Religion Among Revolutionists, Communists, etc. - Does it ex [Archive]

booga

11th May 2003, 01:56

Revolutionist Eskimo,

It's not that communism and Che's life is complicated, its that we are working with economic and religious theories which go very far back in the history of man.

If we study a little on...let's say King Henry the seventh or the religions wars of 1550-1650 we can learn about the nature of man and his quest for utopia.

I still don't know why the Kings were so into gold because as religious people we are taught that obedience is to seek out wisdom. The only other thing I can think of is man's pride and his preference over his own laws instead of God's law. (What are God's laws???) First, does man clearly understand himself and his existance???

Many say Che was an atheist and it doesn't bother me one bit to hear this because the bible already addresses this issue. The bible states that those who do not believe in God are better off than those who do because those who believe in God yet do not do his will are condemned. How? I don't know.

In one part of the bible the people are asking Jesus this question: They said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"

Jesus answered them saying "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

All through time, it can be said by the theologians of religion that no one has really had a clear knowledge of who Jesus was or what he was about. Men who ruled went crazy trying to figure out what he stood for and wars were fought to defend ideologies which has their basis on the bible.

It is my perception at this time, that Che was under no obligation to confess a belief in a God because he was already living many things that Jesus has taught yet very few understood, then there are the elect, which I am sure have been mentioned and have been around since the begining as well.

Che to me, seemed very specific about an end result and that result had everything to do with the abolishment of imperialism. Jesus, too was adamant in his stand against imperialism as it went against God's will for man.

Although, it may seem that there is too much knowledge to acquire we must not become discouraged. We will bear the burdens of one another and come together by organizing and sharing of knowledge. Just be careful who you organize with and if you find yourself alone in your endeavors that is okay too, for now...

redstar2000

11th May 2003, 03:13

Revolutionist Eskimo, I'm sorry to inform you that there appears to be a substantial number of people on this board who still take religion seriously.

See the sticky thread at the top of the Theory forum, follow some of the links, and you'll see what I mean.

I personally find it utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people--assuming lefties are intelligent--can still speak as if these superstitions had any validity whatsoever or are any more deserving of "tolerance" than cannibalism.

I've argued the subject until my fingers were about to fall off...without much success (that I know of). I'm convinced that even after the revolution, the struggle to emancipate the human mind from superstition of all kinds will be lengthy and arduous.

I have no doubt that eventually religion will only be of interest to a few dour and crabbed historians...but I couldn't even begin to guess how long that will take.

Perhaps just two or three centuries...if we're lucky.

:cool:

Subcomandante Marcos

11th May 2003, 03:33

I myself am a string believer on Christianism (lets not mistake it with catholics). I dont believe on the catholics at all, they are phony and extreme right most of them.

But i believe the State must be atheist but allowe religion since it is our freedom and we must learn to respect others.

What I believe is in universal love and kindness, Im not going to go kill all the atheist just because they dont agree with me, that is fundamentalism, and im not going to go persuade others with stupid scams just so they turn christians.

CubanFox

11th May 2003, 05:14

Quote: from Subcomandante Marcos on 3:33 am on May 11, 2003
I myself am a string believer on Christianism (lets not mistake it with catholics). I dont believe on the catholics at all, they are phony and extreme right most of them.

But i believe the State must be atheist but allowe religion since it is our freedom and we must learn to respect others.

What I believe is in universal love and kindness, Im not going to go kill all the atheist just because they dont agree with me, that is fundamentalism, and im not going to go persuade others with stupid scams just so they turn christians.

Totally with you on that one, Marcos. Atheists, remember this: when you hear bullshit coming from the Church, it's probably Catholic.

atlanticche

11th May 2003, 14:08

if a communist country is to allow religion itself must be either athiest
or a certain religion though not allowing others which would then turn to a dictatorship which wouldn't work so to be religous it cant be very hardline
atheist then

GCusack

11th May 2003, 20:36

Unfortunately I am Baptised a Catholic, however, I don't believe the shit they spout for their mouths! Its completely stuck in the past! But then so too are most religions! Very few can have a healthy relationship with the way the world works now! I do not think that religion should be abolished I still feel the people deserve the right to choose! If it was up to me I would renounce the faith!

redstar2000

13th May 2003, 16:58

"If it was up to me I would renounce the faith!" -- GCusack

But it is up to you.

JUST DO IT!

:cool:

Kwisatz Haderach

13th May 2003, 22:34

I personally find it utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people--assuming lefties are intelligent--can still speak as if these superstitions had any validity whatsoever or are any more deserving of "tolerance" than cannibalism.
news flash: People's intelligence is not measured by how much they agree with you.

Now please explain to me exactly why you wish to abolish religions that preach love, peace and compassion.

And then explain why you're trying to make everyone think the same way you do. I thought leftists weren't supposed to be elitist snobs...

booga

14th May 2003, 00:14

I too, am a baptized Catholic of the Roman church yet I am not committed to the church. I only chose to seek out the great Jesus of the bible and I find that only the bible offers true freedom and liberty and guess what? It (bible) doesn't mind if it does not get to come along, it's power is only there to free us. Much that is required is the law of love in our hearts (oh joy???) :smile:

redstar2000

14th May 2003, 22:29

"People's intelligence is not measured by how much they agree with you."

Did I suggest that? There are people who disagree with me about many things but agree with me that religion is superstition in theory and barbaric in practice. Indeed, I suspect this is the consensus among people who've given the matter any real thought.

"Now please explain to me exactly why you wish to abolish religions that preach love, peace and compassion."

Because I look at what social institutions actually do...not simply what they claim to do.

With a few trivial exceptions, all religions have been resolutely opposed to the emancipation of the working class since the ink on the Communist Manifesto was still damp.

In addition to which, despite all the yapping about "love, peace, and compassion", all religions without hesitation support their local ruling class" against ordinary people at home and abroad.

"And then explain why you're trying to make everyone think the same way you do."

Because I'm right.

"I thought leftists weren't supposed to be elitist snobs..."

Well, they're not. If you find one on this board, let me know, and I'll criticize his attitude.

On the other hand, if you propose that "it doesn't matter what people think," that's not "anti-elitism", that's hyper-elitism.

What that would be saying, in effect, is that one should simply dismiss out of hand the possibility that anyone on this board will "matter", will play any kind of significant role in times to come. Only those who are "significant" now, really "count". The rabble can believe any nonsense they wish...as long as they obey their "proper" masters, who cares what they think?

Me.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:35 pm on May 14, 2003)

Beccie

14th May 2003, 23:34

I have no doubt that Christianity, today, supports the ruling class. but I do think that the founders of Christianity would be extremely disappointed with what it has become. Liberation Theology is the only Christian movement (that I know of) that is truly Christian.

Those people who are "religious" may have given this issue more thought then you think, Redstar.

redstar2000

15th May 2003, 05:36

"Those people who are 'religious" may have given the matter more thought then you think, Redstar."

Perhaps they have, Commie01, but then why don't they show it?

I've long since completely lost track of how many times this stuff has come up, how many posts I've made on the subject, etc.?

Do you know that not once have I seen anyone produce any credible evidence on the subject?

Not once has anyone actually produced a single example of a real communist who also is "deeply and sincerely religious"? (You can't just "say" it's true, you have to actually show that Fidel, for example, goes to mass and confession, takes the host, etc.)

It's all this nebulous crap and flabby "leave me alone to believe whatever horseshit I wanna believe" stuff.

Not to mention "you're a cynical old meanie for not allowing me to pass off dog turds as pearls of divine wisdom."

Ok, have it your way. I'm a "cranky, stiff-necked, arrogant old bastard" who will not let you pass off "liberation theology" as anything but a transparent fake. That goes for any other kind of theology as well!

No pasaran!

And I mean it.

:cool:

Beccie

15th May 2003, 05:52

Not once has anyone actually produced a single example of a real communist who also is "deeply and sincerely religious"?

I have never argued that. I have no evidence and to be perfectly honest I do not care weather real communists are religious or not.

I would like you too give me some evidence that Liberation Theology is "fake"

redstar2000

15th May 2003, 20:29

When I say that "liberation" theology is fake, Commie01, I'm not talking about the personal sincereity of the proponents. I mean that it's fake by virtue of its central premise.

Some decades ago, a few of the more intelligent catholics observed that their church was losing influence among the ordinary people of Central and South America.

At the same time, they noticed that their rivals, protestant evangelicals and various strands of "marxism", were gaining influence.

Clearly a "re-branding", a new "image" was required to make the church "relevant" again.

They actually used the word "relevant", by the way. One would imagine that a really sincere follower of "the one true god & his holy path" would not give a crap about "relevance"...there would seem to be in principle a rather wide gulf between "real" spirituality and "today's paid attendance".

Be that as it may, the catholics involved in this stuff began to suggest that the church should actively and publicly concern itself with the fate of the peasantry...should suggest in forceful terms that the old landowning aristocracy should be compelled to disgorge at least some of their lands in order that the peasantry might rise up at least a little from absolute misery.

This would make Catholicism "relevant" again, not to mention discouraging defections to protestantism or, worse, "Marxism" (it was really Leninism-Maoism that was giving them nightmares...they didn't know Marxism from rheumatism).

Thus, the central premise is a fake: their "concern" for the "poor" of Central and South America does not have any independent foundation (much less a communist theoretical basis); it's simply a maneuver to preserve their dominant role in the rural social life of those unhappy lands.

Here's how it works. To really support the landless peasantry in Central and South America, you would need a movement prepared to attack and dispossess the rural ruling class, the landowning aristocracy.

But that's not allowed. A good Catholic is not permitted to harm "his brother in Christ".

The Vatican likes to remind the "liberation" theologians of this every so often; it does not matter what the peasantry wants...what matters is what they are permitted to acquire without harming other catholics, namely, the rich ones.

Thus it can only be a fake; sincere or not, but still a fake.

Either you are genuinely concerned with the fate of the poor...in which case, you have no problem with the complete liquidation of the old aristocracy--hang all those bastards!--or you're worried that your religious institution is in "trouble" with its "customers" and must change its "image" to hold on to its "market share".

That there are people on this board who are fooled by this is a good sign of how well this maneuver works. It's quite likely that many rural people in Central and South America, lacking the sophistication of westerners, are fooled even more.

But to quote that perceptive old bourgeois radical, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time".

For one, you can't fool me!

:cool:

Sabocat

15th May 2003, 21:14

Religion is divisive. It promotes intolerance.

Too many people have been killed in "God's" name.

Religions were created to keep the "huddled masses" in line. It's bullshit propaganda, brainwashing.

Free your minds.

redstar2000

16th May 2003, 12:39

By the way, I just wanted to add that it's not just a case of "backward peasants" that fall for this crap.

Go to this site and see what sort of perfumed shit "sophisticated westerners" are eating these days:

http://secure.agoramedia.com/index_leftbehind.html

Get out there and get that money.

Thus sayeth the Lord! :cheesy:

:cool:

Sabocat

16th May 2003, 12:54

From the website Redstar posted above...

Holy shit...(no pun intended). If anyone doesn't think this stuff is shit, take a look at this posting on the message board. Wow.

"I have been very into the left behind series books and the Bible itself for information regarding the end times. I had a question that I wondered if any one else could put some thought into. After the Christians are raptured including all children under the age of accountabilty, and those individuals with mentally challenged minds. If during the 7 years of tribulation will children recieve the mark of the beast even though are not old enough to understand . For example two non believers have a child in year one of the trib. Both parents recieve the mark of the beast. Will the child be held accountable if his parents force him to have the mark also? Or what about children born during this time to post rapture believers and the child is kidnapped and recieves the mark. How do you think this will all work out? "

just wondering,

Sarah

Hard to believe in this day and age, that someone could actually sit and seriously write this shit down.

Beccie

17th May 2003, 13:11

You, Redstar2000, are one of the most persuasive writers che-lives.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th May 2003, 17:05

Redstar, do you oppose freedom of religion?

Furthermore, you say that religion has been historically opposed to the liberation of the working classes. Wrong. Religious leaders are always opposed to it, because more often than not they don't really give a damn for the religion they're supposed to represent, and use it as nothing more than a money-making scheme. You have often shown this yourself (for example with that website you just found). But these corrupt exploiters who use religion for making a profit are exactly the kind of people that Jesus preached against.

Jesus and his followers played an unmistakably revolutionary role for over 300 years. That is what we Christians must return to.

Redstar, I share you contempt for the religious right. But you make the mistake of confusing Christianity's corrupt leadership with Christianity itself, and that is where you are wrong.

Communists should not fight against religion, they should fight to liberate it from the selfish capitalists that have corrupted it.

GCusack

17th May 2003, 18:02

I think that people must choose for themselves, internally, whether religion is rite or wrong. That is freedom, telling them that its wrong or telling them its right is not! Religion is internal and once found internally then becomes a communal thing that people who have found it can share! I don't think there is an answer to the original question because it is like argueing against someones opinion and that, at the end of it all, is pointless. An opinion can be neither right nor wrong because everyones opinions are different! Therefore religion is neither rite nor wrong! It depends on the person.

Kwisatz Haderach

18th May 2003, 00:49

Exactly, GCusack. I completely agree.

redstar2000

18th May 2003, 02:49

"Jesus and his followers played an unmistakably revolutionary role for over 300 years. That is what we Christians must return to. "

You could have fooled me. What government did they overthrow? In what fashion did the Roman Empire function in a "revolutionary" way after the first Christian Emperor took power?

Arguing that the social role of religion is due to "corrupt leaders" is un-Marxist and resembles those "communists" who blame this or that Soviet leader for the fall of the USSR.

If you believe that the Christian followers are somehow better than their leaders, then you have to ask yourself why do they submit to these bad leaders? How is it that Christianity doesn't ever seem to produce anything but bad leaders?

You appear to think that it is the job of communists to "liberate Christianity" from the control of the capitalist class. The evidence suggests that they don't want to be liberated...that they like capitalism just fine! That some of them are capitalists.

Indeed, I suspect that clerical fascism would really be a wet-dream-come-true for the vast bulk of "Christendom"...repressive, puritanical, obscurantist, etc. Certainly this has been the behavior characteristic of Christians in power...and with a great deal of popular support from the pious rank-and-file.

"Redstar, do you oppose freedom of religion?"

As you would define it, the answer is probably yes. If I could, I would make it nearly impossible for you to win fresh converts (suckers) to your faith. You could personally believe, but almost every activity that religions now engage in to recruit fresh suckers would be against the law. No churches (all demolished); no place names with religious implications (San Francisco would go back to its old name, Yerba Buena); no public demonstrations of the faithful; no street preaching; no theology or divinity schools; no taking money from people to perform religious rituals or ceremonies; no production of religious pamphlets; no indoctrination of children; etc.

It wouldn't happen all at once...but it would happen. You Christians would find yourselves in the situation that you put the pagans in between 300 and 600CE. You wiped them out; there's no reason why we can't wipe you out. There'd even be a kind of justice to the whole process.

That pleases me.

:cool:

truthaddict11

18th May 2003, 15:12

actually many of the christian fundies believe in clerical fascism in a system called "reconstructionism" or Kingdom of Dominion. In which they dont believe Jesus will come back until a worldwide theocratic dictatorship ,like the kind in Iran,based on Old Testament law is in force.
This would mean executions for such high crimes as
Witchery
Blasphemy
Abortion
being Gay
and some want to execute unruly kids

here is a link to one of the oldest groups in support of "recontructionism" or more apporpriatly Christian Fascism
http://www.natreformassn.org/purpose.htmlsm"

GCusack

18th May 2003, 15:50

Discustapated- too many people have been killed in the name of communism too.

Thank you Edric O

Kwisatz Haderach

18th May 2003, 21:51

"You could have fooled me. What government did they overthrow? In what fashion did the Roman Empire function in a "revolutionary" way after the first Christian Emperor took power?"

None. Their revolution failed. Then again, so did many communist revolutions. Does that make them any less revolutionary?

"Arguing that the social role of religion is due to "corrupt leaders" is un-Marxist and resembles those "communists" who blame this or that Soviet leader for the fall of the USSR."

Oh, so you mean that the Soviet leadership is NOT to blame for the fall of the USSR? Then please enlighten me: who's fault was it, exactly?

"If you believe that the Christian followers are somehow better than their leaders, then you have to ask yourself why do they submit to these bad leaders? How is it that Christianity doesn't ever seem to produce anything but bad leaders?

You appear to think that it is the job of communists to "liberate Christianity" from the control of the capitalist class. The evidence suggests that they don't want to be liberated...that they like capitalism just fine! That some of them are capitalists."

A lot of communist leaders have been selfish traitors as well. Does that somehow make communism bad?

Oh, and by the way, last time I checked our job was supposed to be the liberation of the working class. But guess what? Most of the workers like capitalism just fine too! In fact, some of them are capitalists!

Can you say "victims of propaganda"?

"If I could, I would make it nearly impossible for you to win fresh converts (suckers) to your faith. You could personally believe, but almost every activity that religions now engage in to recruit fresh suckers would be against the law. No churches (all demolished); no place names with religious implications (San Francisco would go back to its old name, Yerba Buena); no public demonstrations of the faithful; no street preaching; no theology or divinity schools; no taking money from people to perform religious rituals or ceremonies; no production of religious pamphlets; no indoctrination of children; etc.

It wouldn't happen all at once...but it would happen. You Christians would find yourselves in the situation that you put the pagans in between 300 and 600CE. You wiped them out; there's no reason why we can't wipe you out. There'd even be a kind of justice to the whole process."

You make Stalin proud.

And you make me sick. You are so insecure in your atheism that you actually fear us so much as to want to drown religion in blood. Yes, the big bad Christians might actually tell people to be kind to each other, and not put Comrade Redstar's photo on every wall, like the good party sheep... err, members do.

Communism is about freedom, about liberation. YOU want to make it about repression and slavery. You, sir, are a fascist.

(Edited by Edric O at 11:55 pm on May 18, 2003)

redstar2000

19th May 2003, 00:26

Their revolution failed.

Wait a minute here. Are you now going to argue that the Christian emperors were not really Christian after all?

If so, why not?

Could it have something to do with the fact that when Christians get into power, they act worse, much worse, than pagans?

Oh, so you mean that the Soviet leadership is NOT to blame for the fall of the USSR? Then please enlighten me: who's fault was it, exactly?

There's no "short" answer to that one, Edric. But Marxists understand that when social systems fail, material conditions are always at the root of the explanation. The role of human personalities is usually marginal...and even when it appears to loom somewhat larger than customary, the real economic causes reassert their power in a historically brief period of time.

A lot of communist leaders have been selfish traitors as well. Does that somehow make communism bad?

Well, it suggests that, at the very least, there was something seriously wrong in their understanding of Marxism.

But as I noted above, material conditions prevail.

Oh, and by the way, last time I checked our job was supposed to be the liberation of the working class.

Wrong again, Edric. As communists, our job is to furnish the tools (an understanding of Marxism and how to use it) for the working class to liberate itself. The Leninist concept of "great leaders" as secular versions of Moses "leading" the working class into "the promised land" is discredited among serious Marxists. It didn't work.

You make Stalin proud.

And you make me sick. You are so insecure in your atheism that you actually fear us so much as to want to drown religion in blood. Yes, the big bad Christians might actually tell people to be kind to each other, and not put Comrade Redstar's photo on every wall, like the good party sheep... err, members do.

Communism is about freedom, about liberation. YOU want to make it about repression and slavery. You, sir, are a fascist

I thought my remarks would "get to you" and I was right. Though I said nothing of "blood" and likewise nothing of "having my picture on people's walls", you are ready at one and the same time to call me a "Stalinist" and a "fascist".

Has anyone noticed besides me that Christians always assume that their enemies, if in power, will behave just like they do? None of the proposals I made are necessarily connected to violence in any way unless Christians take up the sword in defense of their "Lord" (really in defence of their right to prey on the gullible, especially children).

A sincere Christian would not need a cathedral, a public procession, a tax break or subsidy, or any "worldly crap" to worship his/her "Lord"...but we're not talking about sincereity here, are we?

Not one little bit. We're talking about people who think they "deserve" a special "place", a special "status" in human society as the authorized and official "representatives of GOD on earth"...with a very generous slice of life's goodies as is only "right and proper" for such "exalted" men.

You'd think the promise of "eternal salvation" would be more than enough for you guys...ha! What you're really concerned with is perpetuating your dirty little scam on the human species.

No!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:30 pm on May 18, 2003)

Beccie

19th May 2003, 01:37

there's no reason why we can't wipe you out

Really? You’re beginning to sound like a fucking Nazi!

Are you familiar with the works of Gustavo Gutiérrez? Do you know much about Oscar Romero? Oscar Romero lost his life for fighting for a better life for the oppressed of Latin America, he has a real Christian. These guys were not bad Christian leaders.

Communists should not fight against religion, they should fight to liberate it from the selfish capitalists that have corrupted it

Wonderfully said. I completely agree.

Beccie

19th May 2003, 06:33

I have been reading Gustavo Gutierrez Essential writings (Edited by James B. Nickoloff). He points out two opposing views of religion;

Firstly that of Karl Marx-

The social principles of Christianity preach the need of a dominating class and an oppressed class. And to the latter class they offer only the benevolence of the ruling class. The social principles of Christianity point to heaven as the compensation for all the crimes that are committed on earth. The social principles of Christianity explain all the viciousness of oppressors as a just punishment either for original sin or other sins, or as trials that the Lord, in infinite wisdom, inflicts on those the Lord has redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-hatred, servility, submission, humility- in a word, all the characteristics of scoundrel

The other view he presents is that that can be found in Isaiah-

For behold I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered and come into mind. [We will have changed reality in such a way that no one shall remember the past. The result is a global change of structures.] But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem rejoicing, and her people are a joy. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress or an old man who does not fill out his days... They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. [65:17-22]

He concludes by saying that-

This very concrete reality is the kingdom of God. In it children will not die in a few days. The people will not work for others but for theme selves, the city will be called a "rejoicing" and her people a "joy".

How could this have been transformed into what was described in the text of Marx? Unfortunately, both images are true, from different perspectives. Although the messianic promises refer to concrete material things, Marx's vision of over a century ago continues to be repeated by human beings today.

The issue, then, is whether we are capable of realizing the prophecy of Isaiah and of understanding the Kingdom of God in its integral reality, or whether we are going to give the counter-testimony that is reflected in the statements of Marx. This is precisely what is at stake in our epoch.

I feel that Gutierrez makes an interesting point. There are two competing views of what Christianity actually is. That is apparent in this thread.

I would argue that the second view is the "correct" one and that the founders of Christianity were revolutionary and they presented Jesus as a revolutionary. He stood against the religious elite and their corrupted views of Judaism.

I would also argue that the leaders of Christianity today and in history have completely misunderstood or chosen to ignore what the religion is actually about. They are not Christian at all. Marx’s view of Christianity is based on them. If Jesus came back today would he still continue to struggle against the religious elite? I think that he would.

GCusack

19th May 2003, 19:37

This arguements is a bit too heated! since religion is about opinion and ur opinion is ur own making it not right nor wrong just yours!!

redstar2000

20th May 2003, 00:40

This arguements is a bit too heated! since religion is about opinion and ur opinion is ur own making it not right nor wrong just yours!!

No, GCusack, it's not "a matter of opinion."

The opinions expressed here or anywhere are reflections of the material conditions of the world we live in, a world of exploitation, hierarcy, oppression, war, etc.

It matters what people think. When you see that people are arguing vehemently over a serious subject, you should applaud...it means that at least one of the parties to the argument (and perhaps both) has set aside the trivial distractions that capitalism provides us on such a generous scale, in order to discuss reality and how it might be preserved or changed.

And, by the way, all "opinions" are not "created equal"; some are right and some are wrong.

Really? You’re beginning to sound like a fucking Nazi!

Were the Christians who wiped out the pagans "fucking Nazis"? It's stupid to use the word "Nazi" for anything we don't like; the word has a specific historical meaning.

When I used the phrase "wiped out", I obviously did not mean "put them all on a train to a death camp." I meant end for all time the significant social existence of Christianity (and all other religions), reducing it to a handful of harmless nutballs...just as Christianity wiped out all the pagan religions of classical Rome. They didn't do it by "killing all the pagans"...we will not need to "kill all the Christians".

I would argue that the second view is the "correct" one and that the founders of Christianity were revolutionary and they presented Jesus as a revolutionary. He stood against the religious elite and their corrupted views of Judaism.

I would also argue that the leaders of Christianity today and in history have completely misunderstood or chosen to ignore what the religion is actually about. They are not Christian at all. Marx’s view of Christianity is based on them. If Jesus came back today would he still continue to struggle against the religious elite? I think that he would.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, Commie01, that you were right. The obvious response is so what?

"Jesus" ain't coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought. I'm talking about the social role today of those religious institutions (and the ideas associated with them now) which "fly the flag" of Christianity.

They are reactionary bastards and enemies of communist revolution. Perhaps "Jesus" would agree with me. Perhaps Sr. Gustavo Gutierrez would agree with me. I can't see how that would make any difference, one way or the other.

Unless the "plan" is that when communists are "in power", we are supposed to "purge" the Church of all its bad leaders and their lackies and put you guys in charge.

Ha ha! Neat trick! The answer is no!

Here's my suggestion, in some respects not all that different from your Founder's: go find a private place and pray silently for whatever you perceive to be "good". Otherwise, leave people alone! And if you won't do it voluntarily, we'll make you.

:cool:

Moskitto

20th May 2003, 10:53

"Jesus" ain't coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought.

or from a capitalist point of view "Karl Marx aint coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought"

Invader Zim

20th May 2003, 11:26

RS2000 i agree religion is all bullshit which through out history has been a tool of the capitalist classes to oppress or repress the working class. Just look at the number of popes who have had more power than any one in europe and have caused wars and started rebellions.

However i think that is people want to waste there breath praying to the sky or the moon or whatever, then let them, as long as they dont try to forse others to follow there rediculous views.

GCusack

20th May 2003, 14:30

Im the one sounding like a Nazi? because I'm arguing that its for people to choose whether they are religious or not?! because I am trying to show that you should not oppress something that can give so many people strength?! No I'm not the Nazi!!!

Kwisatz Haderach

20th May 2003, 20:51

Hypothetical scenario in Redstar's vision of "communist utopia":

A group of Christians get together, find a stretch of unused barren land, and build a church themselves, with their own hands.

Then Redstar's political police comes along and tells them that they are forbidden by law to have a church, so they bring in a bulldozer and tear down the building that those people put their heart into building.

Oh yes, gotta love utopia...

Also, Redstar, the ancient Christian revolution failed in the EXACT SAME WAY that the Russian Bolshevik Revolution failed. When the revolutionaries finally came to power, reactionary elements among them took over and completely twisted everything that the revolution stood for.

Moskitto

20th May 2003, 21:29

Edric and Cusack are correct, By Redstars own logic he is a nazi sympathizer since Stalin and the soviet leadership, who allied themselves with nazi Germany and appointed nazis as post war leaders, were devout Marxists. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

I guess Redstar doesn't care what dead people think, I guess he is no really Marxist, Leninist, or anything else like that for that matter, Bennite maybe? but he doesn't follow the extreme atheist dogma of Marx. He doesn't care what Jesus would think of what became of Christianity, because he's dead, I think Marx wouldn't like the murder communism has caused much, since he's dead, There's no use in following him. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

some groups may argue that teaching evolution is wrong, they argue that teaching people to follow the Koran as the word of the lord and show non-believers as being "dillusional." Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

Some capitalists may argue that communist parents should be allowed to be parents, only if they store left wing literature away from their children, Nazis were excellent at making their people burn books they didn't like, These groups all think that the end to the spread of literature they don't like is an excellent policy. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

Capitalists imagine all communists to be stupid kiddies posting on forums who will grow up in a few years. Capitalists love to stereotype their enemies. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

When a capitalist is ignorant with statements made by his left wing opposition, he is insulted into submission, when Redstar is ignorant as to the statements of his enemies, silence.

redstar2000

21st May 2003, 02:21

Im the one sounding like a Nazi? -- GCusack

Did I say that you sounded like a "nazi"? Dammit, learn to read.

A group of Christians get together, find a stretch of unused barren land, and build a church themselves, with their own hands.

Then Redstar's political police comes along and tells them that they are forbidden by law to have a church, so they bring in a bulldozer and tear down the building that those people put their heart into building. -- EdricO

Yes, I'm certainly a "heartless" bastard, ain't I?

Having settled that, let's look a little more closely into this dramatic scenario of "Stalinist tyranny"?

Buildings more elaborate than mud huts require materials...where did they come from? Were resources for this purpose actually allocated by some body representative of the working class? Were they stolen?

Then the materials had to be transported. Where did the truck(s) come from? Were public property and resources "diverted" for this purpose in the hopes that "no one would notice"?

Then, under what guise were the utilities connected?

I don't think that such a structure could be erected, even in a barren wilderness, without violating severe laws against public corruption (stealing of social property for private use). (I overlook possible violations of environmental regulations; "unused, barren land" might still be protected.)

I have no understanding why it is "necessary" to "worship" in company, of course...not to mention why the faithful cannot gather in each other's living rooms. But if, for some reason, a group of adult Christians wish to meet in numbers too large for a private dwelling, here's a legal way to do it: start a small business (like a restaurant) which would normally be open to the public (small businesses would enjoy considerable tolerance by communist authorities for an extended period of time). Every Sunday morning, cover the windows and put a sign on the door--"Private Party". Bring out all your "holy apparatus" and "worship" away...quietly, of course. Don't disturb your neighbors, if any. Afterwards, put the apparatus away, take down the sign, open the curtains, and go on about your business.

Surely the "Lord" doesn't "require" more than that, does "He"?

Moskitto, your lengthy "demonstration" of parallel "logic" has, I suppose, an academic interest...even if some "stretching" is required. But it completely misses the point of the dispute.

Capitalist: Communists are murderous slave-drivers.

Communist: Capitalists are murderous slave-drivers.

Same logic: the question is who is right?

In other words, there may be parallel arguments on many matters of controversy...that doesn't relieve you of the obligation to examine the evidence and decide which position more closely reflects reality.

But that only applies if you take the dispute seriously. If, in your eyes, it is trivial, then, by all means amuse yourself with posts like the one you just made.

Just don't expect that everyone will be equally amused.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:24 pm on May 21, 2003)

Camarade Eli

21st May 2003, 13:13

Quote: from CubanFox on 6:14 am on May 11, 2003

Quote: from Subcomandante Marcos on 3:33 am on May 11, 2003
I myself am a string believer on Christianism (lets not mistake it with catholics). I dont believe on the catholics at all, they are phony and extreme right most of them.

But i believe the State must be atheist but allowe religion since it is our freedom and we must learn to respect others.

What I believe is in universal love and kindness, Im not going to go kill all the atheist just because they dont agree with me, that is fundamentalism, and im not going to go persuade others with stupid scams just so they turn christians.

Totally with you on that one, Marcos. Atheists, remember this: when you hear bullshit coming from the Church, it's probably Catholic.

I'm Catholic (but not practising anymore) and I fully agree with you. What the Church is doin', is not 2003, but somewhere around 1500!!! What is the Pope good for? Why do we need a Pope when all other religions on this planet can live without such a kind of "leader"? And why can't women become priests?

GCusack

21st May 2003, 13:15

Thank you!!! You see red! People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!

GCusack

21st May 2003, 13:17

The Catholic church is very out of date! agreed! But I dont think that because of that Christinaity is (not that ur saying that), just felt like making that point!

redstar2000

22nd May 2003, 05:19

People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!

That might well be the case, GCusack, if people would leave it at that.

But they don't, do they?

No, whenever a given religion or even a coalition of religions has the chance to enact their superstitious prejudices into law and make you obey them or go to prison, they don't hesitate a New York minute.

Just ask yourself why Irish women who need an abortion have to go to England to get one?

You see I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Not me!

:cool:

Invader Zim

22nd May 2003, 19:29

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:19 am on May 22, 2003
People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!

That might well be the case, GCusack, if people would leave it at that.

But they don't, do they?

No, whenever a given religion or even a coalition of religions has the chance to enact their superstitious prejudices into law and make you obey them or go to prison, they don't hesitate a New York minute.

Just ask yourself why Irish women who need an abortion have to go to England to get one?

You see I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Not me!

:cool:

Tell me redstar leaving behind other differances of opinion we may have, do you believe that all religion should be banned, made illegal etc?

Invader Zim

22nd May 2003, 19:38

Ok Redstar what i wrong with belief? Your opinions on Marx are just a belief, no material evidance exists to suggest that his theorys will ever be successful, yet you believe that they would work.

Religious people, no material evgidance exists to suggest god exists, yet people believe. What is the differance between your beliefs and there beliefs?

GCusack

22nd May 2003, 21:20

Redstar they dont any longer have to go to england! The law has changed it is now legal for private hospitals to go through with the proceedure!

redstar2000

22nd May 2003, 22:07

do you believe that all religion should be banned, made illegal etc?

See my post on page 3 of this thread. Trying to make a belief "banned" or "illegal" is both impossible and counter-productive...the Romans tried to kill Christianity by killing Christians; it didn't work. (It did work for the medieval Japanese...but only because Japan was an island.)

What public authority does and can always do is restrict the public expression of beliefs. Religion without public validation usually withers and dies...which is how the Christians killed off all the competing religions of antiquity. Once the Temples of Isis are closed; once the public rituals of Jupiter or the private rituals of Mithras are prohibited...they just fade away. (I've read that the last sacrifice to Zeus took place in rural northern Greece around 900CE. Our word "pagan" comes from a Greek word that means, roughly, "ignorant country shitkicker"...because only in the countryside could the old religions be practiced after the Christians took power.)

Your opinions on Marx are just a belief, no material evidance exists to suggest that his theorys will ever be successful, yet you believe that they would work.

I think we have different standards for what constitutes acceptable "material evidence". There are certainly parts of Marxist theory that have yet to be fully validated, most notably the rise of revolutionary class consciousness in the western proletariat. You could then say that I "believe" that will happen, but I would argue that my "belief" is based on the success of the Marxist analysis of capitalism that has been demonstrated, not to mention the general validation of historical materialism.

If a gambler develops a betting system that keeps predicting winners successfully, you can call his next bet a "belief" if you want to...but to him it's a certainty, based on prior experience.

Still, it's well to keep in mind that Marx might have been wrong and the transition to a classless, egalitarian society may take a completely different path than the one he predicted. Time and evidence will tell.

The law has changed it is now legal for private hospitals to go through with the proceedure!

Well, that's a step in the right direction; one cheer for the Irish. I say one because I assume the Catholic Church was able to keep public hospitals from performing abortions and (I'm guessing here) public money from paying for them. So a poor or working class woman probably still has a pretty rough time of it, right?

Still, when I'm wrong in fact or theory, I don't mind at all being corrected.

One small order of crow, please.

:cool:

Kwisatz Haderach

23rd May 2003, 23:49

Arguing against counter-revolutionaries... such fun! Well, Redstar, let's see what are your latest authoritarian ideas:

"Buildings more elaborate than mud huts require materials ...where did they come from? Were resources for this purpose actually allocated by some body representative of the working class? Were they stolen?"

How about if they just made the bricks and/or the concrete themselves? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that, you know...

"Then the materials had to be transported. Where did the truck(s) come from? Were public property and resources "diverted" for this purpose in the hopes that "no one would notice"?"

Ah, so I see... the means of transportation don't really belong to the people, do they? No, they belong to the government, and you need official authorization to use them!

Yes, comrade Stalin, I understand.

"I have no understanding why it is "necessary" to "worship" in company, of course..."

Because Christianity is by its very nature a community religion. You see, when one of the central pillars of your faith is love thy neighbour, it really helps if you get to know that neighbour.

And also:

"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
- Matthew 18:20

---

"...not to mention why the faithful cannot gather in each other's living rooms. But if, for some reason, a group of adult Christians wish to meet in numbers too large for a private dwelling, here's a legal way to do it: start a small business (like a restaurant) which would normally be open to the public (small businesses would enjoy considerable tolerance by communist authorities for an extended period of time). Every Sunday morning, cover the windows and put a sign on the door--"Private Party". Bring out all your "holy apparatus" and "worship" away...quietly, of course. Don't disturb your neighbors, if any. Afterwards, put the apparatus away, take down the sign, open the curtains, and go on about your business.

Surely the "Lord" doesn't "require" more than that, does "He"? "

No, He doesn't.
However, we shall never bow to a tyrant that wants us to be ashamed of who we are. We will never hide our love for God in this humiliating manner. We would sooner die. When the Roman authorities captured one of us, he never denied his love for God. So shall it be with your secret police, Redstar.

We do not force anyone to do anything. But we will worship in public and tell people about Jesus Christ. They have the right to know. What they do with that knowledge, that's their own business.

And if you want to take away our right as free men and women to worship in public, you will have to kill us.

Is THAT what you're really after, comrade Stalin?

"You see I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth."

What a pathetic baseless insult... because that's all it is, really. Tell me, Redstar, do you have the gift of mind reading, by any chance? If not, then how the hell do you presume to know what goes on in my mind?

I can't speak for other Christians, but I can speak for myself. The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion. He wants human beings to live in freedom and equality. And those are the values that I believe in, and that I will defend until my dying day.

redstar2000

24th May 2003, 01:35

But we will worship in public and tell people about Jesus Christ.

Yeah, the usual superstitious horseshit. Well, the early years after a revolution tend to be rather tumultuous...and this will be just one more complication that we'll have to deal with.

Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance. Does that count as "glorious martyrdom"? Do you make "Heaven's A-List" for that?

The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion.

That the same "god" who invented eternal torment in the fires of "Hell"? :cheesy:

:cool:

truthaddict11

24th May 2003, 02:08

I can't speak for other Christians, but I can speak for myself. The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion. He wants human beings to live in freedom and equality. And those are the values that I believe in, and that I will defend until my dying day

HA! That is a bunch bull. I seriously dont believe that. Is that why "God" sent fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorra for thier "evil" ways. . The same "god" whos "laws" condone executions for "herecy"?

I agree with Redstar I surely dont want to hear any "witnesses" telling me about Jesus, Buddah or any other religous figure you believe you need in your life. It should remain at most in private practice only.

Once the Temples of Isis are closed; once the public rituals of Jupiter or the private rituals of Mithras are prohibited...they just fade away.

I bet we could expect the same with Christianity

CubanFox

24th May 2003, 05:45

Let's see. I'm Christian (protestant) and think:

a) Abortions should be legal.

B) The Pope is just an old man. He may be a good person, but nothing more. God didn't choose him to be his representative on Earth. That's Jesus' job.

c) Religion and government/laws do not mix.

d) You should be able to build any house of worship anywhere, and you should be able to worship anything you want.

e) The paedophile priests/ministers (as in church ministers) need to be harshly punished and removed from the church.

f) No religions are 'evil'.

And Redstar, I don't like Jehovah's Witnesses that try to spread their religion. I think they are misguided. But I'm not going to have them exterminated by my little Cheka organization as you would do evangelists. (excuse me if I misinterpreted your thoughts)

(Edited by CubanFox at 5:51 am on May 24, 2003)

Invader Zim

24th May 2003, 12:21

Quote: from CubanFox on 5:45 am on May 24, 2003

f) No religions are 'evil'.

(Edited by CubanFox at 5:51 am on May 24, 2003)

What about the Thugge cult? They worship some god of Murder and went around commiting human sacrifice and collected skulls and stuff.

redstar2000

24th May 2003, 12:39

But I'm not going to have them exterminated by my little Cheka organization as you would do evangelists. (excuse me if I misinterpreted your thoughts)

That's what you wrote, Cuban Fox. About 4 hours earlier, on this same page, this is what I wrote...

Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance.

I'd call that a pretty good "misinterpretation", wouldn't you?

No religions are 'evil'.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "evil". Perhaps you think there is nothing wrong with lying to small children about things that don't exist; I think it's child abuse.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:42 am on May 24, 2003)

Invader Zim

24th May 2003, 13:06

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:39 pm on May 24, 2003

No religions are 'evil'.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "evil". Perhaps you think there is nothing wrong with lying to small children about things that don't exist; I think it's child abuse.

Thats the whole floor with your argument, is that they do not think its a lie, you cannot prove that it is so that means that your argument is false.

CubanFox

24th May 2003, 13:23

Oh.

:(

Sorry, Redstar. Didn't see that. My apologies. :)

Say you set up socialism in...err, I dunno...Yemen. Resurrecting the People's Democratic Republic of South Yemen. Would you take a similar stance to Islam as you would to Christianity? Remember, the clerics hold alot of sway with the people round these parts, and there are people are more than willing to die to kill off anything or anyone who they see as impeding their religion. We aren't talking occaisonal church attenders here. We're talking large numbers of fundamentalists with bombs. (not to say that all Muslims are fundamentalists, the vast majority are not...it's just a small splinter group of whackos who have twisted the Koran to make it say what they want it to say who just soak up alot of media attention)

(Edited by CubanFox at 1:24 pm on May 24, 2003)

redstar2000

24th May 2003, 21:50

Without any detailed knowledge of the "People's Democratic Republic" of Yemen, I rather doubt that it was any of those things in its name.

From what I know, it was a tribal despotism...that being the more or less traditional social arrangement over there. Whatever scraps of Marxist rhetoric that they may have used were probably for foreign consumption, namely the old USSR.

Beyond that, there's a fundamental misunderstanding in your conception of communist revolution. It's not a matter of a small group "seizing power" and then imposing at gunpoint the most radical measures that they believe they can get away with. That's the old Leninist version and we've seen how poorly it actually works.

What we're looking for is a massive uprising of the working class itself--think February 1917 in Russia--during which millions of people deeply question everything from the old order of things, what Marx called "all the old shit."

In such a climate, the reaction against all the established religions (which had always supported the old regime as "God's Will"...) is such that I think it will be easy to win support for the kinds of proposals that I advocate. Indeed, I suspect that 80-90% of the working class will be atheist or indifferent to religion by that point...that a "believing" proletariat can't make a revolution or, if they do, they will piss it away. (Again, February 1917 might be a good illustration of this.)

In the "long sweep of history", I would imagine that Malaysia will be the first predominately Muslim country to have a communist revolution (a guess: 2125?)...but the same conditions apply that I outlined above.

As to "Muslim fundamentalist terrorism", naturally I agree with all the old communists on how to deal with counter-revolutionary violence...ruthlessly. Give them a trial as fair as circumstances permit; but don't fool around. They want to kill communists; we should kill them first.

On a slightly different note, we "can't prove" that the "gods" of the Aztecs or of Carthage "don't exist" either--but we can make the sacrifice of children to the gods a pretty serious crime.

And we will.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:56 pm on May 24, 2003)