Jesus the Socialist

[desperadoy]

If you take away the supposed divinity of Jesus and see him simply as a man who cared for the people and see his crucifixion not as death for the sins of all, but death in the name of a Revolution, doesn't this man sound like a true Socialist?

He healed the sick without asking for money, preached against the lies of the people in power, convinced a rich man to give his belongings to the poor and follow him, took bread and fish and fed a thousand, showed humility as he washed the feet of his disciples.

And then, his teachings were feared. The people in power did all that they could to silence him. They persecuted him, tortured him, executed him, but as his followers wept, his message became more alive than ever before.

"Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”
Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

[desperadoy]

Now, if you noticed, the Bible said that the unjust were on the left hand. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's remember that the greedy "Christian" hypocrites who oppressed the poor were also allies of the Church, which would explain why somehow, it's the leftists who care for their fellowmen, who opposed the oppressive Church, who dared to sit at the left.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Now, if you noticed, the Bible said that the unjust were on the left hand.
Yes, and that was about 1760 years before "left" and "right" became political terms.

[Belisarius]

Now, if you noticed, the Bible said that the unjust were on the left hand. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's remember that the greedy "Christian" hypocrites who oppressed the poor were also allies of the Church, which would explain why somehow, it's the leftists who care for their fellowmen, who opposed the oppressive Church, who dared to sit at the left.
we should make a distinction between Jesus and the Church. Jesus wasn't oppressive, he always sided with the weak and marginalised groups in society. an interesting read on this topic is "the grand inquisitor" by Dostoevsky: in this story Jesus returns to earth during the time of the inquisition, but he doesn't speak anymore. He is quickly captured by the inquisition and the grand inquisitor gives a lengthy speech. the argument of this speech is that Jesus gave the people freedom, he gave them the opportunity to think for themselves and to defy all authority, but that this wasn't what the people actually wanted. They don't want freedom, but happiness and the latter is only possible in submission, as living like a herd. The Church gave them rituals, dogmas and proscriptions and the people accepted it with pleasure.

[desperadoy]

Yeah, exactly. An anti-war protestor once held up a sign, saying: "What Would Jesus Bomb?"

Someone said: The Vatican.

[mikelepore]

I would choke if I were to use the term "socialist" for a person who said:

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them."

(Matthew 6:25-26)

[Chambered Word]

I would choke if I were to use the term "socialist" for a person who said:

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them."

(Matthew 6:25-26)

I personally think you can't take anything like that literally. I take it to mean a message against greed and materialistic attitudes, but maybe that's just me.

To be honest, Jesus sounds more like a crazy hippie, (then again I'm not really sure he existed at all).

[mastershake16]

Taking the Bible literally = Bad decision.

[Belisarius]

Taking the Bible literally = Bad decision.
taking any book literally is a bad decision.

[mykittyhasaboner]

taking any book literally is a bad decision.

Unless it's a book of instructions. :) Say if you want to put together your cool piece of furniture you bought. "Put piece one in the slot A"....."Ah whatever slot a slot b whats the difference." :D Soon you will find your furniture crashing to the floor.


Taking the bible literally is not only a bad decision, it's simply dangerous. Doesn't the book say people should kill homosexuals and people who cheat on their spouses? Or something like that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everyone took the bible literally today we'd have a modern Inquisition.

[Belisarius]

even a book of intructions should leave room for creativity :D
i don't think it would be an inquisition since we would be so stuck that we wouldn't do anything. the bible contradicts itselfs all the time and i wonder he would do the counting if you can only forgive someone 7x70 times.:)

[ComradeMan]

Let's look at the facts of Jesus.

He was young.
He was a worker- perhaps a carpenter, the Greek word is "teknon", perhaps an artisan of some time.
He came from "humble" origins and was a Galilean- marginialised by the regionalism of the day.
He railed against the corrupt government and "clerics" of his day.
He talked to the lowest echelons and the most marginalised of society.
He gave the Sermon on the Mount... the meek, the poor, the oppressed.
He showed no respect for authority other than a higher spiritual authority.
He exposed the hypocrisies of the powers-that-be of his day.
and so on.

Like someone else said, if one wanted to take away the "divine" aspect and just look at the man, then I think there is a lot of revolutionary stuff with Jesus.

Let's also not confuse Jesus with the established Church. Let us also not brand him as reactionary for his religious belief either. Again, if we choose not to accept the divine aspect and only focus on the man so to speak, then it would have been unconceivable for him or anyone else at the time not to work within the schemes of the "religious" or spiritual. Even the ancient Greek mathematicians had their spiritual side. We are approx 1700-1900 years before modern ideas of atheism, historical materialism, left and right- as someone else has also noted here.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Even though I strongly believe Jesus never existed, I find the story of Jesus just as revolutionary, & should be a metaphorical story for us to all dwell upon & learn from, for it shows what being a 'revolutionary' is about.

[mastershake16]

If he doesn't exist, then why all the accounts in the writings by historians like Pliny the Younger,Tacitus,Josephus,Suetonius, and Thallus?
Not all of the accounts were positive, so they definitely were not trying to "spread" the idea of Jesus.

[Kléber]

For a long time the language of the Bible was the best communist literature peasants and proletarians had available. All those egalitarian verses have indeed been converted (or renovated) as revolutionary slogans often in contrasting ways by rebellious peasants and short-lived religious communist movements during the feudal era. Gnostics, Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathars were just a few of the populist heresies with communistic tenets. And then there's Communism in Central Europe at the Time of the Reformation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/index.htm)

[ComradeMan]

To Vegananarchist.

Oh, I do think Jesus existed as a man at least. There is too much stuff for and against him for his being a complete myth.

A few ancient writers, albeit not without controversy, seem to be writing about the same person. These writers probably had no reason to be all that concerned about some "minor Jewish sect" in a "far-flung" and "troublesome part" of the Empire. Josephus has also been called into question but I see no reason why Josephus, a diaspora Jew, would invent Jesus if he had not existed.

The problem is that there are too many vested interests in either proving or disproving the historicity of Jesus and the Apostles for anyone to be trusted, and that's the problem.

A few quick cut and pastes---

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day
Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3

Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
Josephus Antiquities 20:9.1

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".
Iudaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit

Added to this the vitreole against Jesus by some later writers and the fact that we have the Acts and a whole host of other references to the early Christians including the following:-

I would lend credence to this because it was not in the vested interests of the established Church to find Saint Peter in Jerusalem, tradition would have him in Rome.

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/evidence/historical_precedents/st_peter.html


A decade or so after Professor Sukenink found a tomb containing ossuaries with inscriptions linked to Simon of Cyrene, two Italian priests, P.B. Bagatti and J.T. Milik, came across another important archeological discovery. Their findings were published in 1958, in a book called Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit (in English, The Excavations of Dominus Flevit).

The site of the discovery, Dominus Flevit on Mount Olives, is also the supposed place where Jesus wept over Jerusalem. What they found there was a tomb containing an ossuary engraved in Aramaic with the name, “Shimon Bar Yonah,” which translates to “Simon, son of Jonah”.

Scientists and archeologists later confirmed that this bone box did indeed belong to the same Simon, son of Jonah, whom Christ had renamed Peter. The find was important not only because it proved the existence of someone mentioned in the New Testament, but perhaps even more importantly because it located Peter’s death in Jerusalem, and not in Rome, as many Roman Catholics – including the Pope – had come to accept.
The lack of attention to this amazing find is an example of what happens when discoveries, despite the physical evidence, do not align with common beliefs.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Christian scholars will point to passages that occur in the writings of Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus to prove that Jesus existed. This requires a reader to make a conclusion that is not supported in the case of Tacitus or Pliny. The passage in the writings Josephus may indicate that he existed Josephus, unlike Pliny or Tacitus, at least lived during a time when he could have in theory have met early Christians who knew Jesus.

Tacitus and Pliny: Born too Late

The writings of Tacitus and Pliny do not prove the existence of Jesus as these authors were born late in the first century of the current era.. In the case of the Roman historian, the passage in question comes from his annals. It is no secret that after the fire that consumed Rome in 64 A.D. the emperor Nero scapegoated Christians because he had to blame the fire on someone. Tacitus, who is never objective when he mentions Nero, probably had to balance this with the dislike of the Christians typical of the Roman pagans of his day against his dislike of Nero. Although there is no evidence that Tacitus hated the early Christians, perhaps his hatred for the former emperor was greater. He does mention that the Christians were likely not the cause of the fire but merely a convenient and unpopular target to distract blame away.

The Annals do not prove that Jesus Christ existed but merely that Christians existed in the First Century A.D., which no scholar has ever disputed. Tacitus lived too far away from the events that supposedly took place in Galilee almost a hundred years before his birth to know about them first hand.

The next piece of evidence of Jesus's existence is the letters of Pliny the Younger. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan while serving as the governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111 to 113 of the current era, Pliny asks the emperor how to handle people caught in a witch hunt and accused of the crime of being Christian.

Trajan's response shows a remarkable and measured restraint as well as indicating leniency for those who repented of the crime of Christianity, but the Emperor suggested the appropriate punishment for those still guilty of being Christians.Pliny's letter fails to prove the existence of Jesus. First, the dates 112 to 113 do not coincide with the date of Jesus's execution which took place in roughly 30 A.D. Secondly, Pliny himself was born long after the death of Jesus and would not have personal knowledge.


Josesphus or was that Eusebius?

The passage in Josephus used to prove the existence of Jesus is a bit harder to pin down because Josephus lived in the right time, lived in the right area and perhaps most importantly, was Jewish. The passage often quoted as proof of the existence of Christ is believed to have been inserted by a Roman Catholic bishop, Eusebius, in the fourth century A.D. Eusebius was a historian in his own right, but the bishop was more concerned with proving the legitimacy of the early Roman Catholic church than he was in historical accuracy. When the passage believed to be inserted by Eusebius on Jesus is removed, the text that occurs in Josehpus's The Jewish War flows in context..

Little proof exists outside of the new testament that a historical Jesus existed. The Existence of the Gospels themselves argues powerfully enough for the existence of Jesus Christ.

http://roman-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/pliny_tacitus_josephus_and_jesus
.

[ComradeMan]

The doubts raised are valid enough but they are not concrete disproof ie you see what I mean.

The pros and cons of Josephus are mentioned here
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm#object

Some interesting arguments are presented here.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm

Another interesting one here, although open to interpretation.
An inscription that was discovered in the ruins of Marquofiae in the Roman province of Lusitania (ancient Portugal)dated to the reign of Emperor Nero who died in AD 68. This inscription reads as follows:
NERONI. CL. CAIS AUG. PONT. MAX.
OB PROVINC. LATRONIB
ET. HIS. QUI. NOVAM
GENERI. HUM SUPER
STITION. INCULCAB
PURGATAM.

TO NERO CLAUDIUS CAESAR,
AUGUSTUS, HIGH PRIEST,
FOR CLEARING THE PROVINCE
OF ROBBERS, AND THOSE
WHO TAUGHT MANKIND
A NEW SUPERSTITION

What was this new superstition?

But what swings it for me is that tomb in Jerusalem, Shimon Bar Yonah.

Have you ever wondered what lies hidden in the Vatican vaults or in top security vaults in Israel?

On Josephus- the Jesus passage is controversial but the James one is not so widely disputed.


" The younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. " (Jewish Antiquities 20:29 Louis Feldman translation)
The objections about the dates of the Roman writers are spurious in my opinion. These Roman writers wrote on a lot of historical personae for whom very little physical evidence exists as such, should we doubt them too?

To this should be added, when, ironically in this case, the Christians torched the Great Library of Alexandria up in smoke when the heritage of the ancient world. I remember my classics teacher throwing a figure of only about 2% of ancient literature having survived in anyway at all. This means we can never know what was lost and what other sources other writers may have relied upon.

So although I would take anything written with a pinch of salt, I think there is enough evidence when accounted all together to reasonably assume that a historical figure of Jesus did exist. The other thing that strikes me is this, the accounts vary in detail and to me this points to their being based in fact, not the other way around. Any good cop will tell you that when two suspects stories match 100% they are lying and they have fixed their story beforehand.

Citing the lack of references to Jospehus by other later scholars is hardly a surprise either given the lack of printing, the widespread destruction of manuscripts and the upheaval caused by the collapse of the classical world with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

Another thing that people fail to note is that the Christians were a relatively obscure Jewish sect who the Roman probably thought of no more as Jews or at least had trouble distinguishing. Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome which shows that there were Christians there but that they were marginalised enough to be safely used as scapegoats. I don't think most ancient writers would have been that interested in an Jewish mystery cult leader who was put to death, as they would have seen it, hence a lack of references?

It was not unknown for scribes to dress up references in earlier manuscripts and indeed the partial authenticity theory does also have its following in the mainstream.

Bear in mind there is only one hisrtorical source that proves the existence of Mohammed and the Buddha? Is there a historical source for the Buddha? Zoroaster? Yet I notice the historicity of the first is rarely called into question.

Like I said before, there are too many vested interests in proving or disproving the existence of the historical Jesus for us to ever be sure, and that is where Jesus- albeit from a theological point of view- has the last laugh, for without faith there is nothing.:thumbup1:

Other circumstancial evidence
John the Baptist is executed by Herod Antipas, c 30, recorded in Jewish Antiquities 18.5.2

[The Vegan Marxist]

Alright, we'll leave it there lol. No proof towards the existence nor the contrary of Jesus Christ.

[Chambered Word]

This thread reminds me of the Conservative Bible Project actually.


1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias 2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."


Because we all know Marx invented the word 'comrade'. :D

[Havet]

If you take away the supposed divinity of Jesus and see him simply as a man who cared for the people and see his crucifixion not as death for the sins of all, but death in the name of a Revolution, doesn't this man sound like a true Socialist?


Jesus may be a socialist, but God is definitely a capitalist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/q-christian-god-t119422/index.html?t=119422).

Isn't Jesus the same as God and vice versa? Yet another contradiction...:rolleyes:

[desperadoy]

My god, don't get me started on Conservapedia, the "trustworthy" encyclopedia.

You ever noticed how conservatives are so afraid of equality? So hateful to the poor? So ready to declare war on a defenseless country to "free" it? Jesus would be so proud.

Oh yeah, they support torture and capital punishment too. How did Jesus suffer and die for their sins again?

[Belisarius]

He was a worker- perhaps a carpenter, the Greek word is "teknon", perhaps an artisan of some time.

you mean "technites", because "to teknon" is a child in ancient greek.:D

[Belisarius]

My god, don't get me started on Conservapedia, the "trustworthy" encyclopedia.

You ever noticed how conservatives are so afraid of equality? So hateful to the poor? So ready to declare war on a defenseless country to "free" it? Jesus would be so proud.

Oh yeah, they support torture and capital punishment too. How did Jesus suffer and die for their sins again?
let him who is free from sin throw the first stone as they say.:)

[ComradeMan]

Jesus may be a socialist, but God is definitely a capitalist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/q-christian-god-t119422/index.html?t=119422).

Isn't Jesus the same as God and vice versa? Yet another contradiction...:rolleyes:


Belisarius- you are quite right! :D Sorry about that, very poor on my part!

Hayen-

God is a capitalist? How do you come by that one? If we adopt a philosophical line and analyse the theologies of the mainstream religions we might accuse God of being reactionary but I don't see how we can accuse God of being a capitalist.

I'd be interested to hear your rationale on this one....

Personally, I grew up in a tradition and have a way of thinking which cannot attribute human attributes to God, so it's hard for me to understand this personification of God.

[desperadoy]

Yeah, if you notice the right likes to quote the Old Testament to back up their points. Why? Because the New Testament is so Socialist the best they can do is say "but Jesus wanted us to do it ourselves, not through government!" blah blah blah. They keep making up excuses but in truth, they're simply assholes.

Jesus is leftist rebel who ran away from his right wing dad, as far as I'm concerned, haha!

[Havet]

God is a capitalist? How do you come by that one? If we adopt a philosophical line and analyse the theologies of the mainstream religions we might accuse God of being reactionary but I don't see how we can accuse God of being a capitalist.

I'd be interested to hear your rationale on this one....

First, we need to analyze the definition of a Capitalist. Some definitions come to mind:

- a person who invests capital in a business (check, God has invested certainly some time and resources (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.all-creatures.org/mi/b-beginning.html#1) in his "Earthly business")

- An owner of (considerable amount of) capital (check. As far as I ever heard, everything "belongs" to God (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-godmoneyandfinances/godownseverything.php), doesn't it?)

- (By Karl Marx) one who owns working capital and the means of production and makes profit by letting others work on the MOP. (check, God "owns" the MOP and let's humans work to create value, but he still ultimately "owns" everything, besides creating some personal intellectual (as in non-physical) profit (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/inspiration/kids-talk-about-god/what-does-god-enjoy-most-about-his-creation.html), by watching us humans from above struggle to live).


Personally, I grew up in a tradition and have a way of thinking which cannot attribute human attributes to God, so it's hard for me to understand this personification of God.

Its not really a personification. Its just taking the christian's explanation of him and taking it to its logical extreme.

[spiltteeth]

First, we need to analyze the definition of a Capitalist. Some definitions come to mind:

- a person who invests capital in a business (check, God has invested certainly some time and resources (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.all-creatures.org/mi/b-beginning.html#1) in his "Earthly business")

- An owner of (considerable amount of) capital (check. As far as I ever heard, everything "belongs" to God (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-godmoneyandfinances/godownseverything.php), doesn't it?)

- (By Karl Marx) one who owns working capital and the means of production and makes profit by letting others work on the MOP. (check, God "owns" the MOP and let's humans work to create value, but he still ultimately "owns" everything, besides creating some personal intellectual (as in non-physical) profit (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/inspiration/kids-talk-about-god/what-does-god-enjoy-most-about-his-creation.html), by watching us humans from above struggle to live).



Its not really a personification. Its just taking the christian's explanation of him and taking it to its logical extreme.

Actually, since God's resourses are unlimited, the idea of surplus (profit) does not, logically, apply.

Of course even if it did, the Christian's explanation includes that God did not create for his own benifit, and in fact all "profit" from any spiritual "work" we do here on earth is "owned" by us as it increases our soul/being.

Since God is by definition the greatest possible being, adding surplus/capital/profit would also be logically impossible.

There are dozens of other fallacies but I'll stop there, I assumed u were joking last time you posted this.

for a slightly less absurd (but still silly) contrary :


Is The Bible's God a Communist?

by Robert L. Johnson

Most Christian fundamentalists are fervent anti-Communists. But can the same be said about their god? Let us open our Bible to Acts 4:34 - 5:11.

It reads: "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and the distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

"And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus. Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and 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.

"But 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?

"Whiles 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.

"And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

"And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

"And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

"And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

"Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

"Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

"And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things."

PRAISE GAWD!!!

If that isn't hard-core Communism I don't know what is! There was an attempt at equal distribution of wealth which is at the heart of Communist theory. In the above Bible story the Bible god was the KGB who carried out the dirty work of dealing with the nonconformists. Perhaps Marx and Mao were influenced by this Bible episode!

[Havet]

Actually, since God's resourses are unlimited, the idea of surplus (profit) does not, logically, apply.

why not?


Of course even if it did, the Christian's explanation includes that God did not create for his own benifit, and in fact all "profit" from any spiritual "work" we do here on earth is "owned" by us as it increases our soul/being.

Where is this written?

The profit i was talking about was the non-physical profit God had by watching us humans perform physical work.


Since God is by definition the greatest possible being, adding surplus/capital/profit would also be logically impossible.

Why?

[Dave B]

^^

It is probably a interpretation of Matthew 25;14, ‘Parable of the three servants’

Taken in the context of Matthew 6;19 ‘Riches in heaven’

[RedAnarchist]

If you ask me, giving mythological/historical figures that had vague politics a certain political label is the same as placing an IQ on an historical genius like Mozart or Newton that were born before the IQ test was even created, or placing a MBTI type (INTP, ESFJ etc) on someone who again was born before the MBTI was created (as only the person taking the test can truly know what their type is), or someone that we know fairly little about.

Jesus, if he existed, was probably not a political extremist and most likely held similar political views that most people of his region held. You also have to remember that politics back then was not about gay marriage, the environment, women's rights etc. Most politics would have been about land, war with neighbouring tribes or Roman occupation.

[ComradeMan]

[QUOTE=RedAnarchist;1655492
Jesus, if he existed, was probably not a political extremist and most likely held similar political views that most people of his region held. You also have to remember that politics back then was not about gay marriage, the environment, women's rights etc. Most politics would have been about land, war with neighbouring tribes or Roman occupation.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not so sure about that to be fair with you.

Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned for adultery.

Jesus said "do unto others as thou would be done by" and judge not "lest you be judged"- that was pretty radical for the time and basically subsumes all of the other arguments.

[Belisarius]

Jesus said "do unto others as thou would be done by" and judge not "lest you be judged"- that was pretty radical for the time
it still is.

[ComradeMan]

it still is.


Yep....! :D Have to agree with you there.

[spiltteeth]

=hayenmill;1655449]why not?

well, if yr resources are unlimited, profit cannot add more to them. The concept of 'capital' is rendered meaningless.
If you have an infinite supply of money, then adding more money does not increase the amount.
If you "own" everything, noone can add to it etc


Where is this written?

The profit i was talking about was the non-physical profit God had by watching us humans perform physical work.

That is not the christian conception at all - that god created man for entertainment, in fact, I don't think any religion holds that beleif.

Why?[/QUOTE]

uh, because if yr already the greatest possible being you cannot, by definition, be made greater.

[Havet]

well, if yr resources are unlimited, profit cannot add more to them. The concept of 'capital' is rendered meaningless.
If you have an infinite supply of money, then adding more money does not increase the amount.
If you "own" everything, noone can add to it etc

That is not the christian conception at all - that god created man for entertainment, in fact, I don't think any religion holds that beleif.

uh, because if yr already the greatest possible being you cannot, by definition, be made greater.

One question seems to boil down out of all this:

Why did God create humans?

[ComradeMan]

One question seems to boil down out of all this:

Why did God create humans?


Why not? He had the chutzpah...? :D Perhaps he was just meshugge enough to count on us? :P

[Belisarius]

One question seems to boil down out of all this:

Why did God create humans?
i think that, if there's one thing for sure , then it is that we, as mortals, can't possibly understand God or know anything about him. that's why i see jesus as a philosopher or a moralist, but not as the son of god. he was a peaceful, yet rebellious, man, not a god.

[ComradeMan]

i think that, if there's one thing for sure , then it is that we, as mortals, can't possibly understand God or know anything about him. that's why i see jesus as a philosopher or a moralist, but not as the son of god. he was a peaceful, yet rebellious, man, not a god.


This is a very sensitive subject. I don't know. But I read an interesting piece about the whole son of God issue from a cultural perspective in ancient Israel and Judaea and also on the idea of the Messiah as other Kings of Israel being termed the "son of god". There is also a gnostic view on this too. What do you think?

[spiltteeth]

In my faith -orthodox christian - we believe God created man so that man could become God.
It was an act of pure selfless love on God's part.
Patristic theology answers the question in this way:
‘out of the abundance of His love and goodness’. ‘Because the good and transcendently good God was not content to contemplate Himself, but by a superabundance of goodness saw fit that there should be some things to benefit by and to participate in His goodness, He brings all things from nothing into being and creates them’, - St John of Damascus.

[Belisarius]

This is a very sensitive subject. I don't know. But I read an interesting piece about the whole son of God issue from a cultural perspective in ancient Israel and Judaea and also on the idea of the Messiah as other Kings of Israel being termed the "son of god". There is also a gnostic view on this too. What do you think?
kings being viewed as gods is quite common in western history. many roman emperors were deified after their death (some even when they were alive, like Caligula or Livia, the wife of Augustus). in the ancien régime kings had a "droit divin", they were the substitutes for God here on earth.

[ComradeMan]

kings being viewed as gods is quite common in western history. many roman emperors were deified after their death (some even when they were alive, like Caligula or Livia, the wife of Augustus). in the ancien régime kings had a "droit divin", they were the substitutes for God here on earth.


Yeah, but not in Judaism. :) There are no other gods but the God of Israel. I think in ancient Israel the Kings were given the title due to the "sacral" nature of Israel. I don't think it was the divinification of Roman Emperors, perhaps it was more similar to the Egyptian idea of pharaoh representing the divine....

[Belisarius]

Yeah, but not in Judaism. :) There are no other gods but the God of Israel. I think in ancient Israel the Kings were given the title due to the "sacral" nature of Israel. I don't think it was the divinification of Roman Emperors, perhaps it was more similar to the Egyptian idea of pharaoh representing the divine....
i think the jewish concept of "the son of God" is a monotheistic adaptation of the polytheistic notion of "the god on earth". proclaiming there is only one god and at the same time that the king is also a god would've been contradictory and so they just changed the name a bit to keep both beliefs without denying the one by the other.

[mastershake16]

I don't think they ever claimed a king to be God.
Did they?

Jesus was THE son of God, but John says we are all children of God.
Yet, Jesus is God too.

[ComradeMan]

In my faith -orthodox christian - we believe God created man so that man could become God.
It was an act of pure selfless love on God's part.
Patristic theology answers the question in this way: , - St John of Damascus.


Isn't that a kind of Qabbalistic idea too, in a way?

[Belisarius]

I don't think they ever claimed a king to be God.
Did they?

Jesus was THE son of God, but John says we are all children of God.
Yet, Jesus is God too.
Egyptian pharaohs were gods, some roman emperors were deified (some during their life, most afterwards)

[Yazman]

He also advocated slavery and gave rules on how to treat slaves, among other things.


Egyptian pharaohs were gods, some roman emperors were deified (some during their life, most afterwards)

Yeah, deifying notable people or "heros" was common in ancient greece too. Its called apotheosis.

[Havet]

In my faith -orthodox christian - we believe God created man so that man could become God.
It was an act of pure selfless love on God's part.
Patristic theology answers the question in this way: , - St John of Damascus.

Why the hell would God want man to become God? To perpetuate his own "kind"?

[ComradeMan]

He also advocated slavery and gave rules on how to treat slaves, among other things.



Yeah, deifying notable people or "heros" was common in ancient greece too. Its called apotheosis.

To be fair, and not that I advocate slavery, but slavery was a part of reality and as normal as anything else in the ancient world- it has existed in all societies as long as anyone could remember so I think we need to look at early writings on slavery in that context too.

Re the other points. I have some information from Aramaic I found:

Bar Nasha (son of man): this means basically "human being", used about 28 times in the Gospels to refer to Jesus (Yehoshua). However this Aramaic term has been badly translated as "son of man" and should be rendered "man" or "human being".

Bar Dalaha (son of God): an Aramaic idiom closer in meaning to "child of God" that could be used in various ways to refer to an orphan, a meek/mild or gentle person, a man perceived as being "good" or pious.

Being "bar-" son of did not necessarily mean son in the literal sense, it could also mean "similar to" or "like-"

Ehedaya (the only son) (Gk.monogenes): this apparantly is another example of a very bad translation, twofold, the Greek monogenes implying mote the idea of "unique" or "one of a kind". The original Aramaic word is closer in meaning to "only heir" or "beloved".

M'sheeha (messiah: mashach): "the annointed one"- being annointed bestowed divine blessing and authority on the person annointed. David calls Sauls the "annointing oil of the Lord". I believe Jesus forbad them call him Messiah...

A couple of these bad translations can alter the whole way you read the Gospels, now if you multiply the rest of the Bible by the "bad translation" factor it can be quite alarming.

[Belisarius]

To be fair, and not that I advocate slavery, but slavery was a part of reality and as normal as anything else in the ancient world- it has existed in all societies as long as anyone could remember so I think we need to look at early writings on slavery in that context too.

Re the other points. I have some information from Aramaic I found:

Bar Nasha (son of man): this means basically "human being", used about 28 times in the Gospels to refer to Jesus (Yehoshua). However this Aramaic term has been badly translated as "son of man" and should be rendered "man" or "human being".

Bar Dalaha (son of God): an Aramaic idiom closer in meaning to "child of God" that could be used in various ways to refer to an orphan, a meek/mild or gentle person, a man perceived as being "good" or pious.

Being "bar-" son of did not necessarily mean son in the literal sense, it could also mean "similar to" or "like-"

Ehedaya (the only son) (Gk.monogenes): this apparantly is another example of a very bad translation, twofold, the Greek monogenes implying mote the idea of "unique" or "one of a kind". The original Aramaic word is closer in meaning to "only heir" or "beloved".

M'sheeha (messiah: mashach): "the annointed one"- being annointed bestowed divine blessing and authority on the person annointed. David calls Sauls the "annointing oil of the Lord". I believe Jesus forbad them call him Messiah...

A couple of these bad translations can alter the whole way you read the Gospels, now if you multiply the rest of the Bible by the "bad translation" factor it can be quite alarming.
that's why i personally recommend reading it in greek. most of the bible is written in very simple greek.

[ComradeMan]

that's why i personally recommend reading it in greek. most of the bible is written in very simple greek.


I disagree, because the Greek itself was an adaptation of the original words most probably Aramaic. I would suggest perhaps an "etymological" version of scripture be proposed- it would be encycolopaedic however. I wonder if radical religionists ever bother to look at the footnotes or the definitions of the words and statements they quote? This is also my criticism of some who attack the Bible from the atheist point of view. They do not attack what it actually says but more what others say it says! :D

[ComradeMan]

Delete this post- double posted for some reason!

[Belisarius]

it depends on the text of course, but according to most scholars, the greater part of the new testament was written in greek, because most of it was written for greek cities (Thessalonians, Corinthians, etc. and Paul was from a greek-speaking part of the empire, Tarsus in modern day Turkey)

[ComradeMan]

it depends on the text of course, but according to most scholars, the greater part of the new testament was written in greek, because most of it was written for greek cities (Thessalonians, Corinthians, etc. and Paul was from a greek-speaking part of the empire, Tarsus in modern day Turkey)

Yes but the people they were quoting and the context was Aramaic.

[Belisarius]

Yes but the people they were quoting and the context was Aramaic.
true, but since i don't know a word aramaic and i learn greek at school, i'll stick with the greek:D

[ComradeMan]

true, but since i don't know a word aramaic and i learn greek at school, i'll stick with the greek:D


:D Well, perhaps you could campaign for Aramaic at school?

[spiltteeth]

Why the hell would God want man to become God? To perpetuate his own "kind"?

as i quoted :for people
to benefit by and to participate in His goodness

[Havet]

to benefit and participate in his goodness

Why would God, an omnipotent being, create men, non-omnipotent beings, so that they could later figure out a way to become omnipotent, in order to participate in his goodness?

Why didn't god make men omnipotent a priori? Isn't he all powerful? Doesn't he have the resources and the time to accomplish that?

Why can men only participate in his goodness by becoming omnipotent?

[Agnapostate]

Albert S. Lindemann has written a thorough examination of [the] history of European socialism in a book of that title, and his insights on the parallels seem well-considered to me:


The early Christian glorification of the poor, of social outcasts of all sorts - even the ugly, sick, and physically deformed - was radically opposed to the strongly aristocratic values of the Graeco-Romans, with their love of the finely formed and the beautiful, their relative lack of concern for the tribulations of the poor. Christ crucified as a symbol was diametrically opposed to the Venus di Milo, and Plato's philosopher-king would have considered the credulous, unwashed mass that flocked into the early Christian communities to be fit only for the role of helot-slave.

Modern socialists have shared the Christian sense of sympathy for these people rather than the Graeco-Roman disdain for them. The parallels continue on many levels. Early Christians sought to live communistically, without private property, "with all things common," subordinating individual desires to the needs of the community in Christ. (Certain Anabaptist sects, for example, the Hutterites, have conformed to that early ideal since the Reformation, and continue to thrive in the twentieth century.) As socialists excoriated the capitalists, so early Christians asserted that the rich could never be accepted into heaven. The Day of Judgment has obvious similarities to the day of revolution, and the Christian notion of salvation, coming only after a time of great suffering, found a modern form in Marx's description of capitalist development as a necessary if painful prelude to socialism. In a broad sense the Judeo-Christian and prophetic manner of crying out in tones of moral outrage against the sins of the day was taken up by modern socialists, although they incorporated into their message not only the ardent moral tones if Isaiah and Christ but also the coolly analytical and secular knowledge of Plato and Aristotle.

The communistic association is observed among the apostles' practices in Acts 2 and 4, in which it is respectively noted that, "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need," and "Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."

The commune is at the heart of libertarian communism, and while communistic association among a small Christian sect cannot be said to be an implementation of "communism" any more than the existence of a handful of collectives constitutes an implementation of "socialism," this was interpreted by Christian groups such as the Diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) to provide endorsement for a more widespread framework.

[spiltteeth]

Why would God, an omnipotent being, create men, non-omnipotent beings, so that they could later figure out a way to become omnipotent, in order to participate in his goodness?

Why didn't god make men omnipotent a priori? Isn't he all powerful? Doesn't he have the resources and the time to accomplish that?

Why can men only participate in his goodness by becoming omnipotent?

its not about omnipotence - power; its about love. Haven't you ever had something good - food, an idea, an experience etc - that you wanted to share with someone? Out of love?
Men and women still retain their individuality, they do not become omnipotent/competing gods, your entire ideological framework is capitalistic, its all about power and competition for you, they 'become God' in the sense that they share in his goodness and are remade in a new state.
Some people see the devil everywhere, some people see capitalists everywhere, and some people see the goodness even in the horror of things.
It says alot about your mentality, how you only interpret things in terms of power, struggle, manipulation, and conflict...

[Havet]

its not about omnipotence - power; its about love. Haven't you ever had something good - food, an idea, an experience etc - that you wanted to share with someone? Out of love?
Men and women still retain their individuality, they do not become omnipotent/competing gods, your entire ideological framework is capitalistic, its all about power and competition for you, they 'become God' in the sense that they share in his goodness and are remade in a new state.
Some people see the devil everywhere, some people see capitalists everywhere, and some people see the goodness even in the horror of things.
It says alot about your mentality, how you only interpret things in terms of power, struggle, manipulation, and conflict...

Funny way of avoiding my points entirely. It truly shows your years of experience in religion.

[spiltteeth]

Funny way of avoiding my points entirely. It truly shows your years of experience in religion.


Why didn't god make men omnipotent a priori? Isn't he all powerful? Doesn't he have the resources and the time to accomplish that?

Because, as I say, God created men to share in His goodness, which, as I've explained but will point it out in childrens bite size simplicity - omnipitence has nothing to do with goodness, but with power.


Why can men only participate in his goodness by becoming omnipotent?

As I've already said, but I'll simplify - no one said that. Being omnipitent does not equal being God nor does it equal goodness nor does it equal sharing in goodness.

I'm sure being all powerfull is the ultimite good in yr mind, but not it is love which is the focus in Christianity.

As I've already said, the focus is on love not power.

As no doubt you know, God created Man and Woman in perfect acord with his goodness, and Man chose self will - to be self centered instaed of God-centered.
How do we know that we will not learn more spiritually from having gone through it? Isn't it better to struggle and consciously accept God's plan for us than to simply exist oblivious to anything else?

Perhaps yr saying why didn't God just create us without free will - whyc didn't He create perfect obedient robots that would never sin in the first place and so would'nt need to practice Theosis?
If this is what yr asking I'd suggest having free will is a greater good than being a perfect puppet of God's will.
If God's goal is an end result after the struggle and possibility of falling, then a so-called perfect human who was created incapable of error or whose will was predetermined in God's favor at his creation isn't really an example of what God had in mind when he conceived of "perfect human." In fact that kind of being would be fairly inhuman - not more human.

As I say, its interesting you cannot understand love, how a person would freely give goodness selflessy; but concentrate on "omnipitence" - which noone brought up but you apparently see power and struggle in God, where the Christian notion is one of Love.

Really, the original quote had all this in it, it said share in God's GOODNESS which you read as omnipitence - God's power.

Hope this helps !

[Havet]

Because, as I say, God created men to share in His goodness, which, as I've explained but will point it out in childrens bite size simplicity - omnipitence has nothing to do with goodness, but with power.

You said:

"we believe God created man so that man could become God"

But now you're saying

"God created men to share in His goodness"

And the question i raised was: Why do men need to become god in order to share his goodness?


As I've already said, but I'll simplify - no one said that. Being omnipitent does not equal being God nor does it equal goodness nor does it equal sharing in goodness.

I'm sure being all powerfull is the ultimite good in yr mind, but not it is love which is the focus in Christianity.

As I've already said, the focus is on love not power.

As no doubt you know, God created Man and Woman in perfect acord with his goodness, and Man chose self will - to be self centered instaed of God-centered.

Actually, nobody created man and woman. They arose naturally through natural selection of primates.


How do we know that we will not learn more spiritually from having gone through it? Isn't it better to struggle and consciously accept God's plan for us than to simply exist oblivious to anything else?

It might be better (to one's feelings), but that does not mean it's the truth.


Perhaps yr saying why didn't God just create us without free will - whyc didn't He create perfect obedient robots that would never sin in the first place and so would'nt need to practice Theosis?
If this is what yr asking I'd suggest having free will is a greater good than being a perfect puppet of God's will.
If God's goal is an end result after the struggle and possibility of falling, then a so-called perfect human who was created incapable of error or whose will was predetermined in God's favor at his creation isn't really an example of what God had in mind when he conceived of "perfect human." In fact that kind of being would be fairly inhuman - not more human.

Perhaps there just isn't a fucking god?


As I say, its interesting you cannot understand love, how a person would freely give goodness selflessy; but concentrate on "omnipitence" - which noone brought up but you apparently see power and struggle in God, where the Christian notion is one of Love.

Playing the "you don't understand love" card is not an argument


Hope this helps !

Not really

The whole question was about if God was a capitalist. You said that he can't, because his resources are unlimited, or whatever

"If you "own" everything, noone can add to it etc"

If he is unlimited EVERYTHING, HOW COULD HE CREATE HUMANS IF NOTHING CAN ADD UP?

[ComradeMan]

"we believe God created man so that man could become God"

"God created men to share in His goodness"

From either a Christian or Jewish perspective I see no contradiction here. God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent therefore man is part of God and works his way towards the Crown so to speak. If arriving at the Crown is sharing in his goodness what is the contradiction?

Why do men need to become god in order to share his goodness?

Because man is not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. A fish is part of the sea but the sea is not part of the fish.

Actually, nobody created man and woman. They arose naturally through natural selection of primates.

Well, again there is nothing in evolution that necessarily contradicts anything in Judaeo-Christian belief. If you take a peshat exegis there might be a problem but the remez or deeper insight will help you through meaningful darash or inquiry to reach sod, the secret- this is the concept of "pardes" or reading scripture on different levels- something lost on religious zealots and atheists alike. The Vatican stated already that they have no qualms with science's take on the materialistic evolution of man.

When the Old Testament/Tanakh says, "man was created in the image of God" it does not actually mean that God looks like man. We cannot give human attributes to God.

Perhaps there just isn't a fucking god?

No need to get angry.

Well, i thought the law of probabilities suggested it was more likely that there was but seeing as we cannot prove it either way it's a pointless statement. God is beyong being, so saying God is or God isn't- is irrelevant.

Playing the "you don't understand love" card is not an argument-

Well love is a human attribute created in the human mind and completely subjective, so he may have a valid point there.

The whole question was about if God was a capitalist. You said that he can't, because his resources are unlimited, or whatever

"If you "own" everything, noone can add to it etc"

If he is unlimited EVERYTHING, HOW COULD HE CREATE HUMANS IF NOTHING CAN ADD UP?

Your statement is unclear. But the original point, "God is a capitalist", well you may as well say God is a rabbi, for as much sense as it makes. Capitalism is a human attribute.

By the way, God in the Old Testament/Tanakh forbids the acrual of interest on money lent "neshek" Psalm 15: O Lord, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; … who stand by their oath even to their hurt; who do not lend money at interest, and do not take a bribe against the innocent.


According to Torah, it essential that people do not make each other debt slaves and exploit each other in pursuit of money.
either land (the basis of the covenant) nor the people are to be exploited for personal gain. Rather they are to be good neighbours to each other and good stewards of the land. The tithe (Dt. 12:17-19), for instance, is fundamentally a command to
use what you have for the benefit of all. The commands concerning aliens, strangers, widows and orphans are demands that generosity be observed: one who harvests a field must not seek to maximise his profit- he is to leave the gleanings for those who are in need. Linked to these is the command concerning the Sabbath year, when the land is not to be sown: in each case (the tithe, the gleanings and the Sabbath year) a limit is imposed to remind the people that it is God’s good gifts that they plough, sow and eat, and not the result of their own work and not solely for their own benefit. This is echoed also in Nehemiah when he calls the ‘nobles and officials’ to repentance and in particular to stop charging interest on what they are lending (Neh 5.10) and make restitution. In the New Testament, Jesus encounters Zacchaeus, a tax collector and probable moneylender, directly echoes Nehemiah. The sign of Zacchaeus’ repentance and that he has really changed his ways is that he pays back ‘four times’ the money he extorted (Luke 19).


So, in the New Testament I believe it states that borrowing and lending are bad and generally condones equal measures and fair trade, with a slight ecological tinge to it in the celebration of jubilees and not taking crops. Quite uncapitalistic really....

Jesus says we cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt 6:19-24).


See also

Deuteronomy 15.3 & 23.20; Leviticus 25.39-54: Psalm 15;


Nehemiah 5; and Ezekiel 18.4-9; 22.12; Luke 19.1-27.


Source http://www.mile.org.uk/%C5%92Neither%20a%20borrower%20nor%20a%20lender%20 be%C2%B9%20(2).pdf



So I don't think we can call God a capitalist, other things perhaps may be argued, but capitalism no.



:D

[ComradeMan]

Double posted again! Sorry- please delete!

[spiltteeth]

=hayenmill;1659334]You said:

"we believe God created man so that man could become God"

But now you're saying

"God created men to share in His goodness"

And the question i raised was: Why do men need to become god in order to share his goodness?

uh, because they are not as good...and I did explain what is meant by "become God;" to put it yet a third way : theosis refers to the attainment of likeness to or union with God, that is the final stage of this process of transformation and is pretty much the goal of the spiritual life.

it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).
Through theoria, the contemplation of the triune God, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God) restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve


Actually, nobody created man and woman. They arose naturally through natural selection of primates.

Natural selection precludes the evolution of belief systems, so it is logically inconsistent to believe in evolution without telos, AND think that people have beliefs, but belive what you wish.
I have faith in science, logic, and rationality and so believe whatever they dictate.


It might be better (to one's feelings), but that does not mean it's the truth.



Perhaps there just isn't a fucking god?


Perhaps. It's an irrational thought that defies both logic and science but who knows...


Playing the "you don't understand love" card is not an argument


I gave plenty of explanation.


Not really

The whole question was about if God was a capitalist. You said that he can't, because his resources are unlimited, or whatever

"If you "own" everything, noone can add to it etc"

If he is unlimited EVERYTHING, HOW COULD HE CREATE HUMANS IF NOTHING CAN ADD UP?

I have no idea what this grammatically incorrect sentence is suppose to mean.
But as I say, if one has UNLIMITED resources which one has direct control of adding to them does not create surplus : infinity plus one is still infinity.

Unlimited resources renders the concept of surplus meaningless.
I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

[sarmchain]

Don't forget the part in the new testment when jesus says all women are inferior to men and must not speak when in a temple/church, jesus was NOT a socialist he was a cult leader who wanted to set up something that vagaly looked like socialism away from society so he could brain wash his followers without interference from anybody sadly 2000 years have blown him out of proportion but the fact remains he was basicly a 1st century Jim Jones

[ComradeMan]

Don't forget the part in the new testment when jesus says all women are inferior to men and must not speak when in a temple/church, jesus was NOT a socialist he was a cult leader who wanted to set up something that vagaly looked like socialism away from society so he could brain wash his followers without interference from anybody sadly 2000 years have blown him out of proportion but the fact remains he was basicly a 1st century Jim Jones


Don't forget the anti-Semitic and racist rantings of Proudhon... perhaps Marx too....

[Agnapostate]

Don't forget the part in the new testment when jesus says all women are inferior to men and must not speak when in a temple/church

There's no part of the New Testament where such a statement by Jesus is recorded. The statements you refer to are both in letters of Paul, and both are regarded as forgeries by textual scholars.

[sarmchain]

Don't forget the anti-Semitic and racist rantings of Proudhon... perhaps Marx too....
yes but last time i checked people dont worship Proudhon or Marx , Bakunin was also very much a anti-semite but once again people dont build 500ft tall statues of him and say we sould all strive to be like him , and with those points aside Proudhon,Marx, and Bakunin were just men who wrote theorys and such , jesus on the other hand claimed to be the son of a god you really cant compair them

[ComradeMan]

yes but last time i checked people dont worship Proudhon or Marx , Bakunin was also very much a anti-semite but once again people dont build 500ft tall statues of him and say we sould all strive to be like him , and with those points aside Proudhon,Marx, and Bakunin were just men who wrote theorys and such , jesus on the other hand claimed to be the son of a god you really cant compair them

Oh no?

Ever visited Karl Marx's tomb at Highgate?

Been to Lenin's tomb? Seen the statue of King Sung? The numerous Che souvenirs....

PS It is debatable whether Jesus ever said of himself that he was the son of God and it is also open to debate exactly what that may or may not have meant to Jews 2000 years ago.

[mikelepore]

He was a worker- perhaps a carpenter, the Greek word is "teknon", perhaps an artisan of some time.
you mean "technites", because "to teknon" is a child in ancient greek.

The spelling is "tekton" (tau epsilon kappa tau omega nu) -- manual laborer, house builder, furniture maker. That's the word for Jesus that modern people believe to mean a carpenter.

[ComradeMan]

The spelling is "tekton" (tau epsilon kappa tau omega nu) -- manual laborer, house builder, furniture maker. That's the word for Jesus that modern people believe to mean a carpenter.


Thanks, I made a mistake with the Greek in the original post. The idea of his being a carpenter is not certain, some kind of artisan I think... perhaps a mason (cue conspiracy theories.... :)).

[Solzhenitsyn]

Why would God, an omnipotent being, create men, non-omnipotent beings, so that they could later figure out a way to become omnipotent, in order to participate in his goodness?

Why didn't god make men omnipotent a priori? Isn't he all powerful? Doesn't he have the resources and the time to accomplish that?

Why can men only participate in his goodness by becoming omnipotent?

Theosis doesn't mean you get to become omnipotent. Quite obviously you can't become God ontologically either. It only pertains to certain properties of God which are transmutable to men.

Image an iron poker in a blacksmiths furnace. Because of the union between them, some of the properties of the fire are transferred to the poker. It becomes luminescent and radiates heat. At no time does the poker cease to be iron and transform itself into fire nor does this transformation occur in the absence of a close union between them.

[ComradeMan]

Theosis doesn't mean you get to become omnipotent. Quite obviously you can't become God ontologically either. It only pertains to certain properties of God which are transmutable to men.

Image an iron poker in a blacksmiths furnace. Because of the union between them, some of the properties of the fire are transferred to the poker. It becomes luminescent and radiates heat. At no time does the poker cease to be iron and transform itself into fire nor does this transformation occur in the absence of a close union between them.

Thank you.

See other thread on impossibility of God.

[ComradeMan]

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/forum/download/file.php?id=299&sid=134c4d92c539dd7f19ac61b83fabb916

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/forum/download/file.php?id=299&sid=134c4d92c539dd7f19ac61b83fabb9 16

[the last donut of the night]

Let me get this straight:

Jesus could not have been a socialist because there was no capitalism to oppose.

The end.

(And this coming from a Christian)

[ComradeMan]

Let me get this straight:

Jesus could not have been a socialist because there was no capitalism to oppose.

The end.

(And this coming from a Christian)


This presumes that socialism, which traces its roots back into antiquity in terms of its ideas, needs to have capitalism in order to exist in opposition. Bad argumentation here.... case open again...!:D

[the last donut of the night]

This presumes that socialism, which traces its roots back into antiquity in terms of its ideas, needs to have capitalism in order to exist in opposition. Bad argumentation here.... case open again...!:D

Well, when we generally discuss socialism on this website, we refer to anti-capitalism and scientific socialism...not some utopian gobbledygook.

[ComradeMan]

Well, when we generally discuss socialism on this website, we refer to anti-capitalism and scientific socialism...not some utopian gobbledygook.

I'm sure the Gracchi would be pleased to know they were guilty of utopian gobbledygook, besides all things have causes and effects and to deny the roots of modern socialist thought, however ancient and far from our modern era, because they are utopian goobledygook just strikes me as intellectually arrogant.

[Owen-]

but if everyone took the bible literally today we'd have a modern Inquisition.

many Christains I think would make the argument that the bible should be taken literally. If you say anything about the mass murdering of cities, killing of homosexuals, rebellious teens, etc. They'll say:

Old Testament=Law of Moses and so isn't counted nowadays...
God changed his mind or some shit like that.

Imo Jesus WAS a Commie. check out my essay on it if you want :)

[sarmchain]

"you know you have created a god in your own image when he belives all the same things you do" i forget who said this quote , but its really true socialists say the bible supports socialism and will bring up passages to support that idea , capitalists say the bible supports capitalism and will cite passages, pacifists say the bible is against all violence, and people like the army of god say the bible tells them to go out and kill people ,the truth is it does not support or go against any of these ideas , but as history will attest people just lovvvve it when there ideas are backed by there god

[Owen-]

"you know you have created a god in your own image when he belives all the same things you do" i forget who said this quote , but its really true socialists say the bible supports socialism and will bring up passages to support that idea , capitalists say the bible supports capitalism and will cite passages, pacifists say the bible is against all violence, and people like the army of god say the bible tells them to go out and kill people ,the truth is it does not support or go against any of these ideas , but as history will attest people just lovvvve it when there ideas are backed by there god

Too true I suppose.... Shame lol

[Dave B]

I think that the idea of creating a god in your own image when he (God) believes all the same things you do (or has the same ‘values’) originates from Feuerbach eg;



Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy; Part 3: Feuerbach


He proves 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)


To understand Feuerbach argument requires a bit complex open minded lateral thinking, a willingness to engage in a bit of psychoanalysis, an appreciation of the importance of emotional reactions and feelings on ‘ideology’, the ‘philosophical’ core or content of ‘early Christianity’ (the gospel material principally), amongst other things.

The idea was that ideology or the way that people think and feel about things was turned into metaphysical or allegorical myths or beliefs, religion, that represented or resonated with it. And that people could not or would not hold onto or propose that religion unless it was compatible with their general set of values or value system.

The issue of a religious system being imposed from above by a ruling class to serve its own ends or an existing one being modified for the same purpose is a related one, but as far as Feuerbach’s essence of Christianity is concerned at this point it is not relevant.

As Christianity was seen as a religious system originating from the oppressed class.

So the idea was if ideology or the way that people think and feel about things is turned into a mythological representation, or religion . Then by analysing religion one can gain an insight into the ideology and the way that the people that followed it thought and felt about things.

What Feuerbach thought he saw in early Christianity was ideas of co-operation, mutual aid and solidarity etc expressed in the concept of ‘love’ I suppose, and an opposition to its of antithesis of self serving greed, hierarchy and oppression etc.

In as much as this was not put or represented on rational materialistic basis; or in other words co-operation, mutual aid and solidarity would be good for each individual of the then oppressed class.

Which is the position of modern materialist anarchists and communists.

It was supposed that it must have been the expression and evidence of something innate in the human condition or part of our human nature or essence.

At first Marx and Engels accepted this position eg;

To Ludwig Feuerbach In Bruckberg Paris, August 11 1844




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!

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)

However a bit later as a result of Stirner’s Ego and his own it was bought to their attention that you could not reconcile materialism, which is essentially an egotistical system, with a supposition of an non egotistical ‘idea’ of a mutual aid and communistic human essence or instinct.

Without at least a hypothesis for a material origin for it.

In a pre Darwinian age anyway.

So they abandoned it and wrote the German ideology as an act of repentance and catharsis.

There is I think an important letter relating to this that probably needs to be read completely however there is an extract below;



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


We must not simply cast it aside, but rather use it as the perfect expression of present-day folly and, while inverting it, continue to build on it. This egoism is taken to such a pitch, it is so absurd and at the same time so self-aware, that it cannot maintain itself even for an instant in its one-sidedness, but must immediately change into communism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm)



Irrespective of whether or not you think Feuerbach was reading too much into early Christianity to draw out or hypothesise about the existence of a social instinct for mutual aid. The argument obviously re-appeared as a materialistic one with Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid and Pannekoek’s ‘Marxism And Darwinism’;

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

And something that continues with the reciprocal altruism theorists.

And something Engels himself later accepted albeit perhaps on different terms;

Engels to Pyotr Lavrov In London 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)

And again from; Frederick Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
Part 3: Feuerbach



Feuerbach’s idealism consists here in this: he does not simply accept mutual relations based on reciprocal inclination between human beings, such as sex love, friendship, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc., as what they are in themselves — without associating them with any particular religion which to him, too, belongs to the past; but instead he asserts that they will attain their full value only when consecrated by the name of religion. The chief thing for him is not that these purely human relations exist, but that they shall be conceived of as the new, true, religion.

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


But then again perhaps ‘mutual relations based on reciprocal inclination’ is just for the birds;

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


.

[ComradeMan]

But what do YOU think?
:D

When it comes to religious arguments, I value the scholarship and the various theories and interpretations but perhaps in a more existentialist vain I think that fundamentally it is down to the individual to decide.