Religion does not need God.

[Buffalo Souljah]

I am tired of hearing about how wrong and reactionary religious tradition(s) is(are). There is considerable literature on nontheistic religion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism), particularly in Protestant denominations of Christianity; there are other examples elsewhere, in other faiths--I just feel that Christianity is a religion we Westerners have more exposure to, so that's why I mention it here. Additionally, much of the Hegelian tradition (for what it's worth), people like Otto and Bauer, as well as sociology of religion and religious studies proper are not (necessarily) concerned with ideas of any (literal or metaphoric) deity. We could argue about what religion sans God is, but that's another debate entirely...my point being the above, that religion does not need (a) God(s).

[red cat]

But we don't need religion as well.

[Buffalo Souljah]

But do you mean by religion? The truth value of what you said is dependent on what you mean by the word "religion". In the same way, I could say "I don't need ice cream", or something along those lines.

[tradeunionsupporter]

True.

[¿Que?]

But do you mean by religion? The truth value of what you said is dependent on what you mean by the word "religion". In the same way, I could say "I don't need ice cream", or something along those lines.
The meaning of religion is implicit in your original post. So your response simply begs the question, what do you mean by religion.

Not that I care too much, but to make a semantic argument out of Red Cat's comment seems to me a little cop outish. Instead, you should have requested that he justify his response.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


Religion does not need God.

I think the most important aspect for individuals is the ethic aspect.I.E.:

Religion is the will to be right without sanity.

The trick is you build a religion, which include a "higher" sanity, any kind of god, to establish your actions.

-> Poly-mono- or pantheistic systems (last for example capitalism/democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html))

-> I think even a system wich is startet as scientific, like marxism, can changed into a religion, if they are not developed to a higher stage (the "higher sanity" for regress/invoking is than Marx :D ) see my signature.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-religion-t73036/index7.html

Kind regards

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am tired of hearing about how wrong and reactionary religious tradition(s) is(are). There is considerable literature on nontheistic religion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism), particularly in Protestant denominations of Christianity;

Yeah, but it's so much double-talk and bafflegab. If God does not exist as an entity, why bother being a Christian? Certainly your average run-of-the-mill believer has no truck with logomachistic chicanery.


there are other examples elsewhere, in other faiths--I just feel that Christianity is a religion we Westerners have more exposure to, so that's why I mention it here. Additionally, much of the Hegelian tradition (for what it's worth), people like Otto and Bauer, as well as sociology of religion and religious studies proper are not (necessarily) concerned with ideas of any (literal or metaphoric) deity. We could argue about what religion sans God is, but that's another debate entirely...my point being the above, that religion does not need (a) God(s).

That doesn't make religion in general any less ridiculous, and certainly in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, to claim to be a believer and yet to also say that there are no gods destroys the ultimate justification for any claims made in the name of the faith in question.

[synthesis]

I am tired of hearing about how wrong and reactionary religious tradition(s) is(are). There is considerable literature on nontheistic religion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism), particularly in Protestant denominations of Christianity; there are other examples elsewhere, in other faiths--I just feel that Christianity is a religion we Westerners have more exposure to, so that's why I mention it here. Additionally, much of the Hegelian tradition (for what it's worth), people like Otto and Bauer, as well as sociology of religion and religious studies proper are not (necessarily) concerned with ideas of any (literal or metaphoric) deity. We could argue about what religion sans God is, but that's another debate entirely...my point being the above, that religion does not need (a) God(s).

I would posit that virtually all ideologies are "non-theistic religions," at least those that are not already theistic religions.

[Invincible Summer]

Nontheistic religion just sounds like New Age "spiritual" bollocks.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!

-> Only the godabstraction must change, because the idea (image) of god not too much collide with the knowledge of the average individual and also not with the production-relations! (it is always a unit: ideology and practice)
(Marx: religion is a snakeskin for/over a certain time)

( i.e.: globalism of capitalism needs pantheism (called secularity:D) to overcome the geographical limits of the old religions to make profit and eat our planet on every places! )

-> Mythos -> Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Pantheism (religion of modern bourgeoisie/ democrat (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html))


Nontheistic religion just sounds like New Age "spiritual" bollocks.

New Age is a modern Esoterik-direction which is good suitable to practice in frame of pantheism. ( pantheism is the religion of capitalism )

-> Because the target/destination of pantheism is a endless number of opinions, because this exactly guaranteed that their is only one power left-over: the capital!

Every religion needs a good, because:

Religion is the will to be right without sanity. - Philzer

This means the individual convenes of a "higher" sanity to justify all his actions which you can subsume under growth target/greed

-> opportunism, i.e. Israel/Palestine or eating the world by USA/NATO (http://www.breathingearth.net/)

-> Pantheism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3)

Kind regards

[Philzer]

Hi NoXion!

In the sientific quarrel I prefer mind, not guns.

So I think it would be better you have counter-arguments or questions instead "let play your muscles".

Otherwise red is my favorite color, why not even for the reputation-buttons, thanks for the 18 negative-points.

:star3:

Kind regards

[Buffalo Souljah]

I suppose as far as regards religion, I could offer my own biography, but I don't know what good that would do you. I think, as with finding an old trinket that appears at first glance to have little value, as opposed to immediately disposing of it and forgetting ever having come across it, one should examine such artefacts to glean from them some personal affects, or additions to the personality. People have been suffering and rejoicing for many thousands of years and there is no reason to divest ourselves of every tradition, every historical account that has existed to this day. The Greek myths are beautiful, and they are also meaning-creating. In the same way that these dealt with the "indescribable" aspects of nature, the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition attempts to make moral sense of an unfinished and developing world. True, many people believe in God all over the world, but can one not better relate to these "wretched of the earth" by understanding where it is they come from? I do not understand the rapidity with which contemporary leftist intellectuals dismiss religion as absurd: it is that, but isn't life also absurd? Couldn't one argue that certainty in all matters and clarity in all things is impossible and, furthermore, that it is not even necessary? I think it is just as ill-driven an undertaking to dismiss religion on the basis that it is illogical as it is, for instance, to apply the findings of quantum mechanics to human social relations. These are two diametrically opposed spheres-- who is to say that everything in life must be logical? And is it not a more enriching experience to draw from all these ancient myths and legends? Let's not put the cart in front of the horse: religion is not the cause of social repression; it is one effect of centuries of this. And in ridding oneself of it one is merely pulling the rug out from under possible alternatives to the current regime.

Look to Cuba, where relations between the government and the Church have flourished in the past twenty years: revolutiona and religion are not mutually exclusive. Jesus was a revolutionary, as were Mohammed, Buddha, Ghandi and all the figures throughout history who have shaped or influenced culture somehow by their actions. Let's not forget where we come from. If history is the narrative or man's liberation, then religion is its plot, its conflict, its anxiety manifest. And to act religiously is to take into account the larger (infinite) repercussions of one's actions on the world and on society. To act from religion is to act from infinity, as Kierkegaard puts it. There are certain elements, for me, to the Judeo-Christian tradition--justice, freedom, equality, fraternity--that are indispensible to any meaningful social activity.

To be continued...

[Invincible Summer]

I suppose as far as regards religion, I could offer my own biography, but I don't know what good that would do you. I think, as with finding an old trinket that appears at first glance to have little value, as opposed to immediately disposing of it and forgetting ever having come across it, one should examine such artefacts to glean from them some personal affects, or additions to the personality. People have been suffering and rejoicing for many thousands of years and there is no reason to divest ourselves of every tradition, every historical account that has existed to this day. The Greek myths are beautiful, and they are also meaning-creating. In the same way that these dealt with the "indescribable" aspects of nature, the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition attempts to make moral sense of an unfinished and developing world. True, many people believe in God all over the world, but can one not better relate to these "wretched of the earth" by understanding where it is they come from? I do not understand the rapidity with which contemporary leftist intellectuals dismiss religion as absurd: it is that, but isn't life also absurd? Couldn't one argue that certainty in all matters and clarity in all things is impossible and, furthermore, that it is not even necessary? I think it is just as ill-driven an undertaking to dismiss religion on the basis that it is illogical as it is, for instance, to apply the findings of quantum mechanics to human social relations. These are two diametrically opposed spheres-- who is to say that everything in life must be logical? And is it not a more enriching experience to draw from all these ancient myths and legends? Let's not put the cart in front of the horse: religion is not the cause of social repression; it is one effect of centuries of this. And in ridding oneself of it one is merely pulling the rug out from under possible alternatives to the current regime.

Look to Cuba, where relations between the government and the Church have flourished in the past twenty years: revolutiona and religion are not mutually exclusive. Jesus was a revolutionary, as were Mohammed, Buddha, Ghandi and all the figures throughout history who have shaped or influenced culture somehow by their actions. Let's not forget where we come from. If history is the narrative or man's liberation, then religion is its plot, its conflict, its anxiety manifest. And to act religiously is to take into account the larger (infinite) repercussions of one's actions on the world and on society. To act from religion is to act from infinity, as Kierkegaard puts it. There are certain elements, for me, to the Judeo-Christian tradition--justice, freedom, equality, fraternity--that are indispensible to any meaningful social activity.

To be continued...


I see what you mean about Judeo-Christian religions having a similar fate as the ancient Greek/Egyptian religions, but the beliefs are almost as old and yet they are still prevalent. What do you make of this?

[red cat]

Jesus was a revolutionary, as were Mohammed, Buddha, Ghandi and all the figures throughout history who have shaped or influenced culture somehow by their actions.
To be continued...

What kind of revolutionary act of Gandhi was it to ask Indians to non-violently face British bullets ?

[Buffalo Souljah]

I see what you mean about Judeo-Christian religions having a similar fate as the ancient Greek/Egyptian religions, but the beliefs are almost as old and yet they are still prevalent. What do you make of this?I did not say they had a similar fate, but similar origins. The earliest forms of language were obviously mythical and religious... we have tales like the epic of Gilgamesh, the Akkadian and Babylonian creation myths (and other similar stories that survive from the Mesopotamian city-states--these are just the most popular and prevalent), the Homeric epics, etc. etc. The Judaic strain is simply one variant of this style that was, as you argue, "almost as old" as all the others, but was, nonetheless, different, in that it ultimately accepted certain elements of nature as mysterious and did not try to explain these: these were simply acts of God that could not be accounted for in any other way and were not interpreted or accounted for in any other way. This is what Rudolf Otto calls the "utterly other" quality of the Christian God.

Now, you ask why Judaeo-Protestant religious values survive today whereas the Greek myths and fables no longer "work" for most people. I would offer you the simple explanation that paganism was simply an earlier, more "primitive" form of religious ideation which was representative of a particular stage of mental production. WHile they are monumental examples of human creativity and ingenuity, we can no longer attribute natural forces to "divine personalities" , i.e., the seasons as following from Dmeter's annual search for her daughter, storms as representative of Poseidon's fury, and all the other heavenly "theater" which the Greek poesy constituted--these are simply no more "real" to us than werewolves and yettis, creative as they are.

The difference between the Greek myths and the Judeao-Protestant epic is the reliance in the latter on metaphor: we know we cannot "see" God's face; we know we cannot describe his Person and his Will, or any other facet of his "personality", so we "understand" him through the stories we are told of him, which are given to us through scripture (which is itself the work of man's hands by most interpretations, though there are a few exceptions--Orthodox Judaism, though this sect is fast dying, with a few communities still extant in New York and Israel). With the Judeao-Protestant mythos, God "leaves" the world and becomes a wholly seperate entity from it. God becomes eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and "utterly transcendent". He is everything we can know about him and then infinitely more. But, most importantly, he is necessary.

The reason for the appeal of religion, particularly the Christian faith, to me is its limitless depth and meaning which it offers the religious seeker. These are texts that have transformed and shifted throughout the centuries and have been speculated over for just as long. Ontologically speaking, it would be impossible for me to remain sane without some narrative to which I may attribute meaning and force in my life, from which to calculate my activity in the world, in the face of the sheer absurdity of existence. Of course there are low points, and doubt enters in, but, like a rich wine that grows more sweet with age, my faith grows and changes over the years.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to put religion in a "box"--to label it as this or that and be done with it, since it is for so many people a working force in their life: and it cuts both ways, too: religion can be used just as much as a force of liberation as it can for oppression; I look at the ministry of individuals like Bishop Romero, Juergen Moltmann, Dietrich Bonnhoeffer and many countless others as examples of religion as a force of contemporary renewal and of freedom. And, when it turns out that the great radical & progressive forces throughout history can also contribute so much pain and suffering and evil (Stalin's purges, the Great Leap Forward, Khmer Rouge, etc.) it becomes apparant that there exists in the world, now and ever, a great spiritual crisis, that only acts of unrepentant charity and superabundant love can overcome. (Luke 6:29-30) And there is just something beautiful and peaceful in the Eucharist and the Sacraments, as though one is stepping momentarilly out of the insanity and turmoil of the world and consummating one's existence.

I do not understand the quickness with which contemporary radicals, leftists, socialists and the rest dismiss Christian values as "a priori", when philosophers like Jacques Derrida, who advocate Justice as an a priori are left in peace. Jesus didn't ever want anything but equality and justice for all. Matthew 20:1–16 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Matthew&verse=20:1%E2%80%9316&src=%21) And there's nothing wrong with that!

[Buffalo Souljah]

What kind of revolutionary act of Gandhi was it to ask Indians to non-violently face British bullets ? Gandhi was just a man-- a very great man with Utopian ideals who left his footprint on the world for generations--but, again, just a man.

When you face an unrelenting oppressor, who cares for you only in as much as he can rend from you what little substance you have, then it takes a great soul to face that oppression and that tyranny and say "I will not stand for it". Gandhi knew he was in the right. He knew history would absolve him. Anything else is just idle speculation.

[¿Que?]

Christian values are culturally specific. If we accept them as "a priori" then we have to accept a form of exceptionalism. Justice, on the other hand, is and must be universal.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Christian values are culturally specific. If we accept them as "a priori" then we have to accept a form of exceptionalism I'm not advocating any kind of "ism"! I think radicalism and prophecy do not require adherence to any particular ideology, which would be paradoxical. However, that does not preclude us from embracing our own religious traditions and establishing ourselves within them. I am a Christian because I choose to be one, don't ask me to explain or verify for you why I've made this decision; it's something I choose to live with that does not cause any additional pain and suffering in my life, but allows me to sympathize with and understand the pain and suffering of those who have come before me (and those in the world today who call themselves Christians). About this, I will say no more.


Justice, on the other hand, is and must be universal.

But on what basis are you arguing this?

[¿Que?]

I'm not advocating any kind of "ism"! I think radicalism and prophecy do not require adherence to any particular ideology, which would be paradoxical. However, that does not preclude us from embracing our own religious traditions and establishing ourselves within them. I am a Christian because I choose to be one, don't ask me to explain or verify for you why I've made this decision; it's something I choose to live with that does not cause any additional pain and suffering in my life, but allows me to sympathize with and understand the pain and suffering of those who have come before me (and those in the world today who call themselves Christians). About this, I will say no more.
Christianity is a cultural belief system. Advocacy of Christianity is by definition a form of exceptionalism. At best, it is a personal belief that you don't push on other people, but deep down inside, the assumption is, you're right, everyone else is wrong. I realize I'm venturing dangerously close to cultural relativism, which is why a choose to do away with religion altogether.



But on what basis are you arguing this?
As for my assertion that justice is universal, I base this on a dialectical accounting of the "unjust" or experience of "injustice" as pertaining to a condition that is unpleasant, painful, or even unnecessary. That is justice is a condition opposed to injustice, which is by definition bad.

Now, since you seem to always be hung up on first premises, do you need me to define "bad" and "good" for you?

[Buffalo Souljah]

There's no need to be rude.

What you've said does not establish justice as an a priori, but as an a posteriori condition. There's a difference.


Advocacy of Christianity is by definition a form of exceptionalism.There is a difference between advocacy and belief. I believe Tylenol will help with my headache, I do not advocate that belief. The purpose of this thread was not to advocate any particular faith--at least not intentionally--but to inform (read the OP).


deep down inside, the assumption is, you're right, everyone else is wrong.This is not only untrue, but offensive. Who is "everyone else"? I don't see my faith so much as a decision of "right" and "wrong", in that I have been "going the wrong way" all my life and must now make a great turning, but that there are indispensible facets of meaning and truth and value to the Christian faith that is both deep and multifarious. I could sit up all night describing what religion does for me, but, like Kierkegaard, I'd get nowhere closer to revealing to you its meaning for me. It is through community that human life draws its significance, and, for me, that's one thing I can't be without, for my own sanity.

[red cat]

Gandhi was just a man-- a very great man with Utopian ideals who left his footprint on the world for generations--but, again, just a man.

When you face an unrelenting oppressor, who cares for you only in as much as he can rend from you what little substance you have, then it takes a great soul to face that oppression and that tyranny and say "I will not stand for it". Gandhi knew he was in the right. He knew history would absolve him. Anything else is just idle speculation.

Yes, a man with a great soul who got away with sleeping with a dozen women every night and enjoying a first class railway trip all over India in return for his service to British imperialism in liquidating armed struggles and collecting Indian soldiers for the world war.

[¿Que?]

There's no need to be rude.

What you've said does not establish justice as an a priori, but as an a posteriori condition. There's a difference.
I used an a posteriori argument, because I'm not familiar with Derrida. But if you assume I was making an a priori argument, why ask what I base it on. Seems sort of self evident in that case.


There is a difference between advocacy and belief. I believe Tylenol will help with my headache, I do not advocate that belief. The purpose of this thread was not to advocate any particular faith--at least not intentionally--but to inform (read the OP).
In terms of semantics, you are correct. Except that Marx laid out the correct premises of abstraction in the real activities of people, that is, in materialist rather than idealist premises. From these premises, we derive that belief is for the most part advocacy in the sense that people tend to advocate for what they believe, and never what they don't believe. Sure, there is the possibility that people believe without advocating, but this can only occur in a vacuum without real social interactions between people (Marx's original premise). You even hint at this when you suggest that you may have unintentionally advocated for Christianity.


...but that there are indispensible facets of meaning and truth and value to the Christian faith that is both deep and multifarious. I could sit up all night describing what religion does for me, but, like Kierkegaard, I'd get nowhere closer to revealing to you its meaning for me. It is through community that human life draws its significance, and, for me, that's one thing I can't be without, for my own sanity.
The thing about subjective truth is that it is subjective, in which case, what point is there me to argue differently. In any case, who ever said "community" had to involve any kind of homogeneous conformity to a particular belief system. I would, instead argue, that the fundamental characteristic of this community you seek, rather than grounded on idealist (read cultural) assumptions, should instead be founded on labor and the struggle to free it from alienation and exploitation.

Also, sorry for the rudeness.:)

[Buffalo Souljah]

The smudged pot criticizing the scuffed kettle? Perhaps not, but it is certainly the case that the shortcomings and contradictions of great historical figures are often-times whitewashed in more favorable light. This is a sad but true consequence of the human need for continuity and mythos. For instance, we don't learn in school that Jefferson had illegitimate children or that Andrew Jackson was an adulterer or that Ulysses S Grant speculated gold.

Lesson: People ain't perfect, and consistency is overrated.

(this was in response to red cat's post)

[red cat]

The smudged pot criticizing the scuffed kettle? Perhaps not, but it is certainly the case that the shortcomings and contradictions of great historical figures are often-times whitewashed in more favorable light. This is a sad but true consequence of the human need for continuity and mythos. For instance, we don't learn in school that Jefferson had illegitimate children or that Andrew Jackson was an adulterer or that Ulysses S Grant speculated gold.

Lesson: People ain't perfect, and consistency is overrated.

A perfect agent of British imperialism, that is what Gandhi was. Otherwise no one would denounce his own men rising up against British atrocities, and ask them to fight for Britain against other countries. No revolutionary would tell the untouchable, downtrodden "dalits" that they should take their job of cleaning peoples' shit and serving practically as slaves, sportingly, as "god specifies a duty for all".

[anticap]

So-called "Christians" [sic] (to call them by that name is tantamount to accepting their belief that Yeshua the Nazarene was "anointed" by the alleged supernatural creator of the natural universe, the character of Jewish mythology known variously as Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah, among other names) ought more accurately be called "Paulians." Members of the original cult of Yeshua were garden-variety Jews who viewed him as a garden-variety Jewish "prophet." The cult as it exists today, with all its pomp and regalia, consists mostly of cruft that was later grafted on, for various ideological reasons, beginning with Paul.

[Buffalo Souljah]

I used an a posteriori argument, because I'm not familiar with Derrida. But if you assume I was making an a priori argument, why ask what I base it on. Seems sort of self evident in that case.

I guess the emperor wears no clothes, after all...:blushing: My point being that it is just as irrational to establish justice as an a priori out of atheistic/materialistic grounds than it is for any other intent and/or purpose. I guess I am just too dumb and/or lazy to make the argument myself.



In terms of semantics, you are correct. Except that Marx laid out the correct premises of abstraction in the real activities of people, that is, in materialist rather than idealist premises. From these premises, we derive that belief is for the most part advocacy in the sense that people tend to advocate for what they believe, and never what they don't believe. Sure, there is the possibility that people believe without advocating, but this can only occur in a vacuum without real social interactions between people (Marx's original premise). You even hint at this when you suggest that you may have unintentionally advocated for Christianity.


The question then, I suppose, would become: well what is Christianity? And I guess I wouldn't have a satisfactory answer to this. I don't suppose, though, that Christianity and revolution are mutually exclusive, and liberation theologians around the world would argue that Christians and revolutionaries can and do join hands in the struggle against oppression--and that, exactly, is my point! I would emphasize and underscore the central vocation that both Christian humanism and Marxian materialism share with another, the search for an adequate criterion from which to understand man, and with which to transform him. Christianity is a faith of the oppressed, the underrepresented, and it certainly does not hurt one to understand this viewpoint. I think the metaphor of sub and superstructure goes far in sketching out the interrelations and transferences that exist between the two domains: one is inherently empirical, critical, theoretical and the other is polemical, transcendent, negative (i.e., "my Kingdom is not of this world").

The question remains, nonetheless, of how to synthesize these views. Attempts have been made--Juergen Moltmann's Religion and Revolution, Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed... there are other examples. But if anything can be said about these attempts it is the lasting value of the religion of the people and its continuing use as a force of empowerment and liberation.




The thing about subjective truth is that it is subjective, in which case, what point is there me to argue differently. In any case, who ever said "community" had to involve any kind of homogeneous conformity to a particular belief system. I would, instead argue, that the fundamental characteristic of this community you seek, rather than grounded on idealist (read cultural) assumptions, should instead be founded on labor and the struggle to free it from alienation and exploitation.


But is that not putting the cart in front of the horse? One could ask, "what do we do in the meantime... or afterwards?" Religion is an older phenomenon than is exploitation (look to the Eastern religions and to Native American sacridity), so one could argue it will always be around. Religion is poetry and vocation, and it is not for all people, but why proscribe those who feel drawn to it from practicing its rituals, if they should feel so inclined? Would you argue, like Rousseau, that man must be "made to be free"? Free from what? Art? I think members of a freely-associating society like the one Marx advocates would still engage in what could be called "religious practices": hell, look at the May Day celebrations in Cuba (http://www.revleft.com/vb/may-day-celebration-p1737152/index.html#post1737152)--I would certainly call that display "religious". I think the problem we're encountering is the nature of religion. Again, I don't think there is one simple answer for this. Nonetheless, I will refer you to a post I made in this forum at an earlier date:


I will name an example: a child is brought to his first communion. He hears the pangs of the organ and sees everyone standing witht heir hymnals, reciting "something strange", and the lecturn is "something strange", as are the processions, chants, responses, as well as the architecture of the building itself and the way the sound carries, etc. The child may be overwhelmed by all of these experiences, but may walk away from that place with the sense that there is "something strange" out there in the first place. Thus, the idea or concept of "something strange" becomes tangible and apparant in the child's mind, and he refers back to that experience from that point onward.
Source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/metaphor-and-idea-t132483/index.html)

I think it's too easy to call this and this "religious" and then dismiss these things as reactionary or conservative, when that interpretation may be the result of a restricted world view. I certainly don't think we live in a vacuum, and that is why it is so hard for me to simply give up on or dismiss the values that have been part and parcle to culture for millenia, for better or worse. I know I could make the same argument for the capitalist model, and I know that's treading shaky ground, but I think, whereas captialism is a system based on exploitation and repression that tends to alienate man from himself, religion, in all shapes and varieties, is man at his most creative and novel. And there is no need to dismiss something merely on the basis that it is "impractical" (that is not to say that religion is so). But I am winding on another tangent...



Also, sorry for the rudeness.:)
De nada.:p

[Buffalo Souljah]

No revolutionary would tell the untouchable, downtrodden "dalits" that they should take their job of cleaning peoples' shit and serving practically as slaves, sportingly, as "god specifies a duty for all".

As far as I know, Gandhi was largely responsible for doing away the centuries' old tradition of the caste system, or reducing its influence in India, at least publically (politically).

[¿Que?]

I think in the philosophic manuscripts, somewhere he says that atheism is a stage towards communism...

I'm a bit too tired to think about this right now.

[Buffalo Souljah]

I think a more suitable question would to ask me what exactly I mean by "transcendence". To this, I would answer, that universal faculty that binds all mankind together in the abstract "community of man". Now, I know this is rather vague, but I feel it is a principle that holds considerable value. We may go back to the argument of subjectivism, but, to this I would say, you have to start from somewhere.

To your other reply, I will say, Marx also wrote "de omnibus dubitandum", and I will certainly hold your feet to the fire on that one...Now get some sleep!;)

[spiltteeth]

As far as I know, Gandhi was largely responsible for doing away the centuries' old tradition of the caste system, or reducing its influence in India, at least publically (politically).

Actually he fiercely defending the caste system, threatening to kill himself if it was changed when the subject was up for democratic vote and he went on one of his starvation jags.
Gandhi is venomously hated by the untouchable class in India today.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hi NoXion!

In the sientific quarrel I prefer mind, not guns.

So I think it would be better you have counter-arguments or questions instead "let play your muscles".

I can't argue against nonsense. And your bloviating about violence is ridiculous in light of the fact that I cannot physically hurt you.


Otherwise red is my favorite color, why not even for the reputation-buttons, thanks for the 18 negative-points.

:star3:

Kind regards

There's plenty more where they came from.


I think a more suitable question would to ask me what exactly I mean by "transcendence". To this, I would answer, that universal faculty that binds all mankind together in the abstract "community of man". Now, I know this is rather vague, but I feel it is a principle that holds considerable value.

How can it have "value" if you can't even define it? "Transcendant" is a word that myth-mongers love because one can use to mean anything and nothing, perhaps even at the same time.

[¿Que?]

To your other reply, I will say, Marx also wrote "de omnibus dubitandum", and I will certainly hold your feet to the fire on that one...Now get some sleep!;)

Well, I was pretty tired when I wrote that. But here is the quote:

This material, immediately perceptible private property is the material perceptible expression of estranged human life. Its movement – production and consumption – is the perceptible revelation of the movement of all production until now, i.e., the realisation or the reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence. Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, of man’s inner life, but economic estrangement is that of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects. It is evident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends on whether the true recognised life of the people manifests itself more in consciousness or in the external world – is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset (Owen (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/o/w.htm#owen-robert)) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.

I may have misinterpreted the quote, but there it is. That's where I got that from...

[Buffalo Souljah]

How can it have "value" if you can't even define it? "Transcendant" is a word that myth-mongers love because one can use to mean anything and nothing, perhaps even at the same time.I don't know. You could argue that the concept God has value for many people the world over, but I guess they could be attaching it (value) to it ('God') falsely, or under false pretenses. I certainly understand the interpretation of religion as a cathartic, reactionary element that is most resistent to change. If you'd ever ettend (haha, ettend--makes me think of an e-service:laugh:) one of the church services in any Primitive Baptist or Southern Baptist or Church of Christ (etc.) churches, you'd know exactly how these groups tend to "prop up" the prevailing cultural norms. All I'm saying is that "religion" in the broad sense is fundamental to the way human beings think and, moreover, organize. I think there is such a thing as a secular religion, which defines itself negatively in its rejection of religion, which it does absolutely (that is to say, "religiously").

Just listen to these sections from an article on Cuban May Day celebrations:

Hundreds of thousands of people, most in red shirts and many waving red flags, filed through the vast plaza where President Raul Castro and a podium full of dignitaries looked on from beneath a giant statue of national hero Jose Marti.

"Unity, Strength and Victory" read one sign in the parade, while another said "Spend less and produce more."Those seem like very "religious" icons, gestures and events to me. Now, there is a pointed difference in the "religion" of Cuban Communism and that of southern Baptists, but they both uphold ideals, eg., "spend less and produce more". Would you agree?

As to the bove quote, I would say I don't understand most of what Marx means here. I don't think atheism and communism have anything to do with each other, necessarilly. Arguably (and I'm not supporting this argument, just throwing it out there), one could establish a theistic framework in which 'God' established "the earth in common to all", and declared in a commandment that "thou shallt not own property." Why is that not possible (theoretically)? I don't think the argument holds up, but, nonetheless, as referred to in the OP, I don't think "religion" needs a God. Look at the Cubans, they already have Marti!:lol:

[Che a chara]

Well you don't need God to be spiritual. There's a difference in believing/having religion and being spiritual.

[MarxSchmarx]

I guess the emperor wears no clothes, after all...:blushing: My point being that it is just as irrational to establish justice as an a priori out of atheistic/materialistic grounds than it is for any other intent and/or purpose. I guess I am just too dumb and/or lazy to make the argument myself.



The question then, I suppose, would become: well what is Christianity? And I guess I wouldn't have a satisfactory answer to this. I don't suppose, though, that Christianity and revolution are mutually exclusive, and liberation theologians around the world would argue that Christians and revolutionaries can and do join hands in the struggle against oppression--and that, exactly, is my point! I would emphasize and underscore the central vocation that both Christian humanism and Marxian materialism share with another, the search for an adequate criterion from which to understand man, and with which to transform him. Christianity is a faith of the oppressed, the underrepresented, and it certainly does not hurt one to understand this viewpoint. I think the metaphor of sub and superstructure goes far in sketching out the interrelations and transferences that exist between the two domains: one is inherently empirical, critical, theoretical and the other is polemical, transcendent, negative (i.e., "my Kingdom is not of this world").

The question remains, nonetheless, of how to synthesize these views. Attempts have been made--Juergen Moltmann's Religion and Revolution, Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed... there are other examples. But if anything can be said about these attempts it is the lasting value of the religion of the people and its continuing use as a force of empowerment and liberation.

But is that not putting the cart in front of the horse? One could ask, "what do we do in the meantime... or afterwards?" Religion is an older phenomenon than is exploitation (look to the Eastern religions and to Native American sacridity), so one could argue it will always be around. Religion is poetry and vocation, and it is not for all people, but why proscribe those who feel drawn to it from practicing its rituals, if they should feel so inclined? Would you argue, like Rousseau, that man must be "made to be free"? Free from what? Art? I think members of a freely-associating society like the one Marx advocates would still engage in what could be called "religious practices": hell, look at the May Day celebrations in Cuba (http://www.revleft.com/vb/may-day-celebration-p1737152/index.html#post1737152)--I would certainly call that display "religious". I think the problem we're encountering is the nature of religion. Again, I don't think there is one simple answer for this. Nonetheless, I will refer you to a post I made in this forum at an earlier date:


Source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/metaphor-and-idea-t132483/index.html)

I think it's too easy to call this and this "religious" and then dismiss these things as reactionary or conservative, when that interpretation may be the result of a restricted world view. I certainly don't think we live in a vacuum, and that is why it is so hard for me to simply give up on or dismiss the values that have been part and parcle to culture for millenia, for better or worse. I know I could make the same argument for the capitalist model, and I know that's treading shaky ground, but I think, whereas captialism is a system based on exploitation and repression that tends to alienate man from himself, religion, in all shapes and varieties, is man at his most creative and novel. And there is no need to dismiss something merely on the basis that it is "impractical" (that is not to say that religion is so). But I am winding on another tangent...



De nada.:p

You make some fair points here that "religion" fulfills some vital human needs. However, what I do not follow is that just because it has done so in the past, why should it do so in the future? And moreover, why should it be the exclusive province of religion? Of course one can be both religious and revolutionary, but at the same time several people are secular and revolutionary. Moreover, organized religion very often conveniently aligns with the interests of the ruling classes. Some times it deviates and preaches a revolutionary praxis (as in the case of liberation theology in the catholic world or MLK in the USA) but these are the exceptions and religion is hardly a pre-requisite for their agendas. Of course I am all for challenging the existing order, but it is not obvious to me that liberation theology, say, is the sole route to this. Nor is it clear that in regions like Latin America one need invoke liberation theology to advance the struggle. Liberation theology can help, to be sure, but it is largely ancillary to the materialist, secular class struggle and arguably a mere manifestation of the latter.

Finally, religion is certainly creative and artistic even in some respects. However, we have to understand the history of religion as a failed route to understanding nature - all this talk about the resurrection and the angel Gabriel visiting a warlord in a cave and vishnu and Quetzocoatl and whatnot really are just theories about why the world is the way it is - basically crude attempts to explain social and natural phenomena. They have all failed to stand the test of time and have been replaced by viable alternatives like Marxist sociology that explains a lot of history or Newtonian mechanics that explains the movement of the stars. Most religious institutions are vestiges of this pre-scientific age and should be understood as such. Giving them any more credence needlessly constricts ourselves to their non-materialistic worldview.

[Invincible Summer]

Well you don't need God to be spiritual. There's a difference in believing/having religion and being spiritual.

The people that I know who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" seem to just pick and choose aspects of various religions (usually Christianity and Buddhism) that are easiest for them to follow and make them appear "deep."

How can one be "spiritual" yet not believe in a god, assuming one is referring to a universal power as "god," and not necessarily God from any specific religion? To me, believing in spirits or cosmic energy or whatever has the same undertones as any religion, just without the historical baggage. What use is believing in a spirit/soul if it is not connected to some sort of afterlife or universal energy (which can be a proxy for "god")?

[Che a chara]

The people that I know who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" seem to just pick and choose aspects of various religions (usually Christianity and Buddhism) that are easiest for them to follow and make them appear "deep."

How can one be "spiritual" yet not believe in a god, assuming one is referring to a universal power as "god," and not necessarily God from any specific religion? To me, believing in spirits or cosmic energy or whatever has the same undertones as any religion, just without the historical baggage. What use is believing in a spirit/soul if it is not connected to some sort of afterlife or universal energy (which can be a proxy for "god")?

Spiritual is more about state of mind and well being in yourself and your relationship to good morals. Inner peace basically. That can be self taught. Religion may have been used to get you on that path, but you don't necessarily need God to know what's right or wrong, especially if you have that inner peace and an appreciation of humanity.

You don't have to lay your life down for God. You don't carry out acts in God's name or approach others differently because of God's apparent will.

I'm not read up on this subject at all, this is just my opinion, but as long as you're spiritual, you may believe in God, but you don't have to. Being spiritual just may have you do things differently that you may think will harm yourself or others (mentally or physically), like not drinking, like walking and not driving etc. Peace of mind. I may be going off on one, but I hope you know where i'm coming from :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Spiritual is more about state of mind and well being in yourself and your relationship to good morals.

What's wrong with just behaving in a morally good fashion, rather than faffing around with all that mystical crap?


Inner peace basically. That can be self taught. Religion may have been used to get you on that path, but you don't necessarily need God to know what's right or wrong, especially if you have that inner peace and an appreciation of humanity.

You don't need spiritualism or "inner peace" (whatever that is) to know what's right or wrong.


You don't have to lay your life down for God. You don't carry out acts in God's name or approach others differently because of God's apparent will.

I'm not read up on this subject at all, this is just my opinion, but as long as you're spiritual, you may believe in God, but you don't have to. Being spiritual just may have you do things differently that you may think will harm yourself or others (mentally or physically), like not drinking,

There are perfectly good medical reasons for not drinking to excess, but there's nothing wrong with moderate consumption of alcohol.


like walking and not driving etc. Peace of mind. I may be going off on one, but I hope you know where i'm coming from :)

Actually I don't. It seems to me to that "spiritualism" is simply a way of not justifying one's decisions rationally.

[Invincible Summer]

Spiritual is more about state of mind and well being in yourself and your relationship to good morals. Inner peace basically. That can be self taught. Religion may have been used to get you on that path, but you don't necessarily need God to know what's right or wrong, especially if you have that inner peace and an appreciation of humanity.

You don't have to lay your life down for God. You don't carry out acts in God's name or approach others differently because of God's apparent will.

I'm not read up on this subject at all, this is just my opinion, but as long as you're spiritual, you may believe in God, but you don't have to. Being spiritual just may have you do things differently that you may think will harm yourself or others (mentally or physically), like not drinking, like walking and not driving etc. Peace of mind. I may be going off on one, but I hope you know where i'm coming from :)

So, basically you're saying being "spiritual" means not being a douchebag? But then why call it "spiritual," other than to create some sort of "deep" identity for yourself? If you dont' believe in a God or soul or anything like that, and just want to be a good person, then what's the point of assigning some ill-defined terminology to it?

[Che a chara]

NoXion and Helios+,

as i say, i'm not at all an expert or know much on this topic. i've been thinking about it and maybe spirituality may mean a belief in a god or a religion, but you have reached a higher sort of plane (that you always hear about :lol:) and understanding and inner peace, that you don't need to look at god or religion for comfort. you've already found it.

[trivas7]

...my point being the above, that religion does not need (a) God(s).
Indeed, Buddhism, animism, New Age and some Wiccan (Earth-based) religious traditions indeed have no need for that Invisible Person called God in the Western tradition. Nevertheless they all appeal to some non-objective, immaterial object, revelation or experience to legitimize control of some human beings over other human beings. In this sense they are all reactionary.

[Ele'ill]

Life is naturally set up to have reoccurring themes of purpose, meaningfulness, karma, clairvoyance, etc.. so that a god doesn't have to exist to still have the same affect as if it did.

[Philzer]

Hi!


Indeed, Buddhism, animism, New Age and some Wiccan (Earth-based) religious traditions indeed have no need for that Invisible Person called God in the Western tradition. Nevertheless they all appeal to some non-objective, immaterial object, revelation or experience to legitimize control of some human beings over other human beings. In this sense they are all reactionary.

I agree. But I would try to get in a scientific theory.

I.E. that the godabstraction must change, time by time, ( Marx: snakeskin-metapher) because not to disagree with economic demands of the rulers and also not disagree with the common sense of the peoples.

At the other side, do not forgett that EVERY opportunistic society, like capitalism, needs a god to satisfy the overexploitation of biotop and the exploitation of peoples.

general evolution of god-abstraction in opportunistic formations:

Mythos -> Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Pantheism

Kind regards