Christian, can be anything else politically besides some sort of socialism and communism happens to be the best choice and that makes the most sense.

[SouthernBelle82]

But Christians say God is all loving, all powerful and all knowing. How does this fit in with the fact that he created cancer? Surely it contradicts your religion.

It doesn't provide any answers because it was the scribblings of a bunch of nutters in an age long past.

There is the whole free will thing. Sure God is all powerful but He loves us enough for us to make our own choices and to learn and to progress. As a gnostic Christian I'm always trying to improve my knowledge and spiritual side. As far as cancer who says it was God who created it? Everything has free will even germs.

[SouthernBelle82]

But God created everything. Science proves radiation always existed and always caused cancer, so God must have made it.

The fact you say you cant explain it shows the weakness of Christianity.

Also lets be logical here - how can there be a loving reason for it? There isn't - rather than adapt your ideology around the evidence against it, drop it. Christians change so much with their view of God they end up saying nothing - God becomes so abstract he becomes meaningless. Just give it up, its a stupid ideology.

If God was put on trial how dyu think he'd justify cancer?

I understand where you're coming from on a loving God and bad things happening. Sometimes bad things happen because of OUR choices that we made or other individuals in the Universe. Sometimes we have lessons to learn as well and that can be painful lessons. My grandfather died of lung cancer back in 2005 so I understand that question. He hadn't smoked since he was in his early 50's and he died at 73. Why then? Why did he suffer when he died? I believe God knows us well and He gives us challenges and experiences He knows we can handle. Maybe something bad, like cancer, happens to someone because they or someone in their life had to learn something and that person was strong to go through it. I believe before we come here there are certain things we have to learn and experiences we have to take. We choose whether or not to take those paths and God gave us the freewill to decide. My grandfather was a strong person and I think He could handle the situation. Maybe if it wasn't him it would have been someone else who couldn't handle it and would have made their spirit worse off and set them back. We won't know until we go "home" for sure.

[SouthernBelle82]

Bob the builder - as far as Marx saying people won't need religion in a classless society I believe, since he is speaking socially, that people will not need religion to function in the same ways - as a substitute for science or logic. So people will not look to religion to answer such questions as why it rains, how old is the universe, where does cancer come from etc
Science and religion, since they operate in different realms ought to be separated.
However, one can still be religious even if one is not alienated, in fear, etc
Marx used that famous line -religion is an opium of the people- because opium was just invented and he meant as a painkiller.
Life will always have aspects of the tragic.
One can say the same thing about love - it is not fully explained by biochemical processes or psychology (many psychologists insist it can never, by the nature of its subjective experience be symbolized) and love is irrational.
William Burroughs said - "Love-what is it? The most powerful painkiller on earth."
If one feels less alone when in love - even if objectively we are always ultimately alone and love is a unprovable 'illusion', as long as it does not touch science or theory whats the harm.

I've also noticed anarchist's speak about love and creativity much easier than communists - why is that?

I also think Marx could have been talking more about organized religion and not so much spirituality which are two different things in my view and experience.

[SouthernBelle82]

Surely because God could do anything he could remove cancer and keep everything else the same.

Your religion system is so ridiculously stupid. Original sin? So once more, God punishes all of humanity, with particular suffering for some people randomly, based on the fact that some of us apparently 'sinned'.

Absolutely ridiculous, I don't see how an intelligent person like you would degrade yourself into believing such insane bullshit. You've basically said that 'God couldn't make a world without radiation/cancer', in which case he is not omnipotent. Pathetic.

Depends on who you're talking to with that. I believe God can't interfere directly in our lives or the Earth or so many things would be screwed up. As someone else mentioned if all the radiation was gone maybe things would be so different the things we need would be gone. I do think God can give advice but we have to in the end choose to take it or not. And I think since God knows every individual He sends his advice in various ways depending on who you're dealing with. And gnostic Christianity doesn't believe in sin. The whole reason why there is "sin" is because of Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross. However as a gnostic Christian I don't believe in all of that. I do believe Jesus died and all that but not to save anyone. If there's no sin there is nobody to save. "Sin" was the Orthodox Churches way of damning people they didn't like.

[SouthernBelle82]

Bollocks, I'm a Christian and I dont think God is entirely without blame. A theory of mine is that Jesus died not only for men but for God as well.

Oh I agree and to make up for the things of the past. The whole sacrificial Lamb thing. The whole life and death of Jesus is a new covenant. I do remember reading that in plenty of NT scriptures in the first four gospels in the beginnings.

[RedRise]

My theory is that communism is actually very inkeep with most religions. Jesus was feeding the poor and all that.
My religion is pagan and polytheistic, but that has nothing to do with it. Part of what I believe is basically that everyone should have equal rights and it is our duty to help our fellow human beings in their time of need. Is that not at least partly communism?
Which god/goddess/s you believe are out there/up there/down there makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. It's the main message that counts.
I know this is Christian, but Keltoi, Asatrü and Hinduism (and Islam?) have almost identical phrases.
"Do unto others as you yourself would be treated."
That's preaching equality. So why are we even arguing about this?:confused:

[trivas7]

My theory is that communism is actually very inkeep with most religions.
Indeed, it is a secular religion.

[Radical]

While there is Religion, there shall always be oppression

[SouthernBelle82]

While there is Religion, there shall always be oppression

That's just a stereotype. One of the best activist's with socialism was Malcolm X who was a Muslim.

[The Feral Underclass]

How can humans be so intelligent, so advanced as to need no God but also create cigarettes that cause cancer?

That's such shitty logic. Human beings are infallible, we're not fortune tellers, we can't see into the future and we have weaknesses. We also live in a class society which causes exploitation, alienation and oppression, rendering our ability to challenge things incredibly difficult.

Trying to make out that human beings are not advanced and unintelligent does not prove the existence god.

I'm not going to tolerate any more of this shit from you. If you carry on I'll issue infractions.

[The Feral Underclass]

The suffering in the world is so whole, so complete in its magnitude that the existence of god is an affront to the very idea of goodness, peace and love. If god has given us free will and has allowed us to formulate such brutal concepts as capitalism and fascism; if he has sat on his heavenly throne and looked down on us as we have destroyed our planet, enslaved a continent, sent 10 million people to gas chambers; had to fret about death and watch our love ones suffer and die around us; If he has watched and seen and noted the rape, murder, child abuse, the starvation and disease; if he has sat, idly by, judging us from his book used to observe the misery and suffering on this planet then he is evil: He should be questioned and he should be destroyed, because if he exists, no matter whether he bestowed on us "free will", he has sat back and allowed us to create every darkest act we could conceptualise and done nothing to stop it.

I don't accept that we should just love him and that we should have faith in him, because as far as I'm concerned there is nothing to love or have faith in. He is a terrifying father figure who has neglected his creation for the sake of some arrogant and dogmatic principle called "free will" and then told us he will punish us if we don't love him or have faith in him, irrespective of the fact we have to contend with life (which we never had any option in choosing) and all the painstaking, backbreaking shit that comes worth it. If he exists, he should be ashamed of himself and I for one will be happy to tell god to go fuck himself if ever I had the chance.

This thread is, frankly, offensive in its scope. I don't care if you're a christian, or if you have managed to come up with ways to justify and qualify your ridiculous, psychotic beliefs but I am about as intolerant to the contents of this thread as I can be.

Closed.