A genuine attempt at a troll-free leftist/theological discussion thread…

[Le Socialiste]

In light of the recent deletion/banning of all spiritual/faith-based groups on Revleft (a decision I believe we can agree to disagree over), someone suggested that we try to reorient the ways in which we approach, discuss, debate, and engage in theological discourse (within the realms of leftism) on this Religion forum. It has always bothered me how divided the Left can be, whether it be in the form of ideological tendency wars or ‘prolier-than-thou’ rhetoric; the same division can be found between those comrades who hold some belief in the core tenets of spirituality, religion, and faith, and those comrades who prescribe to varying degrees of atheism/agnosticism. During my time here (since January of this year), I’ve found myself dismayed at the lack of civil discourse surrounding this issue. Whether we declare ourselves skeptics, atheists, spiritual or religious, there is a need for dialogue. I have always been one to like the concept/idea behind “agreeing to disagree”, which is a fine way for approaching this. This particular thread is for everyone, regardless of belief, to discuss and debate theology within the boundaries of leftist thought, in relation to leftism (i.e. communism, socialism, anarchism, and everything in-between). This is also my attempt at creating a discussion thread that doesn’t read like a leftist version of Yahoo!Answers’ Religion section – check it out if you don’t know what I mean. That means no trolling, and no attempts to derail the main intent of the thread (to serve as a place for respectful, intelligent debate and discussion of all theological matters in relation to Leftism).

Perhaps I’m way over my head with this. Perhaps this is just a naïve undertaking on my part – but I’d like to give it a try. Let’s see how it goes.

[Octavian]

Dialogue or debate on religion is pointless because you can't use reason or logic, religion is based on faith.

[ComradeMan]

This is also my attempt at creating a discussion thread that doesn’t read like a leftist version of Yahoo!Answers’ Religion section....

:laugh:

Good for you.

It's a shame discussions degenerate so often...

The way I look at it is this. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people, i.e. the organised institutions of religion he saw around him at the time and had grown up with in Germany etc. He didn't say that x-belief in something or y-spirituality was a problem. I think it's a shame that a lot of the core tenets of religions, i.e. the good bits are often overlooked (be it by practitioners themselves or be it by those attacking religion)- as very often these core tenets tend to be left leaning.

[ZeroNowhere]

Dialogue or debate on religion is pointless because you can't use reason or logic, religion is based on faith.Well, that's an ominous beginning.

[Octavian]

I think it's a shame that a lot of the core tenets of religions, i.e. the good bits are often overlooked (be it by practitioners themselves or be it by those attacking religion)- as very often these core tenets tend to be left leaning.
Does and why would one need the religion or the "good bits" if they could just reason out those tenets themselves?

[hatzel]

Whether we declare ourselves skeptics, atheists, spiritual or religious, there is a need for dialogue.

I feel like quoting Gabriel Kuhn here, because he's a reasonable enough chap:


Anti-religious leftist rhetoric is indeed helpless in confronting religious fundamentalism. The borders between anti-religious leftism and religious fundamentalism are clearly drawn, and neither side is willing to listen to the other. If you want to convince religious people that a life of justice and equality is the purest worldly representation of G-d, you have to talk to them about G-d. Of course some believers will insist that they have an exclusive link to G-d and that G-d is only there to protect them. In that case, any attempt at communication might fail.

But I think that these people are a minority. Most believers who support conservative politics do so because they are manipulated by the worldly representatives of their faith, by churches and by religious organizations. If you speak their language, you can make them understand that true spirituality lies outside of such bodies, as practically every mystic in history has stressed.

:)

[Le Socialiste]

Dialogue or debate on religion is pointless because you can't use reason or logic, religion is based on faith.


The point of this thread isn't necessarily about the basis of religion (or spirituality, or faith - they are different), but about the need for a common space shared by those who believe in such things and those who don't. You don't have to believe in a god (or gods), just be a leftist. :)



The way I look at it is this. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people, i.e. the organised institutions of religion he saw around him at the time and had grown up with in Germany etc. He didn't say that x-belief in something or y-spirituality was a problem. I think it's a shame that a lot of the core tenets of religions, i.e. the good bits are often overlooked (be it by practitioners themselves or be it by those attacking religion)- as very often these core tenets tend to be left leaning.


I agree with Marx's statement concerning organized religion's role in maintaining the oppressiveness of the state and social/cultural environment. I grew up in a church, I saw how blind many people were to the actual needs of the broader community. Hell, most couldn't even see beyond the financial board meetings and balance sheets! That's why I left the concept of the church behind, as it seemed less about seeking out and addressing the needs of those cast out by capitalism and more about maintaining a traditional structure of worship that stifled change and alternative ideas. So I left it all behind. Religion as an organized institution is the problem, not necessarily spirituality and faith itself.

And thanks for that quote, La Sombra, I liked it. :)

[Octavian]

The point of this thread isn't necessarily about the basis of religion (or spirituality, or faith - they are different), but about the need for a common space shared by those who believe in such things and those who don't. You don't have to believe in a god (or gods), just be a leftist.
Then this thread is done. Once you establish that you want to talk about religion and politics but don't wish to discuss the legitimacy of them then you might as well leave religion at the door. The leftist position is for the most part secular and we have a whole forum for politics. What we share in common is a revolutionary mind but I don't believe religion is a part of the equation.

[28350]

[...] [N]either is theology ancillary to reason nor reason to theology.
.

[28350]

calvinism is my least favorite branch of christianity, mainly because of the idea of the "elect" & total depravity
pelagianism (adam set a bad example, jesus set a good one, it's up to you now) is much cooler

[Le Socialiste]

Then this thread is done. Once you establish that you want to talk about religion and politics but don't wish to discuss the legitimacy of them then you might as well leave religion at the door. The leftist position is for the most part secular and we have a whole forum for politics. What we share in common is a revolutionary mind but I don't believe religion is a part of the equation.


No, it's not. There are plenty of threads that discuss the legitimacy of religion, faith, and spirituality. That's not what this thread is about. Like I said in the OP, I don't want this to devolve into a "I'm right, you're wrong" war. That's not what this is for. This thread was started as a place for discussion and debate, not to berate our comrades who happen to hold a spiritual or religious mindset. You may think such thinking doesn't contribute anything to the revolutionary movement, and for the most part you're right. However, we need to acknowledge and accept the fact that we do have numerous comrades on here (and in the struggle abroad) that have some semblance of spirituality/faith. Religion, or the belief in certain faith or spiritual teaching is, I believe, meant to be a private affair that shouldn't be pushed or forced on others. Revolutionary socialism itself is a secular movement, and should always remain so.

Also, this thread is in response to the closure of all spiritual/religious groups on Revleft. One user mentioned using the Religion forum as a place for actual discussion and debate instead, so that's what I'm doing. We can go back and forth about whether there is or isn't a god (or gods). There's probably hundreds of posts about that. Rather, this is a thread dedicated to establishing a common area for respectful discussion, whether it be in the form of questions and answers, or simply just debate (all within, again, the boundaries of leftism).

[Le Socialiste]

calvinism is my least favorite branch of christianity, mainly because of the idea of the "elect" & total depravity
pelagianism (adam set a bad example, jesus set a good one, it's up to you now) is much cooler


I'm not familiar with Calvinism, what is it exactly?

[28350]

I'm not familiar with Calvinism, what is it exactly?

the "five points of calvinism" are
Total depravity (original sin)
Unconditional election (god picked ahead of time who's going to heaven)
Limited atonement (jesus's sacrifice was only enough for the elect to be saved)
Irresistible grace (anyone of the elect is will accept jesus etc.)
Perseverance of the saints (if you're an elect you'll stay that way, if you convert then you never were to begin with)

edit: it's also important to get a good historical understanding of any given ideology, wikipedia has a good article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

[Che a chara]

What religion/God can't create, is working class unity. There are so many different religions out there and different beliefs and people interpreting them differently, that it will often lead to worker alienation, conflict and division.

Slavery and unreasoning are advocated by religion and sanctioned by God/s, which contradicts the essence of the truly human.

In today's capitalist society I can understand and acknowledge the need for religion as it offers comfort, rehabilitation and maybe a sense of meaning or purpose. So basically, society isn't providing, or more to the point, capitalism isn't providing the needs and wants of the people, so the need for answers and spirituality on a subordinative and idealist level will always occur. Materialist socialism needs to be advanced in order for society to create it's own 'spiritual' and all-inclusive conditions for workers to relate to.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What religion/God can't create, is working class unity.

lawl
hegemony can be a two-way street comrade didn't you know

[ZeroNowhere]

What religion/God can't create, is working class unity. There are so many different religions out there and different beliefs and people interpreting them differently, that it will often lead to worker alienation, conflict and division.

Slavery and unreasoning are advocated by religion and sanctioned by God/s, which contradicts the essence of the truly human.

In today's capitalist society I can understand and acknowledge the need for religion as it offers comfort, rehabilitation and maybe a sense of meaning or purpose. So basically, society isn't providing, or more to the point, capitalism isn't providing the needs and wants of the people, so the need for answers and spirituality on a subordinative and idealist level will always occur. Materialist socialism needs to be advanced in order for society to create it's own 'spiritual' and all-inclusive conditions for workers to relate to.
I'm fairly sure that that's not what this thread is for.

[Franz Fanonipants]

calvinism is my least favorite branch of christianity, mainly because of the idea of the "elect" & total depravity
pelagianism (adam set a bad example, jesus set a good one, it's up to you now) is much cooler

i know i'll catch all kinds of grief but as a sort-of-kind-of catholic calvinisim is the most repellent stuff around.

[Che a chara]

I'm fairly sure that that's not what this thread is for.

Well it belongs somewhere in this section :lol:

The OP I thought wanted to debate the reasoning/positioning of religious thought within the left. My opinion is that it should not be forced out or criminalised, but advanced socialist conditions may make religious belief irrelevant....

[hatzel]

Well it belongs somewhere in this section :lol:

Luckily for you it's only been said in this section about a million bagillion quadmabillimagillion times, so you a'ight :)

[Hit The North]

:laugh:
The way I look at it is this. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people, i.e. the organised institutions of religion he saw around him at the time and had grown up with in Germany etc. He didn't say that x-belief in something or y-spirituality was a problem.

You might look at it that way, but you're wrong. Marx is not attacking organised religion per se in that passage but explaining the material conditions which encourage people to cling to compensatory, yet illusory, belief in a spiritual domain.

So we can derive a critique of all religious belief from Marx's position. As Marxists we understand all religion to be an alienated response to alienating conditions of life.

[Le Socialiste]

A revolutionary consciousness may mitigate the need for faith and/or spirituality, or it may very well not. Marx's position was Marx's position, and while I can agree with him on much of what he has to say concerning religion's role suppressing revolutionary tendencies, I cannot wholly believe that holding a spiritual belief (in accordance with leftism) poses a problem to the broader movement.

Essentially, while I think the anti-theism stance of the revolutionary left is warranted, I fear that overdoing it may alienate others who identify and agree with it. A revolutionary movement should always remain secular; a revolutionized society, built on the ideas of leftist thought, should always remain secular. If either of these should cease to be secular, then they are no longer to be considered revolutionary. But deriding those who hold some form of spirituality and/or faith in the privacy of their own minds and homes isn't helping anyone.

[Hit The North]

A revolutionary consciousness may mitigate the need for faith and/or spirituality, or it may very well not. Marx's position was Marx's position, and while I can agree with him on much of what he has to say concerning religion's role suppressing revolutionary tendencies, I cannot wholly believe that holding a spiritual belief (in accordance with leftism) poses a problem to the broader movement.


It's not just about Marx's own opinion, it is about maintaining a consistent materialist analysis. There is no eternal creator of man; no divine hand of God in human history; no transcendental meaning or higher purpose beyond the conduct of human affairs. Belief in supernatural powers comes from ignorance of how the natural world works, is maintained by an alienated mode of life, where it is the inverted and fantastical representation of human powers. It is, therefore, the mystification of human affairs and should be opposed on the basis that man cannot be both free and in a state of mystification.

Meanwhile, I don't think he has much to say on religion's role suppressing revolutionary tendencies, or draws any firm conclusions about the political content of religious motivations. He argues:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.So he wouldn't be surprised by liberation theology. But the point is that whether we are dealing with relatively progressive manifestations of religion such as liberation theology or reactionary strains like fundi-Islam or Creationism, they share fundamental illusions about the nature of the world and man's place in it.

To conclude with Marx's own words:


The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself...

Originally Posted by Le Socialiste http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2165700#post2165700)
But deriding those who hold some form of spirituality and/or faith in the privacy of their own minds and homes isn't helping anyone.I see this argument a lot, as if there are millions of people out there practising their own disestablished home-alter religions.

Who are these people?

__________________________________

Source for Marx quotes here (http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/marxrel.html)

[Le Socialiste]

Who are these people?



Myself, for one. Look, I'm not interested in debating whether or not religion is based on a false premise (I personally believe it is, and that creationism is a myth). The intent of this thread isn't to point out the ridiculousness of religion and those that choose to follow it. I'm partly sick of being looked down upon by others in the leftist community because I consider myself a spiritual individual. There needs to be a difference made between spiritual/faithful leftists and the religious reactionaries on the right (there is a world of difference between the two). I don't care whether a comrade is religious, spiritual, or not - so long as he/she doesn't try to force his/her beliefs on me and others. Why can't those who don't adhere to a faith-based/spiritual outlook feel the same?

[Hit The North]

Myself, for one.

So what form does your "belief" take?


Look, I'm not interested in debating whether or not religion is based on a false premise (I personally believe it is, and that creationism is a myth). If you think religion is based on a false premise, why are you religious?


The intent of this thread isn't to point out the ridiculousness of religion and those that choose to follow it. Sure, but when you raise the issue of religion on a forum of ungodly commies, you should expect a certain response. Or do you think the critique of religion is unnecessary?


I'm partly sick of being looked down upon by others in the leftist community because I consider myself a spiritual individual. Maybe you should stop banging on about it, then!

But if you are "spiritual" then you believe in the existence of spirits or souls: incorporeal beings which exist independently of material existence. If you are "faithful" then you elevate your non-verifiable feelings above that of empirical evidence. Why do you think that you should get a free ride amongst those of us who believe the opposite? The left, by necessity, is a critical community. What's so special about your beliefs that the left should suspend its criticism?


There needs to be a difference made between spiritual/faithful leftists and the religious reactionaries on the right (there is a world of difference between the two). Political differences can be acknowledged, as I pointed out in my post above. But, as I also point out, the two camps share a world in common: their belief in a transcendental world.


I don't care whether a comrade is religious, spiritual, or not - so long as he/she doesn't try to force his/her beliefs on me and others. Why can't those who don't adhere to a faith-based/spiritual outlook feel the same?
Beliefs are only really important when they are political and they become political when groups attempt to impose them on other groups who believe in something else. As communists we are engaged in a political project and would be betraying that project if we were to appear agnostic over issues we disagree with.

This is not to argue that communists should not do political work with religious workers; but a condition of that should not be that communists be made to hide their views.

[SHORAS]

Excellent posts prole art, very succinct. Might use bits of them in the future.

[JustMovement]

My 2 cents. Marxism is not a theory of physical science. It is a "science" in as much as it is an attempt to understand society and its evolution on the basis of reason and evidence. The historical materialism of Marx (to me) merely says that society progresses according to material conditions, namely how production is organised.

If you accept that it is not individuals, abstractions, or gods that influence the course of history, but material conditions, then I think you can be a Marxist in good faith (if you can excuse the term). This does preclude most religious belief I think, but not all. To necessarily extrapolate from Marxism some kind of (anti)metaphysical position I think is a mistake. That is the realm of philosophy, or indeed, religion.

Also since we have chit-chat, music, art and literature and non political subforums, I dont see what the harm is in letting people discuss theology in peace.

[Queercommie Girl]

Some basic points:

1) I'm very explicitly an atheist, and I don't really believe in any kind of religion or even metaphysical philosophy at all. I believe the "human mind" is nothing but the physical brain.

2) However, I'm not a militant atheist. I don't explicitly call for the "eradication of religion". I don't think that is a Marxist task. I support general cultural democracy. Supporting cultural democracy means you support the rights of other people to engage in certain cultural modes even though you yourself don't like them. I don't like evangelism, but I wouldn't call for religions in general to be banned. I don't appreciate violent sports like boxing personally, but I wouldn't state boxing should be banned.

Just like people here who would never even dream to have sex with members of the same sex or cross-dress personally should definitely still support the rights of LGBT people to do so.

Just because I support religious freedom as a basic right, doesn't mean I have to like religions personally. I have the right to not like religions, but I don't have the right to discriminate or persecute against religious people in general. (Unless these people are explicitly reactionary in some other way) Just like some straight man who is anti-homophobia may not even want to have a single glance at gay porn at all. Supporting something in principle has absolutely nothing to do with one's own personal tastes.

However, I do actually have some philosophical interest in certain religious ideas, especially non-Abrahamic religions like Daoism and Buddhism, but also more "liberal" theological schools in Christianity and Judaism, as well as things like Unitarian Universalism and Ba'hai. I really don't like exclusivist fundamentalist religions, particularly those of a monotheistic kind.

3) I really hate the homophobic, transphobic and sexist attitudes of some reactionary right-wing religious people. I tolerate religious people in general but I have no tolerance for these kinds of religious people. Frankly one criticism I have against the religious left in general today is that you people don't criticise these reactionary religious people enough. If you criticise them harder and put more distance between yourselves and them, then I probably will have a better opinion of the religious left in general. Sometimes I feel the religious left occasionally implicitly apologises for the religious right simply on the grounds of an apparent "common religion". I don't think this is a good idea.

4) Another thing I really oppose is Abrahamic-centrism, the frankly racist idea that Abrahamic religions are somehow more advanced and evolved than non-Abrahamic religions. I'm from China which is an non-Abrahamic country. In fact, there is some evidence showing that early Christianity could have been influenced by Hellenistic Buddhism from Central Asia.

5) On the other hand, I wouldn't say I'm intrinsically against Abrahamic religions either. Fact is, there are so many different schools of thought within the Abrahamic faiths that it is really difficult to evaluate "Abrahamic religions" as a simplistic single category. Abrahamic religions could be as different as the relatively progressive liberation theology and the most reactionary forms of right-wing Christianity and Islam that literally call for the execution of all LGBT people. Generally speaking, I reject cultural essentialism, so I don't really think any religion or national culture is "special" in some intrinsic way, either positively or negatively.

Generally I think many people have the basic idea that Abrahamic religions on the whole are more sexually conservative and less tolerant of LGBT people compared with non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism. While this seems to be true to some extent, I wouldn't consider this to be a kind of "absolute principle" either. It's interesting to note that among all the remaining "communist" states, only Cuba explicitly supports LGBT rights now, and Cuba is actually supposed to be a Catholic country, while Buddhist and Confucian countries like China, Vietnam and Laos still don't explicitly support LGBT rights.

So to sum up: personally my biggest problem with religious people is the homophobic, transphobic and sexist views some of them have, which I frankly find completely disgusting. Otherwise I'm not really interested so much in militant atheism, even though I'm very explicitly an atheist myself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Also since we have chit-chat, music, art and literature and non political subforums, I dont see what the harm is in letting people discuss theology in peace.


As long as homophobic, transphobic and sexist theological theories are restricted/banned and not considered as "valid potential alternatives".

I explicitly support a "zero tolerance" policy towards all forms of homophobia, transphobia and sexism.

[Thirsty Crow]

A
Essentially, while I think the anti-theism stance of the revolutionary left is warranted, I fear that overdoing it may alienate others who identify and agree with it.
No, it is not warranted, at least in my opinion.
An anti-clerical position is perfectly reasonable, and indeed vital, but anti-theism has nothing to do with the self-emancipation of the global working class since it basically functions as a set of normative preconceptiosn regarding a person's life practice. Also, I don't think anti-theism is an answer for social conflict based on religios adherence. Persistent and consistent proletarian internationalism is.
(I should probably mention that I'm an atheist)

[ComradeMan]

You might look at it that way, but you're wrong. Marx is not attacking organised religion per se in that passage but explaining the material conditions which encourage people to cling to compensatory, yet illusory, belief in a spiritual domain.

So we can derive a critique of all religious belief from Marx's position. As Marxists we understand all religion to be an alienated response to alienating conditions of life.

I disagree. Marx left the door open by using a fairly open-to-interpretation type of comment. He was not laying down commandments either.

[Hit The North]

I disagree. Marx left the door open by using a fairly open-to-interpretation type of comment. He was not laying down commandments either.

So you're claiming that Marx was agnostic? Textual evidence, please!

In return, here's a fairly clear statement, by Marx, of his position on the reality of religious belief:


The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

[ComradeMan]

So you're claiming that Marx was agnostic? Textual evidence, please!

In return, here's a fairly clear statement, by Marx, of his position on the reality of religious belief:

You do not differentiate between religion and spirituality.

The full quote from Marx is ironically more of an attack on society that creates the needs for illusions for poor people than the religion itself anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

Marx was certainly an atheist, and he probably didn't even like religions in a personal sense, but it doesn't mean he was a militant atheist in the political sense.

As I said before, just because one doesn't agree with religions or don't even like religions at all personally, doesn't mean one can't support the basic freedom of belief for religious people in general. It's ridiculously totalitarian to think that just because one doesn't like something then this thing must be destroyed. "To remake the world in one's own image" is the worst kind of anti-democratic egoism.

Just like most hetero people simply don't like gay sex personally, but this doesn't mean it's ok for them to be homophobic.

Principled support for general cultural democracy and personal tastes are two completely and utterly different things. If one can't even appreciate the fact that sometimes one needs to explicitly support certain things politically even though one actually hates them personally, then there is a serious problem.

Cultural democracy is an important part of general proletarian democracy. If one opposes cultural democracy then one opposes proletarian democracy, which is reactionary.

At most Marx may have said that religions should be discouraged. But neither Marx nor Lenin ever made the explicit point that religions should be banned in any kind of political or administrative sense.

[Le Socialiste]

I fear this thread has been derailed a bit from its original point. I didn't want it to devolve into a "I'm right/you're wrong" thread, I just wanted to create a common space that didn't have to follow the same road of debate as every other thread in this particular forum.

[Hit The North]

You do not differentiate between religion and spirituality.

The full quote from Marx is ironically more of an attack on society that creates the needs for illusions for poor people than the religion itself anyway.

I don't know what the distinction is supposed to be - or, at least, I don't know how you understand the distinction.

As for the quote by Marx, there's nothing ironic about it - it is a straightforward materialist position: being precedes consciousness = religious ideas are determined by social being = religion is an illusory solution to real conditions of social suffering.

But, anyway, the way he poses the relationship between society and religion presupposes that religion/spiritualism/mysticism is illusory.

[Hit The North]

I fear this thread has been derailed a bit from its original point. I didn't want it to devolve into a "I'm right/you're wrong" thread, I just wanted to create a common space that didn't have to follow the same road of debate as every other thread in this particular forum.

A common space for what exactly? Revleft is a discussion forum, therefore all threads invite discussion. You can't have a thread which is some neutral space for contemplation of collective, if diverse, navels.

[Hit The North]

At most Marx may have said that religions should be discouraged. But neither Marx nor Lenin ever made the explicit point that religions should be banned in any kind of political or administrative sense.

Iseul, no one in this thread has argued that religions should be banned, so I don't understand why you've spent energy in this thread arguing against it.

On the contrary, the OP seems to want to engage in a case of special pleading:

"I don't like how you commies make me feel like an idiot for believing in fairies."

"Yeah? Then stop trying to talk to us about it!"

Simple.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, no one in this thread has argued that religions should be banned, so I don't understand why you've spent energy in this thread arguing against it.


Yeah, I just love ranting sometimes :lol:

Ok, well your point is fair enough. Though I think there is more to religion than simply "the belief in fairies". Even stories which are untrue could still have some value in a literary and moral sense, like say ancient Greek mythology or Aseop's parables. Many Marxists have widely quoted from ancient Greek mythology in their writings, and Mao Zedong have made many references to traditional Chinese religious and mythological ideas in his writings too.

[hatzel]

On the contrary, the OP seems to want to engage in a case of special pleading:

"I don't like how you commies make me feel like an idiot for believing in fairies."

"Yeah? Then stop trying to talk to us about it!"

Simple.

Actually the OP has explicitly said that he doesn't want to talk to you about it, so it's strange that you want him to stop trying, when you're the one who is actually creating the discussion :tt2: If you don't want him to talk to you about it, don't come in here trying to make him talk to you about it. Particularly because it is, lo and behold, off-topic. I haven't seen you posting anything about social theology yet, and that is the topic of this thread...if you don't have anything to say about that, or don't know anything about that, then that's fine, but most people would refrain from posting in a thread if they have absolutely nothing to say about the topic...

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually the OP has explicitly said that he doesn't want to talk to you about it, so it's strange that you want him to stop trying, when you're the one who is actually creating the discussion :tt2:
I completely disagree with you, dinosaurs are in fact bad people. This should be quite clear when one sees a Tyrannosaurus Rex plunder the fragile nests of innocent herbivores, or even the ruthless disdain with which herbivores rip out the hearts and souls of plants without a second thought. If you disagree, then you, sir, are clearly an anti-Marxist, idealist hack with no concern for the progress of archaeology or human reason.

However, perhaps you agree about being an anti-Marxist hack. In that case, it is clear that you are not deserving of any further attention or notice. If you wish to whine that this post is off-topic, then I must respond that this is a public message board, and we will discuss what we like.

There is no escape.

[Le Socialiste]

Iseul, no one in this thread has argued that religions should be banned, so I don't understand why you've spent energy in this thread arguing against it.

On the contrary, the OP seems to want to engage in a case of special pleading:

"I don't like how you commies make me feel like an idiot for believing in fairies."

"Yeah? Then stop trying to talk to us about it!"

Simple.


Damn, what crawled up your butt. :laugh:

Either contribute to the purpose of the thread or leave. When an individual begins resorting to personal attacks to prove his/her point, he/she no longer has a reason for remaining in said discussion or debate and should, again, depart. Simple.


If you wish to whine that this post is off-topic, then I must respond that this is a public message board, and we will discuss what we like.

There is no escape.

On the contrary, there is a way to escape from those of you who enjoy diverting from the original purpose of this thread. However, I will not request that it be done because - for whatever reason - I hold out hope that somehow we'll get back on track. The Religion section on this site has been inundated with this argument so many times its grown to be redundant. Of course, you can "discuss" all you like. I'll just "discuss" what a pain in the ass it is. :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

dinosaurs are in fact bad people

Dinosaurs are terrible people, clearly, because they are made of dinosaur, and most people aren't made of dinosaur. A house is also a bad car. Doesn't fit the purpose...at all...houses don't have wheels...


This should be quite clear when one sees a Tyrannosaurus Rex plunder the fragile nests of innocent herbivores
Complaining is succumbing to Sklavenmoral. T-rex is the true sovereign individual, escaping the constraints of morality and custom. We should all see T-rex as our idol and seek to both replicate and surpass it.


the ruthless disdain with which herbivores rip out the hearts and souls of plants without a second thought
I do believe this comment belongs on the primitivism thread in OI Learning, you tree-hugging so-and-so :rolleyes:


If you wish to whine that this post is off-topic, then I must respond that this is a public message board, and we will discuss what we like.
Such a public message board that I can, in fact, whine all I want about its being off-topic. Luckily, though, it's one of the most on-topic posts yet to grace this thread. So I appreciate that...

*Escapes, disproving the assertion that there's no escape*

[Hit The North]

Damn, what crawled up your butt. :laugh:

Either contribute to the purpose of the thread or leave. When an individual begins resorting to personal attacks to prove his/her point, he/she no longer has a reason for remaining in said discussion or debate and should, again, depart. Simple.

On the contrary, there is a way to escape from those of you who enjoy diverting from the original purpose of this thread. However, I will not request that it be done because - for whatever reason - I hold out hope that somehow we'll get back on track. The Religion section on this site has been inundated with this argument so many times its grown to be redundant. Of course, you can "discuss" all you like. I'll just "discuss" what a pain in the ass it is. :rolleyes:

You need to make up your mind what the "original purpose" is, comrade. In your OP you clearly write:


This particular thread is for everyone, regardless of belief, to discuss and debate theology within the boundaries of leftist thought, in relation to leftism (i.e. communism, socialism, anarchism, and everything in-between).

So far, then, my posts have been on-topic and aimed at firstly to contest Comrademan's assertion that Marx limits his comments to organised religion and, secondly, to offer you a chance to read what Marx actually wrote about religion and the need to abandon its illusions as a prerequisite for our emancipation.

Meanwhile, you have still not answered my question as to what your private spiritual beliefs amount to and to present a case as to why Marxists or anarchists should treat them with any respect.

[Hit The North]

Actually the OP has explicitly said that he doesn't want to talk to you about it, so it's strange that you want him to stop trying, when you're the one who is actually creating the discussion :tt2: If you don't want him to talk to you about it, don't come in here trying to make him talk to you about it. Particularly because it is, lo and behold, off-topic. I haven't seen you posting anything about social theology yet, and that is the topic of this thread...if you don't have anything to say about that, or don't know anything about that, then that's fine, but most people would refrain from posting in a thread if they have absolutely nothing to say about the topic...

You need to sharpen your reading skills, comrade. The OP expressly claims:


This particular thread is for everyone, regardless of belief, to discuss and debate theology within the boundaries of leftist thought, in relation to leftism (i.e. communism, socialism, anarchism, and everything in-between). So far, then, my posts have been on-topic.

Meanwhile, I haven't noticed you contribute any thing to this thread, but if you want to discuss "social theology" (whatever that is) then go ahead.

[ComradeMan]

T-rex is the true sovereign individual, escaping the constraints of morality and custom.

Megaladon rules...

[Tenka]

A genuine attempt at a troll-free leftist/theological discussion thread…
Mission Failed?
----
Anyway, I agree largely with the first reply. Religion is faith-based. My faith holds that Azathoth is what writhes at the centre of infinity and gives birth to the myriad things and that's that. Non-disprovable. (And no, citing the origin of my faith in the fictional writings of one man doesn't disprove anything.)

[Le Socialiste]

Mission Failed?



Sure looks like it.