oppressive christianity?

[marxstudent]

some of you have heard of orthodoxy, which holds true to the apostalic church, yet is quite liberal. for example, birth control is not necessary, not confessing your sins and taking part in communion doesn't necessarily send you to hell, etc. althought it's still restrictive in some areas it can't be too bad, since castro has allowed the orthodox to establish a church in cuba.

what about the episcopal church? it seems like they're not oppressive at all- allowing homosexuals to be a full member of the church. according to protestants being gay's like one of the most "mortal" sins you can commit, isn't it? another thing... mortal and venial sins are humanistic sins- people confuse them w/ affecting one's salvation. maybe it was taught before the vatican II.

i just don't understand how people can be so against christianity if these two churches are quite liberal. separating personal faith from political opinions means no oppression- at least to no one around the christian that does practices this.

[Trissy]

People can be so against Christianity (and practically every other religion come to think of it) because their arguments against it aren't purely that it can be an oppresive organisation. This is merely one string to their bow. Other arguments could be...

*that some religious people hear people talking about sin and read about sin in whatever Scripture you happen to hold and all they can see is the sin others commit whilst they ignore the fact that they commit sins X, Y and Z on a regular basis. To some this can seem both hypocritical and arrogant.
*certain religions make people suffer from inferiority complexes where they cannot get the thought that they are a worthless sinning human (compared to a perfect deity) out of their heads.
*The mere statement 'God loves me/you/everyone' is based on so many assumptions that it would almost be funny if it weren't so depressing.
*Religions teach people to be happy in ignorance and to not ask questions. When questions are raised then people are reffered back to the fallibility of human knowledge and to the infallibility of the almighty power's plans.
*Religious people seem very happy to accept certain things are right or wrong without questioning things and following through an argument to its logical conclusions. 'because it is' or 'because God said so' does not justify any ethical belief at all. Has anyone noticed that every God that is believed in never talks directly to the world but always through an interpretter...given the fallibility of humans isn't this a bit risky?
*Ideologically the idea that a loving deity could give humans freewill and then punish them for (mis?)using it seems to be a paradox and completely illogical. A fair analogy would be putting your pet mouse who you love with all your heart infront of a mouse trap to test its ability to resist temptation...
*The problem of evil has never sufficiently been answered by theologians.
*We can never know the ultimate answer to whether there is a life after death or whether God exists so why do we need religion? Why don't we treat this life as the only one and make the best of it we can?I cannot prove or disprove the existence of many mythical and cultural figures (Zeus, Santa, the tooth fairy) but that doesn't mean I should build my life around them just incase they do...

I could go on all day but I get the feeling it would only annoy people. I'll stop questioning Christianity the day it provides me with satisfactorary answers to my questions and doesn't just try and fob me off. Believe it or not I don't argue merely for the sake of arguing, I argue because there are things I don't understand and I'm seeking answers for (and consistent ones at that)...

[cubist]

redstar calling redstar

:hammer:

[SittingBull47]

not hard to believe. there are many denominations of christianity that won't rest until you convert to their own religion. History shows it and most know the history of oppression so i won't waste time with a massive post. All this denomination oppression shit makes you wonder how many gods exist.

[monkeydust]

i just don't understand how people can be so against christianity if these two churches are quite liberal.

You seem to miss our point to an extent.

No matter how liberal a Christian Church may seem to be, it is still a Christian Church.

By definition a Christian Church can only be ostensibly liberal, and never realistically liberal in practice.

Why?

The answer is simple..........

The very scripture that Christians have to follow embodies opression and reaction.

It is the Bible that commands opression of Gays.
It is the Bible that encourages patriarchy and male superiority.
It's the Bible that accepts slavery.

A Christian Church will always be Christian.

You cannot be both progressive and Christian.

Christianity always stands for reaction, and this is what some people here have to realise.

[redstar2000]

"Eastern Orthodoxy" is actually the oldest surviving branch of Christianity, dating back to c.300CE and reflecting traditions that are perhaps even earlier in origin.

It was the state religion of the Byzantine empire until the fall of Constantinople (around 1450CE or so). It was also the state religion of the Czarist empire and of the USSR.

I believe it has quasi-official status in Russia today. It supports a (still small) political party -- "Holy Rus" -- that is clerical fascist.

It has no "pope" -- instead, as I understand it, each national church is governed by "patriarchs". Such churches exist in the Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece, besides Russia. Smaller congregations exist in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and I think there is a small group in Bethlehem-Jerusalem.

Priests may marry in the Orthodox denomination...but only celibates can aspire to higher office in the church. Women and gay males are excluded from the clergy.

Oh yeah, services are held "standing up"...there are no pews in a properly run Orthodox church (this is an ancient Greek tradition--Zeus, et. al., were all worshiped from a standing position).

Otherwise, it's pretty much like Catholicism...though there are some doctrinal differences. You probably don't want to know this but, for example, in Orthodoxy, the "Holy Spirit" proceeds from the "Father" while in Catholicism it proceeds from "the Father and the Son."

Stop laughing; people have been murdered over this! :o

Though not lately.

Probably the best example of "Orthodoxy in action" in recent times was the conflict between Croatia and Serbia during the break-up of Yugoslavia. Orthodox Serbians cheerfully massacred Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims...both of whom were happy to reply in kind. Religion played, I think, as much of a role in "ethnic cleansing" as ethnicity itself...and possibly more. After all, Serbian and Croatian are essentially the same language...and it's likely that the customs of the two regions were (and remain) very similar.

When discussing religious denominations, it's always vital to distinguish between what they say when they are distant from the centers of power and what they do when they really have the opportunity to "cut loose".

Like the difference between "Jesus Loves Me" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers!".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:01 AM
"Eastern Orthodoxy" is actually the oldest surviving branch of Christianity, dating back to c.300CE and reflecting traditions that are perhaps even earlier in origin.

It was the state religion of the Byzantine empire until the fall of Constantinople (around 1450CE or so). It was also the state religion of the Czarist empire and of the USSR.

I believe it has quasi-official status in Russia today. It supports a (still small) political party -- "Holy Rus" -- that is clerical fascist.

It has no "pope" -- instead, as I understand it, each national church is governed by "patriarchs". Such churches exist in the Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece, besides Russia. Smaller congregations exist in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and I think there is a small group in Bethlehem-Jerusalem.

Priests may marry in the Orthodox denomination...but only celibates can aspire to higher office in the church. Women and gay males are excluded from the clergy.

Oh yeah, services are held "standing up"...there are no pews in a properly run Orthodox church (this is an ancient Greek tradition--Zeus, et. al., were all worshiped from a standing position).

Otherwise, it's pretty much like Catholicism...though there are some doctrinal differences. You probably don't want to know this but, for example, in Orthodoxy, the "Holy Spirit" proceeds from the "Father" while in Catholicism it proceeds from "the Father and the Son."

Stop laughing; people have been murdered over this! :o

Though not lately.

Probably the best example of "Orthodoxy in action" in recent times was the conflict between Croatia and Serbia during the break-up of Yugoslavia. Orthodox Serbians cheerfully massacred Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims...both of whom were happy to reply in kind. Religion played, I think, as much of a role in "ethnic cleansing" as ethnicity itself...and possibly more. After all, Serbian and Croatian are essentially the same language...and it's likely that the customs of the two regions were (and remain) very similar.

When discussing religious denominations, it's always vital to distinguish between what they say when they are distant from the centers of power and what they do when they really have the opportunity to "cut loose".

Like the difference between "Jesus Loves Me" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers!".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
RedStar have you ever read any of the Nag Hammadi (gnostic) texts? It's a very interesting set of religious writings.

Basically it was no wear near as strict as modern Christianity, there was no hierarchy,they believed you could become like jesus, that jesus didn't really rise from the dead(his spirit just lived on), and they believed that self knowledge was knowing God.

It's interesting how teh balance of power shifted to the christians who had a hierarchy, told you that Jesus literally came back from the dead, you were subjected to god's will and you must bow to him, jesus was superhuman and you could never be like him, and so on.

Very very interesting.

[Lefty]

True, religion can be oppressive, but people can be inspired to great acts by religion also. I'm an agnostic, but that doesn't stop me from admiring, say, Mother Teresa. Just a thought.

[Lefty]

Also, it's worth pointing out that only the extremists in each religion are oppressive. In my own experience, it's the zealous kids at my high school that hate gays and support George W. Bush. I went to a Methodist church for awhile and the people that I met there are accepting of gays and espouse Socialist rhetoric. Hence, religion is not by nature oppressive, it's the people that refuse to give up outdated and evil ideas like slavery and homophobia that are oppressive.

[marxstudent]

we are fallible- because we are. orthodoxy doesn't teach of original sin in the sense catholicism does. it teaches humans are born flawed but not shit- and each of us do have our own flaws. in some ways, orthodoxy is similar to catholicism but more of what y'all would call "reasonable." they also say that catholics and protestants misinterpret heaven and hell- that hell is not a place of fire where one gets poked by demons all day. they say heaven is god's dwelling place. but god is omnipresent, therefore earth is considered "heaven" as well. everywhere is heaven. what hell is, is to not be attached to one's bonds and being w/ god 24/7 when he does not love god- i guess you can say it's like a hardcore smoker never being able to have a cigarette forever.

in the episcopal church, there are gay bishops and priests as well as women. the episcopalians say that no one is perfect and that we are all loved as creations of god, thus homosexuals may take part in the sacraments and be treated as normal human beings like everyone else.

dennis kucinich and michael moore are basically green party members and they are both catholic. they seperate their political views from their PERSONAL faith. all christians say no matter what, christianity is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. i'm not quite sure about the episcopal church, but the orthodox church believes this, thus they aren't into the whole missions and evangelizing scene. besides, fidel has allowed the establishment of the orthodox church in cuba.

every church has it's dark history. just like everything else (yes, communism).

[marxstudent]

yes, lefty i agree. also, i understand your situation because i go to an evangelical protestant high school. it's hard dealing with their shit.

[redstar2000]

True, religion can be oppressive, but people can be inspired to great acts by religion also. I'm an agnostic, but that doesn't stop me from admiring, say, Mother Teresa.

Who taught people in India (INDIA! :o) that birth control was a "sin".


Also, it's worth pointing out that only the extremists in each religion are oppressive.

If the religion is a vigorous one, then the "extremists" run it and all the other believers just go along for the ride. Decaying religions are different...until a "revivalist" comes along to spur the faithful into action once more.

The Episcopalians (Anglicans) are a decaying branch of Christianity...the ones who are really serious defect to Catholicism.

It is possible that they may become the "church of choice" for GLBT folks...after another century or so. Otherwise, I think they will fade into insignificance.


All Christians say no matter what, Christianity is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.

So is cannibalism.

Seriously, that "personal relationship" stuff never holds them back when they see a chance to legislate their "personal morality" into law. When they had the power, church attendance was compulsory...you could be fined or jailed for not showing up on Sunday morning. You could also be directly taxed to support the church, regardless of your personal inclinations (which you had to keep quiet about or else!).

The Bush regime is currently funneling federal tax dollars into churches for "social work".

Can't get more "personal" than that, can you?


Every church has its dark history just like everything else (yes, communism).

Some histories are darker than others...by a rather wide margin.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

RedStar have you ever read any of the Nag Hammadi (gnostic) texts? It's a very interesting set of religious writings.

Well, I've read about them.

Within the large "social constructs" of religious institutions, there has always been an "underground" of mystical approaches to the supernatural.

Sometimes tolerated and sometimes persecuted, these approaches demand an intense personal commitment in an effort to personally contact "the other world". Fasting, isolation, dancing, drugs, meditation, etc. have all been employed in these efforts.

They are normally "secret" or "semi-secret"...to those who run organized religion as an economic-political racket, they are useless at best and sometimes thought to be dangerous to the prevailing social order.

As you might imagine, I think that the personal-mystic approach to religion is self-deluding but otherwise harmless. As long as no one tries to institutionalize it -- turn it into a church -- I would leave it alone. It's never going to attract more than a very small minority of people and it has, as far as I can tell, no measurable social impact.

It is, quite literally, unearthly in its concerns and priorities.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lefty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:57 AM

True, religion can be oppressive, but people can be inspired to great acts by religion also. I'm an agnostic, but that doesn't stop me from admiring, say, Mother Teresa.

Who taught people in India (INDIA! :o) that birth control was a "sin".


And that makes her a bad person? I prefer to look at the fact that she did wonderful, wonderful things for thousands of people, rather than the fact that she preached something that was incorrect. I think the good outweighs the bad, don't you?


Also, the extremists run Christianity, but it's a complete falsehood to say that all Christians are along for the ride. The majority of the people that I know are Christian, and the vast majority of all the Christians that I know aren't wackjobs that think homosexuals are evil, birth control is a tool of the devil, and evolution shouldn't be taught in school. I don't know how you can possibly say that all Christians believe the same things that, say, Jerry Falwell does. Seriously, think before you post.

:redstar2000:

[marxstudent]

Who taught people in India (INDIA! ) that birth control was a "sin".

the catholics and only the catholics. no other church.

cannibalism is not a personal relationship because it directly and harmfully affects another person. christianity is to be a personal relationship in that if it were to be oppressive, it shall only affect that person practicing his faith.

bush is not separating his political views from his personal faith. thus, it would not be ok. dennis kucinich and michael moore are..

[marxstudent]

Some histories are darker than others...by a rather wide margin.

yes and communism has the darkest, no? this includes stalin, mao, lenin and others who "aren't communist."

[redstar2000]

And that makes her a bad person?

Yes.


I think the good outweighs the bad, don't you?

No.


...and the vast majority of all the Christians that I know aren't wackjobs that think homosexuals are evil, birth control is a tool of the devil, and evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

Well, one possibility is that your sample of Christian acquaintances is "a-typical"...you don't happen to live in a place where the "real wackjobs" predominate.

But when I said that most ordinary Christians "go along for the ride", I meant that they don't protest what is said "in their name"...no matter how reactionary or just plain stupid or both.

The most that an ordinary "non-extremist" Christian will usually do -- if confronted by something totally disgusting -- is quit that church and join a different one that "isn't so bad".

I'm not saying that they "agree" with Jerry Falwell...but where are the sermons saying that Falwell's message of "comes straight from the devil's mouth" or something like that? Where are the demonstrations and pickets against Falwell et.al.? If there's a "good side" to Christianity, where is it?

Is it that the "nice Christians" are "so nice" that they will tolerate the shitty Christians? And if that is the case, then don't we have a situation where the shitty Christians get all the public attention -- create the image of Christianity in the public mind -- while the "nice Christians" are off "doing good works" some place?

In a contest where only one side fights for their ideas, guess who wins???


Seriously, think before you post.

:lol:


...and communism has the darkest [history], no?

This illustrates a point I have made in a number of other posts. "Leftists" who are seriously religious will take the side of religion over "leftism" every time!

Any conflict between their religious beliefs and their "leftism" will always be resolved in favor of their religious beliefs.

It's a matter of priorities.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lefty]

True, I live in a rather liberal community...but still, Christianity has done a lot of good for the world, i.e. fed and clothed a lot of people that live in third world countries. That's a good thing. You are a fool if you would rather die than accept clothes and food and medicine from a church while starving and in need of clothing and medicine. Also, about the Mother Teresa thing:

let's look at what good things she did:
fed, clothed and otherwise helped thousands of dying, starving, and otherwise unhappy people
spread a message of love in various places where craziness and killing prevailed
inspired lots of people to help people in need

bad things:
she denounced birth control as an evil.

And you still say that Mother Teresa was a bad person? If you would be so kind as to enlighten me as to why you think this, it would be much appreciated.

[Trissy]

Mother Teresa also refused to treat gay people as well. This is obviously why she is in line to become a saint because we all know where people like Pope JP stands on the issue of birth control and homosexuality. He has such power to good (as people for some reason listen to him) but he wastes it. Hence I shall not shed a tear the day he pops his mortal coil...

As for Christians doing good things...well yes...yes they do...but this has nothing to do with their faith. Atheists also do many good things...the charitable nature of human beings has nothing to do with any love of the 'Christ'.

[redstar2000]

...but still, Christianity has done a lot of good for the world, i.e. fed and clothed a lot of people that live in third world countries.

While "justifying" those conditions -- hunger and nakedness -- as "the Will of God".

If you believe that charity is an adequate substitute for revolution, then your position "makes sense".

Indeed, if you just want to "help people", then charity makes "more sense" than revolution...charity is something you can do right now.

And it makes you "feel good about yourself", too.

Unfortunately, the measurable effect of charity in reducing human suffering is too small to detect. If you feed one in 100,000 or one in 10,000...it has no discernible effect on collective misery.

"Mother" Teresa may have "earned" herself a "Backstage Pass" in "Heaven"...but as far as the mass of human suffering in India goes, she may just as well have never existed.

That's the record of charity, Christian or otherwise, in general. There's no recorded instance (to my knowledge) of charity ever making a real difference in human conditions.

For the poor, it's a kind of lottery...and a cruel one at that. If you "win" (get fed that day), then you can worry about getting fed tomorrow. If you "lose" (sorry, there's no food left)...well, maybe you should have prayed harder.

But then charity, especially religious charity, is not really about ending human suffering anyway. It's a kind of "public relations" campaign -- "see how godly we are", etc. It's a form of boasting and, like most boasting, it's empty of content. While "Mother" Teresa was "feeding the poor", the Catholic Church was building a $280,000,000 new cathedral in Los Angeles. While she was "tending the lepers", the Vatican was financing Opus Dei -- a semi-secret clerical fascist group heavily involved in promoting military dictatorships in Latin America.

Teresa's worm-shit now...but Opus Dei is more active than ever. I'd bet my net worth (feeble as it is) that their people are busy little bees in Caracas right now.

Ah, the Christians!


You are a fool if you would rather die than accept clothes and food and medicine from a church while starving and in need of clothing and medicine.

As it happened, I did once have the misfortune of being "down and out" for a period of 17 months or so -- living on food stamps, sleeping in "welfare hotels", etc. I lost about 40 lbs. during that time.

I could have had two free meals a day from the big "charity church" in San Francisco's Tenderloin...but I just couldn't make myself go there. Somehow, I preferred a diet of stale sweet rolls and cheap coffee...and retaining my self-respect.

Perhaps that makes me a "fool" in your eyes.


["Mother" Teresa] spread a message of love in various places where craziness and killing prevailed.

Which had no effect on the "craziness" or the "killing" whatsoever...it continues and has even increased further in India today.

"Messages of love" are about as useful as a third shoe.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Within the large "social constructs" of religious institutions, there has always been an "underground" of mystical approaches to the supernatural.

The gnostics were far from underground. Prominent people in certain areas were admitted gnostics. THey frequently embaressed the clergy in their debates, and for a while they seemed like a strong threat to church hierarchy.


Sometimes tolerated and sometimes persecuted, these approaches demand an intense personal commitment in an effort to personally contact "the other world". Fasting, isolation, dancing, drugs, meditation, etc. have all been employed in these efforts.

I wouldn't necassarily write these things off as useless. Meditation, self deprivation, etc can allow you to become very reflective. Meditation is a very useful tool even if it isn't used for religious purposes.

Dancing and other rhythmic and physical activities can incite passion and the like

Drugs...well drugs are just plain fun.



They are normally "secret" or "semi-secret"...to those who run organized religion as an economic-political racket, they are useless at best and sometimes thought to be dangerous to the prevailing social order.

Oh of course, one of the main reasons Ireneaus(I believe that was his name) and early Bishop often engaged in written debates of ideas with the Gnostic leader Valentinius. He utilized his position to destroy the gonstics as I"m sure you know.


As you might imagine, I think that the personal-mystic approach to religion is self-deluding but otherwise harmless. As long as no one tries to institutionalize it -- turn it into a church -- I would leave it alone. It's never going to attract more than a very small minority of people and it has, as far as I can tell, no measurable social impact.

How in the hell is it self-deluding? The entire concept behind gnosticism and alot of eastern religions is self knowledge. There is no "religion" to be forced on to people. Granted there have been Eastern Theocracies, but the central idea behind them doesn't support it. Self knowledge is not detrimental in any way, unless you can explain o me why it is.



It is, quite literally, unearthly in its concerns and priorities.

How so?

[redstar2000]

How in the hell is it self-deluding?

Because there is no "other world" to "contact".

All people are doing with this stuff is messing with the chemical balance in their brains...creating delusions.

As I said, I don't have any problem with this kind of thing...as long as people don't start making a doctrine out of it for exploitative or oppressive purposes (in other words, a church).

But you can't really expect me to take it seriously...can you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lefty]

Ok, so Mother Teresa didn't help everybody in India, but she did what she could. I think that's good. Saying that she was bad because she didn't help everyone in India is ludicrous. You are just writing her accomplishments off as insignificant to make yourself feel better about not doing shit for anybody else.

[Lardlad95]

All people are doing with this stuff is messing with the chemical balance in their brains...creating delusions.

And whats wrong with delusions? Reality sucks. And it's kind of harsh of you to want people to adopt you cynical realism. As long as they aren't forcing it on someone else whats the problem. Not to mention to some people communism seems like a pipe dream and a delusion. Everyone has some type of belief that appears to be a delusion to someone else.

Not to mention, hope can be seen as some type of delusion. especially when it's against great odds.


But you can't really expect me to take it seriously...can you?

No, but I also don't see why you want it eradicated. Perhaps communism will create a world where reality is so nice that we don't need delusions. But until then...

[Lefty]

After the revolution, we won't need delusions. Also, we won't need religion.

:lol:

Edit: After posting this, I realized some people on this board might take me seriously.

[redstar2000]

Ok, so Mother Teresa didn't help everybody in India, but she did what she could. I think that's good. Saying that she was bad because she didn't help everyone in India is ludicrous.

Not very good at this "reading with comprehension" stuff, are you?

I said she made no real difference...and that charity never does.

I was unaware of her refusal to treat gay males...but it figures. One of the beauties of the charity racket is that you get to decide "who is worthy of help" and who "deserves" to die in their own shit.

Revolutions, on the other hand, are for all of the exploited and oppressed...not just the "lucky few" and the "worthy".

"Obviously", revolutions "are" the work of the "devil".


You are just writing her accomplishments off as insignificant to make yourself feel better about not doing shit for anybody else.

That must be the reason. :lol:


And whats wrong with delusions? Reality sucks. And it's kind of harsh of you to want people to adopt you cynical realism.

You're right...it is harsh.

I just don't see any other way for people to get out of the shit that is the real world except to criticize all illusions in the harshest possible way.

I understand this irritates some folks quite a bit. There's always an active thread about me (and usually not a flattering one) in Chit-Chat now...perhaps I should make a "sticky" -- "The Universal Redstar2000 Sucks Thread".

The truth of the matter is that real communists are a "pain-in-the-ass"...it's in our job description. We're always telling people stuff that they really don't want to hear.

Many people desperately want to believe that "God's in His Heaven" and "all's right with the world". Not to mention that "the President knows more than we do", or "corporations want to serve their customers", or "America loves freedom and is generously spreading it across the world", etc., etc., etc.

And when we commie bastards jump up and yell "bullshit!", a lot of folks just hate that!

Look at us. We're spreading disillusionment and cynicism and anger and, hopefully, rage against the world as it is...and against those who run it.

Yeah, that's right...that's exactly what we're doing. We don't intend to stop until we have completely overthrown and utterly destroyed ten thousand years of class society.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[insurgency03]

Its the people upstairs, not the people following that are at fault for the moral faults that christinity has on its hands. the churchs doctrines are distorted versions of the origional. After constantine( who himself was a member of a pagan sun oriented religion) made christianity the official religion, thus securing his power, he had the scriptures put toghether at the council of nicea, they removed many of the gospels, including the Gospel of thomas, which was quite a bit like the bhuddist Sutras. They also created the idea that christ was god. In the Gospel of Mary it talks about the affair that Jesus and mary had, and that jesus loved her more than the rest, thus angering the other apostles. The Merovingian dynasty of france were thought to be the descendents of Christ himself. All this was taken out so that Rome and Byzantium could have controll over the people. A movement aginst this, known as gnosticism is probly the only true form of christianiy in existance

[cubist]

yes, do this or go to hell usually comes under oppression,

similar to do this or i blow your head off

[Lardlad95]

You're right...it is harsh.


Redstar told me I was right? OK now I do believe in God because that sir, is a miracle.



I just don't see any other way for people to get out of the shit that is the real world except to criticize all illusions in the harshest possible way.

but is religion our top priority? I understand that it is something we must deal with, me to a lesser extent than you. As you know I'm very...tolerant...of other's beliefs,perhaps a bit niave too. However I can't see why it is such an immediate threat to marxism? This is something that can be dealt with after the revolution. Bush said that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. Except he never proved it was. That isn't to say that saddam wasn't someone who needed to be dealt with, but was it really necassary at that time and in that fashion. So I ask you, is your destruction of religion necassary at this time and in this way?


I understand this irritates some folks quite a bit. There's always an active thread about me (and usually not a flattering one) in Chit-Chat now...perhaps I should make a "sticky" -- "The Universal Redstar2000 Sucks Thread".

It would save alot of webspace, not to mention You'd be able to attack your opponents all at the same time.



The truth of the matter is that real communists are a "pain-in-the-ass"...it's in our job description. We're always telling people stuff that they really don't want to hear.

But in such a harsh way? I have no problem with open dialogue and debate, if you can poke a hole in religious theory, and obviously you can, then Kudos to you. However to be so openly belligerant towards people is in my opinion unecassary, and drives people away from marxism's message.


Many people desperately want to believe that "God's in His Heaven" and "all's right with the world". Not to mention that "the President knows more than we do", or "corporations want to serve their customers", or "America loves freedom and is generously spreading it across the world", etc., etc., etc.

And when we commie bastards jump up and yell "bullshit!", a lot of folks just hate that!

I agree with you assertion that we have to, bring people to the light(to steal a religious moto), but must we really yell "bullshit". We don't want people to hate what we say, or to be angry at us. We want them to realize that what we are saying is what needs to be said, and is correct.


Look at us. We're spreading disillusionment and cynicism and anger and, hopefully, rage against the world as it is...and against those who run it.

No thats what we are supposed to be doing, what we are actualley doing is alienating people and pissing them off. This makes them run back into he slimy hands of the assholes who screwed them over in the first place.


Yeah, that's right...that's exactly what we're doing. We don't intend to stop until we have completely overthrown and utterly destroyed ten thousand years of class society.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Can't argue with that.