Is it possible to be communist, and still be religious

[snowball21]

It think this is a valid point: Is it possible to hold a deep religious faith and still be revoutionary? I am a deep Christian existentialist who believes in most of Kirkregaard's sayings on religion, but I also feel a great pull toward the ideals of a better society offered by revolution. Maybe Christian existentialism is more amenable, because it advocates freedom of choice and individualism. I suppose I'm not a part of any particular church, but I've formed my own intense spiritualism of universal tolerance, and merged it with communism's offer of equality...whether or not those ideals of equality can be reached is a differnet arguement...what do you comrades think?

[Pogue]

I think you will be contradicting one or the other. If you agree with everything we advocate but also what the bible advocates without being choosy then you are contradicting one of the two.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

There have been plenty of Christian communists and revolutionaries, so I don't see why not. Whether you can be a Christian Communist without people on this forum being dicks, however, is entirely different.

[Hit The North]

The problem with saying that you are a Christian rather than merely 'religious' or 'spiritual' is that you are identifying with a specific set of beliefs - existence of an interventionist God; an interventionist Devil; places called Heaven and Hell; an army of sexless, immortal beings called angels; a virgin birth; miracles; God incarnating as a man in order to sacrifice himself (bizarrely in order to appease himself - so, at the least a schizoid and divided God); resurrection; a prescribed and predetermined end of the world.

So the question I think you should really ask yourself is not whether your Christianity contradicts your communism, but whether it contradicts the evidence of your own eyes about how the world works.

[mikelepore]

I think, toward resolving this, it's the concept "communist" that should put through the reduction. We should retain just this: We shall operate the industries on a nonprofit basis, with the workers and communities democratically exercising the management.

Everything else that might be said about the subject is someone's personal viewpoint, part of the details that people will be debating and voting on, perhaps far into the future.

By performing such a reduction, the answer to the question in the topic header becomes yes.

Also, by doing this, there just might be a chance to actually recruit the majority of the working class into the movement and therefore win. Or we can continue to insist on narrowly defined principles, and wait for a thousand years.

[black magick hustla]

i used to think you could not. but honestly, the kierkergaard god has very little to do with the traditional christian god.

[RotStern]

Of course! You can be christian and communist with no problem.
I read Nietzsche because I think hes an interesting guy, But does that mean I cant be a communist?
Nope. :lol:

[Kassad]

I suppose you could be a communist and still remain religious, but it should strike you as odd that you reject bourgeois authority and material oppression of the proletariat, only to embrace religious authority and the submission of will to spiritual oppression.

[Manifesto]

Well I'm anti-clerical but still religious. Whats the problem with that?

[Durruti's Ghost]

You can be a religious communist. You just can't be a religious Marxist. Communism isn't a strictly materialist ideology; Marxism is.

[spiltteeth]

The problem with saying that you are a Christian rather than merely 'religious' or 'spiritual' is that you are identifying with a specific set of beliefs - existence of an interventionist God; an interventionist Devil; places called Heaven and Hell; an army of sexless, immortal beings called angels; a virgin birth; miracles; God incarnating as a man in order to sacrifice himself (bizarrely in order to appease himself - so, at the least a schizoid and divided God); resurrection; a prescribed and predetermined end of the world.

So the question I think you should really ask yourself is not whether your Christianity contradicts your communism, but whether is contradicts the evidence of your own eyes about how the world works.


Well, I am a communist and belong to the Orthodox Church and submit to its will best I can.

Here’s a thread I did that may help I’m a Christian. I’m a communist. Stone my ass
http://www.revleft.com/vb/m-christian-m-t113020/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/m-christian-m-t113020/index.html)

Like Bob, many others here are hard to pin down, they seem to believe in some kind or pre-17th century rationalism or scientism.
For instance, anyone who has read Kant knows that reason is not self sustaining and can never to justified as an absolute.
Anyone who had read post-modernism (which I hate and do not adhere to) knows that rationalist arguments can be pulled apart just like an atom.
Anyone who knows psychology knows that there is rationality, irrationality, and trans-rationality.
Anyone who's into science will know, for instance, that we can influence (change) the past simply by perceiving it (via telescope) if you've read the great John Wheeler who has proven this mathematically.
Anyone who's into quantum physics knows a particle will change how it behaves simply by observing it, from a wave to a photon for instance.
Tychons, mathematically possible although never proven, can travel back in time. We have actually sent one particle back in time and Mr. Hawking believes we will do it with a human within the next 20yrs.
Although you may observe time as linear, in many ways it does not function that way, so simple observation can be deceptive.
Most of the universe is made up of 'Dark matter.' What is dark matter? Noone knows.
So, simple observation using purely one tool - rationality etc really diminishes your reality.
Also, much of reality, by the very nature it interacts with us, can only be experienced subjectively.

Since you mention Kierkegaard I often quote Badiou since he is considered one of the most brilliant philosophers/mathematicians around PLUS he a hardcore atheist AND a communist :
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 Badioudid, 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 have to say though, many here will treat you with disrespect and insult, the thread I posted above, in the last post, the person actually says he is close minded to the subject and likens believers to psychopaths.

The Anarchist Tension (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8425) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/statusicon/user_offline.gif
SWP Poster Boy
Commie Club Member
Admin

The Anarchist Tension (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8425) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/statusicon/user_offline.gif
SWP Poster Boy
Commie Club Member
Admin

The Anarchist tension :

"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."

Actually, he has the exact same ideology as Christian fundamentalists who confuse categories of knowledge and equate science fact with the (transrational) relationships to those things outside of rational apprehension (usually apprehended when the ego is suspended and unconscious contents manifest themselves -not that this is any proof of God) so it should come to no surprise if he sounds just like an intolerant right fascist fundamental Christian.

But please don't let this discourage you from communism!
Welcome.

[the last donut of the night]

You can be Communist and religious. I am.

[spiltteeth]

Although I know Marx was deeply anti-religious I am Marxist and Christian.
Check out the thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/m-christian-m-t113020/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/m-christian-m-t113020/index.html)

I believe Marx was anti-religious because of its superstitiousness and authoritarian control, neither of which I think is integral to religion, although I'm sure many would disagree, because of this, I think I am being true to his spirit, there's plenty even Marx did not know about and every mans vision of the world is incomplete.
Further, you can still be a Marxist while not believing every single word he every said as if his writings were the bible. Marxist Dialectics is in no way, as far as I can tell, opposed to Christianity, at least as it is preached in my Orthodox church which is similar to another Christian who was quite an adept dialectition - Kierkagaard.

[MarxSchmarx]

Dude, if I can be frank, you've left logical consistency behind a long time ago when you seriously embraced Christianity. As such, I don't see why any other contradictions about communism and Christianity should bother you anymore than the contradiction of "virgin birth" or "life after death" or whatever should.

Hence, as a matter of praxis, all you have is a lousy metaphysical worldview. We don't hold that against you.

I honestly don't care how you happen to come to our struggle. If it's through your religious views, well, as long as you don't try to poison the rest of us with it, or stick to the literal or reactionary doctrines, do whatever you want with it. Frankly, I suspect most of us here don't really mind it.


Everything else that might be said about the subject is someone's personal viewpoint, part of the details that people will be debating and voting on, perhaps far into the future...
Also, by doing this, there just might be a chance to actually recruit the majority of the working class into the movement and therefore win. Or we can continue to insist on narrowly defined principles, and wait for a thousand years.The thing is, we have to ask ourselves whether our movement is grounded in a vision of human liberation or in simple economical terms like you describe. For instance, if

We should retain just this: We shall operate the industries on a nonprofit basis, with the workers and communities democratically exercising the management.was the end all be all of our movement, how do we deal with reactionary views like anti-choice and anti-gay ideology?

We can't.

Only by understanding that the liberation of the working class must go hand in hand with the liberation of all humanity can we really advance our cause. Although I think organized religion is largely antithetical to these ends and most theology absurd, I don't see how it necessarily serves as a straitjacket on people the way, say, anti-choice laws do.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Although I know Marx was deeply anti-religious I am Marxist and Christian.
Check out the thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/m-christian-m-t113020/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/m-christian-m-t113020/index.html)

I believe Marx was anti-religious because of its superstitiousness and authoritarian control, neither of which I think is integral to religion, although I'm sure many would disagree, because of this, I think I am being true to his spirit, there's plenty even Marx did not know about and every mans vision of the world is incomplete.
Further, you can still be a Marxist while not believing every single word he every said as if his writings were the bible. Marxist Dialectics is in no way, as far as I can tell, opposed to Christianity, at least as it is preached in my Orthodox church which is similar to another Christian who was quite an adept dialectition - Kierkagaard.

I stand corrected. It is certainly not my place, as an anarchist, to attempt to dictate who can and cannot be a Marxist.

[Decolonize The Left]

It think this is a valid point: Is it possible to hold a deep religious faith and still be revoutionary? I am a deep Christian existentialist who believes in most of Kirkregaard's sayings on religion, but I also feel a great pull toward the ideals of a better society offered by revolution. Maybe Christian existentialism is more amenable, because it advocates freedom of choice and individualism. I suppose I'm not a part of any particular church, but I've formed my own intense spiritualism of universal tolerance, and merged it with communism's offer of equality...whether or not those ideals of equality can be reached is a differnet arguement...what do you comrades think?

Of course you can be religious and be a communist/anarchist. The contradictions arise in theory, not in practice. In practice we are all working towards the same goal, and whether or not you believe in a load of unprovable absurd nonsense is secondary to whether or not you are willing to raise class consciousness and support the working class in struggle.

- August

[mel]

I'm growing quite alarmed at this growing insistence (in contradiction with material reality and the word of most self-identified Christians) that one need believe literally every word of a book compiled some 1500-2000 years ago in order to rightly call oneself a Christian.

Why is it that on the subject of religion (and with hardly any mention of any religion other than Christianity, as if it is the only one which exists) so many leftists are completely willing to leave their rational, materialist analysis at the door and simply come out in force to condemn any expression of a religious ideal which contradicts their characterization of it? It seems that people are perfectly willing to just accept that the only expression of religion is the one which is espoused by the goons on Fox News and lampooned by the rest of the bourgeois media without even a touch of investigation into the way the working class actually practices or views religion, the function it serves, the ways in which it has been interpreted and expressed in history.

Why is it that leftists have such a blind spot in this particular area?

[gilhyle]

My theoretical answer to the original question is yes it is possible - but it is not possible to be an effective Marxist.

That said, one of the best communists I ever knew turned out secretely to have a religious faith; and he wasnt a bad marxist theoretician either as long as he kept away from certain matters to do with human value and dignity

[spiltteeth]

I'm growing quite alarmed at this growing insistence (in contradiction with material reality and the word of most self-identified Christians) that one need believe literally every word of a book compiled some 1500-2000 years ago in order to rightly call oneself a Christian.

Why is it that on the subject of religion (and with hardly any mention of any religion other than Christianity, as if it is the only one which exists) so many leftists are completely willing to leave their rational, materialist analysis at the door and simply come out in force to condemn any expression of a religious ideal which contradicts their characterization of it? It seems that people are perfectly willing to just accept that the only expression of religion is the one which is espoused by the goons on Fox News and lampooned by the rest of the bourgeois media without even a touch of investigation into the way the working class actually practices or views religion, the function it serves, the ways in which it has been interpreted and expressed in history.

Why is it that leftists have such a blind spot in this particular area?


Good point ! I think its because of the burgous media. After seeing Pat Robinson etc I myself was disgusted by christianity and it wasn't until I investigated for myself that I found out what the fundamentalist's practiced was not christianity at all.

In my faith, Orthodox Christian, we are always taght the bible 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.”

[Philosophical Materialist]

Yes it is. There are idealist (and mystical) philosophies concerning routes to socialism and communism, but of course it is impossible to believe in the supernatural and hold a consistent knowledge system based on 'scientific socialism' (that is, a materialist world-view).

[mel]

Yes it is. There are idealist (and mystical) philosophies concerning routes to socialism and communism, but of course it is impossible to believe in the supernatural and hold a consistent knowledge system based on 'scientific socialism' (that is, a materialist world-view).

Why? Do you not think that people are incapable of separating beliefs about one sphere of their existence (the existence of some sort of a God) with their beliefs about another realm of existence (the material world). I see no inherent contradiction with one person believing both that there is a higher power (even an interventionist power) and also believing that the material conditions of the world shape peoples beliefs and attitudes about the world around them, which ultimately determines their actions, a belief that the class struggle is the way in which the working class must ultimately overthrow and take control of the organs of their own oppression, or the labor theory of value. A belief in something immaterial does not necessarily immediately negate all belief in the material, or indicate a denial of any known aspect of the material.

[spiltteeth]

Yes it is. There are idealist (and mystical) philosophies concerning routes to socialism and communism, but of course it is impossible to believe in the supernatural and hold a consistent knowledge system based on 'scientific socialism' (that is, a materialist world-view).

What do you mean by 'supernatural'?
Love? Beauty? Ethics? Time? Reason or rationality as an absolute? Dualistic transrational apprehension of truth moments?

Please see my post above - reply to Bob the builder

[Hit The North]

What do you mean by 'supernatural'?
Love? Beauty? Ethics? Time? Reason or rationality as an absolute? Dualistic transrational apprehension of truth moments?


By "supernatural" we are referring to a mode of existence which stands apart, sometimes, in some conceptions, over and above, the natural world. Logically, any God who creates the universe must exist in this supernatural realm.

None of the things you mention - love, beauty, ethics, time, reason - are remotely comparable as they are either a consequence of human cognition and feeling, or an objective feature of the natural world, in the case of time.

The same can be said of God - it is a product of the human mind not the producer of humanity and creation.

The problem with religion is that it gets this the wrong way around. This is why Marx was opposed to religion because it mystifies the relation humans have with each other and with nature. It is a form of alienation which we need to escape in order to see the world clearly.

[manic expression]

It is very possible. From the James Connolly quote in my signature:

Socialism, as a party, bases itself upon its knowledge of facts, of economic truths, and leaves the building up of religious ideals or faiths to the outside public, or to its individual members if they so will. It is neither Freethinker nor Christian, Turk nor Jew, Buddhist nor Idolator, Mahommedan nor Parsee – it is only human.

In fact, you should read Connolly's entire article on the subject:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/socrel.htm

If you ask me, belief in divinity is not necessarily contradictory with communism, Marxism, socialism or revolutionary ideas in general. I'm a deist...am I less of a communist because of it?

[YKTMX]

Communism is a practical political standpoint: it signifies an insistence on the centrality of the self-activity of the working classes to the liberation of all mankind.

The position one has on the metaphysical status of the universe could hardly matter less.

So, yes, you can be a communist and be "religious".

[spiltteeth]

By "supernatural" we are referring to a mode of existence which stands apart, sometimes, in some conceptions, over and above, the natural world. Logically, any God who creates the universe must exist in this supernatural realm.

None of the things you mention - love, beauty, ethics, time, reason - are remotely comparable as they are either a consequence of human cognition and feeling, or an objective feature of the natural world, in the case of time.

The same can be said of God - it is a product of the human mind not the producer of humanity and creation.

The problem with religion is that it gets this the wrong way around. This is why Marx was opposed to religion because it mystifies the relation humans have with each other and with nature. It is a form of alienation which we need to escape in order to see the world clearly.


Bob! You did not read my post above that I responded to you.
Time is NOT objective. Simple observation is not enough. It can be deceptive and lead to wrong conclusions such as time being objective etc

love can never be objectively proved (measuring dopamine/seratonin reuptake inhibiter's is speculative because these nurochemicals can be triggered by various means.)

All the things I described has a subjective effect on people that objectively changes their behavior, this does not mean the explanation of these things is correct or not, but, since by its very nature (as I explained above) since it can ONLY be accounted by a subjective account, trying to objectify its contents is scientifically, mathematically (see Badiou or any physics theory in the past 65 yrs) and logically invalid.

Look at business models, because they involve humans, and humans are not predicable rational beings, they always make room for uncertainty, things that cannot be accounted for by math or theory.

Since the things I talk about are only relevant to ones inner subjectivity, it ought not to impact ones objective materialistic dialectic model, although it could effect how you subjectively experience the practice of carrying out that model in the real world.
Hence, religion and Marxism can co-exist.

[Hit The North]

Splitteeth,

I did read your previous post, but failed to understand the point you were making.


Since the things I talk about are only relevant to ones inner subjectivityAre you claiming that religious belief is subjective because it resides in the heads of individual persons? If so, this is patently wrong. Religious belief exists in the world as a set of practices and relations and the individual's belief or otherwise does not spontaneously pop into her head but is dependent upon her exposure to religious institutions and belief systems - not to mention a whole constellation of other social relations. In other words, religious belief is socially constituted and, therefore, cannot be reduced to the subjectivity of individual minds. We could make the same case for the other items you mention: love, beauty, ethics, etc.

Now because religion is neither subjective nor objective (because the supernatural does not objectively exist or, a least, religion cannot prove it does), but has what John Searle calls "institutional reality", our judgement of religion and the consequences of belief in it, should be based on an analysis of its social function. Dogmatists will argue that it always functions negatively against human freedom. They will point to the role religion has played in propping up the prevailing social order and sanctifying the relations of power, authority and material inequality. They will argue that it has served this function throughout history and continues to do so. Others, with a more charitable (sic) disposition, might allow that although this has been the majority case for established religions, there are many instances where religion has, on the contrary, provided an emancipatory impulse (the role of Protestantism for the English bourgeoisie, for example, or the liberation theology of recent times).

But whichever position you take, it stands in contradiction to your claim that religious belief has no impact on the world because it is mere subjectivity. On the contrary, it has real social force. In fact, you admit this much yourself when you write:


All the things I described has a subjective effect on people that objectively changes their behaviourThe point, for Marxists, at least, is that we analyse religion, not in its own terms, but politically. I'm not interested in debating about the existence of ghosts, whether holy or profane. But I am interested in the content of the social ideas of the religious belief. If someone claims to be a party-loyalist of Papal authority and a Marxist, I would have to take grave exception and point out to that person that they are mired in an irreconcilable contradiction.

[Conquer or Die]

It is precisely clear to anybody who understands history that denying the right to metaphysical beliefs will be the complete undoing of that person's aims.

[spiltteeth]

Splitteeth,

I did read your previous post, but failed to understand the point you were making.

Are you claiming that religious belief is subjective because it resides in the heads of individual persons? If so, this is patently wrong. Religious belief exists in the world as a set of practices and relations and the individual's belief or otherwise does not spontaneously pop into her head but is dependent upon her exposure to religious institutions and belief systems - not to mention a whole constellation of other social relations. In other words, religious belief is socially constituted and, therefore, cannot be reduced to the subjectivity of individual minds. We could make the same case for the other items you mention: love, beauty, ethics, etc.

Now because religion is neither subjective nor objective (because the supernatural does not objectively exist or, a least, religion cannot prove it does), but has what John Searle calls "institutional reality", our judgment of religion and the consequences of belief in it, should be based on an analysis of its social function. Dogmatists will argue that it always functions negatively against human freedom. They will point to the role religion has played in propping up the prevailing social order and sanctifying the relations of power, authority and material inequality. They will argue that it has served this function throughout history and continues to do so. Others, with a more charitable (sic) disposition, might allow that although this has been the majority case for established religions, there are many instances where religion has, on the contrary, provided an emancipatory impulse (the role of Protestantism for the English bourgeoisie, for example, or the liberation theology of recent times).

But whichever position you take, it stands in contradiction to your claim that religious belief has no impact on the world because it is mere subjectivity. On the contrary, it has real social force. In fact, you admit this much yourself when you write:

The point, for Marxists, at least, is that we analyse religion, not in its own terms, but politically. I'm not interested in debating about the existence of ghosts, whether holy or profane. But I am interested in the content of the social ideas of the religious belief. If someone claims to be a party-loyalist of Papal authority and a Marxist, I would have to take grave exception and point out to that person that they are mired in an irreconcilable contradiction.


I must admit this is a very good counter post. I'll think on it. Thanks for the thoughtful response. If not subjective beliefs, for my own education, what is the social contradiction of being a Marxist and my own faith, Orthodox Christianity - in general. We do not have ant specific politics and no pope or human central authority.

[Hit The North]

If not subjective beliefs, for my own education, what is the social contradiction of being a Marxist and my own faith, Orthodox Christianity - in general. We do not have ant specific politics and no pope or human central authority.

I don't know enough about the content of your religion or its historical role to make a judgement. Perhaps that's up to you to work out?

[SubcomandanteJames]

You can be religious and communist, you can even be communist because your religious, but for the sake of liberty, true communism is not theocratic.

[X-san]

I want to make a note that there is in the islamic world some parties that tried to mix between Islam & Communism like " Mujahidi Khalk " in Iran . they have founded in the islamic history some people like " Abu zir el gufhari " & " the qaramita " & those were having some socialist tendencies .
Marx has pointed in the communist manifesto that the first christians were in a socialist society .

[Hit The North]

Marx has pointed in the communist manifesto that the first christians were in a socialist society .

You'll need to quote this, as it completely passed me by.

[Muzk]

You'll need to quote this, as it completely passed me by.

Well, I found what he meant

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

[Hit The North]

Whatever. Thanks for the poetry but you still haven't provided the passage in the CM where Marx claims that the first Christians lived in a socialist society.

[mel]

Whatever. Thanks for the poetry but you still haven't provided the passage in the CM where Marx claims that the first Christians lived in a socialist society.

I don't know about Marx saying it, and he wouldn't have put it that way, but if you take the bible at it's word, the early Christians had a primitive commune of sorts:


All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:34-37)

So it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe that Marx would have pointed something like this out, though I haven't bothered to go looking for the quote myself.

[Hit The North]

Yes, but the passage Muzk quotes from the CM is directly precede by this:


As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

It is a criticism of so-called clerical socialism, not an endorsement of early Christian communalism - and very far from an endorsement of Christianity as compatible with communism which is the subject of this thread.

[mel]

Yes, but the passage Muzk quotes from the CM is directly precede by this:

I didn't realize Muzk was quoting, as there were no quotes...so I was just stating that it was possible that Marx may have mentioned early christian communalism, though I had not remembered it from when I read the Manifesto several years back.


It is a criticism of so-called clerical socialism, not an endorsement of early Christian communalism - and very far from an endorsement of Christianity as compatible with communism which is the subject of this thread.

Actually, the subject of this thread is whether religion is compatible with communism, so even if specific religions are not, I don't think that there is anything wrong, in principle, with being both religious and communist, but my arguments for that were earlier in the thread.

[Hit The North]

I didn't realize Muzk was quoting, as there were no quotes...


Me neither at first. The quote is located in part III which I haven't read in decades, under the sub-heading "Reactionary Socialism".



Actually, the subject of this thread is whether religion is compatible with communism, so even if specific religions are not, I don't think that there is anything wrong, in principle, with being both religious and communist, but my arguments for that were earlier in the thread. A fair point, although the OP does describe himself as a "Christian existentialist". My own position is that individuals can hold contradictory theories if they want to, but that communism does not need or require religion - and, secondly, that historically, it is more likely to find itself in opposition to religious doctrine.

[mel]

A fair point, although the OP does describe himself as a "Christian existentialist". My own position is that individuals can hold contradictory theories if they want to, but that communism does not need or require religion - and, secondly, that historically, it is more likely to find itself in opposition to religious doctrine.

I agree that communism "does not need or require religion" and that "historically, it is more likely to find itself in opposition to religious doctrine", but I disagree that they are inherently contradictory...mostly because a belief in the supernatural does not negate a belief in the material. Some people get something out of religion on a personal level, and prayer and meditation have quantifiable (and rather interesting) effects on the brain itself, so we aren't really in a position to deny the legitimacy of what personal benefit one might get from religious practice.

[Zolken]

Communism is a religion.

[mel]

Communism is a religion.




Braun

Cool story bro. That was deep. :cool:

[red cat]

Whether you can be religious and communist at the same time depends on how you define the two terms. If the extent of your belief in your religion makes you discriminate among people, then you can definitely not comprehend class solidarity and antagonization. On the other hand, if being a communist means to you being able to support the revolution by learning through your own experiences in the society, and you are liberal enough to negate the supposedly static nature of the society preached by all religions, then you definitely can be a communist and cherish your version of religion.

During a revolution, let us not forget, the broad masses who do the actual fighting, do have religious beliefs. The ones who lead them forming a compact vanguard party require to be sound in dialectical and historical materialistic analysis and hence atheists.

[red cat]

Communism is a religion.




Braun
One of the many features of any science, unlike those of any religion, is consistency of theory and practice.
Check that out with Marxist communism.

[bromide]

Lets not also forget the fact that Christianity in its various guises has done about 1600 years as a state religion. That would be the big issue that Marx had with it I believe, the fact that it has been used as a repressive tool of the state. In his time, just as today, there were many religious leaders who were using the various doctrines and biblical passages as justifications for harmful bourgeois behaviour.

I think that to be a Christian and a communist is absolutely possible, but not without questioning harmful dogma that has pushed its way into that system over time. Basically, imo, you'd have to root out anything that's been said since Paul of Tarsus and really lay it out for questioning. At that point, it seems like it would just be easier to consider yourself spiritual rather than religious.

On a side note, the whole virgin birth thing was mistranslated into Greek so it's pretty foolish in itself. Essentially, the original Hebrew term was 'almah, which is basically young woman. When it was translated to Greek, they chose parthenos (virgin) instead of korē (young woman), presumably to differentiate themselves from the cults of Korē (aka Persephone) which were very popular at the time.

[Hyacinth]

I agree that communism "does not need or require religion" and that "historically, it is more likely to find itself in opposition to religious doctrine", but I disagree that they are inherently contradictory...mostly because a belief in the supernatural does not negate a belief in the material. Some people get something out of religion on a personal level, and prayer and meditation have quantifiable (and rather interesting) effects on the brain itself, so we aren't really in a position to deny the legitimacy of what personal benefit one might get from religious practice.
Setting aside for a moment whether the supernatural makes sense, naturalistic explanations of the world leave no room for the supernatural, both in the sense that they have no need of such hypotheses, and moreover that to postulate the supernatural is to deny naturalism.

Regardless, as to your second point re: personal benefits derived from religion, this isn't what is at issue. People can hold whatever opinions they want; we are not interested in what people believe, but in what they do. Religion serves a reactionary role inasmuch as it is used to justify whatever social structure happens to be in place, as was observed as long ago as Seneca, when he remarked that "[r]ligion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." While it might provide some sort of comfort to some, it does far more harm by distorting the believer's understand of the world, by diminishing their capacity for clear thinking, and, also, by making people complacent. After all, if there is eternal salvation waiting in the afterlife, or enlightenment, or some other such nonsense, why devote your efforts to making this world a better place? Or, if all life is sacred, if we are all brothers (sic) in Christ, etc. then how can one take up arms against one's brothers?

[spiltteeth]

Setting aside for a moment whether the supernatural makes sense, naturalistic explanations of the world leave no room for the supernatural, both in the sense that they have no need of such hypotheses, and moreover that to postulate the supernatural is to deny naturalism.

Regardless, as to your second point re: personal benefits derived from religion, this isn't what is at issue. People can hold whatever opinions they want; we are not interested in what people believe, but in what they do. Religion serves a reactionary role inasmuch as it is used to justify whatever social structure happens to be in place, as was observed as long ago as Seneca, when he remarked that "[r]ligion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." While it might provide some sort of comfort to some, it does far more harm by distorting the believer's understand of the world, by diminishing their capacity for clear thinking, and, also, by making people complacent. After all, if there is eternal salvation waiting in the afterlife, or enlightenment, or some other such nonsense, why devote your efforts to making this world a better place? Or, if all life is sacred, if we are all brothers (sic) in Christ, etc. then how can one take up arms against one's brothers?

Thats a fair point. Historically the church has, with few exceptions, supported the ruling class/state. Although look at the Russian revolution, one of the biggest sparks was by that crazy orthodox priest who led the faithful in protest against the czar who Lenin tried to woo, even though ironically he was in the pay of the czar!
However, look at Sojourners today, or the other 'progressive' Christian movements.

But I disagree with this :
" it does far more harm by distorting the believer's understand of the world, by diminishing their capacity for clear thinking, and, also, by making people complacent. After all, if there is eternal salvation waiting in the afterlife, or enlightenment, or some other such nonsense, why devote your efforts to making this world a better place?"

This seems to come from Fox news/Pat Robinson/ Right fundamentalist's who confuse categories of knowledge. If you mean it diminishes a persons scientific thinking, beside the above nuts, I'd point to the many, many Christian scientists.

As to the complacency, again, this is an argument made by the right fundies ie "Tear down the forests! Were all going to heaven so fuck it!"

However, in my church orthodox, and according to N.T. Wright -Episcopalian and one of the most respected living theologins...THIS is the earth were gonna get. We go to heaven or hell, chill, Jesus comes, judges, and there's something about a 2nd heaven, then our bodies are remade for this very earth!

"Or, if all life is sacred, if we are all brothers (sic) in Christ, etc. then how can one take up arms against one's brothers?"

This is a valid point. Plenty of Christians in war these days, but in the early days people would join the army, but refuse to fight, but there are so many aspects to battle besides fighting, from medics to the technical side.

I'll pose this question : Can a communist love? Love is not rational nor is there any proof it exists - the dopamine and nor-epinephrine released is also released during prayer, different branches of science utilize their own definitions of it...

[Hexen]

Being a communist while being a slave/cultist to some God is antithetical...

However I do think it's possible to be a communist and be a misothesit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism) which I think it's the closest thing for a communist/anarchist if they choose believe the existence of God.

[ZeroNowhere]

Being a communist while being a slave/cultist to some God is antithetical...
Not really. An anarchist, yes.
Though one could still be a deist.

[n0thing]

I think you will be contradicting one or the other. If you agree with everything we advocate but also what the bible advocates without being choosy then you are contradicting one of the two.
If you agree with everything in the bible, you've already contradicted yourself more than a few times.

[Hyacinth]

This seems to come from Fox news/Pat Robinson/ Right fundamentalist's who confuse categories of knowledge. If you mean it diminishes a persons scientific thinking, beside the above nuts, I'd point to the many, many Christian scientists.
Unfortunately the fundamentalists make up a substantive portion of religious believers. As to the point about religious scientists: firstly, among scientists and academics in general there is a much greater percentage of atheists, agnostics, etc. than among the general population, and, even among those who self-identify as religious often this is more of a cultural identification than an indication that they take religion seriously. In fact, this is a curious phenomenon across most of the first world (sans the US) where even self-identified believers patently don't take religion seriously. I recall reading a statistic about France (which I'd have to look up), that showed 80% of the population identified as Catholic, with only about 40% believing in god. Now I know the Catholic Church's standards of what it takes to be Catholic have steadily been declining in order to inflate their numbers, but I don't think that even they've gone so far as to permit atheists to be Catholic.

And, as for the scientists that do take religion seriously, they tend to produce bad (pseudo)science. E.g., the intelligent design people. Most scientists who are behind ID are not even biologists, and certainly not evolutionary biologists. Their arguments are easy to demolish by those who actually know what they're talking about, and their theory construction is driven by their religious beliefs rather than empirical considerations.


As to the complacency, again, this is an argument made by the right fundies ie "Tear down the forests! Were all going to heaven so fuck it!"

However, in my church orthodox, and according to N.T. Wright -Episcopalian and one of the most respected living theologins...THIS is the earth were gonna get. We go to heaven or hell, chill, Jesus comes, judges, and there's something about a 2nd heaven, then our bodies are remade for this very earth!
Ah, N.T. Wright, well known reactionary who said "secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between", and who "announced to the press, on the day that the first civil partnership ceremonies took place in England, that he would likely take disciplinary action against any clergy registering as civil partners or any clergy blessing such partnerships". Scratch a theologian and find a reactionary.

That's all well and good, except that as with the view of the fundamentalists it is also false. But to get into that would be to derail the thread.

The bigger issue from the perspective of the revolutionary left is that if what you say is true, and if you believe it, then why are you here? I mean, after all, it's not as though what we do here and now really matters, the salvation of our eternal souls is more important.


I'll pose this question : Can a communist love? Love is not rational nor is there any proof it exists - the dopamine and nor-epinephrine released is also released during prayer, different branches of science utilize their own definitions of it...
Hardly. Love is a perfectly ordinary phenomenon, of which we have a relatively good understanding of the causal mechanisms which underpin it. I fail to see how love is at all analogous to supernatural entities.

[spiltteeth]

Unfortunately the fundamentalists make up a substantive portion of religious believers. As to the point about religious scientists: firstly, among scientists and academics in general there is a much greater percentage of atheists, agnostics, etc. than among the general population, and, even among those who self-identify as religious often this is more of a cultural identification than an indication that they take religion seriously. In fact, this is a curious phenomenon across most of the first world (sans the US) where even self-identified believers patently don't take religion seriously. I recall reading a statistic about France (which I'd have to look up), that showed 80% of the population identified as Catholic, with only about 40% believing in god. Now I know the Catholic Church's standards of what it takes to be Catholic have steadily been declining in order to inflate their numbers, but I don't think that even they've gone so far as to permit atheists to be Catholic.

And, as for the scientists that do take religion seriously, they tend to produce bad (pseudo)science. E.g., the intelligent design people. Most scientists who are behind ID are not even biologists, and certainly not evolutionary biologists. Their arguments are easy to demolish by those who actually know what they're talking about, and their theory construction is driven by their religious beliefs rather than empirical considerations.


Ah, N.T. Wright, well known reactionary who said "secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between", and who "announced to the press, on the day that the first civil partnership ceremonies took place in England, that he would likely take disciplinary action against any clergy registering as civil partners or any clergy blessing such partnerships". Scratch a theologian and find a reactionary.

That's all well and good, except that as with the view of the fundamentalists it is also false. But to get into that would be to derail the thread.

The bigger issue from the perspective of the revolutionary left is that if what you say is true, and if you believe it, then why are you here? I mean, after all, it's not as though what we do here and now really matters, the salvation of our eternal souls is more important.


Hardly. Love is a perfectly ordinary phenomenon, of which we have a relatively good understanding of the causal mechanisms which underpin it. I fail to see how love is at all analogous to supernatural entities.

[QUOTE=Hyacinth;1526760]
"Unfortunately the fundamentalists make up a substantive portion of religious believers. As to the point about religious scientists: firstly, among scientists and academics in general there is a much greater percentage of atheists, agnostics, etc. than among the general population, and, even among those who self-identify as religious often this is more of a cultural identification than an indication that they take religion seriously. In fact, this is a curious phenomenon across most of the first world (sans the US) where even self-identified believers patently don't take religion seriously. I recall reading a statistic about France (which I'd have to look up), that showed 80% of the population identified as Catholic, with only about 40% believing in god. Now I know the Catholic Church's standards of what it takes to be Catholic have steadily been declining in order to inflate their numbers, but I don't think that even they've gone so far as to permit atheists to be Catholic.

And, as for the scientists that do take religion seriously, they tend to produce bad (pseudo)science. E.g., the intelligent design people. Most scientists who are behind ID are not even biologists, and certainly not evolutionary biologists. Their arguments are easy to demolish by those who actually know what they're talking about, and their theory construction is driven by their religious beliefs rather than empirical considerations."

Firstly, although the fundies are large visible group in America, they are not the largest. But if your talking about them specifically please specify.

The scientists who take there religion seriously - they're arguments are easy to demolish. Really? I think 1 out of 3 in America believes. So you reject 1/3rd of science coming out of America? Ok.

'The report is based on two telephone surveys, the first on a sample of 2,001 adults, April 28-May 12, 2009, and the second on a sample of 1,005 adults, June 18-21, 2009. The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009. The AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields.'


Another survey had 2 out of 3 scientists believe in god :
'Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.'

Really, even if only 1 out of 10 believed it wouldn't change anything, as long as that 1/10th produced good science.

But those scientists arguments are easily demolished. OK Like these folks? :
Max PLANCK – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Erwin SCHROEDINGER – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Werner HEISENBERG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Robert MILLIKAN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Charles TOWNES – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arthur SCHAWLOW – Nobel Laureate in Physics
William PHILLIPS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
William BRAGG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Guglielmo MARCONI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arthur COMPTON – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arno PENZIAS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Nevill MOTT – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Isidor Isaac RABI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Abdus SALAM – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Antony HEWISH – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Joseph H. TAYLOR, Jr. – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Alexis CARREL – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
John ECCLES – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Joseph MURRAY – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Ernst CHAIN – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
George WALD – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Ronald ROSS – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Derek BARTON – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Christian ANFINSEN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Walter KOHN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Richard SMALLEY – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

All these scientists believed in god but I'm sure you have a much finer grasp on science.
I'm quite excited to see you demolish them! The scientific community will be all abuzz!

It seems your getting your info from the bourgeois media to me, so please site references.


"Ah, N.T. Wright, well known reactionary who said "secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between", and who "announced to the press, on the day that the first civil partnership ceremonies took place in England, that he would likely take disciplinary action against any clergy registering as civil partners or any clergy blessing such partnerships". Scratch a theologian and find a reactionary."

That's...information certainly. You asked why a Christian would even want top help out on earth and I told you the reason why -according to orthodox Christianity, using ol' NT as a source for scholarship. His reactionary views/opinions are irrelevant to this point, unless of course you you see this invalidates his scholarship? I assume you do not accept any data fromreactionary sourses? Only commie scientists and scholors?

"That's all well and good, except that as with the view of the fundamentalists it is also false. But to get into that would be to derail the thread."

Oh. It's false that orthodox Christians believe this and that is why they have a stake in the earths future? Ok.
Do atheists have a stake in the earths future? Unless they want to change things from a moral imperitive....But do moral imperatives exist in any absolute sense? Many scientists would say no...quite a bind.

"The bigger issue from the perspective of the revolutionary left is that if what you say is true, and if you believe it, then why are you here? I mean, after all, it's not as though what we do here and now really matters, the salvation of our eternal souls is more important."

Hmmmm. I do recall responding why. But theirs a million Christian reasons, just loving each other and helping each other and believe that we are here to help each other etc etc etc

"Hardly. Love is a perfectly ordinary phenomenon, of which we have a relatively good understanding of the causal mechanisms which underpin it. I fail to see how love is at all analogous to supernatural entities."

Ah. Please tell me of these casual mechanisms. My background is in psychoanalysis but I've perused the biochemical lit and I'm sure you know every 3 years or so a new book/study/theory comes out (same with schizophrenia. odd). The last one I can pm you.
My point is you contend if something does not have an empirical basis (like morals) it is to be rejected. It must be able to be explained by the scientific method -presumably you do not believe in gravity, for instance. Or time.

But I'll ask you -Why do you want to change society? Grounded in a scientific basis, of course.

[Hyacinth]

The scientists who take there religion seriously - they're arguments are easy to demolish. Really? I think 1 out of 3 in America believes. So you reject 1/3rd of science coming out of America? Ok. [etc.]
I was referring to their theologically motivated theories, e.g., intelligent design, and the like. So the position you've set out to refute isn't one I hold.


That's...information certainly. You asked why a Christian would even want top help out on earth and I told you the reason why -according to orthodox Christianity, using ol' NT as a source for scholarship. His reactionary views/opinions are irrelevant to this point, unless of course you you see this invalidates his scholarship? I assume you do not accept any data from reactionary sourses? Only commie scientists and scholors?
His reactionary views are relevant to the point that there is a strong correlation between religious views and reactionary views.

As for Biblical scholarship, I don't know enough, nor really care to, so I'll take your word for it. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't God suppose to wave his hand and magically make the world better after the rapture and all that? I mean, presumably he could. If this is the case, then my point as to why the religious, those who take it seriously, ought to care about this world still stands.


Oh. It's false that orthodox Christians believe this and that is why they have a stake in the earths future? Ok.
No, I'm sure that they [you] believe it. Rather what they [you] believe is false. Surely devoting your life to the pursuit of a goal that will never be attained (e.g., salvation) is pointless. Religion is harmful inasmuch as it does result in people wasting their lives on the pursuit of fairytales.


Do atheists have a stake in the earths future? Unless they want to change things from a moral imperitive....But do moral imperatives exist in any absolute sense? Many scientists would say no...quite a bind.
Presumably they have a stake in it inasmuch as they're going to be living in the future. And insofar as they desire to ensure a livelihood for their descendants. Nothing more is needed. Certainly not morality.


Hmmmm. I do recall responding why. But theirs a million Christian reasons, just loving each other and helping each other and believe that we are here to help each other etc etc etc
I'm reminded of a quote: "You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say 'God is love' they will claim that you are taking things out of context!" [Dan Barker]


Ah. Please tell me of these casual mechanisms. My background is in psychoanalysis but I've perused the biochemical lit and I'm sure you know every 3 years or so a new book/study/theory comes out (same with schizophrenia. odd). The last one I can pm you.
No wonder you have an aversion to empirical data, as it invalidates your theory.


My point is you contend if something does not have an empirical basis (like morals) it is to be rejected. It must be able to be explained by the scientific method -presumably you do not believe in gravity, for instance. Or time.
Sorry? Where did I say that? You're against attributing a view (some sort of crude form of logical positivism) to me which I do not hold.


But I'll ask you -Why do you want to change society? Grounded in a scientific basis, of course.
I'm not sure what this is suppose to be a request for. I want to change society because I would be better off under a different social system, and as would others. It's as simple as that.

[spiltteeth]

I was referring to their theologically motivated theories, e.g., intelligent design, and the like. So the position you've set out to refute isn't one I hold.



His reactionary views are relevant to the point that there is a strong correlation between religious views and reactionary views.

As for Biblical scholarship, I don't know enough, nor really care to, so I'll take your word for it. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't God suppose to wave his hand and magically make the world better after the rapture and all that? I mean, presumably he could. If this is the case, then my point as to why the religious, those who take it seriously, ought to care about this world still stands.


No, I'm sure that they [you] believe it. Rather what they [you] believe is false. Surely devoting your life to the pursuit of a goal that will never be attained (e.g., salvation) is pointless. Religion is harmful inasmuch as it does result in people wasting their lives on the pursuit of fairy tales.


Presumably they have a stake in it inasmuch as they're going to be living in the future. And insofar as they desire to ensure a livelihood for their descendants. Nothing more is needed. Certainly not morality.


I'm reminded of a quote: "You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say 'God is love' they will claim that you are taking things out of context!" [Dan Barker]


No wonder you have an aversion to empirical data, as it invalidates your theory.


Sorry? Where did I say that? You're against attributing a view (some sort of crude form of logical positivism) to me which I do not hold.


I'm not sure what this is suppose to be a request for. I want to change society because I would be better off under a different social system, and as would others. It's as simple as that.


[QUOTE=Hyacinth;1526924]
"I was referring to their theologically motivated theories, e.g., intelligent design, and the like. So the position you've set out to refute isn't one I hold."

Yea, thats what I thought. Your talking specifically about the Right, fox news, fascist fundamental Christians, not all Christians, not all people who believe in god, not all religions, your talking about a specific group of religious people and it is to those your arguments are aimed at.


"His reactionary views are relevant to the point that there is a strong correlation between religious views and reactionary views.

As for Biblical scholarship, I don't know enough, nor really care to, so I'll take your word for it. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't God suppose to wave his hand and magically make the world better after the rapture and all that? I mean, presumably he could. If this is the case, then my point as to why the religious, those who take it seriously, ought to care about this world still stands. "

No. You're not correct. You don't wanna know the theology so...please don't ask if you don't care about the answer or if are content to simply refute a persons belief without caring to know what those beliefs are.
And the reasons why you want things to change are similar for the reasons I do, beside the ones specifically attributable to Christianity.


"No, I'm sure that they [you] believe it. Rather what they [you] believe is false. Surely devoting your life to the pursuit of a goal that will never be attained (e.g., salvation) is pointless. Religion is harmful inasmuch as it does result in people wasting their lives on the pursuit of fairy tales."

Oh, it is harmful because people are 'wasting' their lives. This presumes life has a purpose. Do tell. What other activities are wasteful - you decide this yes? Movies? Let me know.
Also, a better world is often referred to as an idealistic fairytale.

"Presumably they have a stake in it inasmuch as they're going to be living in the future. And insofar as they desire to ensure a livelihood for their descendants. Nothing more is needed. Certainly not morality."

Ah, so if you don't think things will change in your lifetime and have no kids it is fruitless to wanna change things. Ann Ranydist selfishness -that is your reason. A belief that is the justification the few in power use for hegemony. Lovely.

"I'm reminded of a quote: "You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say 'God is love' they will claim that you are taking things out of context!" [Dan Barker]

Thats true. You asked if theirs a Christian basis for wanting things to be more just, many Christians base their beliefs, at least partially, on the bible. What did you expect?

"No wonder you have an aversion to empirical data, as it invalidates your theory."

You gonna just toss absurd statement around without backing them up? If so please let me know, I have no intention of conversing with a fanatic.
If not, produce this data that invalidates my theory. Oh, and let me know what my theory is too.

"Sorry? Where did I say that? You're against attributing a view (some sort of crude form of logical positivism) to me which I do not hold."

That's true. You mentioned the scientific proof of Love and based it on "casual" principals. Was this an insane presumption? Also, I assumed because you were - I think, you won't tell me- specifically talking about fundie Christians.. Sorry. Tell me what you hold to then.

"I'm not sure what this is suppose to be a request for. I want to change society because I would be better off under a different social system, and as would others. It's as simple as that."

Me too! But you asked me for an explanation yet will not give one yourself?
I understand the selfish reasons - but for other people? I know you say that requires no morality but I tell you it does, unless other people being better off will be an advantage to yourself, and that is why. You just feel like helping them? You follow your emotions then? Tell me.

You asked my about my authority, I'd like to know about yours.
What is your authority - your conscience? No, that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology -despite the bad rap its gotten this past year - in other words, on chance...not logical positsm...Must I keep asking. I defend my views. Are you to great to do the same?

[Hyacinth]

Oh, it is harmful because people are 'wasting' their lives. This presumes life has a purpose. Do tell. What other activities are wasteful - you decide this yes? Movies? Let me know.
Our actions and our lives even can be purposeful, insofar as they are directed toward the attainment of some end or other. I don't see what more is required to give life purpose. The issue with the religious is that they have as one of their ends an illusion. They devote their lives to the pursuit of something that is unattainable, not in the sense that it is just really really difficult to attain, but rather in the sense that there is no such thing to be attained. That in itself perhaps wouldn't be objectionable, but what is harmful about religion is that it requires of believers to abide by certain arbitrary doctrines and rules which can interfere with their pursuit of, and enjoyment of, other ends and pleasures. Consider, e.g., the harm that religion does to someone who is homosexual and a believer, and thinks their desires sinful. Even setting aside the homophobic social atmosphere that religion creates, the internal turmoil instilled by religion for such people is sufficient for religion to count as wicked.


Ah, so if you don't think things will change in your lifetime and have no kids it is fruitless to wanna change things. Ann Ranydist selfishness -that is your reason. A belief that is the justification the few in power use for hegemony. Lovely.
Where did I say this? You might want to quite putting words in my mouth. I never appealed to Randian style selfishness, only to what I want. And there is nothing problematic about anyone having as the object of their desires the welfare of others.

And the ruling class certainly doesn't justify its power on such a basis. They go through great pains to provide a moral rationalization of property rights, desert, etc. All, of course, backed by force. But in the end the real reasons that they do the things they do is because they want to, and because they can. The moralization and rationalizations provided by the likes of bourgeois morality, and religion, and other aspects of the superstructure, is just that, a rationalization. If we expose it for what it is, and show the real underlying reasons, we get closer to breaking the stranglehold of bourgeois ideology on the minds of the proletariat. The task of communists is, among other things, to educate the working class, to get them to recognize their own interests, and act in accord with their own interests. Religion, bourgeois morality, etc. all interfere with this.


Thats true. You asked if theirs a Christian basis for wanting things to be more just, many Christians base their beliefs, at least partially, on the bible. What did you expect?
And it is precisely that Christians base their beliefs, even partly, on the Bible which is problematic. One would be hard pressed to find a more reactionary text.


You gonna just toss absurd statement around without backing them up? If so please let me know, I have no intention of conversing with a fanatic.
If not, produce this data that invalidates my theory. Oh, and let me know what my theory is too.
An offhand and off-topic remark on psychoanalysis, which I'd be more than happy to discuss at some point, but I'll retract it for the time being so as not to derail this thread.


That's true. You mentioned the scientific proof of Love and based it on "casual" principals. Was this an insane presumption? Also, I assumed because you were - I think, you won't tell me- specifically talking about fundie Christians.. Sorry. Tell me what you hold to then.
I never mentioned anything of the sort, I wasn't aware that love was in need of "proof", nor exactly what "scientific proof" thereof would consist in. Rather, I merely said that love is a perfectly ordinary, and hardly mysterious, phenomenon which we observe all the time. My of, e.g., chocolate is not reducible to whatever causal mechanisms are responsible for what we call love, but we do have a reasonably good understanding of the causal mechanisms that underpin the phenomenon (e.g., the neurochemicals responsible for certain sorts of love, the ways in which human attachment works, etc.). Wikipedia is always a good start to do readings, but I'm not about to do your research for you. It is you who claimed, without argument, that love was somehow incompatible with a scientific worldview. This is the claim that I take issue with.


Me too! But you asked me for an explanation yet will not give one yourself?
I understand the selfish reasons - but for other people? I know you say that requires no morality but I tell you it does, unless other people being better off will be an advantage to yourself, and that is why. You just feel like helping them? You follow your emotions then? Tell me.
Not all desires have to be self-regarding, as I said. Normal humans do have some regard for their fellow human beings, those who don't tend to be psychopaths, or assholes (the two aren't mutually exclusive, as psychopathy, from what I recall, might be more prevalent among the population, and doesn't always manifest itself in violent forms; in fact, some psychopathic traits are encouraged under capitalism, which results in many becoming quite successful, I seem to recall that it was apparently prevalent among investment bankers).

So, yes, part of it is that I have the not uncommon human sentiment for my fellow human beings who suffer. Another aspect of it is that in cooperating we are capable of attaining our goals better than were we to pursue them individually. So I wish to assist others both as an end in itself, but also instrumentally insofar as it also allows me to better attain my other ends.


You asked my about my authority, I'd like to know about yours.
What is your authority - your conscience? No, that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology -despite the bad rap its gotten this past year - in other words, on chance...not logical positsm...Must I keep asking. I defend my views. Are you to great to do the same?
I'm sorry, my authority? I don't believe I've once used that word in this thread. I haven't a clue what you're asking for.

But, if you're asking me how I justify what I want to do. Very simple, I don't. Justification comes to an end at a certain point. I can only engage in the practice of justification with those who share similar moral views and sentiments as I. As such, when it comes to capitalists or reactionaries, the only justification flows from the barrel of a gun. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of power.

[spiltteeth]

Our actions and our lives even can be purposeful, insofar as they are directed toward the attainment of some end or other. I don't see what more is required to give life purpose. The issue with the religious is that they have as one of their ends an illusion. They devote their lives to the pursuit of something that is unattainable, not in the sense that it is just really really difficult to attain, but rather in the sense that there is no such thing to be attained. That in itself perhaps wouldn't be objectionable, but what is harmful about religion is that it requires of believers to abide by certain arbitrary doctrines and rules which can interfere with their pursuit of, and enjoyment of, other ends and pleasures. Consider, e.g., the harm that religion does to someone who is homosexual and a believer, and thinks their desires sinful. Even setting aside the homophobic social atmosphere that religion creates, the internal turmoil instilled by religion for such people is sufficient for religion to count as wicked.


Where did I say this? You might want to quite putting words in my mouth. I never appealed to Randian style selfishness, only to what I want. And there is nothing problematic about anyone having as the object of their desires the welfare of others.

And the ruling class certainly doesn't justify its power on such a basis. They go through great pains to provide a moral rationalization of property rights, desert, etc. All, of course, backed by force. But in the end the real reasons that they do the things they do is because they want to, and because they can. The moralization and rationalizations provided by the likes of bourgeois morality, and religion, and other aspects of the superstructure, is just that, a rationalization. If we expose it for what it is, and show the real underlying reasons, we get closer to breaking the stranglehold of bourgeois ideology on the minds of the proletariat. The task of communists is, among other things, to educate the working class, to get them to recognize their own interests, and act in accord with their own interests. Religion, bourgeois morality, etc. all interfere with this.


And it is precisely that Christians base their beliefs, even partly, on the Bible which is problematic. One would be hard pressed to find a more reactionary text.


An offhand and off-topic remark on psychoanalysis, which I'd be more than happy to discuss at some point, but I'll retract it for the time being so as not to derail this thread.


I never mentioned anything of the sort, I wasn't aware that love was in need of "proof", nor exactly what "scientific proof" thereof would consist in. Rather, I merely said that love is a perfectly ordinary, and hardly mysterious, phenomenon which we observe all the time. My of, e.g., chocolate is not reducible to whatever causal mechanisms are responsible for what we call love, but we do have a reasonably good understanding of the causal mechanisms that underpin the phenomenon (e.g., the neurochemicals responsible for certain sorts of love, the ways in which human attachment works, etc.). Wikipedia is always a good start to do readings, but I'm not about to do your research for you. It is you who claimed, without argument, that love was somehow incompatible with a scientific worldview. This is the claim that I take issue with.


Not all desires have to be self-regarding, as I said. Normal humans do have some regard for their fellow human beings, those who don't tend to be psychopaths, or assholes (the two aren't mutually exclusive, as psychopathy, from what I recall, might be more prevalent among the population, and doesn't always manifest itself in violent forms; in fact, some psychopathic traits are encouraged under capitalism, which results in many becoming quite successful, I seem to recall that it was apparently prevalent among investment bankers).

So, yes, part of it is that I have the not uncommon human sentiment for my fellow human beings who suffer. Another aspect of it is that in cooperating we are capable of attaining our goals better than were we to pursue them individually. So I wish to assist others both as an end in itself, but also instrumentally insofar as it also allows me to better attain my other ends.


I'm sorry, my authority? I don't believe I've once used that word in this thread. I haven't a clue what you're asking for.

But, if you're asking me how I justify what I want to do. Very simple, I don't. Justification comes to an end at a certain point. I can only engage in the practice of justification with those who share similar moral views and sentiments as I. As such, when it comes to capitalists or reactionaries, the only justification flows from the barrel of a gun. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of power.


"Our actions and our lives even can be purposeful, insofar as they are directed toward the attainment of some end or other. I don't see what more is required to give life purpose. The issue with the religious is that they have as one of their ends an illusion. They devote their lives to the pursuit of something that is unattainable, not in the sense that it is just really really difficult to attain, but rather in the sense that there is no such thing to be attained. That in itself perhaps wouldn't be objectionable, but what is harmful about religion is that it requires of believers to abide by certain arbitrary doctrines and rules which can interfere with their pursuit of, and enjoyment of, other ends and pleasures. Consider, e.g., the harm that religion does to someone who is homosexual and a believer, and thinks their desires sinful. Even setting aside the homophobic social atmosphere that religion creates, the internal turmoil instilled by religion for such people is sufficient for religion to count as wicked."

But their are many religions that aren;t homophobic at all. Again, I suspect you are talking about specifically fundamentalist Christianity but it is your secret.

"Where did I say this? You might want to quite putting words in my mouth. I never appealed to Randian style selfishness, only to what I want. And there is nothing problematic about anyone having as the object of their desires the welfare of others."

Nothing problematic? Here's the problem : why do care for others instead of not?

"And the ruling class certainly doesn't justify its power on such a basis. They go through great pains to provide a moral rationalization of property rights, desert, etc. All, of course, backed by force. But in the end the real reasons that they do the things they do is because they want to, and because they can. The moralization and rationalizations provided by the likes of bourgeois morality, and religion, and other aspects of the superstructure, is just that, a rationalization. If we expose it for what it is, and show the real underlying reasons, we get closer to breaking the stranglehold of bourgeois ideology on the minds of the proletariat. The task of communists is, among other things, to educate the working class, to get them to recognize their own interests, and act in accord with their own interests. Religion, bourgeois morality, etc. all interfere with this."

That's true, I meant private justification, like Cheney and Rumsfeld'd '100 yr plan for American hegemony' or 'Wealth of the nations.' It boils down to - so me and the people like me can live as well as possible.


"And it is precisely that Christians base their beliefs, even partly, on the Bible which is problematic. One would be hard pressed to find a more reactionary text."

The reading of the text is important, you are ignorant of this aspect and do not care to know any different so I won't enlighten you why this is not 'precisely' what all Christians believe.


"An offhand and off-topic remark on psychoanalysis, which I'd be more than happy to discuss at some point, but I'll retract it for the time being so as not to derail this thread."

Thank you

"I never mentioned anything of the sort, I wasn't aware that love was in need of "proof", nor exactly what "scientific proof" thereof would consist in. Rather, I merely said that love is a perfectly ordinary, and hardly mysterious, phenomenon which we observe all the time. My of, e.g., chocolate is not reducible to whatever causal mechanisms are responsible for what we call love, but we do have a reasonably good understanding of the causal mechanisms that underpin the phenomenon (e.g., the neurochemicals responsible for certain sorts of love, the ways in which human attachment works, etc.). Wikipedia is always a good start to do readings, but I'm not about to do your research for you. It is you who claimed, without argument, that love was somehow incompatible with a scientific worldview. This is the claim that I take issue with."

You never said anything of the sort?

"Hardly. Love is a perfectly ordinary phenomenon, of which we have a relatively good understanding of the causal mechanisms which underpin it."

Here's why "we" or at least I, do not. Well, it does not need proof but a definition. It is irrational yes? You do not decide who you will love nor is this possible to scientifically predict. Why are these neurotransmitters emitted with this person and not that one? Can we predict how these chemicals interact with consciousness are predict the thoughts generated? What is love? A psychosis? An obsession? And as for attachment theory...good lord that is in quite a mess. After someone mumble 'oxytocin' good luck!

"Not all desires have to be self-regarding, as I said. Normal humans do have some regard for their fellow human beings, those who don't tend to be psychopaths, or assholes (the two aren't mutually exclusive, as psychopathy, from what I recall, might be more prevalent among the population, and doesn't always manifest itself in violent forms; in fact, some psychopathic traits are encouraged under capitalism, which results in many becoming quite successful, I seem to recall that it was apparently prevalent among investment bankers)."

Thats true, most people with what we now call Anti Social personality disorder are in the business word.

"So, yes, part of it is that I have the not uncommon human sentiment for my fellow human beings who suffer. Another aspect of it is that in cooperating we are capable of attaining our goals better than were we to pursue them individually. So I wish to assist others both as an end in itself, but also instrumentally insofar as it also allows me to better attain my other ends."

I know, I wondered why. Emotionalism? Should I keep guessing?

"I'm sorry, my authority? I don't believe I've once used that word in this thread. I haven't a clue what you're asking for."

I'll rephrase, what are the basis for your beliefs and actions? You asked me what I was doing here, I'm asking you.

"But, if you're asking me how I justify what I want to do. Very simple, I don't. Justification comes to an end at a certain point. I can only engage in the practice of justification with those who share similar moral views and sentiments as I. As such, when it comes to capitalists or reactionaries, the only justification flows from the barrel of a gun. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of power."

Then why did you ask me what I was doing here? Or make all those statements about what you think my beliefs are to me? In that case, where do these moral sentiments come from and What in gods name kind of communist are you that you will not yourself? You cannot force belief on to [people, you refuse to engage with them, you refuse to be willing to educate them, (I still haven't a clue what you believe in) you only engage people who have the same sentiments in you....Learning new things, I already know you do not wish to understand them, must be difficult.

So to sum up : My Christian beleifs are false becuase they can not be proved or justified.
Your beleifs are true because they can be proved and justified but you will only tell people who already agree with you what those justifications and basis are.

OK. I must be overcome with Christian irrationality because this is silly.

[Comrade Akai]

I don't see why not. I myself have been led to communism because of my religion, and I am fairly religious.

[Hyacinth]

But their are many religions that aren;t homophobic at all. Again, I suspect you are talking about specifically fundamentalist Christianity but it is your secret.
It's your holy text, not mine. Are you to tell me that sodomy isn't a sin? The Old Testament and Paul seem pretty clear on that. What with it being an "abomination" and "not inheriting the Kingdom of God" and all that.


Nothing problematic? Here's the problem : why do care for others instead of not?
I fail to see a problem, why is this in need of explanation? Not to say that there isn't an explanation of it, but why is the absence of one a problem?


That's true, I meant private justification, like Cheney and Rumsfeld'd '100 yr plan for American hegemony' or 'Wealth of the nations.' It boils down to - so me and the people like me can live as well as possible.
Yes, yes it does. And? Are you implying that the working class shouldn't try to live as well off as possible? I, for one, think that an excellent motivation.


The reading of the text is important, you are ignorant of this aspect and do not care to know any different so I won't enlighten you why this is not 'precisely' what all Christians believe.
I'm sure you—like all Christians—pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll accept or reject. Sort of like how the Church choose the Gospels by whatever was most politically expedient. Likewise for how the doctrine of the trinity was introduced. But that doesn't mean that the text itself isn't homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I would question why you have to bother interpreting such garbage in the first place, it is like, as Mark Twain once said, trying to find diamonds among a dungheap.


Here's why "we" or at least I, do not. Well, it does not need proof but a definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love


It is irrational yes?
I don't see how. One can perfectly well have reasons as to why one loves such-and-such. And, even if it comes down to something that one can no longer give reasons for, this does not imply that it is irrational, but rather arational.


You do not decide who you will love nor is this possible to scientifically predict. Why are these neurotransmitters emitted with this person and not that one? Can we predict how these chemicals interact with consciousness are predict the thoughts generated?
You're right, we can't do any of this... yet.

Though, actually, there are relatively reliable ways to predict the likelihood of who people will fall in love with, in the romantic sense of the term. For instance, mere exposure to a person tends to improve one's disposition toward them and increases the odds of entering into a romantic relationship. The sharing of intimate details of one's life does the same. Even staring deeply into the eye's of a potential mate will significantly increase the odds of entering into a romantic relationship with them, even if they are otherwise complete strangers. Fascinating studies they've done on human attachment. It is true that we do not understand it completely, but much better than you suppose.


I know, I wondered why. Emotionalism? Should I keep guessing?
You wonder why in the sense of what's my reason. Or why in the sense of what's the explanation? But yes, I am a good Humean sentimentalist as far as morality is concerned; there is nothing more to it than our sentiments, preferences, etc.


I'll rephrase, what are the basis for your beliefs and actions? You asked me what I was doing here, I'm asking you.
Which beliefs and actions? And what am I doing here? As in this forum? This thread? Or what?


Then why did you ask me what I was doing here? Or make all those statements about what you think my beliefs are to me? In that case, where do these moral sentiments come from and What in gods name kind of communist are you that you will not yourself? You cannot force belief on to [people, you refuse to engage with them, you refuse to be willing to educate them, (I still haven't a clue what you believe in) you only engage people who have the same sentiments in you....Learning new things, I already know you do not wish to understand them, must be difficult.
When did I say I refuse to engage with people? Presumably I'm engaging with you here and now, in the hopes of perhaps persuading you, and if you not, then our audience. That is, after all, the function of a forum and of debate.

But, as stated previously, I don't view the task of communists to try and persuade the ruling class and reactionaries of anything. It isn't as though we'll be able to seize power from the ruling class just by asking nicely, or appealing to their strong sense of morals, or anything of the sort.


So to sum up : My Christian beleifs are false becuase they can not be proved or justified.
Your beleifs are true because they can be proved and justified but you will only tell people who already agree with you what those justifications and basis are.

OK. I must be overcome with Christian irrationality because this is silly.
You really must not straw man, it's unbecoming. The points I made re: justification were in reference to morality; e.g., if a capitalist thinks that he has a moral right to his property, what exactly can I say to dissuade him or her of this view? The abolition of private property in the means of production will not come from arguments and persuasion of the bourgeois, but from the proverbial barrel of the gun, from force.

[spiltteeth]

It's your holy text, not mine. Are you to tell me that sodomy isn't a sin? The Old Testament and Paul seem pretty clear on that. What with it being an "abomination" and "not inheriting the Kingdom of God" and all that.


I fail to see a problem, why is this in need of explanation? Not to say that there isn't an explanation of it, but why is the absence of one a problem?


Yes, yes it does. And? Are you implying that the working class shouldn't try to live as well off as possible? I, for one, think that an excellent motivation.


I'm sure you—like all Christians—pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll accept or reject. Sort of like how the Church choose the Gospels by whatever was most politically expedient. Likewise for how the doctrine of the trinity was introduced. But that doesn't mean that the text itself isn't homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I would question why you have to bother interpreting such garbage in the first place, it is like, as Mark Twain once said, trying to find diamonds among a dungheap.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love


I don't see how. One can perfectly well have reasons as to why one loves such-and-such. And, even if it comes down to something that one can no longer give reasons for, this does not imply that it is irrational, but rather arational.


You're right, we can't do any of this... yet.

Though, actually, there are relatively reliable ways to predict the likelihood of who people will fall in love with, in the romantic sense of the term. For instance, mere exposure to a person tends to improve one's disposition toward them and increases the odds of entering into a romantic relationship. The sharing of intimate details of one's life does the same. Even staring deeply into the eye's of a potential mate will significantly increase the odds of entering into a romantic relationship with them, even if they are otherwise complete strangers. Fascinating studies they've done on human attachment. It is true that we do not understand it completely, but much better than you suppose.


You wonder why in the sense of what's my reason. Or why in the sense of what's the explanation? But yes, I am a good Humean sentimentalist as far as morality is concerned; there is nothing more to it than our sentiments, preferences, etc.


Which beliefs and actions? And what am I doing here? As in this forum? This thread? Or what?


When did I say I refuse to engage with people? Presumably I'm engaging with you here and now, in the hopes of perhaps persuading you, and if you not, then our audience. That is, after all, the function of a forum and of debate.

But, as stated previously, I don't view the task of communists to try and persuade the ruling class and reactionaries of anything. It isn't as though we'll be able to seize power from the ruling class just by asking nicely, or appealing to their strong sense of morals, or anything of the sort.


You really must not straw man, it's unbecoming. The points I made re: justification were in reference to morality; e.g., if a capitalist thinks that he has a moral right to his property, what exactly can I say to dissuade him or her of this view? The abolition of private property in the means of production will not come from arguments and persuasion of the bourgeois, but from the proverbial barrel of the gun, from force.


"It's your holy text, not mine. Are you to tell me that sodomy isn't a sin? The Old Testament and Paul seem pretty clear on that. What with it being an "abomination" and "not inheriting the Kingdom of God" and all that."

There's an explanation. It is theological. You don't want to know about it, so you say. Yet you claim an understanding of it. I say you misunderstand and quote the actual belief of many non-fundi Christians. You say he's a reactionary. I say being a reactionary does not invalidate his biblical interpretation ones scientific understandings, as long as you understand science.

What I'm trying to tell you is that they're are different religions. I'm trying to say you are basing your argument not on belief in god, not in religion, not in Christianity, but specifically against fundamentalist Christians who confuse categories of knowledge.


"I fail to see a problem, why is this in need of explanation? Not to say that there isn't an explanation of it, but why is the absence of one a problem?"

I fail to see a problem with mine or anyone's religious beliefs except for the fundamentalist's religious beliefs, AND I explain why.

"Yes, yes it does. And? Are you implying that the working class shouldn't try to live as well off as possible? I, for one, think that an excellent motivation."

No I am not. Are you suggesting that the ruling class shouldn't try to live as well as possible? It is an excellent motivation. What I believe is that noone ought to be well off at the un-just expense of others, so its a bit more complicated, my belief.

"I'm sure you—like all Christians—pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll accept or reject. Sort of like how the Church choose the Gospels by whatever was most politically expedient. Likewise for how the doctrine of the trinity was introduced. But that doesn't mean that the text itself isn't homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I would question why you have to bother interpreting such garbage in the first place, it is like, as Mark Twain once said, trying to find diamonds among a dungheap."

Oh. Your sure of that. Thats nice. I do not. Orthodox Christians split with the catholics around 1500's and haven't changed much. I don't interpret the bible. You make absurd theological arguments, I say, well, thats not what we believe and then provide a theologian to back me up and you say, I don't care...
That is called contempt before investigation.
You are wrong. This is how the fundies do it. I keep saying so but...

"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love


I don't see how. One can perfectly well have reasons as to why one loves such-and-such. And, even if it comes down to something that one can no longer give reasons for, this does not imply that it is irrational, but rather arational."

That's true. In my field one may even say trans-rational. I suppose one could make a similar statement that a rational belief in god would be false and it would have to be a trans-rational subjective apprehension and to make a counter-argument based on logical apprehension is misguided unless you are only talking about the fundamental christians...
good point.


"You're right, we can't do any of this... yet.

Though, actually, there are relatively reliable ways to predict the likelihood of who people will fall in love with, in the romantic sense of the term. For instance, mere exposure to a person tends to improve one's disposition toward them and increases the odds of entering into a romantic relationship. The sharing of intimate details of one's life does the same. Even staring deeply into the eye's of a potential mate will significantly increase the odds of entering into a romantic relationship with them, even if they are otherwise complete strangers. Fascinating studies they've done on human attachment. It is true that we do not understand it completely, but much better than you suppose."

I know, I mentioned oxytocin since that is the chemical released, besides in prodigious amounts by a mother at birth, by people when merely they sleep next to one another, share moments etc Not that that explains why you share more time with one person than another or why you would share intimate details of ones life with this person instead of that person etc


"You wonder why in the sense of what's my reason. Or why in the sense of what's the explanation? But yes, I am a good Humean sentimentalist as far as morality is concerned; there is nothing more to it than our sentiments, preferences, etc."

Well I am a good Christian, thats all. But I am false and sentiments and preferences are true because...?


"Which beliefs and actions? And what am I doing here? As in this forum? This thread? Or what?"

You asked me if I am a Christian, what am I doing here. Do you get the point of what I am doing? Showing the irrelevancy of applying the same standards of strict rationality and confusing categories of knowledge to Christianity (which the fundies do) so that substance becomes abstract to the point of absurdity.


"When did I say I refuse to engage with people? Presumably I'm engaging with you here and now, in the hopes of perhaps persuading you, and if you not, then our audience. That is, after all, the function of a forum and of debate."

Well, you still haven't told me why what you believe in is true, just that my belief is false!
But you say,
"I can only engage in the practice of justification with those who share similar moral views and sentiments as I. "
I say I am a Christian AND I have similar moral views as you AND I see no contradiction AND I find it justifiable to be a communist and a Christian.
What are you trying to persuade me of? You've engaged with none of my beliefs. You've only engaged with Pat Roberson's.

"But, as stated previously, I don't view the task of communists to try and persuade the ruling class and reactionaries of anything. It isn't as though we'll be able to seize power from the ruling class just by asking nicely, or appealing to their strong sense of morals, or anything of the sort."

I'm talking about the great number of working people who hold religious beliefs who will ask you, when you tell them their religious beliefs are false, "What make your beliefs so true?" So far I haven't heard an explanation. Unless you really think "I fail to see a problem, why is this in need of explanation? Not to say that there isn't an explanation of it, but why is the absence of one a problem?" Will cut it.


"You really must not straw man, it's unbecoming. The points I made re: justification were in reference to morality; e.g., if a capitalist thinks that he has a moral right to his property, what exactly can I say to dissuade him or her of this view? The abolition of private property in the means of production will not come from arguments and persuasion of the bourgeois, but from the proverbial barrel of the gun, from force."

I presume you don't think only the bourgeois have a belief in god? I am talking about the working class. When you tell them they can't be a communist and take part in the communist society AND be a Christian, or a Hindu, or believe in god, because those beliefs are false but yours are true and whats the problem.

Because I am too generous, I'll tell you a bit of how you're theology is perverse.

First off, fundies and rationalists (I have no idea why you believe your ideas are true or your framework for deciding this so I am not accusing you of being a rationalist) confuse 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.” The fundamentalist Christian, confusing the two modes of knowing, might say it is a scientific FACT that flowers are pretty. Then a rationalist would 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 rationalists and religious fundamentalists deny all modalities of knowing except for the scientific one and in so doing diminish what it means to be human.
Many Christians understand this perfectly well. Here are two quotes from typical priests of the third largest Christian denomination, Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:
"…lack 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” .
You seem to avoid this type of true Christian faith and focus specifically on the fundies because other eligions or forms of Christianity not fit in with the fundies simplified one dimensional view of black and white reality that is so easy to klnock down. It is you who make the straw argument.
Finally, here are some words from Slavoj Zizek,
“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 [I]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”
In other words, by disregarding any symbolic mediation between humanity and a reality transcendent of logical apprehension both rationalists and the Christian right are on the same team, since both equally undermine true belief and reject those more rarified modalities of understanding and being.

[Hyacinth]

If religious propositions aren't about the world then what are they about? "[A] reality transcendent of logical apprehension"? I'm afraid you've lost me.

As I see it the difference between the alleged fundamentalist religious views and those of the more sophisticated believers are that the former wears its irrationality on its face, and the latter masks it behind sophisticated (and sophistical) metaphysical machinery.

Now, I might be mistaken in my metaphysical interpretation of what you're saying, and if so, correct me, but the only other reading that I can give of what you've gotten at is some sort of theological noncognitivism. Where religious propositions are sort of like poetry, lacking any cognitive content. In which case we don't really disagree, our dispute is one between tastes. If you treat religion as you treat art, by all means, I haven't the slightest objection to it. Unfortunately, while this might be true of you (though I doubt it), it isn't true of most religious believers.

As to that, let me ask a question: do you believer sodomy is a sin? That women should be subservient to their husbands? That sex before marriage is a sin? Etc. etc. etc. I really am curious—as I'm sure others are—to hear your theological explanation of how calling homosexuality an "abomination" isn't homophobic?

I cannot help but quote Mark Twain yet again when he says: "There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is—in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree—it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime—the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of today, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."—Mark Twain

If all you derive from religion is some quasi-mystical satisfaction or something of the sort, I think there are easier and safer ways to effect the same thing—drugs for one—rather than via an institution and beliefs which have caused countless suffering on this world and have held humanity back centuries, if not millennial, and which has time and again always been in the service of the ruling class and of the fiercest reaction.

[Hyacinth]

And another thing, re: science and religion. If contemporary theologians have withdrawn from their previous positions and made concessions to science it is because they have had to do it in order to keep religion relevant, i.e., they've had to rebrand themselves to keep up with the competition. The reforms within religious institutions have been a response to modernity. If the contemporary churches held onto the doctrines which they did a millennium ago, they would be irrelevant today. It is not a coincidence that religion and superstition are strongest in less developed parts of the world, and in rural areas within the developed world, relative to urban environments in the advanced industrial countries. One task in the construction of socialism will be to effect such material conditions everywhere, the fight against religion is, as the early Soviet Bezbozhnik paper's motto said, the fight for socialism. It is when confronted with the real benefits bestowed by science and industry that people will come to realize the emptiness of religious promises, and will, as those in the advanced industrial world have already done, for the most part abandon religion. Religion is a product of our infancy, and we do have to eventually grow up.

[Comrade Akai]

I disagree with the notion that religion is merely a ploy to keep people in line for the government based on the fact that many religions are actually rather anarchic in nature and do not help government very much at all. Indeed, many governments take a secular stance and dislike it when any religion (including the state's most prominent) attempt to take a foothold in politics. In fact, many are blatantly turned down.

Islam and Christianity, for instance, both teach to follow no master or ruler but one God. This can become very problematic for some governments. In fact, when Islam first came around, it was probably the most anarchic thing in existence at that time, and many wars erupted in attempts to silence it.

[spiltteeth]

And another thing, re: science and religion. If contemporary theologians have withdrawn from their previous positions and made concessions to science it is because they have had to do it in order to keep religion relevant, i.e., they've had to re brand themselves to keep up with the competition. The reforms within religious institutions have been a response to modernity. If the contemporary churches held onto the doctrines which they did a millennium ago, they would be irrelevant today. It is not a coincidence that religion and superstition are strongest in less developed parts of the world, and in rural areas within the developed world, relative to urban environments in the advanced industrial countries. One task in the construction of socialism will be to effect such material conditions everywhere, the fight against religion is, as the early Soviet Subsonic paper's motto said, the fight for socialism. It is when confronted with the real benefits bestowed by science and industry that people will come to realize the emptiness of religious promises, and will, as those in the advanced industrial world have already done, for the most part abandon religion. Religion is a product of our infancy, and we do have to eventually grow up.

"And another thing, re: science and religion. If contemporary theologians have withdrawn from their previous positions and made concessions to science..."

Many Christians have indeed modified their beliefs to keep relevant. The RD largest Christianity - orthodox, mine- has not,

You must of missed this :

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

Now how has religion in general done this? The Muslims? The Hindu's? Or can we ignore all them because they do not fit into your analysis of not being 'relevant,' despite the cultured scientists who still hold to their traditional beleifs...


"If the contemporary churches held onto the doctrines which they did a millennium ago, they would be irrelevant today."

Well, you are wrong because many do and they are relevant.

" It is not a coincidence that religion and superstition are strongest in less developed parts of the world, and in rural areas within the developed world, relative to urban environments in the advanced industrial countries"

Thats true! Now I have a Marxist view of why that is, not a theological one, unlike you. I even remember reading about all the priest whop went over to Germany from America to fight fascism saying that the next wave of fascists would come from the fundie churches here in America and how puzzled everyone was at the time....

" It is when confronted with the real benefits bestowed by science and industry that people will come to realize the emptiness of religious promises, and will, as those in the advanced industrial world have already done, for the most part abandon religion. Religion is a product of our infancy, and we do have to eventually grow up"

For the most part abandoned religion...well, they haven't so your wrong about that.

But what about all the emptiness of those absurd ethics you have? Postmodernists etc would tell you to grow up and abandon them. I mean, theirs no truth to them correct ?
So the beliefs you have do not have to abandon because....you have not realized their emptiness right? Well, I pointed it out...

[spiltteeth]

If religious propositions aren't about the world then what are they about? "[A] reality transcendent of logical apprehension"? I'm afraid you've lost me.

As I see it the difference between the alleged fundamentalist religious views and those of the more sophisticated believers are that the former wears its irrationality on its face, and the latter masks it behind sophisticated (and sophistical) metaphysical machinery.

Now, I might be mistaken in my metaphysical interpretation of what you're saying, and if so, correct me, but the only other reading that I can give of what you've gotten at is some sort of theological noncognitivism. Where religious propositions are sort of like poetry, lacking any cognitive content. In which case we don't really disagree, our dispute is one between tastes. If you treat religion as you treat art, by all means, I haven't the slightest objection to it. Unfortunately, while this might be true of you (though I doubt it), it isn't true of most religious believers.

As to that, let me ask a question: do you believer sodomy is a sin? That women should be subservient to their husbands? That sex before marriage is a sin? Etc. etc. etc. I really am curious—as I'm sure others are—to hear your theological explanation of how calling homosexuality an "abomination" isn't homophobic?

I cannot help but quote Mark Twain yet again when he says: "There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is—in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree—it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime—the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of today, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."—Mark Twain

If all you derive from religion is some quasi-mystical satisfaction or something of the sort, I think there are easier and safer ways to effect the same thing—drugs for one—rather than via an institution and beliefs which have caused countless suffering on this world and have held humanity back centuries, if not millennial, and which has time and again always been in the service of the ruling class and of the fiercest reaction.

"If religious propositions aren't about the world then what are they about? "[A] reality transcendent of logical apprehension"? I'm afraid you've lost me."

They are about the world. Well, don;t be lost, just think of all your beliefs and ethics that have no rational basis.

"As I see it the difference between the alleged fundamentalist religious views and those of the more sophisticated believers are that the former wears its irrationality on its face, and the latter masks it behind sophisticated (and sophistical) metaphysical machinery."

Well, I'm sure you've read Kierkegaard. Religion must be irrational. Or Tertillion, 'I believe because it is absurd'

"Now, I might be mistaken in my metaphysical interpretation of what you're saying, and if so, correct me, but the only other reading that I can give of what you've gotten at is some sort of theological noncognitivism. Where religious propositions are sort of like poetry, lacking any cognitive content."

No, firstly, poetry has cognitive content, but in the way you are using it it is where non-literal cognition meets unconscious contents.

"In which case we don't really disagree, our dispute is one between tastes. If you treat religion as you treat art, by all means, I haven't the slightest objection to it. Unfortunately, while this might be true of you (though I doubt it), it isn't true of most religious believers."

I know it ain;t the case with protestants, but the Orthodox are told by monks and dudes who went a god seeking in the desert and have reached a certain level of spiritual sight to tell us how to approach the bible, I make no interpretations myself. Obviously, this is not like art.

Also, I'll just mention that the bible is not some math theory where you plug in a question, 'is it wrong to kill' and you get an answer. Hence the contradiction.
Big K wrote a whole book on it called 'fear and trembling' about God telling Abraham to kill his kid...cuz it is an individual personal relationship you see..

But there are ethics of course, Bonhoeffer, the priest who plotted to kill Hitler etc wrote a decent book about them.

"As to that, let me ask a question: do you believer sodomy is a sin? That women should be subservient to their husbands? That sex before marriage is a sin? Etc. etc. etc. I really am curious—as I'm sure others are—to hear your theological explanation of how calling homosexuality an "abomination" isn't homophobic?"

Well, I am a gentleman, And even if you have ignored the questions I have put to you out of fear or ignorance or fanaticism I will answer you.
By the By -does this mean you concede that you are not talking about religion, or people who believe in god, but specifically Christians.

I'll look into it more fully. The dude I go to church with openly fights for gay rights and is a college prof and is gay, I will also ask him.

But with the advent of Christ everything changed from 'law' to 'love.' The highest command,enmt to 'love' and then 'life.' Doing the gay stuff (which I have) and doing the sex before marriage stuff (which I also have) and doing many, many other stuffs is a sin. In fact, every person that has ever lived (except one) is sining constantly. In the Orthodox church, whenever a priest signs his name, just to remind him of the fact, must sign 'sinful priest, xxxxx.'

"I cannot help but quote Mark Twain yet again when he says: "There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is—in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree—it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime—the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of today, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."—Mark Twain"

I could quote stuff too.

"If all you derive from religion is some quasi-mystical satisfaction or something of the sort, I think there are easier and safer ways to effect the same thing—drugs for one—rather than via an institution and beliefs which have caused countless suffering on this world and have held humanity back centuries, if not millennial, and which has time and again always been in the service of the ruling class and of the fiercest reaction"

Believe me, for me being a Christian is a terrible burden, not a comfort. Also, I am on parole and a recovering addict so the drug thing isn't a good idea but thank you for the advice.

As to your beliefs....I won't have the bad taste to tell you how you ought to live though.

How has Buddhism caused all this suffering? Or Shintoism? You keep using the word 'religion' and yet all you speak about is specific Christianity.

By the By, all them tuuuurible crusades that caused all that suffering...the Orthodox Christians suffered terribly and in fact the big Pope himself apologized to us recently.

So, again, you are not talking about religion or belief in god or beliefs (like your ethics) that have a non-rational base, but about the way specific religions are conditioned by social forces to behave in a terrible, oppressive way.

That you for avoiding answering my questions while you ask me more and more.
Again, you do not have to answer, you do not have to justify, you do not have to offer proof, but you expect that I do....And I am the oppressive one?

[Kukulofori]

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/politicaleconomy/

just throwing it out there.

[Hyacinth]

@spiltteeth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25034): Forgive me if I don't respond to everything that you've written, because, frankly, I don't understand most of it—not for lack of ability on my part, but because much of what you've written is incomprehensible.

But, as to the few points that I could make out, I will say this:

Your appeal to postmodernism, Kierkegaard, and whatnot is to no avail, since they are just as nonsensical as most religious claims. And if you, like Kierkegaard, accept that religion is fundamentally irrational then I cannot very well persuade you to abandon your beliefs. You've rejected reasoning, there's really nothing more to be said at this point. In fact, I think this illustrates my point about religion interfering with one's ability to think clearly.

[Luís Henrique]

Is it possible to be a communist and a religious person?

Why, yes.

Is it possible to be communist, religious, and coherent?

Nope. You may only choose two.

Luís Henrique

[spiltteeth]

@spiltteeth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25034): Forgive me if I don't respond to everything that you've written, because, frankly, I don't understand most of it—not for lack of ability on my part, but because much of what you've written is incomprehensible.

But, as to the few points that I could make out, I will say this:

Your appeal to postmodernism, Kierkegaard, and whatnot is to no avail, since they are just as nonsensical as most religious claims. And if you, like Kierkegaard, accept that religion is fundamentally irrational then I cannot very well persuade you to abandon your beliefs. You've rejected reasoning, there's really nothing more to be said at this point. In fact, I think this illustrates my point about religion interfering with one's ability to think clearly.


It is irrational in the very sense that your ethics are irrational.
And even then, it really is non-rational. If your asking to discuss my faith -or poetry -or music or love - or your ethics - from a rational basis then I'd say you are using the wrong framework.

I havn't rejected reason, you do know that when art is created the ego (rationality and reason) are not rejected they are suspended for unconcious content to arrise?

You do not understand this? : Why are your ethics true?

I will use ONLY reasoning. I will make no reference to all the things that you can't make sense out of but not because you don't understand them.


If you do understand this question - why are your ethics true? - then please explain it to me.
I'm saying my fath is true in the same way, but may be I'm wrong.

So, why are your ethics true?

[spiltteeth]

Is it possible to be a communist and a religious person?

Why, yes.

Is it possible to be communist, religious, and coherent?

Nope. You may only choose two.

Luís Henrique


Is it possible to make wide blanket statments without backing them up with examples, duscussion, facts, or truth?

Why, yes.

Is it possible to do so and remain intellectualy honest?

Nope. You may only choose one.

Is it possible to be communist and beleive in ethics ?

According to Hyacinth and Luís Henrique : Why, yes.

Is is possible to beleive in ethics, be a communist, and be coherent According to Hyacinth and Luís Henrique ?

Nope. You may choose only two.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Of course you can be a communist and a Christian. But I see no way you can be a materialist or a revolutionary.
1Mark 2:13-18:

13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17Honour everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honour the emperor.
18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.
Not very revolutionary.

[Hit The North]

Is it possible to be communist and beleive in ethics ?

According to Hyacinth and Luís Henrique : Why, yes.

Is is possible to beleive in ethics, be a communist, and be coherent According to Hyacinth and Luís Henrique ?

Nope. You may choose only two.

You seem to be conflating ethics and religion.

[spiltteeth]

You seem to be conflating ethics and religion.

Simply asking if they have a rationalist basis for their ethics, you don't need one, but if the absence of a rational basis is THE reason one can not be Christian and communist, then I ask them to provide a rational basis for their beliefs - ethics for instance.

[spiltteeth]

Of course you can be a communist and a Christian. But I see no way you can be a materialist or a revolutionary.
1Mark 2:13-18:

13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17Honour everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honour the emperor.
18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.
Not very revolutionary.

As I said, the bible is not some math theory where you plug in a question, 'is it wrong to kill' and you get an answer. Hence the contradiction.
Big K wrote a whole book on it called 'fear and trembling' about God telling Abraham to kill his kid...cuz it is an individual personal relationship you see.. BUT looky here :

Jesus opposed the use of government power, even for supposedly good purposes like welfare. See Luke 22:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:25;&version=31;), which says: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over the people; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves ‘Benefactors.’ But you are not to be like that."
Jesus antagonised the ‘system’ ruled by Satan: "He sent me forth to preach a release to the captives, to send the crushed ones away with a release." (Luke 4:18,19, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 17:16, 18:36). He was against human leadership (Matthew 23:8-12), and he refused to be made king (Matthew 4:8-10 John 6:15).
The first Christians opposed the primacy of the State: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men” (Acts 4:19, 5:29, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6); "Stripping the governments and the authorities bare, he exhibited them in open public as conquered, leading them in a triumphal procession by means of it.” (Colossians 2:15). Eschatology identifies the State with the wild beast (Revelation chapters 13, 14, 17) and predicts an end to oppression: "The meek ones will possess the earth." (Psalms 37:10,11,28).
The anarchist attitude comes from the Old Testament (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Old_Testament): Nimrod (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Nimrod) was disapproved for becoming a dominator (Genesis 10:8,9). Abraham (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Abraham), who left civilization to life in tents, conflicted with Nimrod. (Jewish tradition Gen. R. Pesik. R.). Moses (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Moses) led the Hebrews out of captivity to live in the desert (Exodus 3:7,10), and the big nation remained three centuries without king: “In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do." (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Gideon (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gideon) refused to be made king: "Jehovah (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jehovah) is the one who will rule over you." (Judges 8:23), and his son described the state as parasites (Judges 9:8-21). Samuel (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Samuel) then warned the Hebrews against the evils of a kingdom (1 Samuel 8:5-18). The prophets disapproved domination (Ecclesiastes 8:9, Jeremiah 25:34, Ezekiel 34:10, 45:8, Hosea 13:10,11), and a God's kingdom of freedom (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Kingdom_of_God) was envisioned (Isaiah 2:4, 65:22).


My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).
To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God (1 Samuel 8).
Christians struggle against governments, rulers, and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12).
Honest people are too busy making an honest living to accept political power, so only the corruptible will accept political power (Judges 9:7-15 The Parable of the Trees).
The devil offers all kingdoms to Jesus in return for worshipping him.(Matthew 4:8-10).
So I saw all this, and applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun; all the things wherein man has power over man to afflict him. (Ecclesiastes 8:9)
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule (Gr. archo) over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you...." (Mark 10:42-43a)
Or seee these 2 great theologians :
Jacques Ellul (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jacques_Ellul)

There are different forms of anarchy and different currents in it. I must, first say very simply what anarchy I have in view. By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence.


What seems to be one of the disasters of our time is that we all appear to agree that the nation-state is the norm. […] Whether the state be Marxist or capitalist, it makes no difference. The dominant ideology is that of sovereignty. (Anarchy and Christianity, 104–5.)


So I can very well say without hesitation that all those who have political power, even if they use it well have acquired it by demonic mediation and even if they are not conscious of it, they are worshippers of diabolos. (Si tu es le Fils de Dieu, 76)

Nicolas Berdyaev (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Nicolas_Berdyaev)

It is beyond dispute that the state exercises very great power over human life and it always shows a tendency to go beyond the limits laid down for it. (Slavery and Freedom, 145)


There is absolute truth in anarchism and it is to be seen in its attitude to the sovereignty of the state and to every form of state absolutism. […] The religious truth of anarchism consists in this, that power over man is bound up with sin and evil, that a state of perfection is a state where there is no power of man over man, that is to say, anarchy. The Kingdom of God is freedom and the absence of such power … the Kingdom of God is anarchy. (Slavery and Freedom, 147–8)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by spiltteeth
Simply asking if they have a rationalist basis for their ethics, you don't need one, but if the absence of a rational basis is THE reason one can not be Christian and communist, then I ask them to provide a rational basis for their beliefs - ethics for instance.

I see. However, I'm sure they can come up with a rational argument to justify their ethics. Come to think of it, you can have rational reasons for believing in religion.

There's the old "edging your bets" rationale: "If I'm wrong so what? If I'm right, I get eternal life!"

There's the social connections rationale: "People think well of me and I do better business!" or "As a respected member of the congregation, I get a lot of referrals for my undertaking services."

There's the social solidarity rationale: "As a member of the religion I can call upon its spiritual (meaning emotional) and material support in times of hardship."

There's probably countless others.

Splitteeth, why do you follow a religion?

[Luís Henrique]

Simply asking if they have a rationalist basis for their ethics, you don't need one, but if the absence of a rational basis is THE reason one can not be Christian and communist, then I ask them to provide a rational basis for their beliefs - ethics for instance.

My own ethics is Kantian; ie, I believe I should act in a way I can desire becomes the general behaviour. Whether this is rational or not, I leave to you to decide.

My rejection of Christianism isn't at all based in the idea that Christianism lacks a rational basis (though it is evidently true that it has an explicitly irrational basis - the unity between Father and Son, the existence of a benevolent, almighty entity, etc. -, which is a different issue). My rejection of Christianism is based ethical considerations - something like the Christian God must be a moral monster; if it indeed existed, it would have to be fought against. Unwilling to undertake such impossible task, I am satisfied in merely disbelieving it, as there are no actual signs of its existence.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Also, ethics is about man's relation to other men, which has an implicitly rational basis: how can we live with each other.

Whereas religion is about man's relation to God, which given the absence of any proof to this being's existence, is implicitly irrational.

[spiltteeth]

I see. However, I'm sure they can come up with a rational argument to justify their ethics. Come to think of it, you can have rational reasons for believing in religion.

There's the old "edging your bets" rationale: "If I'm wrong so what? If I'm right, I get eternal life!"

There's the social connections rationale: "People think well of me and I do better business!" or "As a respected member of the congregation, I get a lot of referrals for my undertaking services."

There's the social solidarity rationale: "As a member of the religion I can call upon its spiritual (meaning emotional) and material support in times of hardship."

There's probably countless others.

Splitteeth, why do you follow a religion?

Well, so far Haycinth can not give any rationalist arguments for his particular kind of ethics, he can merely say " I am a good Humean sentimentalist as far as morality is concerned; there is nothing more to it than our sentiments, preferences, etc."

"Also, ethics is about man's relation to other men, which has an implicitly rational basis: how can we live with each other.

Whereas religion is about man's relation to God, which given the absence of any proof to this being's existence, is implicitly irrational. "

Well, the reason to have ethics may be rational, but many types of ethics do not have a rational basis. And also, if its just to get along with other folks then your ethical consideration would (or could) change with how just how much you do have to concern yourself with others.

I would say belief in god can be irrational, but it always is non-rational, or trans-rational, which is also what many peoples ethics are.
For instance, a small baby babbles "blue blue you!"
This is irrational.
A Zen master asks "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound" or some other Koan, it is trans rational. You think and think on it, the the ramifications of the question become deeper and deeper until they are no longer rational and a concept is, hopefully, grasped spontaneously (A psychologist would say from the unconscious since rationality has been bypassed/short-circuited)

Why do I follow a religion?

Well, actually I used to be a hard core atheist. But I developed a drug problem. went to prison, got out, tried to stay sober a million different ways, tried therapy etc Finally I joined a 12 step group. The 12 step group I belong to is mostly vehemently anti-religious and anti-Christian, but they said if I wanted to stay sober I had to get a "relationship with a higher power" and pray. I told them str8 out I was an atheist. But I was so desperate I suspended my judgment and, without believing, prayed twice a day every day -WITH an open mind - after two whole years I began to have an actual experiential relationship with...somthing. Some Christian i Heard said maybe truth wasn't a theory or an abstraction, maybe it was a person I could relate to, if their was a God He is too abstract to talk about/experience...
At the same time I read alot of philosophy, although I hate post-modernism. I was really influenced by Heidegger's ideas of how subjectivity exists, and his ideas that because we exist within the gap between objectivity and subjectivity, we are 'guardians of the universe' in that sense, since this gap creates the something from the void.
Then I read about Hegel's idea that an "I" can only exist with a "you" with creates a third term : "we." I know I'm bastardizing this terribly, but his idea that there must be 3 referents for something to exist, and only than it exists relationally.
Well, this is the basis for a triune god, not even God can exist by himself, he IS a community.
Then I read that book Being as Communion and I thought, from a philosophically perspective, not that it makes it true, but IF Christianity was true, it would solve so many philosophical conundrums with what I consider a breath taking elegance.
Then I read the desert fathers, which aren't the judgmental pricks that many Christian are, I like them. It all eventually lead me to communism via beryaev, then through Jung (whom I mostly reject) and William James it lead me to the mysticism of the Orthodox Church. Add a bit Kierkegaard and Unumuno, and I realized belief must come first.
And I've remained sober, a miracle, have a framework that I consider elegant and rigorous, and I've even had my little experiences, which are personal.
In a nutshell, that is why I believe.

[LeninKobaMao]

Well I'm anti-clerical but still religious. Whats the problem with that?

Anti-Clerical yet you are a "Catholic AnarchoCommunist?"

[black magick hustla]

And if you, like Kierkegaard, accept that religion is fundamentally irrational then I cannot very well persuade you to abandon your beliefs.

More than talking about "rational" or "irrational", which seem to me as kindofarbitrary, it makes more sense to say that religious propositions are technically nonsense. But so are ethical propositions, or aesthetical ones. You cannot persuade someone that "misery is morally wrong" if he or she does not find this proposition self evident. It is more or less an emotional appeal, like poetry, literature, etc.






Is it possible to be a communist and a religious person?

Why, yes.

Is it possible to be communist, religious, and coherent?

Nope. You may only choose two.

Luís Henrique



At least from the point of view of historical materialism and science, both are not necessarily incoherent. Marxism as a paradigm makes statements about the world - institutions, society, people, classes etc. It occupies a completely different cognitive space than ethical statements, religious statements, etc. What I mean is that a religious person does not necessarily "want to compete" with science. When a mother prays for her son who has cancer she does not necessarily preconceive that medicine, the hospital, etc are worthless because god controls our deaths, etc. The god she prays to is a god that perhaps transcends that kind of cognitive space and is something more personal and of the gut. Nor she wants to necessarily accomodate religion to science - rather, scientific discourse and religious/ethical discourse occupy two different cognitive spaces.

For example, Carnap makes a distinction between "mythical god" and "spiritual god", with the former being more or less an entity to use to explain how the "world works" (for example, Zeus throwing lightning) - this kind of god does compete with science, while the latter is something very difficult to explain in words - technically is "nonsensical".

Whether ethically both are coherent, I think that is a tougher question. Historically, communism has had a pretty big anti-clerical and humanist streak, so it seems to me both might be incoherent if we take the historical traditions and analyze them.


Also, ethics is about man's relation to other men, which has an implicitly rational basis: how can we live with each other.

Whereas religion is about man's relation to God, which given the absence of any proof to this being's existence, is implicitly irrational.

rational or irrational are very arbitrary terms, but I would argue instead that ethics is nonsensical, along the same way poetry and literature might be. I don´t think they are necessarily unintelligible, but these are things that cannot be proved true or false. Ethics has more to do with what is "morally good" than "how can we live with each olher". For example, one might think that humanity as a whole is reprehensible and it is ethically correct to annihilate all of it. While I would find a proposition like that disgusting, it still qualifies as an ethical statement.

[spiltteeth]

My own ethics is Kantian; IE, I believe I should act in a way I can desire becomes the general behavior. Whether this is rational or not, I leave to you to decide.

My rejection of Christian ism isn't at all based in the idea that Christianism lacks a rational basis (though it is evidently true that it has an explicitly irrational basis - the unity between Father and Son, the existence of a benevolent, almighty entity, etc. -, which is a different issue). My rejection of Christianism is based ethical considerations - something like the Christian God must be a moral monster; if it indeed existed, it would have to be fought against. Unwilling to undertake such impossible task, I am satisfied in merely disbelieving it, as there are no actual signs of its existence.

Luís Henrique

Hey, I love Kantian ethics, although I'm sure you know that opens you up to attacks that your not a 'real' communist, your not a 'real' materialist, and you non doubt know Kant needed god, not the Christian one, to posit his idea of morals for practical reasons, and you need a supernatural force for moral progress etc
But I don't set myself up to judge anyone.
Rejection of the Christian god on ethical ground is perfectly reasonable, (although somewhat problematical, as big K wrote about) but that is not what you wrote. You accused me of incoherence.

[spiltteeth]

More than talking about "rational" or "irrational", which seem to me as kindofarbitrary, it makes more sense to say that religious propositions are technically nonsense. But so are ethical propositions, or aesthetical ones. You cannot persuade someone that "misery is morally wrong" if he or she does not find this proposition self evident. It is more or less an emotional appeal, like poetry, literature, etc.









At least from the point of view of historical materialism and science, both are not necessarily incoherent. Marxism as a paradigm makes statements about the world - institutions, society, people, classes etc. It occupies a completely different cognitive space than ethical statements, religious statements, etc. What I mean is that a religious person does not necessarily "want to compete" with science. When a mother prays for her son who has cancer she does not necessarily preconceive that medicine, the hospital, etc are worthless because god controls our deaths, etc. The god she prays to is a god that perhaps transcends that kind of cognitive space and is something more personal and of the gut. Nor she wants to necessarily accomodate religion to science - rather, scientific discourse and religious/ethical discourse occupy two different cognitive spaces.

For example, Carnap makes a distinction between "mythical god" and "spiritual god", with the former being more or less an entity to use to explain how the "world works" (for example, Zeus throwing lightning) - this kind of god does compete with science, while the latter is something very difficult to explain in words - technically is "nonsensical".

Whether ethically both are coherent, I think that is a tougher question. Historically, communism has had a pretty big anti-clerical and humanist streak, so it seems to me both might be incoherent if we take the historical traditions and analyze them.



rational or irrational are very arbitrary terms, but I would argue instead that ethics is nonsensical, along the same way poetry and literature might be. I don´t think they are necessarily unintelligible, but these are things that cannot be proved true or false. Ethics has more to do with what is "morally good" than "how can we live with each olher". For example, one might think that humanity as a whole is reprehensible and it is ethically correct to annihilate all of it. While I would find a proposition like that disgusting, it still qualifies as an ethical statement.

I think this is pretty fair, it sums up better than I can articulate how I see things.

[Dave B]

I only just looked at this thread and skimmed over some of the later posts on it.

In fact the whole issue did play an important part in Marx and Engels thinking.

It is always difficult and dangerous to condense things down too much.


However;

Following up on the ideas in Straus’s Life of Jesus described as "the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell." Feuerbach wrote a pamphlet called ‘The Essence of Christianity’ which put the issue on a much more friendly humanistic footing and was highly influential on Marx and Engels at the time.

By the essence of Christianity what Feuerbach meant was not all the mumbo jumbo of hierarchical organised religion that is used by the ruling class to keep the masses under control etc. Whether or not that is contained in the old testament or the Pauline letters.




What he meant by essence of Christianity was the more general or essential appeal of ‘loving each other’, the antithesis or negation of hierarchy ie humility and washing each others feet etc, and the idea of harmony and mutual tolerance etc etc.


Just in order not to lose too early the ‘Jesus, what a load of bollocks’ people I will slot in the following in the hope of keeping their attention;

To Ludwig Feuerbach, In Bruckberg, Paris, August 11 1844



Dear Sir,

Since I just have the opportunity, I take the liberty of sending you an article of mine in which some elements of my critical philosophy of law [Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Introduction (http://www.revleft.com/1843/critique-hpr/index.htm)] are outlined. I had already finished it once but have since revised it in order to make it more generally comprehensible.

I don't attribute any exceptional value to this essay but I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and — if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together.

In these writings you have provided — I don't know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!


Two translations of your Wesen des Christenthums (http://www.revleft.com/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm), one in English and one in French, are in preparation and almost ready for printing. The first will be published in Manchester (Engels has been supervising it) and the second in Paris (the Frenchman Dr. Guerrier and the German Communist Ewerbeck have translated it with the help of a French literary expert).



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm)


So although for Feuerbach the essence of Christianity was irrational escapism, fantasying about a better albeit metaphysical world or new Jerusalem.


That missed the point however about the ‘fact’ that for it to have an appeal it must have been fulfilling an allegedly innate ‘emotional’ desire or need for something else.


Only in the sense of course that the essence of Christianity sprang from the spontaneous reaction of the original Christians against hierarchy etc.

That idea was never completely abandoned by Fred eg as a diversion;


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

Then came Max Stirner with his ‘The Ego and His Own’ where he poured scorn in a brilliantly intelligent critique on the poor old so called materialist and rationalist Feuerbachian Marx and Engels with the idea that unselfishness and love was irrational.


They responded however with the ‘German Ideology’ which was in essence a reorganisation of their position as a result of Stirners anti Feuerbachian attack upon them.

The problem was that you just couldn’t decide without any rational or materialistic reason that people are lovey and dovey, like some of our little harmonious feathered friends as if it was an idea plucked from the air.


That would be as bad as being an idealistic Christian.

That was before Darwin however and the possibility of social instincts with an evolutionary advantage.

So when we look at and anthropomorphise the Arabian Babblers for instance and say ‘ isn’t that sweet’ is that just ideological cultural nonsense clouding our judgement, or a bit of subliminal and repressed Arabian Babbler social instinct kicking in.

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

[Il Medico]

The problem with saying that you are a Christian rather than merely 'religious' or 'spiritual' is that you are identifying with a specific set of beliefs - existence of an interventionist God; an interventionist Devil; places called Heaven and Hell; an army of sexless, immortal beings called angels; a virgin birth; miracles; God incarnating as a man in order to sacrifice himself (bizarrely in order to appease himself - so, at the least a schizoid and divided God); resurrection; a prescribed and predetermined end of the world.
To the bold:
I have always had a deep interest in philosophy, art, culture and theology. Even if I don't agree with what it says. The Christian theological explanation for why God had to make him self human is quite different from what you said (he's crazy). Basically Christians (in general) believe that God is infallible (not to be confused with the Catholic doctrine of infallibility of the Pope which only extends to matters of the Church). God can not be contradicted, even by himself. In the old testament God made it clear that people had to pay for their sins or bad deeds by going to hell or whatever. So, when God changed his mind and went from "The sinner must be punished" to "The sinners must be saved" he couldn't just take it back and be like "Ok you are all forgiven now, no more hell or what have you". This is because if God is contradicted (even by himself) existence will be... well, undone. So in order to not shake the proverbal Etch-e-sketch (I think I spelled that horribly wrong, but you get the idea), god had to make himself man and take on the punishment that he had pereviously demanded. So yes, he is appeasing himself, but only because he had to... if that makes any sense.

[Hit The North]

Doesn't this then mean that God is subject to a law which supersedes his own authority? If so, who's law is it?

Besides, the Old Testament is riddled with occasions when he arbitrarily changes his mind. One such case is deciding that humankind has to be punished for sin; or live for four-square and twenty years; or summoning a flood to drown the whole Earth so that creation can begin again.

Besides, what evidence do these theologians have to suggest that God can't contradict himself or creation will be undone? Has this ever happened?

[Il Medico]

Doesn't this then mean that God is subject to a law which supersedes his own authority? If so, who's law is it?

Besides, the Old Testament is riddled with occasions when he arbitrarily changes his mind. One such case is deciding that humankind has to be punished for sin; or live for four-square and twenty years; or summoning a flood to drown the whole Earth so that creation can begin again.

Besides, what evidence do these theologians have to suggest that God can't contradict himself or creation will be undone? Has this ever happened?
I am not saying it's not ridiculous, I was just explaining how Christian Theologians explain it, thats all. I agree with you.

[The Red Next Door]

sure you can be communist and a christian, there are parts of christ teachings that goes along with the socialist ideology.

[The Bear]

there are over hundred religions in world.... bring your conclusion ... which god is true god ? do we have to accept being pitiful mortals who must accept to believe in something we dont want or finish up in hell ? if there is upper force who makes world go round , then existence of humans is meaningless. Would relligions ever exist if there were no humans ? why did god choose to born a perfect man and then discover him his existence ? what about people who lived before christ muhammad etc... ?

the fact that there are so much relligions , with so similar definitions is fact that shows of how it has no sense for modern man... or you claim your relligion is only true relligion ?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

You can't be a Christian Marxist, that's for sure.

"Communism" is fairly ambiguous however. If Communism is broadly defined as an ideology that advocates the abolition of private property and class warfare, then you might be able to be a Christian Communist if you really pushed but you would probably end up as either a "class traitor" or a "heretic", really.

You should be a traditionalist conservative and leave this communist rubbish behind. :)

[Sam_b]

You should go away.

[Killfacer]

You should go away.
More top contributions from revleft purist sam_b.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

You should go away.
You should burn in hell with the rest of your deluded commies.

[Sam_b]

Why do you post on this forum again? I forget.

Luckily I don't believe in the concept of hell. Except for Thatcher.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Why do you post on this forum again? I forget.

Luckily I don't believe in the concept of hell. Except for Thatcher.
Why shouldn't I? Because I'm not a deluded amoral commie?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Since the goal of Anarchism/Communism is equality then you simply cannot believe in god and be a communist. Also the ideoligies of each religion are all reactionary, so I say no.

[mel]

Why shouldn't I? Because I'm not a deluded amoral commie?

Actually that's exactly why you shouldn't post here. It's a forum for deluded amoral commies.

[Orange Juche]

It think this is a valid point: Is it possible to hold a deep religious faith and still be revoutionary? I am a deep Christian existentialist who believes in most of Kirkregaard's sayings on religion, but I also feel a great pull toward the ideals of a better society offered by revolution. Maybe Christian existentialism is more amenable, because it advocates freedom of choice and individualism. I suppose I'm not a part of any particular church, but I've formed my own intense spiritualism of universal tolerance, and merged it with communism's offer of equality...whether or not those ideals of equality can be reached is a differnet arguement...what do you comrades think?

I don't see why not.

Alot of people would say no. I say to them, if - outside of theory relating to spirituality and the metaphysical - someone agrees with the social and economic viewpoints of communism... what does that make them? If they aren't a communist, what do you call them?

[KarlMarx1989]

Acts 2:44.45

[Anaximander]

I believe Communism, specifically Marxism, resembles Christianity as almost its mirror image. These may be formalities, but they are worth ruminating over.

Coming from a Christian background where the "return of Christ" was always fussed over, it seems that I have rejected one Messiah for another; I am no longer waiting for Christ, rather the revolution. The difference here is that the Messianic principle involved in revolution isn't a passive "waiting," but rather an active participation in "Messiah-ship." Christians have their texts, we have ours. Christians have their saints and prophets, we have our founders and great revolutionaries. We both have martyrs. The revolution, according to some, is the inevitable conclusion of history, much like Christ's return. The first Marxists believed the revolution was immanent, much like Christ's return was supposed to be immanent by the first Christians. Comparisons can be made between St. Paul and Lenin, the "universalizers" of Christianity and Marxism, respectively; St. Paul brought Christianity to the sinful gentiles, Lenin to largely un-industrialized Russia, where the proletariat was less developed than in other European nations. The list can go on, and I don't mean to offend, but the point here I am trying to make is that where this "mirror image" is concerned, Marxism is the consequence of nearly two Christian millenia; materialism brought the idealism of Christianity down to earth.

The inherent Hegelianism within Marxism leaves dialectical materialism with a whole slough of metaphysical ramifications, and I believe this is partly why it has stuck around for so long; it is a social ontology, and therefore a philosophy of being. Theology persists in Marxism, whether it appears as theology or dialectical materialism, or historical materialism.

In a way, I think the persistence of the "Messianic principle" is something that shouldn't be rejected because of historical bias, but rather something that should be embraced. As I said before, it is not something we have to wait for, but is something that is in a process of becoming (or regression) according to the active subjects that partake in the principle itself. In this way Marxism has revolutionized Messiah-ship and has made it applicable to the material circumstances of socio-economic life.

This will be the second time I have quoted Walter Benjamin today, but, what the h-e-double-hockeysticks.


It is well-known that an automaton once existed, which was so constructed that it could counter any move of a chess-player with a counter-move, and thereby assure itself of victory in the match. A puppet in Turkish attire, water-pipe in mouth, sat before the chessboard, which rested on a broad table. Through a system of mirrors, the illusion was created that this table was transparent from all sides. In truth, a hunchbacked dwarf who was a master chess-player sat inside, controlling the hands of the puppet with strings. One can envision a corresponding object to this apparatus in philosophy. The puppet called “historical materialism” is always supposed to win. It can do this with no further ado against any opponent, so long as it employs the services of theology, which as everyone knows is small and ugly and must be kept out of sight.

[spiltteeth]

I believe Communism, specifically Marxism, resembles Christianity as almost its mirror image. These may be formalities, but they are worth ruminating over.

Coming from a Christian background where the "return of Christ" was always fussed over, it seems that I have rejected one Messiah for another; I am no longer waiting for Christ, rather the revolution. The difference here is that the Messianic principle involved in revolution isn't a passive "waiting," but rather an active participation in "Messiah-ship." Christians have their texts, we have ours. Christians have their saints and prophets, we have our founders and great revolutionaries. We both have martyrs. The revolution, according to some, is the inevitable conclusion of history, much like Christ's return. The first Marxists believed the revolution was immanent, much like Christ's return was supposed to be immanent by the first Christians. Comparisons can be made between St. Paul and Lenin, the "universalizers" of Christianity and Marxism, respectively; St. Paul brought Christianity to the sinful gentiles, Lenin to largely un-industrialized Russia, where the proletariat was less developed than in other European nations. The list can go on, and I don't mean to offend, but the point here I am trying to make is that where this "mirror image" is concerned, Marxism is the consequence of nearly two Christian millenia; materialism brought the idealism of Christianity down to earth.

The inherent Hegelianism within Marxism leaves dialectical materialism with a whole slough of metaphysical ramifications, and I believe this is partly why it has stuck around for so long; it is a social ontology, and therefore a philosophy of being. Theology persists in Marxism, whether it appears as theology or dialectical materialism, or historical materialism.

In a way, I think the persistence of the "Messianic principle" is something that shouldn't be rejected because of historical bias, but rather something that should be embraced. As I said before, it is not something we have to wait for, but is something that is in a process of becoming (or regression) according to the active subjects that partake in the principle itself. In this way Marxism has revolutionized Messiah-ship and has made it applicable to the material circumstances of socio-economic life.

This will be the second time I have quoted Walter Benjamin today, but, what the h-e-double-hockeysticks.

Actually Camus wrote extensivley on the similarities between marxism/communism and Christianity in this regard. Both, he says, asks of people to sacrifice today's man for the sake of tommorrow's man. 'I know its awful now - but in the future it will be heaven/a just society.'
Also, in psychology there is somthing called time reference, both Christians and Marxists often reference their present action's in light of an imagined future and make appeaks to history. See Castro's famous speech - 'History will absolve me'

[KarlMarx1989]

Yes, it is possible to be religious and communist because the early practices of the church was similar to that of communism:

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
--Acts 2:44.45

I'm not christian myself, but I probably know more about Biblia Sacra than most "christians." You have to know about it before you go not believing in it.

[samizdat]

Hmm. No, you can't.

[mel]

Hmm. No, you can't.

Astounding argument and analysis.

[KarlMarx1989]

No, you can't.
Um, I think that you can...

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
--Acts 2:44.45
That kind of just sums it up, right there. I don't know if it is possible to be muslim and communist. I think Judaism promotes more of a totalitarian ruling run by god and his law. However, I know that it is possible to be christian and communist; despite whaat you hear from the christian-America media.

[gorillafuck]

Um, I think that you can...

That kind of just sums it up, right there. I don't know if it is possible to be muslim and communist. I think Judaism promotes more of a totalitarian ruling run by god and his law. However, I know that it is possible to be christian and communist; despite whaat you hear from the christian-America media.
They all promote a god that makes you completely subject to his will and if you disobey you go to hell, I don't think that Judaism is any more "totalitarian" than any other Abrahamic religion.

[KarlMarx1989]

I don't think that Judaism is any more "totalitarian" than any other Abrahamic religion. Are you sure? Is that your final answer?

(Again) \/

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
--Acts 2:44.45 Also...

1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

--Acts 5:1-4

Wow, it sounds like god quite favors socialist activities...

Also again, I am not a christian. However, I can say that you can be christian and socialist. I also think that you can be socialist and be atheist, irreligious, etc. The media has obviously mislead you. The media says that christianity could not possibly support socialism and says that people who aren't religious can only be socialist because "socialism is evil."

[Hyacinth]

I wonder if anyone knows where the RedStar2000 papers are online? I tried googling them but the site I came across seems to be down. His views concerning communism and religion, even if one disagrees with them, are very relevant here.

[Orange Juche]

I wonder if anyone knows where the RedStar2000 papers are online? I tried googling them but the site I came across seems to be down. His views concerning communism and religion, even if one disagrees with them, are very relevant here.

What ever happened to him?

[Orange Juche]

I don't see why not.

Alot of people would say no. I say to them, if - outside of theory relating to spirituality and the metaphysical - someone agrees with the social and economic viewpoints of communism... what does that make them? If they aren't a communist, what do you call them?

Nobody answered my question... what, then, do you call them?

[Tzadikim]

Is it possible to be communist and religious? Yes.

Is it possible to be Marxist and religious? No.

I welcome religious communists, so long as they don't engage in the same efforts to codify homophobia and racism and religious intolerance into law that their counterparts on the right do. I am skeptical, however, of the notion that they have a workable praxis that accurately correlates to material conditions in the world. I certainly have no desire to ban Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam or Hinduism in a socialist society (I rather expect they'll fall apart on their own, as they have been doing for the past two centuries), but I believe that cultural expressions common to all of these religions - homophobia, anti-feminism, and efforts to manipulate the legal system to ensure a homogeneity of religious belief in a given culture - must be prevented.

[KarlMarx1989]

Is it possible to be communist and religious? Yes.

Is it possible to be Marxist and religious? No.
Yes, thank you for clarifying that.

[spiltteeth]

Well, you can have a Marxist analysis of history and society, and then separate 'idealist' religious beliefs.
Actually, the vast majority of leftist theorists today are not 'pure' Marxists.
Marxism is not some religious dogma that must remain pure, as long as your idealist beliefs do not interfere with your Marxist analysis.

[914633919WS]

I think if you are religeous but not a member of an organised religeon, then you can be both.
But i believe religeon is a tool to keep the masses cowed and under control.

[Dave B]

I think Engels thought that Christians could be communists, giving a particular example of the Shakers whose founding member came from Bolton on the outskirts of Manchester England,thus;

Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence

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

There was also a letter connected to this article;

Letters of Marx and Engels 1844, Letter from Engels to Marx, in Paris



The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm)

They also had thought, following on from Feuerbach’s ‘Essence of Christianity’, that the basic underlying value systems in Christianity fulfilled and provided a kind of escapist and fantasy outlet or expression for innate socialist or social feelings.

With the kind of ideas of ‘brotherly love’ and from each according to ability and to each according to need as expressed in Acts and sometimes cited as the source Acts 2;44-5


And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

It needs to be borne in mind that Early Christianity was considered to be a ‘spontaneous working class’ movement as opposed to a doctrine created by the ruling class to keep the masses under control.


They obviously quite quickly turned it into that later on as Stalin did with Marxism.

There was an article by Engels ‘On the History of Early Christianity’ 1894

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

The idea was expressed by Marx in a letter to Ludwig Feuerbach in 1844




but I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and — if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together.
In these writings you have provided — I don't know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way.


The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!

Two translations of your Wesen des Christenthums (http://www.revleft.com/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm) (The Essence of Christianity) one in English and one in French, are in preparation and almost ready for printing.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm)



Again the idea being that ‘socialist’ ideas or ‘feelings’ had been transferred into a metaphysical realm or expressed as such and that Feuerbach had brought it back down to reality by recognising that that the

‘Christian god is only a fantastic reflection, a mirror image, of man.’

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch03.htm)

Stating what might be obvious that the kind of god you believe in is a reflection of your own set of value judgements.

The idea is put more clearly in Star Trek, a case of blatant shameless plagiarism from Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy Part 3.

Or;

‘Ferengi god is only a fantastic reflection, a mirror image, of Ferengi’






The Ferengi concepts of the afterlife are a mirror of their pursuit of wealth in life. When a Ferengi dies, he is said to meet the Blessed Exchequer, who reviews the financial statements of that Ferengi's entire life. If he earned a profit, he is ushered into Ferengi heaven: the Divine Treasury, where the Celestial Auctioneers allow him to bid on a new life. Ferengi who were not financially successful in life are damned to the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

When a Ferengi prays or bows in reverence, he holds his hands in a bowl shape with his wrists together. A typical Ferengi prayer begins with this phrase: "Blessed Exchequer, whose greed is eternal, allow this bribe to open your ears and hear this plea from your most humble debtor." As is typical, this is accompanied by placing a slip of latinum into a small statue made in the Exchequer's likeness. [6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1543567#cite_note-5)
Ferengi also make regular pilgrimages to Earth's Wall Street (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Wall_Street), which they view as a holy site of commerce and business.



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



At the time there was no rational or materialistic explanation as to the possible origin of any such innate social feelings or instincts which was Feuerbachs perspective really.

That came a bit later after Darwins work and his social instincts.
Thus;

Engels to Pyotr Lavrov, London, Nov. 12-17, 1875



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


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


Kropotkin developed that idea in more detail in his Mutual aid, I believe he expanded on it in a book he wrote just before he died in Russia in 1921 but I don’t think it is available in English.


Anton Pannekoek took it further as well with Marxism And Darwinism 1912,

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm)

And a superior Anthropogenesis: A Study in the Origin of Man in 1944.

The idea had a new lease of life from the 1970’s ish and later were a evolutionary and adaptive mechanism for the development of altruistic behaviour by ‘mimicking’ the process with computer programmes ‘competing’ with each other in tit for tat game theory etc.

Social instincts in humans would probably be experienced by a dislike or revulsion at some kinds of behaviour whether our own or other peoples and attraction for other types of behaviour.

A bit of a post Kantian development but I believe some philosopher at the time said much the same thing.

Again it could all be expressed in some kind of allegorical tale like the Gospels or Animal Farm.

The issue over whether there ever were taking pigs and a farmer Jones misses the point a bit, but there were really, sort of.

I suppose you could ask the question as to whether Birds can be communists well.


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

[TheCagedLion]

Are you sure? Is that your final answer?

(Again) \/
Also...
Wow, it sounds like god quite favors socialist activities...


Finding quotes where some sort of socialism is mentioned, and using that as definitive evidence that the bible isn't oppressive is a no-go. It's just as easy (if not easier) finding quotes enforcing oppression.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Genesis 3:16
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

[mel]

Finding quotes where some sort of socialism is mentioned, and using that as definitive evidence that the bible isn't oppressive is a no-go. It's just as easy (if not easier) finding quotes enforcing oppression.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Genesis 3:16
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

Oh, just get the fuck off it. Nobody need accept every word of the 2000 year old book is true to call themselves a christian, and "The Bible" is not monolithic. You have the same ridiculous understanding of the bible as the fundamentalists do, you just happen to come to a different conclusion about it. What the Bible says in Genesis or Leviticus doesn't mean shit, but the fact of the matter is that ultimately there are parts of the Bible extremely concerned with social justice and common ownership, and one can reconcile socialism with belief in god.

[TheCagedLion]

Oh, just get the fuck off it. Nobody need accept every word of the 2000 year old book is true to call themselves a christian, and "The Bible" is not monolithic. You have the same ridiculous understanding of the bible as the fundamentalists do, you just happen to come to a different conclusion about it. What the Bible says in Genesis or Leviticus doesn't mean shit, but the fact of the matter is that ultimately there are parts of the Bible extremely concerned with social justice and common ownership, and one can reconcile socialism with belief in god.

Calm down, man. I was just trying to say that nit-picking from the bible, one way or another, doesn't get this discussion any further, as there can be found both positive and negative quotes in the bible.

[Hyacinth]

Oh, just get the fuck off it. Nobody need accept every word of the 2000 year old book is true to call themselves a christian, and "The Bible" is not monolithic. You have the same ridiculous understanding of the bible as the fundamentalists do, you just happen to come to a different conclusion about it. What the Bible says in Genesis or Leviticus doesn't mean shit, but the fact of the matter is that ultimately there are parts of the Bible extremely concerned with social justice and common ownership, and one can reconcile socialism with belief in god.
And there are many more parts that aren't, and even in the instances where it proves itself progressive for its time the sort of social order it has in mind, some sort of religious communism, isn't progressive today.

Also, as for Genesis or Leviticus not meaning shit, tell that to those Christians who still insist on enforcing antiquated and atrocious commandments. And while perhaps some chic liberal interpretations of Christianity are more common among the advanced industrial countries, where for the most part people are de facto atheists anyway, the fact remains that in less developed parts of the world religion still plays a reactionary role, contributing to the oppression of women, minorities, non-believers, and supporting the ruling class.

[mel]

And there are many more parts that aren't, and even in the instances where it proves itself progressive for its time the sort of social order it has in mind, some sort of religious communism, isn't progressive today.

Also, as for Genesis or Leviticus not meaning shit, tell that to those Christians who still insist on enforcing antiquated and atrocious commandments. And while perhaps some chic liberal interpretations of Christianity are more common among the advanced industrial countries, where for the most part people are de facto atheists anyway, the fact remains that in less developed parts of the world religion still plays a reactionary role, contributing to the oppression of women, minorities, non-believers, and supporting the ruling class.

And none of this has anything to do with whether or not a person can be both religious and a communist. No matter how distasteful you find it, the answer to that question is clearly "yes".

[KarlMarx1989]

Jesus never gave his position on homosexuality. I find this rather interesting. He was supposed to be god. Yes, I am aware that Biblia Sacra is oppressive, no I never said it wasn't oppressive. What I was, and still saying, that christians practiced socialism in early practices. Rome changed all of that, of course.

[Dave B]

For what it matters it is quite true that JC did not say anything about homosexuality.

However there are references to ‘eunuchs’ in Matthew and Acts. Given what Paul wrote about homosexuality and the churches general prohibition of it; and the seemingly absurd and out of context nature of the ‘eunuchs’ quotes.

There has been discussion elsewhere whether the ‘eunuchs’ may have been ‘homosexuals’ and the original text ‘sanitised’ or changed for consistency.

It is highly controversial of course and the various translations of this section differ a lot. Personally I am not particularly interested in it one way or the other.

Anyway;

Matthew 19;12


For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


Acts 8;34- 39



The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.




There are numerous condemnations of homosexuality in Paul’s material the following is one example that includes lesbianism.

Romans 1;26



Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.



In fact I have no idea why i am posting this, i must be bored.

[Salabra]

In fact I have no idea why i am posting this, i must be bored.

You're posting it as a public service, to point out how wrongheaded are the romantics who think that religion and Marxism can be forced into some sort of marriage.

Keep posting!

[Zolken]

You're posting it as a public service, to point out how wrongheaded are the romantics who think that religion and Marxism can be forced into some sort of marriage.

Keep posting! At the end of the day irrationality wins out over logic hence one is fortunate to possess a romantic soul.