Reasons not to believe Jesus

[Yefim Zverev]

I guess there are lots of Christians and previous Christians out there who have lots of idea on Jesus and Christianity. I want to learn what makes you believe in Jesus and Christianity if you are a believer.

But most important question is to previous Christians who got rid of their beliefs by certain logic or thinking. What negated religion and Jesus in you ? Which kind of thinking ? What did not work in his teachings or let's say Bible writers teachings in you.

Things that sound so nice like... Love every one... Forgive every one... What do you think about these ?

[RedAtheist]

I was never a Christian, but like everyone else I grew up assuming that Christianity was a good religion and that Jesus was a 'nice' person. After learning more about the Christian doctrine, I realised that there was nothing moral about it. Christianity emphasises the importance of faith and belief in God over the importance of moral behaviour. When it does advocate certain morals, those morals are often quite conservative and promote adherence to gender roles. This applies to fundamentalists especially, but also to some moderates who often feel, for example, that there is something morally icky about aborting a non-sentient fetus, even if they don't think it should be illegal.) Even if you try to adhere to all the rules of Christian you are still labeled as sinful by the religion, which sounds like to me like a nasty way to drain people of their self-esteem and any confidence they have in their own decision making capabilities.

As for Jesus, his message is naive at best and downright oppressive at worst. Sure it sounds nice, but in practise it does not work. This is ironic, since such as accusation is often thrown at Marx's ideas. As far as I'm concerned its Jesus's teaching that are idealistic and utopian. You should not love and forgive everyone. If you do, people who are not as nice and loving will take advantage of you. People who are oppressed, should definitely not love and forgive their oppressers. They need to overthrow them or at the very least stand up to them.

Jesus's message and the overall Christian message go very well together. They all aid in oppressing people, because anyone who followed all these ideas would be the perfect victim. They would be under the impression that resisting your enemies is the wrong way to go and that if you do chose to rise up and resist you will end up making terrible decisions due to your inherent evilness and unability to understand the world through the use of reason.

Jesus and Christianity are completely overrated and I think a large part of the reason why they have as much credibility as they do, is because people outside of the religion are unfamiliar with its teaching and have not studied the words of the supposedly loving new testement.

[Goblin]

I used to believe in Jesus. Then i grew up.

[Veovis]

Hey kids! Now that you know the truth about Santa Claus, just wait until you hear about Jesus!

[Zealot]

It was the religion itself, actually. The Christianity that is commonly taught and the Christianity as written in the Bible are two totally different things. That is what led to my disillusionment with Christianity at first. Then I started looking at the "other side" of the debate and I felt that Atheists often had good points and the evidence for evolution (and thus the uselessness of the requirement for a god) was undeniable. I just concluded that there was no god. God wasn't making my life any better than the Atheist next to me, in fact, it just made it worse to an extent. There was just no point in fooling myself anymore. Then, of course, I became a Marxist and was enlightened about the role of religion in society.

Also, Christianity, for a self-proclaimed religion of peace, had one of the most violent histories I've ever read about.

[roy]

i identified as a christian until i was 10 or 11, then i gradually came to realise i didn't have any religious conviction. i don't think this is a 'for or against' thing. you either believe or you don't.

[Brosip Tito]

It stopped being rammed down my throat around 9/10, I always considered myself a Christian til about 16, when all my friends were agnostics and I just stopped to think about why I believed, and couldn't come up with a reasonable answer.

16-18 an "agnostic", 18+ atheist.

[Left Leanings]

I attended the Church of England, from being quite young. It was my mother's decision, not mine. My dad never went, so I was always aware there was an alternative way of doing things. My brother hated it right from the start. But I got caught up in the theatre of the Church: the heady incense, the candles, the sung mass, the hymns etc. I served on the altar for a while, both as an acolyte (candle-bearer) and as the Master of Ceremonies. I was both a Baptized and a Confirmed Christian.

My religious beliefs were never rammed down my throat. It was something that I just did on a Sunday more than anything. If you're raised to believe, being childish, you will, just as many kids believe in the fairytale of Father Christmas. But as you become more educated, and think for yourself, the lack of rationality in supernatural claims, and in the specific claims made in the Bible pertaining to Jesus, become apparent. God is a Father Christmas figure - but for adults.

The teachings attributed to Jesus in the Bible, are unreliable anyway, since they were recorded in written form, not until about 70 years after his death. The later gospels, such as John, date from about 150 years after his death. There are also many gospels outside of the accepted Christian 'canon' (the approved gospels found in the Bible). Examples being Thomas, Mary Magdalene, even Judas. There was more than one church as well. And a bitter power struggle between the competing variants of Jesus's teachings, saw one church community win - and bitterly persecute the rest, and dispose of their gospels and teachings.

There is not even any reliable evidence, that the person of Jesus was a single historical figure. Theologians differentiate between the Jesus of history, and the Christ of Faith. It's quite likely that Jesus was actually more than one person, woven together into one central mythological figure. There were many around at the time, who opposed the Roman overlords and their collaborators, and many of them were firebrands and revolutionaries. These too claimed to be Messianic figures, or were treated as such. Jesus appears to have taken a different path, in that he is presented as a pacifist. Outside of Christian apology, there are few references to Jesus, so there is not much corrobarating evidence to indicate he was a single figure. There are far more independent and corroborating references to the Buddha as an actual historical figure - and he is a much older figure in the history of world religions.

I was also turned off Christianity and Jesus, by the unsophisticated and immature morality it espouses. People must or must not, behave in a certain way, cos it results in either reward or punishment.

Hogwash, all told. Thank fuck I shed by beliefs through education, critical thinking, humanity, compassion and atheism.

[Bostana]

I don't believe in Jesus because in the Bible Jesus does all these things to help people, cure the sick, give sight to the blind and so on. But that's just it he sounds like to nice of a guy to let all this evil in the world happen.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I discovered Black Metal. Fuck logic and rationality.

[Left Leanings]

I don't believe in Jesus because in the Bible Jesus does all these things to help people, cure the sick, give sight to the blind and so on. But that's just it he sounds like to nice of a guy to let all this evil in the world happen.

Exactly.

God and Jesus are the same entity. Jesus is simply God incarnate/personified.

If the claims made for the Deity - that it is omnipresent, omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-loving, then human suffering would be non-existent.

Arguments for God granting 'free will' that causes human suffering is horsehit. Cos the Deity would have both the power and the inclination to grant both free will, and prevent human suffering at the same time.

If the deity is as described, then it should be spat upon for its callousness.

If the miracles of healing are so remarkable (and these are 'gifts' bestowed on his followers also), then why the need for modern medicine and hospitals. A trip to the local faith healer ought to do it lol.

It's hogwash. In the Bible you have the words of man, not of 'God'.

The deity does not exist.

[honest john's firing squad]

these threads have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all religious communists

[Left Leanings]

these threads have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all religious communists

It's all in the spirit of debate.

If the "religious communists" want to have their say, they can do so.

[Zostrianos]

I dabbled in Christianity a long time ago, when I was 16, 17 (and went as far as going to Church for a while, of my own volition). What made me change was a remarkable book I read, that proved that the Judeo-Christian faith is not a unique phenomenon, but has its origins in Pagan Semitic religions: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel by Harvard professor F. M. Cross. That immediately shook my faith. This continued when I began looking into the real history of how Christianity took over the Roman empire (we were taught in high school that Christians were brutally persecuted, and then the emperor Constantine came along, and everyone lived happily ever after... :rolleyes:). I discovered how the Church immediately began persecuting other faiths, destroying temples and synagogues, murdering "heretics", reading facts like this:

"Our sources for the two and a quarter centuries following Nicaea allow a very rough count of the victims of credal differences: not less than twenty five thousand deaths (a little more than the 2000 or so Christians martyred by Rome don't you think?). A great many, but still only a small minority, were clergy; the rest, participants in crowds...All those who died met their end irregularly as targets of fury, not of legal action. Of bishops who died for their faith while in the custody of the secular powers, the examples can be counted on the fingers of one hand." (R. Macmullen "Voting about God in early church councils", p 56)

Also, from reading the Bible, I discovered inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods, the biggest one being the one about the Second Coming, when Jesus said it would take place in his disciple's lifetime: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”. (Matthew 24:30-32, 34)

I still admire Jesus' teachings, I think they were revolutionary in many ways, but as for religiously believing in him, no. I find my spiritual fulfilment in other religious philosophies, like Neoplatonism and the Hermetica.

[RedAtheist]

these threads have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all religious communists

Comments likes this have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all communists opposed to religion.

No, seriously, every other idea remotely relevent to the goal of creating a better world is debated among communists on this thread and in reality. Only when somebody has the nerve to criticise religion, are they accused of trying to 'exclude' or 'alienate' people. We are not excluding anybody we are merely criticising certain ideas. Religious people, who want to participate in a political organisation full of lively debate, need to get used to having their ideas challenged. It happens to everybody who gets involved in politics.

[Koba Junior]

It wasn't the religion that turned me off Christianity. That's the fault of Christians, particularly those that live in relative prosperity and the poor and uneducated living on the peripheral of that prosperity. They tend to be taken in by these spoiled upper-middle-class white guys and their reactionary ideology. These men resent their exploitation at the hands of higher capitalists, but their relative comfort has made them unaware of the exploitative character of their own actions.

Religion is a lot like drugs. It's all about set and setting. When you're relatively at peace and in a safe environment, you feel a little more confident in venturing into an altered state of consciousness. You give drugs to the bitter and stupid, however, calamity follows.

[honest john's firing squad]

Comments likes this have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all communists opposed to religion.

No, seriously, every other idea remotely relevent to the goal of creating a better world is debated among communists on this thread and in reality. Only when somebody has the nerve to criticise religion, are they accused of trying to 'exclude' or 'alienate' people. We are not excluding anybody we are merely criticising certain ideas. Religious people, who want to participate in a political organisation full of lively debate, need to get used to having their ideas challenged. It happens to everybody who gets involved in politics.
i'm an agnostic atheist myself but lol tell that to yourself next time some dumb "militant atheist" exclaims "I'VE FOUND THE LIGHT AT LAST I'M FREE OF RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION" or "Im soooo glad I ditched that childish nonsense looongg ago lol u religious ppl r stoopid babies" with a fervor almost as religious as what can be found in any abrahamic belief system.

really these threads just cater to self-aggrandising and obnoxious keyboard warriors so prevalent on the internet who for some reason have this profound sense of moral-intellectual superiority. oh well, i'm glad you guys can generally only be found in the deepest fathoms of the internet.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

i'm an agnostic atheist myself but lol tell that to yourself next time some dumb "militant atheist" exclaims "I'VE FOUND THE LIGHT AT LAST I'M FREE OF RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION" or "Im soooo glad I ditched that childish nonsense looongg ago lol u religious ppl r stoopid babies" with a fervor almost as religious as what can be found in any abrahamic belief system.

really these threads just cater to self-aggrandising and obnoxious keyboard warriors so prevalent on the internet who for some reason have this profound sense of moral-intellectual superiority. oh well, i'm glad you guys can generally only be found in the deepest fathoms of the internet.

Stupid rant, does not even make sense. Oh no, the poor oppressed religious people!!! :rolleyes: If they want to be in an atmosphere supportive of religion, there are always religious forums for them to go to. Hell, they can even walk outside, take a random person, and start talking about religion. Odds are that person is religious, like a majority of humans are. If they are being marginalized, they can either give their opinions here or just go talk to one of the many religious people in the real world. We atheists don't really have the latter option.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was raised catholic and just accepted it while I was younger, maybe a little before middle school I remember realizing there were aetheists and I was kind of shocked that they didn't believe in heaven and as I wraped my head around that I also remember thinking that the stories we were told in the bible were just impossible. So I decided I don't really believe those stories. I don't know if I just became agnostic or typical American "christian" (i.e. I believed in God and Jesus as a custom and my religiousness stopped there without even believing in the bible stories about them).

My only exposure to religion had been an urban catholic church that was racially diverse and apolitical (as far as I could tell, I never remember homosexuality or abortion coming up - I also remember being taught about evolution by catholic teachers without any discussion of creationism! - Evolution was simply the material mechanism through which god-created beings have changed over the eons). The social aspects I remember were mostly focused on "good works" and doing charity and the need to love everyone regardless of nationality (there were many immigrants in this church). Anyway, the point is that then I got to high school, not really beliving in religion, but not being against it either, but then I ran into the children of evangelicals and my attitude towards Christianity changed quite a bit. Also I was more aware of politics at this point and resented Ken-Doll what's-his-name and the Christian Coalition for all their bullshit like a good punk-rocker of that era would.

This continued in college which is like an evangelical hunting range. Ironically becoming a Marxist made me reconsider my views on religion and to separate the religious belief from the political agenda rather than just sort of crudely condemn all religious believers as reactionaries or dupes. It gave me a better and more reasonable explanation for some of the insanity that's cloaked in religion as well as the role of religion in society and disabused me from thinking that religion created bad politics rather than bad politics using religion as a vehicle.

[Left Leanings]

these threads have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all religious communists


It's all in the spirit of debate.

If the "religious communists" want to have their say, they can do so.


Comments likes this have a tendency to marginalise and alienate all communists opposed to religion.

No, seriously, every other idea remotely relevent to the goal of creating a better world is debated among communists on this thread and in reality. Only when somebody has the nerve to criticise religion, are they accused of trying to 'exclude' or 'alienate' people. We are not excluding anybody we are merely criticising certain ideas. Religious people, who want to participate in a political organisation full of lively debate, need to get used to having their ideas challenged. It happens to everybody who gets involved in politics.


i'm an agnostic atheist myself but lol tell that to yourself next time some dumb "militant atheist" exclaims "I'VE FOUND THE LIGHT AT LAST I'M FREE OF RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION" or "Im soooo glad I ditched that childish nonsense looongg ago lol u religious ppl r stoopid babies" with a fervor almost as religious as what can be found in any abrahamic belief system.

really these threads just cater to self-aggrandising and obnoxious keyboard warriors so prevalent on the internet who for some reason have this profound sense of moral-intellectual superiority. oh well, i'm glad you guys can generally only be found in the deepest fathoms of the internet.

First of all, you cannot be an "agnostic atheist". That is a contradiction in terms. An Agnostic is one who takes the position that they do not know whether God exists or not. They may not live their life with regard to religion. But intellectually, they are in a state of 'not knowing', and are undecided. An Atheist takes a more definite and bolder stance: they assert that God does not exist. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist on this stance at the same time. They are fundamentally different positions.

AS for people being alienated and marginalized. I see you have 'r.i.p. franz' under your username. A feference to Franz Fanionpants, no doubt. They guy who with his immature, abusive and patronizing posts, probably went a fair way to marginalizing and alienating many on these Boards himself - and has been given the bum's rush from here, and banned TWICE in the short time I have been posting. And the guy also claimed to be an 'educator', which is the American term for a school teacher. A fine example he sets, when there are high school/secondary school kids on here, who post with more decorum and grace than he ever has.

And was it not you also, who under the username of 'Miss Marple's Revenge', posted you didn't talk about politics, cos you 'have a life', in repsonse to a thread started by a young comrade, about his efforts to propagandize in school? That was a pretty marginalizing and counter-productive post right there, I reckon.

You - and your mate now in exile once again - are a fine pair together. And a classic example of "self-aggrandizing and obnoxious keyboard warriors", exhibiting marginalizing and alienating posts.

[Offbeat]

First of all, you cannot be an "agnostic atheist". That is a contradiction in terms. An Agnostic is one who takes the position that they do not know whether God exists or not. They may not live their life with regard to religion. But intellectually, they are in a state of 'not knowing', and are undecided. An Atheist takes a more definite and bolder stance: they assert that God does not exist. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist on this stance at the same time. They are fundamentally different positions.
Agnostic atheism, or weak atheism, is lack of belief in any god, as opposed to gnostic atheism, or strong atheism, which is the belief that there is no god.

[honest john's firing squad]

First of all, you cannot be an "agnostic atheist". That is a contradiction in terms. An Agnostic is one who takes the position that they do not know whether God exists or not. They may not live their life with regard to religion. But intellectually, they are in a state of 'not knowing', and are undecided. An Atheist takes a more definite and bolder stance: they assert that God does not exist. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist on this stance at the same time. They are fundamentally different positions.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position (relating to knowledge) whilst atheism is a theological one (relating to belief). They aren't mutually exclusive.

e: I cannot prove using the scientific method that there is or isn't a god, and at the same time I also choose not to believe in one.


AS for people being alienated and marginalized. I see you have 'r.i.p. franz' under your username. A feference to Franz Fanionpants, no doubt. They guy who with his immature, abusive and patronizing posts, probably went a fair way to marginalizing and alienating many on these Boards himself - and has been given the bum's rush from here, and banned TWICE in the short time I have been posting. And the guy also claimed to be an 'educator', which is the American term for a school teacher. A fine example he sets, when there are high school/secondary school kids on here, who post with more decorum and grace than he ever has.
Franz Fanonipants was a down-to-earth poster who didn't roleplay revolutionary leftist. They're the kind of people I admire, and there's a shortage of "real" people on revleft.


And was it not you also, who under the username of 'Miss Marple's Revenge', posted you didn't talk about politics, cos you 'have a life', in repsonse to a thread started by a young comrade, about his efforts to propagandize in school? That was a pretty marginalizing and counter-productive post right there, I reckon.
I don't talk politics IRL to my apolitical mates because, hey, it's fucking boring and most of them are unemployed so they aren't even in a position to use their labor as a weapon against the ruling class. I also don't think proselytizing communism is useful or desirable, so.


You - and your mate now in exile once again - are a fine pair together. And a classic example of "self-aggrandizing and obnoxious keyboard warriors", exhibiting marginalizing and alienating posts.
People with bad politics deserve to fall victim to scorn and criticism. People with essentially anti-communist or otherwise non-communist politics shouldn't be allowed to express their beliefs here. What I do is point out the irony of, and the failure that is the left, whilst some people here push for a campaign of actively dividing the working class along theological lines in the real world, which would have real consequences on our class movement and solidarity between workers, if it wasn't for the fact that militant atheists are largely restricted to the confines of the comments section of youtube videos.

[Left Leanings]

Franz Fanonipants was a down-to-earth poster who didn't roleplay revolutionary leftist. They're the kind of people I admire, and there's a shortage of "real" people on revleft.


I don't talk politics IRL to my apolitical mates because, hey, it's fucking boring and most of them are unemployed so they aren't even in a position to use their labor as a weapon against the ruling class. I also don't think proselytizing communism is useful or desirable, so.


People with bad politics deserve to fall victim to scorn and criticism. People with essentially anti-communist or otherwise non-communist politics shouldn't be allowed to express their beliefs here. What I do is point out the irony of, and the failure that is the left, whilst some people here push for a campaign of actively dividing the working class along theological lines in the real world, which would have real consequences on our class movement and solidarity between workers, if it wasn't for the fact that militant atheists are largely restricted to the confines of the comments section of youtube videos.

Mate, a 'down-to-earth' poster? In all seriousness, ffs. The guy made petty and trolling posts, and was often rude and abusive. He got thrown off here for as much. But if you wanna call him that, then be my guest lol.

As for people playing at revolutionaries, and there needing to be real people. Well, you know, it's the internet. I'm sure some people here only post and not much else. Others post and take active steps towards revolutionary goals. Likewise their are comrades active out there, who never post on the net.

Concerning your unemployed mates and politics being boring. It's up to you to make it interesting, isn't it? Cos if they are unemployed, then the bosses shitty sytem is certainly having its impact on them. And there is more to revolutionary organization that using one's labour as a wepaon.

And I think it's very important to talk politics with people. An ideological framework is important in people making sense of their lives, and understanding the nature of the bosses and their fucked-up world. Workers can come to class-consciousness themselves. But it helps if you give them a push in the right direction.

Ideology AND practical steps towards the revolutiuonary goal, are pretty important.

Regarding religion. I am a former Christian, now an atheist. If I see posts on religion, I have my say. If the religious want their's, then so be it. I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with leftists, irrespective of whether they are religious or not. It's engaging in the struggle that counts so far as I am concerned.

If, and when, it all kicks off, we will all be in it together, and all the petty divisions will matter little anyway. We will be too busy attacking capital and reclaiming what's ours, and defending ourselves from the bosses state machine, to argue the toss over this and that.

[honest john's firing squad]

Mate, a 'down-to-earth' poster? In all seriousness, ffs. The guy made petty and trolling posts, and was often rude and abusive. He got thrown off here for as much. But if you wanna call him that, then be my guest lol.
He and others don't LARP like so many others on here. I see people on revleft "defending Assad" in the name of "anti-imperialism" when it's clear they're about twelve and their "support" doesn't matter one bit to the regime. His posts were far less petty than that.


And there is more to revolutionary organization that using one's labour as a wepaon.
This is pretty ambiguous. What do you mean by this? Labor is the only real weapon workers have at their disposal in the class struggle anyway.


Ideology [... is] pretty important.
Only if you're an idealist, actually.


If, and when, it all kicks off, we will all be in it together, and all the petty divisions will matter little anyway. We will be too busy attacking capital and reclaiming what's ours, and defending ourselves from the bosses state machine, to argue the toss over this and that.
lol if only that actually happened.

[Left Leanings]

@ honest johns firing squad.

You're a time waster mate. End of.

First, regarding other steps other than withdrawing labour. If you have to ask, then you aren't very busy now, are you. The Poll Tax in the UK. That didn't involve withdrawing labour. It did involve indentifying non-payers, supporting them in court, rallying outside, and culminating in the massive demos and riots, which saw the Poll Tax off. It didn't result in a revolutionary situation. But it could of.

Also, you only part quoted my post on ideology, taking it quite out of context, and derailing its meaning. I think any who read my original post, then yours, can see for themselves what you are about.

And, you're right that the revolution may never occur. But it's perhaps more likely to, if people like yourself and Franz, quit the counter-productive posting, stop making excuses, reach out to your friends and talk politics, and take organizational steps as well.

Now you're a last worder, I'm sure. So it's over to you. Thereafter, I will concentrate on the posters here who are actually worth the effort :rolleyes:

[MotherCossack]

I guess there are lots of Christians and previous Christians out there who have lots of idea on Jesus and Christianity. I want to learn what makes you believe in Jesus and Christianity if you are a believer.

But most important question is to previous Christians who got rid of their beliefs by certain logic or thinking. What negated religion and Jesus in you ? Which kind of thinking ? What did not work in his teachings or let's say Bible writers teachings in you.

Things that sound so nice like... Love every one... Forgive every one... What do you think about these ?

i have this gramps who used to be the deputy bishop of jerusalem and oxford. he is pretty ancient [99] and so i have to b e pretty patient and committed to talk to him.... but you would not believe it..... the shining white wisdom that he exudes... it is major splendiferous.
[shame my dad didn't inherit any of his coolness]
anyway...... i love to hear him and admire him greatly... once you get used to the fact he has no body and a massive head and ears and his eyes are a bit loose looking and he is largely deaf... has an ear trumpet.
he knows everything .... all of everything about christianity and lived for tens of years in the holy land ... so knows all about jesus and the actual politics of his life way back when....
for a churchman he is admirably objective about what went down .....
he talked recently about the way the truth was comprehensively manipulated after jesus died when the gospels were being written.
seems that omission came in very handy.... along with some pretty imaginative interpretation... i wish i could remember names stephen was definitely mentioned... they basically carved up the place and built shrines , temples and stuff so that what they were writing would stick... all those 1000's of years ago the bible and christianity was a political game and seems like conniving, scheming, cynical disregard for the actual facts was already a la mode

[honest john's firing squad]

First, regarding other steps other than withdrawing labour. If you have to ask, then you aren't very busy now, are you. The Poll Tax in the UK. That didn't involve withdrawing labour. It did involve indentifying non-payers, supporting them in court, rallying outside, and culminating in the massive demos and riots, which saw the Poll Tax off. It didn't result in a revolutionary situation. But it could of.
I think you're being far too optimistic here. In any case, the only tool that the working class can use to abolish to the capitalist mode of production and "establish" a communist one is their labor. Feel free to argue with me on that one though.

hint: you would need a really good argument


Also, you only part quoted my post on ideology, taking it quite out of context, and derailing its meaning.
Not really. Practical activity is the most important part, and I have not denied that you said this or claimed that you said otherwise. I would argue that ideology is completely irrelevant, but that's the only part of that sentence which I even addressed (and the only part of your post to which my response would even apply to), so I didn't misconstrue what you said.


And, you're right that the revolution may never occur. But it's perhaps more likely to, if people like yourself and Franz, quit the counter-productive posting, stop making excuses, reach out to your friends and talk politics, and take organizational steps as well.
I will organise once I find employment. Until then, there are no workers I can organise. By the way, what we say on an online forum won't affect the probability of revolution occurring at all, so what you said is completely incorrect.

[brigadista]

finding out the bible is a political tract to consolidate english sovereign power ,hence the many versions [eg King James version]- being educated in a convent- as i say to the crazy xtians at my door - if the nuns couldn't do it - you wont

[Revolution starts with U]

First of all, you cannot be an "agnostic atheist". That is a contradiction in terms. An Agnostic is one who takes the position that they do not know whether God exists or not. They may not live their life with regard to religion. But intellectually, they are in a state of 'not knowing', and are undecided. An Atheist takes a more definite and bolder stance: they assert that God does not exist. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist on this stance at the same time. They are fundamentally different positions.

AS for people being alienated and marginalized. I see you have 'r.i.p. franz' under your username. A feference to Franz Fanionpants, no doubt. They guy who with his immature, abusive and patronizing posts, probably went a fair way to marginalizing and alienating many on these Boards himself - and has been given the bum's rush from here, and banned TWICE in the short time I have been posting. And the guy also claimed to be an 'educator', which is the American term for a school teacher. A fine example he sets, when there are high school/secondary school kids on here, who post with more decorum and grace than he ever has.

And was it not you also, who under the username of 'Miss Marple's Revenge', posted you didn't talk about politics, cos you 'have a life', in repsonse to a thread started by a young comrade, about his efforts to propagandize in school? That was a pretty marginalizing and counter-productive post right there, I reckon.

You - and your mate now in exile once again - are a fine pair together. And a classic example of "self-aggrandizing and obnoxious keyboard warriors", exhibiting marginalizing and alienating posts.

It's called "projection" and is a common trait amongst these cretins. For example:



People with bad politics deserve to fall victim to scorn and criticism. People with essentially anti-communist or otherwise non-communist politics shouldn't be allowed to express their beliefs here.

Was said in regards to her perception that we were "bringing scorn and criticism, and essentailly attempting to not allow them to express their beliefs here (marginalizing)" because believing in fairy tails is such good politics :rolleyes:


This is pretty ambiguous. What do you mean by this? Labor is the only real weapon workers have at their disposal in the class struggle anyway.

Look at this bourgoisie mother fucker equating work to labor here ... :thumbdown:

[honest john's firing squad]

Was said in regards to her perception that we were "bringing scorn and criticism, and essentailly attempting to not allow them to express their beliefs here (marginalizing)" because believing in fairy tails is such good politics :rolleyes:
What?


Look at this bourgoisie mother fucker equating work to labor here ... :thumbdown:
What?

[roy]

Was said in regards to her perception that we were "bringing scorn and criticism, and essentailly attempting to not allow them to express their beliefs here (marginalizing)" because believing in fairy tails is such good politics :rolleyes:


what are you trying to say? that you don't scorn and criticise? i mean, you just did (see bold). aside from simply being unnecessary rudeness, this attitude is obviously offensive to religious leftists. also, your attack on faith is purely abstract. simply being religious is some sort of offense in your books, apparently.

[Revolution starts with U]

What?




.


what are you trying to say? that you don't scorn and criticise? i mean, you just did (see bold). aside from simply being unnecessary rudeness, this attitude is obviously offensive to religious leftists. also, your attack on faith is purely abstract. simply being religious is some sort of offense in your books, apparently.

1: I didn't scorn
2: I never said being scornful or critical is wrong.
3: If telling them it's a fairy tale is offensive, then I am offensive. So what?

Where did I say believing in fairy tales is offensive to me? Where did I even attack faith?

What good does your faith bring to worker empowerment? What good does anyone's faith bring it? If it does not, I am under no obligation to give a shit about your religion, or how bad you feel that I call you a child for believing in it.

Is the only way to promote solidarity among religious leftists to accept their religion? Can I not work with them while criticizing them? I can accept people's criticism of me and not a hold a grudge. Why, to you guys, are religious people so weak of character that simple criticism of their position is "decisive."


What?



Only the bourgeois mindset believes that all labor is work, a means to "get paid" and show your value to (capitalist) society. You can see this when they ask kids what job they're going to get with their degree, etc, and criticize if that degree isn't in a readily work available field (like English lit, etc).
I am laboring right now. I am certainly not working.

[Revolution starts with U]

Remember she said "otherwise non-communist," so.. unless one can show that being religious is fundamental to being communist... by her own admission religious people deserve to have scorn and criticism brought upon them.

Don't talk to me about her projection and inability to see the inconsistency of her stances.

[roy]

.



1: I didn't scorn
2: I never said being scornful or critical is wrong.
3: If telling them it's a fairy tale is offensive, then I am offensive. So what?

Where did I say believing in fairy tales is offensive to me? Where did I even attack faith?

What good does your faith bring to worker empowerment? What good does anyone's faith bring it? If it does not, I am under no obligation to give a shit about your religion, or how bad you feel that I call you a child for believing in it.

Is the only way to promote solidarity among religious leftists to accept their religion? Can I not work with them while criticizing them? I can accept people's criticism of me and not a hold a grudge. Why, to you guys, are religious people so weak of character that simple criticism of their position is "decisive."

you did scorn. if you don't think deriding all spiritual convictionas 'fairy tale' is scorn i don't think i can help you here. the problem with this attitude is not merely that it's rude, but that it alienates most of the proletariat. herein and elsewhere on these forums it has become obvious that you are contemptuous of faith and when you say shit like this you extend your contempt to all religious folk, just for being religious. nothing else.

and i didn't say 'my faith' brings anything to worker empowerment. i'm not actually religious, so idk where you got that. i'm just saying you're being unnecessarily dickish over an abstract issue that isn't reflective of a person's overall character or anything else. i mean really, you're just being childish. all you're doing is being divisive, and that really doesn't bring anything to class struggle. it detracts from it. nice strawman at the end, btw. you start out by inferring the feeble-mindedness of people who adhere to this or that religion (fairy tales), then call us out for some imagined implication that we think the same thing. i think it's pretty much common sense that people aren't gonna want to have much to do with you generally if you start calling them dumb for their beliefs.

[W1N5T0N]

religion is like money.

[Revolution starts with U]

you did scorn.
Even had I did, so what?

if you don't think deriding all spiritual convictionas 'fairy tale' is scorn
Is that what I did?


the problem with this attitude is not merely that it's rude, but that it alienates most of the proletariat. herein and elsewhere on these forums it has become obvious that you are contemptuous of faith and when you say shit like this you extend your contempt to all religious folk, just for being religious. nothing else.

As if I don't regularly discuss religion with religious people, and didn't grow up a catholic in catholic schools :rolleyes:
Here and elsewhere it should be seen that I have come to defend faith where it needs defending. But I don't shy away from the stance that "faith" in myths and fairy tales is of no real value to anyone anywhere.


and i didn't say 'my faith' brings anything to worker empowerment. i'm not actually religious, so idk where you got that. i'm just saying you're being unnecessarily dickish over an abstract issue that isn't reflective of a person's overall character or anything else. i mean really, you're just being childish.

Need I remind you how this all started with me?

It's called "projection" and is a common trait amongst these cretins. For example:


Originally Posted by honest john's firing squad
People with bad politics deserve to fall victim to scorn and criticism. People with essentially anti-communist or otherwise non-communist politics shouldn't be allowed to express their beliefs here.

Was said in regards to her perception that we were "bringing scorn and criticism, and essentailly attempting to not allow them to express their beliefs here (marginalizing)" because believing in fairy tails is such good politics

This should really just further elucidation upon the victim complex many religious fold, and their defenders, seem to have. They talk shit, so someone talks shit about them, then they cry foul. It would be rather funny, if I didn't live in the states where this usually turns into them openly being allowed to demean and persecute minority religions and behaviors (like gays).


all you're doing is being divisive, and that really doesn't bring anything to class struggle.
Am i the one who said "people with bad politics, or otherwise non-communist politics, should be subject to scorn and derision, and not allowed to post here?" I'm sorry, I didn't realize Miss Marple was my other personality.

nice strawman at the end, btw. you start out by inferring the feeble-mindedness of people who adhere to this or that religion (fairy tales), then call us out for some imagined implication that we think the same thing.
My apologies for subscribing a viewpoint to you that you didn't have.

i think it's pretty much common sense that people aren't gonna want to have much to do with you generally if you start calling them dumb for their beliefs.

Oh no, whatever shall I do? My existence and proselytizing are crucial for the working class movement!

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

religion is like money.
what does that even mean?

[moulinrouge]

Exactly.

God and Jesus are the same entity. Jesus is simply God incarnate/personified.

If the claims made for the Deity - that it is omnipresent, omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-loving, then human suffering would be non-existent.

I have a problem with this kind of logic.
If you are in a coma you don't suffer, does that mean that being in a coma is good thing?

All people will suffer in their lives, does that mean having children is a bad thing and a parent can't be loving?

If the christian god is real i don't think a judgement based on absolutist philosophical moralism is objective.


I have never been religious myself and i tend to look at religion from an evolutionary psychology and materialist dialectic point of view. I was raised in a religious community by non-religious parents, i have never experienced any hatred from the religious people around me.

[moulinrouge]

what does that even mean?

That you got to have faith in it.

[Black_Rose]

It wasn't the religion that turned me off Christianity. That's the fault of Christians, particularly those that live in relative prosperity and the poor and uneducated living on the peripheral of that prosperity. They tend to be taken in by these spoiled upper-middle-class white guys and their reactionary ideology. These men resent their exploitation at the hands of higher capitalists, but their relative comfort has made them unaware of the exploitative character of their own actions.

Religion is a lot like drugs. It's all about set and setting. When you're relatively at peace and in a safe environment, you feel a little more confident in venturing into an altered state of consciousness. You give drugs to the bitter and stupid, however, calamity follows.


Just call them what they are: the labor aristocracy.

BTW, I think I am the only person who considers herself Catholic here.

[l'Enfermé]

Basing one's beliefs on what was allegedly said and written down by an Armageddon-worshipping Rabbi(the evidence for whose existence is as believable as the whole wolf-suckling Romulus and son-of-Zeus Hercules myths) and his Jewish disciples 2 thousand years ago living on the frontier of the Roman Empire is incredibly stupid and doesn't deserve anything more than being laughed upon.

Anyways, as far as Gods go, Jesus was pretty fucking pathetic. Maybe if he was crucified after fighting a battle with 10,000 pillaging vikings at whose head stood Satan and an army of demons, a battle that lasted for 3 straight years, well maybe, such a God would be worth worshiping.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

That you got to have faith in it.
But I use money all the time without having "faith" in it.

[Robespierres Neck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dJurexGtak

[WanderingCactus]

I identify as agnostic to avoid being correlated with a lot of the stupidity in this thread. Fuck the "New Atheism" of Dawkins and co. You may as well be some other religious zealot trying to spread their views.

I am just as put off by "Debate me!" as I am by "Have you heard the word of our lord Jesus Christ?"

[l'Enfermé]

Franz Fanonipants was a down-to-earth poster who didn't roleplay revolutionary leftist. They're the kind of people I admire, and there's a shortage of "real" people on revleft.

Oh please. "Real people" are immature trolls and Catholics? Honestly? If anything, RevLeft needs less troll and catholics.

[Left Leanings]

Exactly.

God and Jesus are the same entity. Jesus is simply God incarnate/personified.

If the claims made for the Deity - that it is omnipresent, omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-loving, then human suffering would be non-existent.

Arguments for God granting 'free will' that causes human suffering is horsehit. Cos the Deity would have both the power and the inclination to grant both free will, and prevent human suffering at the same time.

If the deity is as described, then it should be spat upon for its callousness.

If the miracles of healing are so remarkable (and these are 'gifts' bestowed on his followers also), then why the need for modern medicine and hospitals. A trip to the local faith healer ought to do it lol.

It's hogwash. In the Bible you have the words of man, not of 'God'.

The deity does not exist.


I have a problem with this kind of logic.
If you are in a coma you don't suffer, does that mean that being in a coma is good thing?

All people will suffer in their lives, does that mean having children is a bad thing and a parent can't be loving?

If the christian god is real i don't think a judgement based on absolutist philosophical moralism is objective.


I have never been religious myself and i tend to look at religion from an evolutionary psychology and materialist dialectic point of view. I was raised in a religious community by non-religious parents, i have never experienced any hatred from the religious people around me.

You claim that if you are in a coma, you don't suffer. Possibly not. But though you are unconscious and immobile, you are unable to participate in what goes on around you, both the good and the bad. So being cut off from those, a curious state of being alive, yet a kind of non-being, is perhaps a form of suffering.

And those around you would suffer. I have a friend whose mother is in a coma. He is suffering terribly as a result.

And an all-loving and all-powerful deity, would have both the ability and the inclination, to prevent coma (and all forms of other suffering too). So the state of coma and how it impacts on those around it, would not exist.

And yes parents have children, who will suffer in their lives, and their parents are loving. And no it's not a bad thing to have kids. But human parents are human parents. They can love their kids, but cannot shield them from all suffering.

The deity is not a human parent. And the claims and abilities made with regard to the deity are quite different.

I haven't experienced too much direct hatred from religious people around me. But when clergy and religious folks go on about the evils of homosexuality, as a bisexual man, it does rather piss me off.

[Azraella]

I'm married to a very devout Christian and anarchist. I don't get it, but ze feels that it's hir responsibility to relieve the world of sin and hell by working to make the world the kingdom of God. As I understand it, ze thinks that there is some truth to the old canard of meeting God halfway(like if you pray to God to win the lottery, you have to buy a lotto ticket first, except not so overt)

[Black_Rose]

Oh please. "Real people" are immature trolls and Catholics? Honestly? If anything, RevLeft needs less troll and catholics.

When should I be exiled?

[WanderingCactus]

Franz Fanonipants was a down-to-earth poster who didn't roleplay revolutionary leftist. They're the kind of people I admire, and there's a shortage of "real" people on revleft.


I'll echo this. Franz was great, and the board is worse off without him.

[moulinrouge]

You claim that if you are in a coma, you don't suffer. Possibly not. But though you are unconscious and immobile, you are unable to participate in what goes on around you, both the good and the bad. So being cut off from those, a curious state of being alive, yet a kind of non-being, is perhaps a form of suffering.

And those around you would suffer. I have a friend whose mother is in a coma. He is suffering terribly as a result.

And an all-loving and all-powerful deity, would have both the ability and the inclination, to prevent coma (and all forms of other suffering too). So the state of coma and how it impacts on those around it, would not exist.

And yes parents have children, who will suffer in their lives, and their parents are loving. And no it's not a bad thing to have kids. But human parents are human parents. They can love their kids, but cannot shield them from all suffering.

The deity is not a human parent. And the claims and abilities made with regard to the deity are quite different.

I haven't experienced too much direct hatred from religious people around me. But when clergy and religious folks go on about the evils of homosexuality, as a bisexual man, it does rather piss me off.

I still think that you can't get moralistic about concepts like the universe.There are things that happen, that people don't want to happen and i can't think of a universe where this wouldn't be the case.

Thesis and anti-thesis, if there are thing we see as positive then there got to be things we view as negative.

[W1N5T0N]

what does that even mean?

1. its used to control people

2. it will exist as long as there is profit to be drawn from it

3. it alienates people from the material world with abstract needs

4. as long as there are things of value to be traded, somebody will draw up and IO U. as long as there is human suffering and ignorance, there will be religion.

eliminiate human suffering and ignorance by ending money through communism ;) and e voila religion will have nothing to hold onto.

[Left Leanings]

Exactly.

God and Jesus are the same entity. Jesus is simply God incarnate/personified.

If the claims made for the Deity - that it is omnipresent, omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-loving, then human suffering would be non-existent.

Arguments for God granting 'free will' that causes human suffering is horsehit. Cos the Deity would have both the power and the inclination to grant both free will, and prevent human suffering at the same time.

If the deity is as described, then it should be spat upon for its callousness.

If the miracles of healing are so remarkable (and these are 'gifts' bestowed on his followers also), then why the need for modern medicine and hospitals. A trip to the local faith healer ought to do it lol.

It's hogwash. In the Bible you have the words of man, not of 'God'.

The deity does not exist.


I have a problem with this kind of logic.
If you are in a coma you don't suffer, does that mean that being in a coma is good thing?

All people will suffer in their lives, does that mean having children is a bad thing and a parent can't be loving?

If the christian god is real i don't think a judgement based on absolutist philosophical moralism is objective.


I have never been religious myself and i tend to look at religion from an evolutionary psychology and materialist dialectic point of view. I was raised in a religious community by non-religious parents, i have never experienced any hatred from the religious people around me.


You claim that if you are in a coma, you don't suffer. Possibly not. But though you are unconscious and immobile, you are unable to participate in what goes on around you, both the good and the bad. So being cut off from those, a curious state of being alive, yet a kind of non-being, is perhaps a form of suffering.

And those around you would suffer. I have a friend whose mother is in a coma. He is suffering terribly as a result.

And an all-loving and all-powerful deity, would have both the ability and the inclination, to prevent coma (and all forms of other suffering too). So the state of coma and how it impacts on those around it, would not exist.

And yes parents have children, who will suffer in their lives, and their parents are loving. And no it's not a bad thing to have kids. But human parents are human parents. They can love their kids, but cannot shield them from all suffering.

The deity is not a human parent. And the claims and abilities made with regard to the deity are quite different.

I haven't experienced too much direct hatred from religious people around me. But when clergy and religious folks go on about the evils of homosexuality, as a bisexual man, it does rather piss me off.


I still think that you can't get moralistic about concepts like the universe.There are things that happen, that people don't want to happen and i can't think of a universe where this wouldn't be the case.

Thesis and anti-thesis, if there are thing we see as positive then there got to be things we view as negative.

I wasn't getting moralistic about concepts like "the universe". The Universe exists, bad shit happens, but I don't put that down to the deity, cos I don't believe in its existence.

But the point you actually originally made, postulated that 'if the Christian god is real...".

I stated that if the deity was both all-loving and all-powerful, then it should be condemned for allowing human suffering.

Your post is bit disingenous. You have switched from one abstraction to another: the deity; then the Universe.

[Left Leanings]

Franz Fanonipants was a down-to-earth poster


I'll echo this. Franz was great, and the board is worse off without him.

Well each to their own, and all that.

But what some might call 'down-to-earth', others might refer to as 'rock-bottom' ;)

[l'Enfermé]

When should I be exiled?
You shouldn't be exiled for your Catholicism, however you should be exiled for being a Stalinist. Off to the GULAG, comrade!

[moulinrouge]

I wasn't getting moralistic about concepts like "the universe". The Universe exists, bad shit happens, but I don't put that down to the deity, cos I don't believe in its existence.

But the point you actually originally made, postulated that 'if the Christian god is real...".

I stated that if the deity was both all-loving and all-powerful, then it should be condemned for allowing human suffering.

Your post is bit disingenous. You have switched from one abstraction to another: the deity; then the Universe.

I think you missed the point, but indeed i was a bit vague.
If there are positive things in the universe then there have to be negative things do. You can not have one without the other.

So if the deity is evil for allowing suffering, the deity is actually evil for allowing the existence of organisms.

And since we don't see the existence of organisms as an evil in itself, how can we see the creator of organism as evil?

[Left Leanings]

I think you missed the point, but indeed i was a bit vague.
If there are positive things in the universe then there have to be negative things do. You can not have one without the other.

So if the deity is evil for allowing suffering, the deity is actually evil for allowing the existence of organisms.

And since we don't see the existence of organisms as an evil in itself, how can we see the creator of organism as evil?

By 'organisms', I take it you mean things that can experience suffering and/or cause suffering.

But again: if the deity is both all-loving and all-powerful, then the existence of organisms and a lack of suffering, are within the control of the deity.

For example. People have the free will to manufacture arms, and bomb Iraq. But the Deity, loving people enough to give them that free will, would also have the power to render the bombs harmless on impact.

The deity as described by the Christian religion, which is what we were initially talking about, is in my opinion, to be condemned, if it will allow suffering, if it is all-loving and all-powerful.

Others may disagree, if they so wish.

My own position, is that the deity is neither all-loving, nor all-powerful - because it does not exist.

[homegrown terror]

Also, Christianity, for a self-proclaimed religion of peace, had one of the most violent histories I've ever read about.


number of people killed in the First and Second Crusades: 58,000 (condoned by Pope Urban II and Pope Eugene III)
number killed in the Spanish Inqisition and Reconquista: 31,912 (condoned by Pope Sixtus)
number of people killed for being "witches": by some estimates, over 100,000 (condoned by an innumerable amount of popes and various religious leaders)
number killed in the Norse Conversion: over 7,000 (condoned by Pope Gregory I)
number of Native Americans killed by the Conquistadores: numbers uncertain, but possibly over 85% of the original population (condoned by Pope Alexander VI)
number of Native Americans killed by the Western Expansion: over 3 million (condoned by MANY religions and secular Christian leaders)

number killed by Satanists: a few dozen murders and sacrifices, none of which were condoned in either LaVeyan, Theistic or Luciferian Satanism.

now which religion is REALLY evil?

crosspost from another forum.