Is it possible to be Religious and Communist?

[PolishTrotsky]

Basically, can you be a good commie and religious at the same time? Or do their views conflict too much? Can religious views be adapted for Communism? Please answer these questions!

[red cat]

Basically, can you be a good commie and religious at the same time? Or do their views conflict too much? Can religious views be adapted for Communism? Please answer these questions!

In the present situation, yes. But I doubt how much of religion will be left after the first stages of socialist and cultural revolutions.

[Milk Sheikh]

Basically, can you be a good commie and religious at the same time? Or do their views conflict too much? Can religious views be adapted for Communism? Please answer these questions!

If you're religious like Kierkegaard, yes. But if you're religious like Phelps, hell no.

[Property Is Robbery]

Jesus was a Communist

[Sir Comradical]

For those trying to balance both - good luck reconciling the aim of creating a classless society with your belief in a holy dictator who sends people to hell for wanking.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Many are and there are organizations based around a socialist interpretation of various religions. I don't have a problem with it as long as comrades do not mix their religious beliefs with their political ones. If someone believes that the working class is exploited and can and should run society by replacing the present system, but also believes that after we die we get reincarnated or go to heaven, I don't have a problem. If people think that only a God can perfect society, then there is a conflict in the views.

[StoneFrog]

Religion and communism can work, but communism and the Church cannot. I just use church but really, its the body of religion which is used to control the mass based on beliefs, that cannot work with communism. Religion should be a personal thing, and never imposed onto another, or mixed into politics.

[9]

Basically, can you be a good commie and religious at the same time?
Gene Debs managed, so apparently its possible.. I think a lot of times religious beliefs correspond to reactionary views on other issues, though.

[ComradeMan]

A leading communist veteran in Italy at the moment is Communist, Christian and Gay.

Nichi Vendola.

So there you go...

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't see the point. If you're smart enough to lean towards communism, then why would you be dumb enough to believe in gods?

Rhetoric question, I know that there are many answers.

[Quail]

"If God existed it would be necessary to abolish him" - Bakunin.

This basically sums up my idea of the contradiction between a classless, stateless society and some form of supreme being. If there was a God, we would not truly be able to control our own lives.

[graymouser]

James Connolly was a Catholic and most definitely a good socialist at the same time. (As a result he wasn't really a good Catholic, but what can you do?) So obviously the answer is yes.

People's consciousness doesn't move in a simple, straightforward way from bourgeois ideology to socialism. People will frequently grasp at semi-formed ideas in their existing worldview to try and put together something that makes sense to them. For instance, you could make a very good argument that Christians should be living in small communes and only admit the rich who are willing to give up everything they have for the poor. But you couldn't very well form a working communist movement from that.

Religious socialists should neither be coddled nor alienated. When they have backward ideas, like anti-abortion and other similar tendencies, these should be fought; but we shouldn't become "new atheists" like Dawkins, Hitchens and so on.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I personally dont give a fuck. Whether you want to prescribe to some ancient bullshit and worshipping some clown with a funny hat one is none of my business and I could care less. Integration of religion and state should be abolished and looked on as laughable, but i think churches and mosques and synagogues and temples and whatnot should remain, at least where I am.

[bloodbeard]

Yes! I myself am a believer and a marxist. My belief in god alone have saved me in many circumstances in life, and that's reason enough for me to always believe in and submit to god. However I have no desire to go to heaven and salivate over it, no matter how appealing it sounds, the dream I hold on to is a future society where imperialism has faced it's end and the children of smug SOBs who ever doubted communism in our time will study about capitalism in history books only as a rudimentary and imperfect ideology of yesteryear.

[Tzonteyotl]

A problem I see with this issue a lot is that it always tends to focus on Christianity/Judaism/Islam, as evidenced by the remarks regarding reactionary views such as homophobia and being anti-abortion. Granted, given that these are the major religions we deal with, it's understandable. A concern for me however (especially being one myself) is how this affects perceptions of the far left among Native Americans and other Indigenous peoples around the world. Spirituality and a spiritual connection with nature is at the core of these cultures and that tends to include belief in a creative force of some kind. This obviously isn't everyone's cup of tea here. But, given that since the arrival of imperialist Europeans these cultures have been fighting for survival, subject to forced conversions, boarding schools, and constant insult and ridicule, they'd have a right to be somewhat suspicious. Because now, in comes a radical leftist to say "believing in gods is stupid." This would just represent another attack on their identities, a further destruction of their cultures only from a different angle.

[Gallup Rising]

I am kind of surprised that nobody brings up The FSLN, and im not talking about Daniel Ortega. Has anybody ever bothered to read about the history of Nicaragua? Possibly Christianity and Revolution by Tomas Borge. Also I definitely think Tzonteyotl is also correct. For further reading on that I recommend reading Andrea Smith.

[The Red Next Door]

:DSeem like somebody never heard of liberation theology.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes and there are a series of people here who are religious and staunch communists. My belief in Christ is my own, I don't seek to force it on anyone else, and I have my reasons for believing which cannot be taken away in the same manner that my belief in proceeding towards communism cannot.

Here a few groups which show that you can be both.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=171
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=529
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=302
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=234

[hatzel]

Sure, everybody loves Tolstoy...

This seems like the perfect opportunity to shamelessly plug my beloved Behar sozialistim, but I'll refrain...mainly because I can't face the shame of how small and pathetic an organisation we are at the moment...

Still, the point I'm getting is that, as far as I'm concerned, it's all good! :thumbup1:

[bricolage]

Maybe not a communist with a capital c...
But yes obviously you can be religious and communist, many have been many will be. I don't believe religion would exist long into a classless society but it will wither away (to use a value laden term) based on the destruction of the material conditions that spawn it not, as is the usual approach of militant atheists or anti-theists, by running around screaming 'your beliefs are stupid!!!' Obviously dealing with hierarchical and oppressive religious institutions is something to be address but the Vatican is not the same as the guy you live next door to who happens to pray every night before he goes to bed.

[ComradeMan]

Maybe not a communist with a capital c...
But yes obviously you can be religious and communist, many have been many will be. I don't believe religion would exist long into a classless society but it will wither away (to use a value laden term) based on the destruction of the material conditions that spawn it not, as is the usual approach of militant atheists or anti-theists, by running around screaming 'your beliefs are stupid!!!' Obviously dealing with hierarchical and oppressive religious institutions is something to be address but the Vatican is not the same as the guy you live next door to who happens to pray every night before he goes to bed.

I agree with some points... but...

Hang on a minute....

Can you be a Communist and a ruthless dictator? Someone who shows no respect for human rights and equality, for the principles of socialism and is an out-and-out autocrat? In which case a lot of the atheist/non-religious "communists" of history might also be called to question their being communists with a "C".

[hatzel]

...the Vatican is not the same as the guy you live next door to who happens to pray every night before he goes to bed.

...unless you happen to live in Rome.

Oh yeah, that joke was well worth the effort...:rolleyes:

[bricolage]

Can you be a Communist and a ruthless dictator? Someone who shows no respect for human rights and equality, for the principles of socialism and is an out-and-out autocrat? In which case a lot of the atheist/non-religious "communists" of history might also be called to question their being communists with a "C".
By communist with a capital c I meant official Communist Parties, 'Communist' regimes etc.

I don't think any of these people or capital c communism as a whole actually have anything to do with genuine communism.

[Tzonteyotl]

Maybe not a communist with a capital c...
But yes obviously you can be religious and communist, many have been many will be. I don't believe religion would exist long into a classless society but it will wither away (to use a value laden term) based on the destruction of the material conditions that spawn it not, as is the usual approach of militant atheists or anti-theists, by running around screaming 'your beliefs are stupid!!!' Obviously dealing with hierarchical and oppressive religious institutions is something to be address but the Vatican is not the same as the guy you live next door to who happens to pray every night before he goes to bed.

Maybe. Except for the spiritualities/religions of the Indigenous peoples around the world who lived in classless societies and whose beliefs are tied to the land. It'd be hard to destroy the material conditions that spawned those without actually destroying the material world, i.e. Earth.

[hatzel]

Maybe. Except for the spiritualities/religions of the Indigenous peoples around the world who lived in classless societies and whose beliefs are tied to the land. It'd be hard to destroy the material conditions that spawned those without actually destroying the material world, i.e. Earth.

Well, we could always give it a go...:rolleyes:

Seriously, though, it does really annoy me when people come out and say "well, the only reason people aren't atheists is because there are classes!" and "well, if there weren't classes, nobody would ever rape anybody!", largely as a little get-out clause whenever they don't have an answer of how they will 'deal with' whatever or whatever after the revolution. If we don't know how to 'deal with it', then we'll just blindly claim that it will cease to exist...I'm pretty sure this is how communism got a bad name, when people stuck fast in the idea that everything they didn't personally approve of would magically disappear, and then when it didn't...well, of course they had no strategy to cope with that setback...hence the whole system was fucked up by those who didn't feel like living in strict accordance with what was required of them for the system to operate seamlessly...so yeah, time for those who aim to eliminate religion to start coming up with an active strategy with which to achieve that. Preferably one that doesn't involve any kind of inquisition, if you don't mind...I don't like them...:thumbup1:

[robbo203]

For those trying to balance both - good luck reconciling the aim of creating a classless society with your belief in a holy dictator who sends people to hell for wanking.

Droll but, seriously, I dont think the two are neccesarily incompatible. They might be but they are not necessarily so.

For one thing the range of religions is far wider than the theistic guilt trip that is traditional Christianity. For another, many adherents to religions like the catholic church turn a blind eye to what its official spokespeople have to say. Case in point is the pope and his crackpot ideas about condoms (though public pressure has recently compelled himn to modify his ideas in relation to AIDs prevention). Presumably all those wankers that belong to the Church will be relieved to hear this.

On another matter, does anyone know of any political organisation that denies membership to individuals who hold religious beliefs? The only one I know of is the WSM (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)) but would be interested to learn about any others.

[bricolage]

My point was less about classes and more about the externalities of class based world. I strongly believe a lot of religious adherence comes from lack of a real human community, for example those who go to church every sunday because they are stuck in their flat on their own for the rest of the week. When I was talking about religion in a classless world I was more hinting at the fact that a lot of the reasons people are part of religious communities will no longer exist, not that everyone will suddenly pick up Dawkins instead of the Bible. That people will still be 'spiritual' sure, I just don't believe organised religion will exist in the way it does now.

As for how we will 'deal' with. I don't think anything needs to be 'dealt' with, obviously religious institutions won't have the power in society that they have now but I see no reason to 'deal' with individuals who chose to believe in God, as if this was someone kind of (irony intended) witch hunt.

[NKVD]

Religion is in contradiction with materialism. So you'll at the very least be contradicting your communist foundations by being religious.

[Tzonteyotl]

My point was less about classes and more about the externalities of class based world. I strongly believe a lot of religious adherence comes from lack of a real human community, for example those who go to church every sunday because they are stuck in their flat on their own for the rest of the week. When I was talking about religion in a classless world I was more hinting at the fact that a lot of the reasons people are part of religious communities will no longer exist, not that everyone will suddenly pick up Dawkins instead of the Bible. That people will still be 'spiritual' sure, I just don't believe organised religion will exist in the way it does now.


Again, these are based on generalizations and a bias in this issue towards the major religions, mainly Christianity in this thread. The way many church communities are now, especially the money churches (mega churches), sure there's not much in the way of an "actual human community." And sure, I could see such relations changing as a result of class consciousness and a unified socialist movement. But for many, a "real community" is found in their group's spirituality/religion. Indigenous people again, are an example, as their beliefs often center on respect and appreciation for not only their fellow humans, but for all life and the planet itself. It's based on a recognition of the inter-connectedness of everything, on our inter-dependence on each other. But yes, I'm sure organized religion would not exist in the same way it does now.

[L.A.P.]

If you actually follow the ideas if Jesus of Nazareth you're pretty much a Communist. However, the very ideas of marxism are contradictory to religion and most of the time atheism and communism go hand in hand.

[Tzonteyotl]

Religion is in contradiction with materialism. So you'll at the very least be contradicting your communist foundations by being religious.

Perhaps. But if you're true to the idea of the abolition of the oppression of man by man and are unwavering on that, what difference does it make?

[Gallup Rising]

As Rosemary Radford Ruether would say "Catholic Does Not Equal The Vatican!"

[bricolage]

Again, these are based on generalizations and a bias in this issue towards the major religions, mainly Christianity in this thread. The way many church communities are now, especially the money churches (mega churches), sure there's not much in the way of an "actual human community." And sure, I could see such relations changing as a result of class consciousness and a unified socialist movement. But for many, a "real community" is found in their group's spirituality/religion. Indigenous people again, are an example, as their beliefs often center on respect and appreciation for not only their fellow humans, but for all life and the planet itself. It's based on a recognition of the inter-connectedness of everything, on our inter-dependence on each other. But yes, I'm sure organized religion would not exist in the same way it does now.
If you look at indigenous religions you could classify those communities as essentially remnants of primitive communism. You couldn't say the same about other religions, which at least by now are wound up within capitalism/feudalism. Relating this to materialism there is no need, nor would it be justifiable, to 'appropriate' primitive communist communities, the same can't be said of capitalism and/or feudalism.

[IronEastBloc]

Many mainstream communists and marxists believe in an afterlife. I know Prachanda, Ortega, and even possibly Stalin do/did, as well as many of the revolutionary priests of Nicaragua who split with the Roman Catholic Church for their beliefs. necessarily, I don't see entirely how dialectical materialism goes against all forms of belief in an afterlife. I don't see how it contradicts with deism, buddhism, or hinduism, and even some atheists believe in an afterlife.

so here are the words of comrade lenin on religious communists:

"Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated."

[Elfcat]

I am heartened at some of the responses. I call myself a "functional atheist", but unless there is a scientific proof that no gods exist, I just assume if there are then they are pretty hands-off.

I am close to people who are Christian in core belief but who recognize that the writings are works of humans.

[Sir Comradical]

Droll but, seriously, I dont think the two are neccesarily incompatible. They might be but they are not necessarily so.

For one thing the range of religions is far wider than the theistic guilt trip that is traditional Christianity. For another, many adherents to religions like the catholic church turn a blind eye to what its official spokespeople have to say. Case in point is the pope and his crackpot ideas about condoms (though public pressure has recently compelled himn to modify his ideas in relation to AIDs prevention). Presumably all those wankers that belong to the Church will be relieved to hear this.

On another matter, does anyone know of any political organisation that denies membership to individuals who hold religious beliefs? The only one I know of is the WSM (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)) but would be interested to learn about any others.

Well yes and there's liberation theology etc etc. My point is that the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam, revolve around worshipping a holy dictator. I don't see how this can ever be compatible with the socialist vision.

[Sosa]

I am heartened at some of the responses. I call myself a "functional atheist", but unless there is a scientific proof that no gods exist, I just assume if there are then they are pretty hands-off.

I am close to people who are Christian in core belief but who recognize that the writings are works of humans.


First you cannot prove a negative. I cannot say "there's no proof that there is no invisible unicorn" and then say until there's proof that there aren't I'll believe in them. The burden of proof is on the believer to prove to me that there is a god, not the other way around. The believer is the one making the claim of existence.

[Sosa]

Jesus was no commie. His teachings are over-rated and unoriginal, and frankly many of them were immoral. Yes believe in him, but if you don't he'll condemn you to eternal pain and torture in hell, what a nice guy! :thumbup:

[ComradeMan]

Jesus was no commie. His teachings are over-rated and unoriginal, and frankly many of them were immoral. Yes believe in him, but if you don't he'll condemn you to eternal pain and torture in hell, what a nice guy! :thumbup:

Which ones and what was the interpretation of them?

I think that's a weak argument. If you actually look at the words of Jesus alone and try to sift the other stuff out he seems pretty much a socialist for his day. Don't forget the Gnostic stuff either....

[9]

If you actually look at the words of Jesus alone and try to sift the other stuff out he seems pretty much a socialist
Somehow I seriously doubt this.

[Milk Sheikh]

Somehow I seriously doubt this.

Sermon on the Mount.

[Magón]

Anything is possible as far as I know.

As for this, I think it's rather contradictory when you claim to have a radical Left mindset.

[Sosa]

To threaten people with eternal burning in hell for not believing in him as the true son of God, is not a particular ethical thing to do by any standard. Genuine moral and ethical behavior don't need any motivational promises of rewards, or inhumane sadistic threats of eternal torture.


Another teaching of Jesus Christ which spoil his divinity and love, and stain his image as a narrow-minded bronzed age patriarch, are where he justifies slavery, only to add the nicety that one should not beat their slaves brutally but according to what they deserve (Luke 12:45-48). It's okay to beat them, just not that hard. Well, thank you Jesus, but a moral person would preach against the practice of slavery, not on the proper conduct and etiquette of abusing one's slaves.

The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany

[ComradeMan]

Somehow I seriously doubt this.

Have you read them?

[ComradeMan]

To threaten people with eternal burning in hell for not believing in him as the true son of God, is not a particular ethical thing to do by any standard. Genuine moral and ethical behavior don't need any motivational promises of rewards, or inhumane sadistic threats of eternal torture.

Where does Jesus say you will burn in hell? What he was saying is if you don't behave in a genuine and moral way then don't expect to reach the light.




Another teaching of Jesus Christ which spoil his divinity and love, and stain his image as a narrow-minded bronzed age patriarch, are where he justifies slavery, only to add the nicety that one should not beat their slaves brutally but according to what they deserve (Luke 12:45-48). It's okay to beat them, just not that hard. Well, thank you Jesus, but a moral person would preach against the practice of slavery, not on the proper conduct and etiquette of abusing one's slaves.

Where exactly does that? It's a parable, actually he's warning the slave from treating badly those below him.

It's a parable- it says, if you treat people like shit don't not expect to be treated by shit yourself. Nowhere does it say it's okay to beat them. You just showed a complete lack of understanding of the parable. Jesus teaching was to turn the other cheek. I don't know where you get this bizarre reading from.


The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany

Jesus basically did recognise all people as human beings...

Who would you rather live next door to, Jesus or Pol Pot?

[9]

Have you read them?

No not yet, but I feel pretty certain in spite of it.

[Trigonometry]

its laughable to suggest that in the most democratic system one does not have freedom of belief, it is ridiculous there are amongst us who believe it should not be.

[Sosa]

Who would you rather live next door to, Jesus or Pol Pot?

neither. stop presenting a false choice

[Sosa]

Where does Jesus say you will burn in hell? What he was saying is if you don't behave in a genuine and moral way then don't expect to reach the light.

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:33

In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.

Theres many more, if you care to actually read it.

[Magón]

Who would you rather live next door to, Jesus or Pol Pot?

You know it's a rigged poll when there's nothing but opposing extremes to answer with.

[PigmerikanMao]

It's entirely possible to be religious and communist. The whole notion behind this thread that it might not be is ridiculous. There's no reason why a religious person can't advocate for the abolition of private property. Many of them have in the past actually. There are Christian Communists, Buddhist Communists, Muslim Communists, Etc. The Zakat in Islam, for example, could be interpreted as socialistic by, say... Rush Limbaugh. The question should be, "Can one be religious and MARXIST?" That is something else entirely.

[RedTrackWorker]

A person can be religious and communist, but I believe Marxist theory must be atheist and that the party must not be religious in any way. I became a communist partly because of aspects of my Christian upbringing (in a "contradictory" way of course) and through the study of religious history (I recapitulated the history of criticism personally in some ways that Marx refers to when he says the beginning of all criticism is the criticism of religion).
One thing no one has pointed to in this thread that I've seen is the important question: why religion?
Most have seen references to Marx's writings on religion, but I think two of his best are often overlooked because they're in Capital:

The religious reflections of the real world can, in any case, vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form. The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e. the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control.
and

This antagonistic stage cannot be avoided, any more than it is possible for man to avoid the stage in which his spiritual energies are given a religious definition as powers independent of himself. What we are confronted by here is the alienation [Entfremdung] of man from his own labour.

So when I say I think Marxist theory must be atheist, that does not mean I believe in a bourgeois rationalist atheism, which thinks, like the "new atheists" books recently published (Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, etc.) that religion is a matter of "ignorance" that can be "corrected" through information and reason. I look down with scorn on the "new atheists" and their world-view, not on the religious beliefs of the masses.

[ComradeMan]

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:33

In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.

Theres many more, if you care to actually read it.


Well again, we have no sense of metaphor do we? The people he was attacking were the authorities who would not listen to the message he was teaching.

But I don't think you get it, he is not condemning people like some Tolkienesque wizard saying "zap"- it's the whole you reap what you sow thing. If you don't mend your ways and live in a good way your going to get a karma slap.

Anyway, on the cross we have the "forgive them for they know not what they do"- so there's the total forgiveness of all the "wicked".

Remember Jesus was anti-authority and anti-clerical, he was an anti-cap of the time if you like.

Think about- today we have people saying that if we don't change our ways the world will be doomed to a huge eco-catastrophe, they aren't condemning us though are they? They aren't saying "haha" because you haven't listened your all going to be drowned when the seas rise.

You also have to place the parables within the context of their times. This Jewish rabbi was not speaking to the wise and learned "clerics" he was talking to the ordinary people in ways they could understand using images and metaphors they could relate to.

[Sosa]

Well again, we have no sense of metaphor do we? The people he was attacking were the authorities who would not listen to the message he was teaching.

But I don't think you get it, he is not condemning people like some Tolkienesque wizard saying "zap"- it's the whole you reap what you sow thing. If you don't mend your ways and live in a good way your going to get a karma slap.

Anyway, on the cross we have the "forgive them for they know not what they do"- so there's the total forgiveness of all the "wicked".

Remember Jesus was anti-authority and anti-clerical, he was an anti-cap of the time if you like.

Think about- today we have people saying that if we don't change our ways the world will be doomed to a huge eco-catastrophe, they aren't condemning us though are they? They aren't saying "haha" because you haven't listened your all going to be drowned when the seas rise.

You also have to place the parables within the context of their times. This Jewish rabbi was not speaking to the wise and learned "clerics" he was talking to the ordinary people in ways they could understand using images and metaphors they could relate to.

Here are some questions to consider:

What standard do you use when interpreting the bible?

Besides parables, what do you use to differentiate between when something should be taken literally or metaphorically?

What makes your interpretation any more right than say a fundamentalist christian?

Anti-clerical or anti-authority does not make one a communist, for one. Two, the concept of eternal damnation in hell isn't introduced in the bible until Jesus comes along. Don't try to ignore that fact that Jesus did speak of eternal damnation in hell for non-believers.

And please, don't tell me I don't get it. I was raised a christian and studied biblical criticism in college both as a christian and after becoming an atheist, so don't give me this bullshit

[ComradeMan]

Here are some questions to consider:

What standard do you use when interpreting the bible?

Besides parables, what do you use to differentiate between when something should be taken literally or metaphorically?

What makes your interpretation any more right than say a fundamentalist christian?

Anti-clerical or anti-authority does not make one a communist, for one. Two, the concept of eternal damnation in hell isn't introduced in the bible until Jesus comes along. Don't try to ignore that fact that Jesus did speak of eternal damnation in hell for non-believers.

And please, don't tell me I don't get it. I was raised a christian and studied biblical criticism in college both as a christian and after becoming an atheist, so don't give me this bullshit

There are at least 4 traditional interpretations to any part of the Bible according to Jewish scholastic tradition.

Like a well, when you look into it you see your own reflection.

Where does Jesus speak directly of eternal damnation in hell, a medieval concept by the way, for non-believers- He didn't even refer to non-believers anyway because he was Jewish, there were no Christians at the time. He was referring to those who see the light and those who don't, mostly in the Jewish context of the times.

I don't care how you were raised to be honest.

Why are you becoming so aggressive too? There's no need for it in a discussion- because someone won't accept your point of view- you get nasty? Do note the Zapatistas don't have much of a problem with Liberation theology either.

[Sosa]

There are at least 4 traditional interpretations to any part of the Bible according to Jewish scholastic tradition.

Like a well, when you look into it you see your own reflection.

Where does Jesus speak directly of eternal damnation in hell, a medieval concept by the way, for non-believers- He didn't even refer to non-believers anyway because he was Jewish, there were no Christians at the time. He was referring to those who see the light and those who don't, mostly in the Jewish context of the times.

I don't care how you were raised to be honest.

Why are you becoming so aggressive too? There's no need for it in a discussion- because someone won't accept your point of view- you get nasty? Do note the Zapatistas don't have much of a problem with Liberation theology either.

I'm not aggressive, where do you get that from reading text? This isn't my
point of view.

Jewish intepretation focuses on the Hebrew bible, not the New Testament.

The bolded part.....prove it please.

And nice way to ignore my questions btw

[ComradeMan]

I'm not aggressive, where do you get that from reading text? This isn't my point of view.

so don't give me this bullshit

Sounds aggressive... but oh well.


Jewish intepretation focuses on the Hebrew bible, not the New Testament.

Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jewish, the Gospels cannot be interpreted in any other context but the Jewish context of the time.


The bolded part.....prove it please.

"I am the way and the light...." etc.


And nice way to ignore my questions btw

Not really....

[Sosa]

so don't give me this bullshit

Sounds aggressive... but oh well.

How can it sound aggressive?


Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jewish, the Gospels cannot be interpreted in any other context but the Jewish context of the time.

Ok, I'm not disagreeing there




"I am the way and the light...." etc.

So you're taking a literal interpretation then right?

[Sosa]

16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


John 3:18, 36 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/3.html#18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." -- John 15:6 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/15.html#6)

"The Lord Jesus ... in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God ... who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." -- 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2th/1.html#7)

[ComradeMan]

16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 16:17....

What does believing mean? It means living in a good way. Think about our times, people create their own heaven and hell. You can be rich and miserable and your life is hell, you create your own hell, or your own heaven.

You can't believe in Jesus and then just carry on living in a bad way, selfish, greedy, unaltruistic, materialistic etc. A lot of Christians should take note.


John 3:18, 36 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/3.html#18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Yeah, he that gives up selfishness, materialism, being judgemental and lives and let lives is on his way to the good life. He that doesn't follow this way of being is going to have a miserable life. It's a choice, it's also self-inflicted.


"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." -- John 15:6 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/15.html#6)

See point above,


"The Lord Jesus ... in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God ... who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." -- 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2th/1.html#7)

Not one of the Gospels. I said the words of Jesus.

You have to look into what is meant by "belief".

[Sosa]

What does believing mean? It means living in a good way. Think about our times, people create their own heaven and hell. You can be rich and miserable and your life is hell, you create your own hell, or your own heaven.

Say's who? nothing substantive here






Yeah, he that gives up selfishness, materialism, being judgemental and lives and let lives is on his way to the good life. He that doesn't follow this way of being is going to have a miserable life. It's a choice, it's also self-inflicted.


You're point? that still doesn't make one a communist




Not one of the Gospels. I said the words of Jesus.

You have to look into what is meant by "belief".

And what is meant by "belief"? and what makes your interpretation more right than a fundamentalists? again you refuse to answer that question.

[ComradeMan]

Say's who? nothing substantive here.

Well, say theological interpretations and personal interpretations. You have offered nothing "substantive" here either.


You're point? that still doesn't make one a communist.

What does make one a communist then? In your opinion...


And what is meant by "belief"? and what makes your interpretation more right than a fundamentalists? again you refuse to answer that question.

I didn't say my interpretation was "more right"- it's an existential argument, there is no answer. The whole point is that interpretations are open to interpretation. However I think by adopting just one interpretation as you have done and saying that is it- as if carved in stone, is somewhat limiting.

[Sosa]

Well, say theological interpretations and personal interpretations. You have offered nothing "substantive" here either.

I have provided you quote from the bible to back up my point. You only gave me how you thought it should be interpreted without any reference or source to back up your interpretation.



What does make one a communist then? In your opinion...For one, you would have to hold to the idea of a classless, stateless society, where workers own the means of production and the abolition of capital for starter. I don't see where Jesus advocated any of this.


I didn't say my interpretation was "more right"- it's an existential argument, there is no answer. The whole point is that interpretations are open to interpretation. However I think by adopting just one interpretation as you have done and saying that is it- as if carved in stone, is somewhat limiting.Yes but some interpretations have more value than others, All interpretations don't have the same weight. Someone who has more knowledge on scriptural criticism is more inform than someone who just comes up with his own idea of what he thinks. Do you agree? Or are you going to go all post-modern on me?

I'm not adopting an interpretation, I'm merely taking that mainstream christian interpretation of the verses, which is claimed by most biblical scholars (which include both theists and atheists/agnostics). If there are other interpretations I would like to see some evidence to back up their interpretations. I'm only arguing against the literalist interpretation because that is the most common one and most mainstream one. I'm an atheist, so it follows that I don't believe in the bible, so I don't believe that any intepretation "is more right" per say.