what should i say? [Archive]

redstar2000

13th November 2004, 16:34

Originally posted by Monty Cantsin
I think it would be more appropriate to call it secular, criticizing organised religion but not opposed to individual belief systems about the nature of a creator.

Nice try, but I don't think it will fly.

You don't have to read very much of Marx and Engels to realize that there's no place for the supernatural in their view of things.

A belief in a "creator", even if it were individual and unrelated to any organized religion, would still strike them (and any communist) as wrong-headed and delusional.

And then, of course, one would always have to consider whether an "individual belief" was truly individual in the first place.

People grow up in a specific culture with specific beliefs about the supernatural. Any given individual might indeed modify those beliefs in one direction or another -- might decide that gay sexuality is not "sinful", for example -- but that wouldn't affect the "central core" of what he learned as a child...that a powerful supernatural entity "exists" and sometimes intervenes in the material universe for its own purposes, etc.

One can certainly sympathize with communism and still be religious; but no one can be a communist until they've completely rejected all beliefs in the supernatural.

:redstar2000:

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

ComradeChris

13th November 2004, 18:59

One can certainly sympathize with communism and still be religious; but no one can be a communist until they've completely rejected all beliefs in the supernatural.

May I direct you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx#Mar...d_anti-Semitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx#Marx.27s_critique_of_bourgeois_democracy _and_anti-Semitism)

Read that article. Marx noted it wasn't religion itself, but the capitalists who ran it. If run by communist, it would get back to the basic teachings of things in the Bible such as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

__ca va?

13th November 2004, 20:18

I think RS2000 says it well. If you believe in supernatural and that a transcendent being controls events on Earth then how could you believe in materialism? How cuold you believe then that revolutions were necessary and that our present and future state directly comes from our past state? Anyway, I'm agnostic.

redstar2000

14th November 2004, 01:43

Originally posted by ComradeChris
Read that article. Marx noted it wasn't religion itself, but the capitalists who ran it. If run by communist, it would get back to the basic teachings of things in the Bible such as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That is a bizarre reading of the Wikipedia article...which says nothing about "capitalists running religion".

Of course, there is also nothing in the Christian "bible" that even suggests "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" except a few fragments from the Acts of the Apostles that describe the early days of the "Jerusalem Church" -- a congregation that ceased to exist c70CE.

In particular, note that none of the "gospels" nor any of the letters of Paulos of Tarsus even hint at such a formula.

Not only did "Jesus" never preach such an idea but he said specifically that "the poor ye shall always have with you".

Other parts of the New Testament explicitly tell Christians to obey earthly authority at all times and command slaves to always obey their masters.

Once again I must caution people: don't read new ideas into old books; those people didn't think about things the way we do.

:redstar2000:

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

ComradeChris

14th November 2004, 16:29

That is a bizarre reading of the Wikipedia article...which says nothing about "capitalists running religion".

What do you think it means when it says:

Marx instead argues that the issue is not religion, but capitalism.

Of course, there is also nothing in the Christian "bible" that even suggests "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" except a few fragments from the Acts of the Apostles that describe the early days of the "Jerusalem Church" -- a congregation that ceased to exist c70CE.

Exactly, I knew it was from Acts too. Look at the post I said earlier. Don't know where you said that. "The Bible was written for political means, and that's why it can be left open to interpretation. It should be read with a critical attiutude." And that is practically exactly what my mom told me, when I told her I was going to read various religious readings, including the Bible. For the record, she is a devout Christian, but also believes in Socialism.

In particular, note that none of the "gospels" nor any of the letters of Paulos of Tarsus even hint at such a formula.

I wouldn't consider the Gospels word's on CHRISTianity to be the truth of the Bible. Basically unless Jesus Christ said it, it probably shouldn't have anything to do with CHRISTianity. But that's also from my mother.

Not only did "Jesus" never preach such an idea but he said specifically that "the poor ye shall always have with you".

There's different ideas of being rich and poor in society. Rich in friends, poor in friends for instance. Rich in love, poor in love. He also preached living poorly too. Maybe he meant to say everyone should live poorly. Do you know how to interpret that? Are you claiming to be the ultimate authority. But frmo other things Jesus was claimed to say I'd highly doubt he meant it like you claim he meant it. But I could be wrong, I'm not claiming to be the authority, just shed different light on your interpretation.

Other parts of the New Testament explicitly tell Christians to obey earthly authority at all times and command slaves to always obey their masters.

If you could list where that was said, I would really like to read up on that. But I doubt Jesus said that.

Once again I must caution people: don't read new ideas into old books; those people didn't think about things the way we do.

Isn't it amazing how "Democratic" countries, probably the biggest ones in history, had slaves? It was even question about how that even fits into a democratic society, and people defended it. Even the slaves sometimes defended it. Some slaves who bought their freedom also ended up having slaves. It's just interesting how values change over time.

Guest1

14th November 2004, 20:48

The interesting thing about fairy tales is that they are written to please all. They are meant to be easy to read into in many ways. If you try hard enough, you can find inspiration in them, see your hopes and dreams.

That's what children's stories are meant to do.

Aren't you too old to be reading that shit? <_<

1949

14th November 2004, 21:59

A few good articles for those who believe the teachings of Christianity to be a precursor to communism:

The Myth of Jesus (http://rwor.org/a/1239/ba_religion.htm)

Communist Morality vs Biblical Morality (http://rwor.org/a/1240/bamorality.htm)

Vinny Rafarino

14th November 2004, 23:36

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2004, 08:48 PM
The interesting thing about fairy tales is that they are written to please all. They are meant to be easy to read into in many ways. If you try hard enough, you can find inspiration in them, see your hopes and dreams.

That's what children's stories are meant to do.

Aren't you too old to be reading that shit? <_<
Are you surprised?

What did you expect from someone that takes politicalcompass.org and wikipedia as "gospel"

ComradeChris

15th November 2004, 01:28

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2004, 04:48 PM
The interesting thing about fairy tales is that they are written to please all. They are meant to be easy to read into in many ways. If you try hard enough, you can find inspiration in them, see your hopes and dreams.

That's what children's stories are meant to do.

Aren't you too old to be reading that shit? <_<
There you go with the age heirarchy again. Man, some fascists. I'd like you to walk into a Mosque (one of the fundamentalist ones) and tell people how you feel about their religious writings. I think it would be quite humorous. One less fascist to deal with.

Are you surprised?

What did you expect from someone that takes politicalcompass.org and wikipedia as "gospel"

I don't know, obviously more than a close-minded fascist sympathizer who can't comprehend a dictionary. And for the record I am talking about you Comrade RAF. Just in case you can't grasp your miniscule thought capacity around what I'm saying. :rolleyes: And who said anything about gospel? I just love you're asinine assumtions Comrade RAF? Where ever do you get them from? From taunting people half your age for fun?

Cheech06

15th November 2004, 01:46

Hey Redstar, its nice to know that ur alive...seriously. Hope u have a good laugh!

Hiero

15th November 2004, 01:58

There you go with the age heirarchy again. Man, some fascists. I'd like you to walk into a Mosque (one of the fundamentalist ones) and tell people how you feel about their religious writings. I think it would be quite humorous. One less fascist to deal with.

What is it with you and your Fascist fantasies.

You do know to if you went into a fundamentalist Mosque you to wouldnt last long. Your harmonious beliefs wouldnt last long in there, if you do not accept Allah as the only god. You know why, because they are crazy because of their deeply belief in god.

I don't know, obviously more than a close-minded fascist sympathizer who can't comprehend a dictionary. And for the record I am talking about you Comrade RAF. Just in case you can't grasp your miniscule thought capacity around what I'm saying. And who said anything about gospel? I just love you're asinine assumtions Comrade RAF? Where ever do you get them from? From taunting people half your age for fun?

Here we go again. When "comrade"chris is challenge with some else opinion he can't handle it so he tries to make out he more intelligent by the use of insults. It seems you are the fascist, it is you who when it comes to a debate and some doesnt agree that you try to downplay them as idiots.

'RIP che' do explain the socialist state to them as a attempt of worker automony.

redstar2000

15th November 2004, 03:58

Originally posted by ComradeChris
What do you think it means when it says: "Marx instead argues that the issue is not religion, but capitalism."?

It means what it says -- that capitalism is the dominant ideology of our age.

It doesn't mean that the "problem" with religion is that "it's run by capitalists".

The problem with religion is that it's wrong...it is useless for explaining the real world.

I wouldn't consider the Gospels word's on CHRISTianity to be the truth of the Bible. Basically unless Jesus Christ said it, it probably shouldn't have anything to do with CHRISTianity.

A real Christian actually considers all of the Bible to be "the Word of God".

The gospels -- Mark, Matthew, Luke, John -- are the biographies of Jesus and where he is "quoted" at length.

Actually, no one knows what "Jesus" really "said"...we know only what people told us he said -- 30 to 60 years or more after the fact.

There's different ideas of being rich and poor in society. Rich in friends, poor in friends for instance. Rich in love, poor in love. He also preached living poorly too. Maybe he meant to say everyone should live poorly. Do you know how to interpret that? Are you claiming to be the ultimate authority?

Consider the context. Apparently donated expensive oils were used to anoint the feet of "Jesus"...perhaps he suffered from "divine bunions". Judas objected to this extravagance, asking indignantly, "why weren't these oils sold and the money given to the poor?"

And "Jesus" answered, "the poor ye shall always have with you but me you shall not always have with you."

It is pretty clear he was talking in "earthly" terms.

If you could list where that was said, I would really like to read up on that. But I doubt Jesus said that.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22

This is a good site for you to spend some time exploring...I suspect you will be quite shocked.

:redstar2000:

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

Guest1

15th November 2004, 05:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:28 PM
There you go with the age heirarchy again.
Believe it or not, I was not bringing your age into this. As I said, aren't you too old for this? In otherwords, you are old enough that you should be able to avoid this easy mistake.

Man, some fascists. I'd like you to walk into a Mosque (one of the fundamentalist ones) and tell people how you feel about their religious writings. I think it would be quite humorous. One less fascist to deal with.
<_<

I was born in Saudi Arabia, and I've almost gotten stabbed by my own cousin in Jordan for trying to defend his older sister from his suddenly recovered memories of Islam. He'd found out she had a boyfriend and heard that she got drunk at her graduation party. He had a girlfriend, and had gone out drinking with us the night before, but in his words "it's different for a woman".

Your implication, that Christianity is the "civilized" religion, is utterly reactionary and borderline racist. I'm an equal opportunity hater, and a religion that doesn't commit atrocities is one whose control on society has either been diluted, or is non-existant because the fairy tale has only just been printed.

And who said anything about gospel?
You are preaching. I hope you are smart enough that you will understand what you're delving into before it's too late. You are on the edge here, curious about Socialism, Communism and workers' liberation, but not quite ready to let go of the ideas you have been brought up with your entire life.

I was once like you, and this is not an age issue, believe me. There is nothing wrong with learning, we are all learning. But make sure you remember you are learning.

I know we have not been easy on you. Usually new members are treated with a little leeway, but you have a way of going about things that is very infuriating. You have to understand, we are ready and willing to help people learning about issues we know about and comprehend, just as we are happy to learn from others. But, when someone comes to us, telling us that after years of knowing otherwise, Christianity is Communist, workers can't ever rule themselves, how do you think we're going to react?

If you want to have discussions with us, be openminded to the possibility that you are wrong. Understand the terms, the definitions, what Communism is, or learn about those first, before you come to challenge our understanding of it.

Nothing wrong with a debate like this, and I don't want you to feel I am singling you out for your age or anything, I'm not much older myself and have alot to learn too. But if we're going to be comrades, we must treat eachother like comrades, correct?

We are here to serve you, we are here to debate and exchange ideas, give what we know and understand and take from others the same. When we don't know something, we ask, "does this make sense?", and when we are wrong we say, "that makes sense" and appreciate that we learned.

I am extending to you an opportunity here, if you are willing to take it. Exchange ideas, but know you are not perfect, as no one is. You'll find you'll have a much easier time with an open attitude, and instead of "me vs. them", it's "us together", and less fighting in threads and more actual learning will come from it.

What do you say?

Invader Zim

15th November 2004, 11:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:30 PM
Tell them they are idiots and you'll see them in the revolution :lol: . Just kidding.

Just say all the things that made the Stalinist USSR not a communist money by saying what was in the manifesto: ie. No money, No property, No state. All of which they still had.

And point out the the USSR stood for Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic. Not the Union of Soviet Communist Republic.
The USSR naver was a socialist state.

A socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small minority. This being the primary factor determining a socialist state or society.

That counts the USSR out of the running, at no time was it EVER a socialist state.

redstar2000

15th November 2004, 13:07

Originally posted by Enigma
The USSR never was a socialist state.

A socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small minority. This being the primary factor determining a socialist state or society.

An oddly moral "definition" of socialism...and a very "fuzzy" one at that -- what is the meaning of "benefit" in the phrase "for the benefit of the vast majority"? How about "for the benefit of a slight majority"?

In any event, I think the traditional definition is superior: a socialist economy is characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.

In the USSR, I think that nearly all workers benefited and perhaps up to half the peasantry (mostly by being recruited into the urban working class).

Of course the benefits for party members and especially the party elite were greatly disproportionate...no one denies that.

However, compared to the gap that exists between bosses and workers under capitalism, the Soviet elite was relatively modest in its peculations.

There is, I think, a "range" of "possible socialisms" -- more democratic or less democratic, more egalitarian or less egalitarian, etc. Between North Korea (worst case) and Cuba (best case) was the old USSR.

For "socialist", one could also substitute the phrase "state monopoly capitalist"...it means the same thing, just with a different rhetorical "spin". The latter phrase recognizes the fact that all of the "socialist countries" were never going to make any kind of "transition to communism". Nor did any of them ever try.

:redstar2000:

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

Invader Zim

15th November 2004, 23:29

With all due respect, I dont think your quite in target with all your points.

An oddly moral "definition" of socialism...and a very "fuzzy" one at that -- what is the meaning of "benefit" in the phrase "for the benefit of the vast majority"? How about "for the benefit of a slight majority"?

That would be because it is not a definition it is a factor. Socialism is a complex method of running society, involving different factors, including political, social and economic factors. A short one and a half line point about who the economy should favour, is not a definition, rather it is a point included in a much more detailed definition.

On the other hand your point is rather interesting, and I will attempt to address it as best I can. Currently the economy of capitalist nations is geared towards the benefit of an small privileged section of society, as I am sure you agree. The labour of the many rewards this small secion of society, with little benefit for those who input the majority of the labour. A socialist society would ensure that the majority of people benefit from the rewards of their own labour, rather than the privileged few.

Socialism could never benefit the slight majority, because the small privileged section of society who reap the majority of the benefits of societies labour make up probably only a couple of percent of societies population. Hence the reason the vast majority will always benefit from real socialism, as long as it is understood that socialism does benefit the majority rather than the capitalist minority.

In any event, I think the traditional definition is superior: a socialist economy is characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.

That is not a traditional view of socialism, it is a revised view of socialism. When the term socialism was first coined, it was used to describe the ideals of Utopians of the early 19th century, and they in no way advocated "state ownership of the means of production and distribution". These later ideals have created an alternative view of socialism, but they are certainly not "traditional" views, and it is debatable if they are accurate.

Read the works of the historian/philosopher Élie Halévy.

In the USSR, I think that nearly all workers benefited and perhaps up to half the peasantry (mostly by being recruited into the urban working class).

Indeed, though that was not because socialist policies were enacted, rather that the rulers (just a side note; rulers, such as those in the USSR, are incompatible with socialism) forced industrialisation, thus creating greater output and more jobs, even under capitalism when the economic situation improves then the workers get token improvements. The ideals of socialism had nothing to do with it.

However, compared to the gap that exists between bosses and workers under capitalism, the Soviet elite was relatively modest in its peculations.

Well that is true, but I for one am not ready to accept economic elitism, however "modest" it may be, to be quite honest it's just not good enough.

The latter phrase recognizes the fact that all of the "socialist countries" were never going to make any kind of "transition to communism". Nor did any of them ever try.

Well with that I agree 100%.

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 00:33

Believe it or not, I was not bringing your age into this. As I said, aren't you too old for this? In otherwords, you are old enough that you should be able to avoid this easy mistake.

Children's stories? Aren't you too old for this? Things that are all related to age. Don't beat around the bush. When you say that your insulting the vast majority of the people in the world's beliefs. There's a nicer way to get them to see your way you know. And saying their belief system is childish isn't a very effective way.

I was born in Saudi Arabia, and I've almost gotten stabbed by my own cousin in Jordan for trying to defend his older sister from his suddenly recovered memories of Islam. He'd found out she had a boyfriend and heard that she got drunk at her graduation party. He had a girlfriend, and had gone out drinking with us the night before, but in his words "it's different for a woman".

Yeah, some people have their own spins on religion.

Your implication, that Christianity is the "civilized" religion, is utterly reactionary and borderline racist. I'm an equal opportunity hater, and a religion that doesn't commit atrocities is one whose control on society has either been diluted, or is non-existant because the fairy tale has only just been printed.

I never said Christianity was civilized. In fact Islam and Christianity are almost identical in doctrine from my understanding. And if I made any brash generalizations (which I appologize for your ignorance in interpreting it that way) it would be prejudice. Not all Islamic people are a single race; not all Chistianic people are a single race. Just so you don't accuse me of any more things that stem your your asinine assumptions too. It seems that's a common trait among the Admins/Mods here. Really, would you mind at some point to stop assuming MY beliefs. I'd thank you now, but I have a feeling we'll be discussing this again.

You are preaching. I hope you are smart enough that you will understand what you're delving into before it's too late. You are on the edge here, curious about Socialism, Communism and workers' liberation, but not quite ready to let go of the ideas you have been brought up with your entire life.

If I'm preaching anything it's understanding and acceptance of people's beliefs. Something you are obviously not capable of.

I know we have not been easy on you. Usually new members are treated with a little leeway, but you have a way of going about things that is very infuriating. You have to understand, we are ready and willing to help people learning about issues we know about and comprehend, just as we are happy to learn from others. But, when someone comes to us, telling us that after years of knowing otherwise, Christianity is Communist, workers can't ever rule themselves, how do you think we're going to react?

Being told I'm wrong on matters of opinion is infuriating towards you???? If anything I should be the one who's angry and I am. But not for you calling my beliefs stupid (because I know others here feel the same way), but because people assume they know my beliefs. :rolleyes:

If you want to have discussions with us, be openminded to the possibility that you are wrong. Understand the terms, the definitions, what Communism is, or learn about those first, before you come to challenge our understanding of it.

First of all, nobody's opinion is WRONG which you claim mine to be. Mine's just obviously more OPEN-MINDED than yours. Sorry jsut capitalising the words that you were trying to pin on me. If I'm blatently wrong, I have apologized on numerous occasions in the past. Now you are preaching.

Nothing wrong with a debate like this, and I don't want you to feel I am singling you out for your age or anything, I'm not much older myself and have alot to learn too. But if we're going to be comrades, we must treat eachother like comrades, correct?

I respect you and your opinions. I just don't understand why there's a great need to eliminate belief. once again, you assume things about me that are untrue. And didn't we realize that I was older than you? Sorry I remember this conversation in the other thread.

We are here to serve you, we are here to debate and exchange ideas, give what we know and understand and take from others the same. When we don't know something, we ask, "does this make sense?", and when we are wrong we say, "that makes sense" and appreciate that we learned.

Exactly, and I'm trying to come to terms why you want to eliminate people's spiritual beliefs. I mean I'm not going to rule out that there isn't a great being or a soul. Science can't prove everything.

I am extending to you an opportunity here, if you are willing to take it. Exchange ideas, but know you are not perfect, as no one is. You'll find you'll have a much easier time with an open attitude, and instead of "me vs. them", it's "us together", and less fighting in threads and more actual learning will come from it.

I've never claimed to be perfect. You're right, maybe I am preaching something. I just don't know why communists can't be more accepting to religion. You claim you can't be religious and a communist. That's why for the meantime I'm just going to call myself a socialist and save the agrivation of person integrity insults.

If you've noticed since, I don't know when it was, but I've been trying to see your point of view (of not accepting religion). I'm trying to embrace everyone in a society of equality. Of course the government itself wouldn't be secular. Religious doctrine was only written down for political purpose. When the government changes, so too, will the doctrines.

What do you say?

I've been trying. And as long as you keep out insulting peoples beliefs and putting them off as childish, I think we too will get a long better. I too am an equal opportunity hitter. People who are unaccepting of other people's beliefs, in a delicate situation like a revolution, are only making the process a lot harder. I also don't like when people who want the abolition of authority impose authority apon others (Comrade RAF; you tried to bring age into our debate a couple of times now). I mean it's very hypocritical of Comrade RAF to warn me for insulting him/her, when he started insulting me. I think if it weren't for him I'd have a much more pleasant idea of this forum.

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 00:38

What is it with you and your Fascist fantasies.

You do know to if you went into a fundamentalist Mosque you to wouldnt last long. Your harmonious beliefs wouldnt last long in there, if you do not accept Allah as the only god. You know why, because they are crazy because of their deeply belief in god.

I'm referring to people like you, who claim they know everything. If I went into a Mosque, I'm not saying there isn't a God. But unlike you, I'm up for the possibility there is. And I'm not calling their beliefs stupid or childish, like you so lavishly point out. :rolleyes:

Here we go again. When "comrade"chris is challenge with some else opinion he can't handle it so he tries to make out he more intelligent by the use of insults. It seems you are the fascist, it is you who when it comes to a debate and some doesnt agree that you try to downplay them as idiots.

'RIP che' do explain the socialist state to them as a attempt of worker automony.

You're the one unable to handle fact my friend. Not I. I believe facts. You are close-minded too. And I call you an idiot for not understanding a definition and being a hypocrite. And more importantly, for on numerous occasions, putting words in my mouth. Two totally unrelated things....idiot. :rolleyes:

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 00:55

It means what it says -- that capitalism is the dominant ideology of our age.

It doesn't mean that the "problem" with religion is that "it's run by capitalists".

The problem with religion is that it's wrong...it is useless for explaining the real world.

It's actually just as useful as science. Science can't prove how the world was created. Religion has a theory, science does too.

A real Christian actually considers all of the Bible to be "the Word of God".

The gospels -- Mark, Matthew, Luke, John -- are the biographies of Jesus and where he is "quoted" at length.

Actually, no one knows what "Jesus" really "said"...we know only what people told us he said -- 30 to 60 years or more after the fact.

And the word of God through Christ. And the word of God tainted through humans who are flawed. As I said the Bible was written for political reasons. And if it were purely the word of God CHRISTianity wouldn't care for the word of Christ. And then it would be classified as Judaism.

Consider the context. Apparently donated expensive oils were used to anoint the feet of "Jesus"...perhaps he suffered from "divine bunions". Judas objected to this extravagance, asking indignantly, "why weren't these oils sold and the money given to the poor?"

And "Jesus" answered, "the poor ye shall always have with you but me you shall not always have with you."

It is pretty clear he was talking in "earthly" terms.

Can you please post the Bible pages for this.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/eph/6.html#5

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22

This is a good site for you to spend some time exploring...I suspect you will be quite shocked.

Nothing really shocks me. I'm not a Christian. But like I said before, the Bible, like the Communist Manifesto too, was written for political reasons. The people's views change, so will the text.

Invader Zim

16th November 2004, 01:14

Chris, may I suggest thatin future you post one large thread than three smaller ones, I personally find that numerous smaller threads makes it appear that a person is less fluid than if the create one larger thread with all their ideas encompassed within.

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 01:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:14 PM
Chris, may I suggest thatin future you post one large thread than three smaller ones, I personally find that numerous smaller threads makes it appear that a person is less fluid than if the create one larger thread with all their ideas encompassed within.
I do it that way, because I'm not proficient with quoting. I don't know how to put hte names beside the quoted person. Only if I reply to a one lined reply like yours. That is why I group different people's arguments in different things. I'm sorry you don't like that, it's easier for reference for me later rather than saying, "who was I quoting there again?:

Hiero

16th November 2004, 01:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:38 AM
I'm referring to people like you, who claim they know everything.

How many times have declared that you were right. In one post you replied with saying you post was deleted obviosly because you were right. You have on numerous times out of the blue stated you were right and everyone was wrong and there was not point debated any more. If you are going to whine you never did this i can go through and collect them for you.

Untill then all hail "comrade"chris who knows all, we are so pittyful in his eyes, if only we knew the all answers to lifes greatest questions which "comrade"chris knows all to.

Invader Zim

16th November 2004, 02:21

Thats not very nice, maybe you should try argung his points rather than, posting a pile flame? Maybe that way you could prove he's not right. But that solution would be far too much effort, right?

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 02:57

Originally posted by comrade neonate+Nov 15 2004, 09:44 PM--> (comrade neonate @ Nov 15 2004, 09:44 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 11:38 AM
I'm referring to people like you, who claim they know everything.

How many times have declared that you were right. In one post you replied with saying you post was deleted obviosly because you were right. You have on numerous times out of the blue stated you were right and everyone was wrong and there was not point debated any more. If you are going to whine you never did this i can go through and collect them for you.

Untill then all hail "comrade"chris who knows all, we are so pittyful in his eyes, if only we knew the all answers to lifes greatest questions which "comrade"chris knows all to. [/b]
Where have I declared I'm right. Please show me. I'll apologize for all these times I did. And sincerely too. This is one of the first forums I've been in. I've never claimed to be right. I've claimed you were wrong plenty of times. But you can't help that you're wrong. But everytime I ask you to prove something like this, you always avoid the issue, only proving your incorrectness. Wait that does bring something back. I do say I'm right when you do idiotic things like that...maybe...I can't remember my exact terminology for all my posts to you. There are so many trying to show your close-mindedness.

Hail me if you want. But you of all people, it wouldn't hurt to have a little more open-mindedness. But for the record, I'm not forcing you to hail me, you do that out of your own free will.

Hiero

16th November 2004, 04:59

Yeah, I'll believe you. You say I take everything wrong, so therefore, I must be right

I'm quite obviously brighter than you. That's the best reply to my argument? It has nothing to do with what I stated.

Mutation can be caused by almost anything. Oxygen can even cause mutation. You obviously don't know what's right.

Just to prove that Comrade RAF lies in his postings and I do not. Not to mention the fact I was right that he claims things as truths that no one knows yet.

I read it right the first time! One of my posts then asked we must go to different universities or something, because I've never heard of anything by that term before. Please explain!

You shouldn't bother. You said it. You admitted I was right.

I like how you ignored the quote where Marx didn't blame religion, but blamed capitalism. Your ignorance of many of my arguments only leads me to believe I'm right; and you can't refute them.

Yeah, at least I'm right. Most boring people are right. The wrong things are usually fun (ie. things considered immoral/wrong by society). But thanks for the opinion. Try rebutting sometime.

You hate me because I am right

That is all the times you have used the word 'right'. There are many more time when you imply you are right on a fasles claims. There are also many times when you call people wrong and stupid when they express a conflicting opinion to your own. The other times you blatantly lie when it comes to facts, such as the arguement of wether communism is materialist.

People get pissed off with your tactics and just give up talking to you. they dont stop because you are right.

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 15:29

WHOA! Did you change your name? You are the artist formerly known as comrade_neonate correct?

Yeah, I'll believe you. You say I take everything wrong, so therefore, I must be right

And that is just using reverse logic on whoever it was I was debating

I'm quite obviously brighter than you. That's the best reply to my argument? It has nothing to do with what I stated.

It has nothing to do with saying I'm right. If you put the context of which I was replying to, it probably had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Mutation can be caused by almost anything. Oxygen can even cause mutation. You obviously don't know what's right.

That's a fact. And I didn't say I was right, I said that Comrade RAF wasn't. He was arguing hegemony in a scientific debate. Do you not se ethe irony in that?

Just to prove that Comrade RAF lies in his postings and I do not. Not to mention the fact I was right that he claims things as truths that no one knows yet.

Like I said, he argues against the hegemony of science, but not for a simple definition which is true. It doesn't make sense.

I read it right the first time! One of my posts then asked we must go to different universities or something, because I've never heard of anything by that term before. Please explain!

What did you do, search ComradeChris and right? He asked whether I read one of his arguments or something, and I told him i read it correctly.

You shouldn't bother. You said it. You admitted I was right.

I never said I was right, I was referring to someone else admitting I was right.

I like how you ignored the quote where Marx didn't blame religion, but blamed capitalism. Your ignorance of many of my arguments only leads me to believe I'm right; and you can't refute them.

Like I said, on the topic of belief nobody can really be wrong. It may be "immoral" if you believe in the phrase. And I don't have much tolerance for hypocracy. Which is why I'm glad you TRY to point out mine. I really don't like making brash assumptions, hypocritical statements, etc. I do indeed thank you for this. As Che y Marijuana said, we're hear to learn. And part of learning to me, is being more accepting and correcting oneself.

You hate me because I am right

For that I apologize I may have been out of line. Your replies were becoming more and more rediculous and infuriorating because you were ignoring definitions, and your own hypocracy in your beliefs.

That is all the times you have used the word 'right'. There are many more time when you imply you are right on a fasles claims. There are also many times when you call people wrong and stupid when they express a conflicting opinion to your own. The other times you blatantly lie when it comes to facts, such as the arguement of wether communism is materialist.

And as I said, you've obviously taken the bulk of them, save one, out of context.

People get pissed off with your tactics and just give up talking to you. they dont stop because you are right.

Like I said, know one can be wrong in their beliefs. You seem to think that can. In a scientific debate, there is a wrong or could be correct (I'm going to use the word correct, so next time you search ComradeChris and right, you won't take so many out of context). Personally, the more accepting a person is the better I think they are. Acceptance is a foundation of reconciliation of opposites. You think communism (materialism) and religion (which you claimed was totally idealic; it is not, there are many materialistic ties in religion) were complete opposites. I think opposites can be reconciled. If you want a harmoneous communist society, people will have to look beyond a persons belief of creationism, afterlife, etc. Which isn't relevant. If it makes them a better person; why not? It's when people use fundamentally good religions to harm people is when there is a problem. But under a communist setting, I strongly and reasonably doubt, that will be an issue in religion.

redstar2000

16th November 2004, 17:14

Originally posted by ComradeChris+--> (ComradeChris)It's actually just as useful as science. Science can't prove how the world was created. Religion has a theory, science does too.[/b]

The measure of usefulness is not simply "having a theory"...you have to actually discover which kind of theory makes sense in the real world.

Religious theories don't make any sense...on what basis would you choose between, say, Genesis and the Hindu version or the Polynesian version of "creation"? Aesthetic appeal?

None of them have anything in the way of evidence to support them.

The scientific version, on the other hand, has tons of real observable evidence to support it. The solar system really did originate in a cold cloud of rotating gas and dust.

We can actually see such clouds around other new-born stars. We can even see tracks in some of those clouds...where proto-planets are in formation, gathering up the gas and dust.

This is fact...not mythology.

And the word of God tainted through humans who are flawed.

Well, that's your subjective judgment of the matter. Most Christians assume that the writers of the "Bible" were "inspired by the Holy Spirit" -- their "human flaws" were overcome by "divine grace".

But if you're going to challenge the truthfulness of the writers of the "Bible", then where do you draw the line?

If you find a passage where "Jesus" says something that you don't like...are you going to deny that passage and claim that the writer was lying and "Jesus" didn't really say that?

Then how do you know that the stuff he "said" that you do like wasn't also fictional?

Sure, all ancient texts were subject to copyists' errors, later interpolations, etc. But how can you can assume that the stuff that you like is "real" while all the stuff that you dislike is "false"?

Can you please post the Bible pages for this.

Of course.

Matthew

26:6
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
26:7
There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
26:8
But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
26:9
For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
26:10
When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
26:11
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/26.html#11

It's also in Mark and John.

:redstar2000:

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

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th November 2004, 21:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:55 AM

It's actually just as useful as science. Science can't prove how the world was created. Religion has a theory, science does too.

CLOTH! I nearly sprayed my drink all over the monitor with this little gem.
Science has achieved a damn sight more than any ancient morality tales, kindly tell me how many medicine recipes are in the bible...
Science's creation theory about the earth itself, the solar system, and the greater universe in general has evidence while none of the world's creation tales have any.

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 22:18

The measure of usefulness is not simply "having a theory"...you have to actually discover which kind of theory makes sense in the real world.

Religious theories don't make any sense...on what basis would you choose between, say, Genesis and the Hindu version or the Polynesian version of "creation"? Aesthetic appeal?

None of them have anything in the way of evidence to support them.

Science doesn't have evidence of the first single celled organism either. What's your point?

The scientific version, on the other hand, has tons of real observable evidence to support it. The solar system really did originate in a cold cloud of rotating gas and dust.

We can actually see such clouds around other new-born stars. We can even see tracks in some of those clouds...where proto-planets are in formation, gathering up the gas and dust.

This is fact...not mythology.

And who's not saying some devine being didn't spark those creations? I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Really, science is great for practical purposes. Theories that aren't proven, and probably never will be, I'm very open minded to.

Well, that's your subjective judgment of the matter. Most Christians assume that the writers of the "Bible" were "inspired by the Holy Spirit" -- their "human flaws" were overcome by "divine grace".

But if you're going to challenge the truthfulness of the writers of the "Bible", then where do you draw the line?

I'm not saying the Bible's truthful. People don't take it for face value. Like I said it was written for political reasons. And how is saying humans, in comparison to perfect devine beings (hypothetically cause I'm not going to force you to believe Christianity), as my subjective judgement on the matter? First of all I'm not Christian, but I'm up for people's belief of any sort, as long as they aren't used for harmful purposes. And secondly, people aren't perfect. You can't assume people are inherently good either. And that's why in most religions they preach forgiveness. At least that's why I assume why. Haven't read the Bible yet.

If you find a passage where "Jesus" says something that you don't like...are you going to deny that passage and claim that the writer was lying and "Jesus" didn't really say that?

Then how do you know that the stuff he "said" that you do like wasn't also fictional?

It's a good possibility that Jesus didn't say anything people claimed he did. The Bible wasn't written until 400 years after Jesus' alleged death. I don't really know a lot about what Jesus said. As I said, I haven't read the Bible. Unlike you, who went to Jesussaid.com or whatever, I'm going to read the Bible in its entirety and form my own opinions. Obviously if they have nothing to do with my current beliefs I'll ignore them.

Sure, all ancient texts were subject to copyists' errors, later interpolations, etc. But how can you can assume that the stuff that you like is "real" while all the stuff that you dislike is "false"?

I'm not assuming anything. The Bible was written for political reasons. From what I heard the New Testament is a lot more relating to common good.

Just a quick question. Is that quote you listed from the New Testament or old? Obviously there's been changes in society that reflect changes in the bible. So I'm just wondering if it was more current changes or the original. Thanks.

ComradeChris

16th November 2004, 22:45

CLOTH! I nearly sprayed my drink all over the monitor with this little gem.
Science has achieved a damn sight more than any ancient morality tales, kindly tell me how many medicine recipes are in the bible...
Science's creation theory about the earth itself, the solar system, and the greater universe in general has evidence while none of the world's creation tales have any.

Not really. For all we know life was formed by aliens. You don't have proof that life formed from a single celled first organism in the primordial soup mix.

Hiero

17th November 2004, 00:41

Like I said, know one can be wrong in their beliefs. You seem to think that can. In a scientific debate, there is a wrong or could be correct

You contradict yourself. You are correct, there is either right or wrong in a scientific debate, but this is true outside of the deabate. I can belief in anything i wish to, i can belief the sun will rise tomorrow on the West side and set in the East. Now this is my belief, but is it right? of course not.

You think communism (materialism) and religion (which you claimed was totally idealic; it is not, there are many materialistic ties in religion) were complete opposites. I think opposites can be reconciled. If you want a harmoneous communist society, people will have to look beyond a persons belief of creationism, afterlife, etc.............But under a communist setting, I strongly and reasonably doubt, that will be an issue in religion.

I am partly wrong for your mistake here. Communism is scientific, it was built on the foundation of materialism. From materialism Marx could see the historical progress of society and explain it (historical materialism). This lead to the conclusion through the advancement of technology it creates and strengthens new class's then class strugle then revolution. This would happen to the capitialist society. Now Marx and Engels also created dialetical materialism. This is a view point that we can look at society. It shows the social being turning into the social conscience. It is thought to be objective and sceince has tended to agree not openly but new discoveries are just supporting materialism i.e like that article i posted in religion.

Now from this materialist stand point it was discovered through class war a socialist society will be created then a communist society. It debunked all relgious theories. Religion is mainly supporting a Idealist philosophy. This is a "god". The idea that something exist outside of matter. The other main factor that makes religion idealist is the soul. The belief that mind can exist without matter.

We can not allow major religions to be functioning and have a huge infleunce in a socialist society. Their naturally idealist tendencies will affect the socialist building process if it has major influences. So in schools they will teach materialism to the younger generation and leave the older generations to their superstitions. No state money will fund any church building and as churches start to become less popular they will be taken over by the state to used as a musem or just destroyed (many rural areas do not have public libaries but have churches). Also outisde the country money will be blocked so the large church communites can not fund the building of churches in a socialist society.

Any other socialist soceity wich allows a large religious mainstream would never reach communism, and would slowly fall into a theocracy. The party would start to be filled with the religious. It would be harder to pass progressive laws such as abortion, gay rights, divorce rights etc.

I think you should read the Marxist classics on materialism. A good book that i read that strengthen my communist self was "materialism and emprio criticism" by V.I.Lenin. The book is a response the the reactionary philosophies that started agian to gain popularity. It is aslo a response to thoose of who claimed they were Marxist yet deap down their beliefs were idealist. When i first delcared myself a communist i had harmonius beleifs but when i started to read Marxist texts i realised what communism really was.

ComradeChris

17th November 2004, 02:39

You contradict yourself. You are correct, there is either right or wrong in a scientific debate, but this is true outside of the deabate. I can belief in anything i wish to, i can belief the sun will rise tomorrow on the West side and set in the East. Now this is my belief, but is it right? of course not.

There is either a wrong or could be right (Comrade RAF was arguing a basic definition; so according to hegemony, which he/she is supporting, s/he is worng). If I contradict myself it was unintended (I don't know where I did this. Next time you say I do something point out WHERE please, I like correcting inaccuracies). I didn't expect to have to go through such lengthy explanations in my last post. I like keeping things simple.

And your belief goes against science. I'm talking about theological beliefs. I'll be more specific next time in our theological debates.

I am partly wrong for your mistake here.

For my mistake? If you're wrong, you're wrong. Post what you mean, not obscurities.

Communism is scientific, it was built on the foundation of materialism. From materialism Marx could see the historical progress of society and explain it (historical materialism). This lead to the conclusion through the advancement of technology it creates and strengthens new class's then class strugle then revolution. This would happen to the capitialist society. Now Marx and Engels also created dialetical materialism. This is a view point that we can look at society. It shows the social being turning into the social conscience. It is thought to be objective and sceince has tended to agree not openly but new discoveries are just supporting materialism i.e like that article i posted in religion.

Ok, I understant that Marxism is materialistic (and I've agreed the government itself would be secular with no religious ties on numerous occasions). I'm saying you shouldn't abolish beliefs on issues that same materialism cannot prove.

Now from this materialist stand point it was discovered through class war a socialist society will be created then a communist society. It debunked all relgious theories. Religion is mainly supporting a Idealist philosophy. This is a "god". The idea that something exist outside of matter. The other main factor that makes religion idealist is the soul. The belief that mind can exist without matter.

Why does it matter whether a greater being created the Universe or not? That same greater being supposedly also gave us freewill to do pretty much as we please.

Speaking of creation, does anyone have a source that has a theoretical step-by-step of the Primordeal Soup Theory? Thanks.

We can not allow major religions to be functioning and have a huge infleunce in a socialist society. Their naturally idealist tendencies will affect the socialist building process if it has major influences. So in schools they will teach materialism to the younger generation and leave the older generations to their superstitions. No state money will fund any church building and as churches start to become less popular they will be taken over by the state to used as a musem or just destroyed (many rural areas do not have public libaries but have churches). Also outisde the country money will be blocked so the large church communites can not fund the building of churches in a socialist society.

I say keep them separate. One person's theory on how life and the universe was created doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things. If their religion makes them a better person because they believe in an afterlife, how is that deterimental to a socialist/communist society? It's when "fundamentalists" get the idea that religions should be used to harm people is where we should draw the line. Not on caring compassionate people, who feel they need greater knowledge and meaning out of life.

Any other socialist soceity wich allows a large religious mainstream would never reach communism, and would slowly fall into a theocracy. The party would start to be filled with the religious. It would be harder to pass progressive laws such as abortion, gay rights, divorce rights etc.

Keep them separate. Yet find only common beliefs to make laws out of. All religions say it's bad to kill, don't kill. I think even most Atheists agree with that. Or at least I hope so. Or I'd rather take my chances with religion.

I think you should read the Marxist classics on materialism. A good book that i read that strengthen my communist self was "materialism and emprio criticism" by V.I.Lenin. The book is a response the the reactionary philosophies that started agian to gain popularity. It is aslo a response to thoose of who claimed they were Marxist yet deap down their beliefs were idealist. When i first delcared myself a communist i had harmonius beleifs but when i started to read Marxist texts i realised what communism really was.

Thanks, I am always looking for more artiles from any philosophers to read. Even if they oppose my ideology, it's good to know how they think so you can refure them.

redstar2000

17th November 2004, 04:36

Originally posted by ComradeChris
Science doesn't have evidence of the first single celled organism either.

No, not yet. But when we are able to start with perfectly ordinary matter and energy and generate (not "create") a living strand of RNA by perfectly ordinary and understood processes, what then?

This has already been done with some of the components of "life" -- amino acids, for example.

It's obviously only a "matter of time".

And who's not saying some divine being didn't spark those creations? I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Who's to say I'm not a purple unicorn typing this post with my tiny green hooves?

I don't think you're "playing devil's advocate" here...I think you're just playing.

...but I'm up for people's belief of any sort...

Why are you "up" for beliefs that are clearly wrong?

Are you just bored and thus find the diversity of strange and irrational beliefs to be entertaining?

It's a good possibility that Jesus didn't say anything people claimed he did.

It's a "good possibility" that "Jesus" didn't even exist. There's no historical evidence that he did outside of the Bible itself.

Is that quote you listed from the New Testament or old?

Matthew is from the New Testament, of course. "Jesus" is not mentioned in the Old Testament at all.

I'm afraid it's pretty clear that you really know nothing of these matters.

If you really plan to read the "bible", may I suggest the Anchor Bible...it is a very scholarly edition, with many footnotes explaining the historical context, approximate dating, alternate possible translations, etc.

Another good source (though somewhat dated) is Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

I'm assuming serious interest on your part...if you just want to dick around, then you should do that in Chit-Chat.

:redstar2000:

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

Yazman

17th November 2004, 07:53

ComradeChris

17th November 2004, 17:01

No, not yet. But when we are able to start with perfectly ordinary matter and energy and generate (not "create") a living strand of RNA by perfectly ordinary and understood processes, what then?

This has already been done with some of the components of "life" -- amino acids, for example.

It's obviously only a "matter of time".

I've made that exact same argument to a Christian (no joke; practically EXACTLY the same using the experiment you're discussing). Their biggest argument was something about Proteins dissolving in water. Also of course the essentials for life are created on Earth. Or we wouldn't be a live. Another argument I added in myself was lighning created Nitrates which are fundamental for plants. Plants would have to have come first, as there was nothing else to get energy from except the Sun.

Who's to say I'm not a purple unicorn typing this post with my tiny green hooves?

I don't think you're "playing devil's advocate" here...I think you're just playing.

:lol: I'm going to read this post again when I'm stoned or drunk; and envision you as a purple unicorn typing :P .

I'm trying to see things from boths sides here. Maybe Devil's advocate was the wrong phrase?

Why are you "up" for beliefs that are clearly wrong?

Are you just bored and thus find the diversity of strange and irrational beliefs to be entertaining?

Somewhat the latter; but unlike you, theory on unproven sources in science is just as valid. I want to see what science has to offer for practical purposes. One of my professors (my Mythology professor) said, "Some people consider science [theoretical science of spontaneous creationism] to be the myth of our time."

It's a "good possibility" that "Jesus" didn't even exist. There's no historical evidence that he did outside of the Bible itself.

I tend to agree.

Matthew is from the New Testament, of course. "Jesus" is not mentioned in the Old Testament at all.

I'm afraid it's pretty clear that you really know nothing of these matters.

Really? You got that from all the times I said I HAVEN'T read the Bible. You're a friggen genius! :rolleyes:

If you really plan to read the "bible", may I suggest the Anchor Bible...it is a very scholarly edition, with many footnotes explaining the historical context, approximate dating, alternate possible translations, etc.

Another good source (though somewhat dated) is Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

I'm assuming serious interest on your part...if you just want to dick around, then you should do that in Chit-Chat.

I read to collect as many opinions as possible. I'm seriously interested in everything I read, or why the fuck would I read it?? I replied to a new persons question, because he asked if he could use the Bible in his debate. I told him he could as one of the Communist mottos is in it.

Matthew 23: 12 -13b When she poured perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial...what she has done will also be told in memory of her.

He was preparing for death and leaving this world. I don't think he preached about how the poor deserve to be where they are (as you seem to think).

When he say's things like:

Luke 14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the blind and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the ressurrection of the righteous.
Matt. 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your posessions and give to the poor, and then you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

It's obvious how much Jesus hated the poor. :rolleyes:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th November 2004, 20:23

Not really. For all we know life was formed by aliens. You don't have proof that life formed from a single celled first organism in the primordial soup mix.

I suggest you check these links out before you shoot your mouth off...

Abiogenesis FAQs (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/)

Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)

Not a free lunch, but a box of chocolates (http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/)

The Second Law opf Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)

TalkDesign.org (http://www.talkdesign.org/)

I'm afraid Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe's theory on alien assisted evolution is a bit too crackpot for me.

Hiero

18th November 2004, 12:49

I say keep them separate. One person's theory on how life and the universe was created doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things. If their religion makes them a better person because they believe in an afterlife, how is that deterimental to a socialist/communist society? It's when "fundamentalists" get the idea that religions should be used to harm people is where we should draw the line. Not on caring compassionate people, who feel they need greater knowledge and meaning out of life.

Socialist societies must work collectively, thoughts must be collective. We must be thinking from the same foundations and hold that it is true. This thought should be taught at school's and any reactionary thought of pre revolution times will eventually die out. You see there will be no religous thought. The students and workers will now have a new thought, a revolutionary Marxist Leninist thought. They will not listen to their parents about religion. Just the same way some of us dont listen to a our parents and grandparents reactionary thought's (ie abortion, racism, etc). Throught education in schools and workplace this thought will be taught.

This thought will create the new socialist society. Religon mostly exist in secular societies of today because in school they only prepare us for work, so we learn how to act from society mainly from media and entertainment. If we have religious parents we will learn religion from them. Some people who don't have religous parents still become religious because they are not fulfilled with their current thought (many people say they become religous because they didnt like the way things are and how they were acting, maybe they were drinking now they are saved). In a socialist society this will not be the case. In schools people will be taught how to contribute to society and create a healthier society(like china in Mao's times, this was the main focus). Religion will not be brought into this teaching. They will understand reactionary and progressive thought and will reject all religious thought. Many people who say they are born again christains sya they were drunken, violent, theives etc. Then they learn morals in accordance to their chosen religon. They reason they were acting in a unacceptable way before was not because they didnt haev god, it was because in capitalist society schools train workers.

Before you stated marx said capitalism was the problem not religon. This places capitalism primary problem then religoin. Never the less religoin is just as reactionary. This people learn a new thought in the belief of God. They do this in the believe they will enter heaven and believe god has saved them. In a socialist society we to could say there is a god so you must act this way. It would create a good society, but a society on lies and fears. In the new socialist we have a new thought, the materialist thought. That is marxist leninism. The society will no longer need god to work todays but will work todays the good of society.

ComradeChris

18th November 2004, 15:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:23 PM

Not really. For all we know life was formed by aliens. You don't have proof that life formed from a single celled first organism in the primordial soup mix.

I suggest you check these links out before you shoot your mouth off...

Abiogenesis FAQs (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/)

Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)

Not a free lunch, but a box of chocolates (http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/)

The Second Law opf Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)

TalkDesign.org (http://www.talkdesign.org/)

I'm afraid Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe's theory on alien assisted evolution is a bit too crackpot for me.
Just giving an example. Has anyone seen that move, "Mission to Mars" or the "Red Planet." I can't remember it's a few years old, but they discover aliens on Mars who "seeded" Earth. I'm just saying something like that could be possible. It's just a theory :lol: .

ComradeChris

18th November 2004, 15:22

Socialist societies must work collectively, thoughts must be collective. We must be thinking from the same foundations and hold that it is true. This thought should be taught at school's and any reactionary thought of pre revolution times will eventually die out. You see there will be no religous thought. The students and workers will now have a new thought, a revolutionary Marxist Leninist thought. They will not listen to their parents about religion. Just the same way some of us dont listen to a our parents and grandparents reactionary thought's (ie abortion, racism, etc). Throught education in schools and workplace this thought will be taught.

This thought will create the new socialist society. Religon mostly exist in secular societies of today because in school they only prepare us for work, so we learn how to act from society mainly from media and entertainment. If we have religious parents we will learn religion from them. Some people who don't have religous parents still become religious because they are not fulfilled with their current thought (many people say they become religous because they didnt like the way things are and how they were acting, maybe they were drinking now they are saved). In a socialist society this will not be the case. In schools people will be taught how to contribute to society and create a healthier society(like china in Mao's times, this was the main focus). Religion will not be brought into this teaching. They will understand reactionary and progressive thought and will reject all religious thought. Many people who say they are born again christains sya they were drunken, violent, theives etc. Then they learn morals in accordance to their chosen religon. They reason they were acting in a unacceptable way before was not because they didnt haev god, it was because in capitalist society schools train workers.

Isn't that more like brainwashing though? And bookburning?

But anyway, why must everyone have the exact same thought? And why does everyone have to be educated similarly? Along hte lines of Plato's thoughts, why not when everyone is relatively young, have them discuss what they want to be. And instead of taking all these other course, they could go through intensive training to be what they want. But I mean if they don't like it, there's no problem in switching. But this way we'll have like millions of Doogy Howzers (however you spell that stupid old shows name :lol: ) running around. Sorry that's just a little rant.

But as I said though, if their beliefs make them a better person, I really don't understand why personal beliefs must be abolished.

And more secular governments today aren't even secular. The US for example writes "In God we Trust" on their money, right beside the "pagan" Illuminati symbol.

Before you stated marx said capitalism was the problem not religon. This places capitalism primary problem then religoin. Never the less religoin is just as reactionary. This people learn a new thought in the belief of God. They do this in the believe they will enter heaven and believe god has saved them. In a socialist society we to could say there is a god so you must act this way. It would create a good society, but a society on lies and fears. In the new socialist we have a new thought, the materialist thought. That is marxist leninism. The society will no longer need god to work todays but will work todays the good of society.

But claiming theories as truths is just as wrong too. If they believe in dedication to the goodness of society, as they want to get into heaven, it doesn't seem too bad to me anyway.

redstar2000

18th November 2004, 15:59

Originally posted by ComradeChris
I don't think [Jesus] preached about how the poor deserve to be where they are (as you seem to think).

No, I didn't say that or "seem to think" that. He just said that poor people would always be around.

His message had nothing to do with "ending poverty".

Luke 14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the blind and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

Matt. 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and then you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Two interesting quotations promoting charity -- something that all religions do to the best of my knowledge.

But the "sub-text" of these remarks is notable for the fact that believers are invited to give to the poor so that they can "gain treasure in Heaven".

This suggests, does it not, that there are rich and poor in Heaven. If you want to be on Heaven's "A-list", then you should give to the poor; if you're satisfied with a basement flat in the New Jerusalem, then you get to keep your earthly treasures.

Here the Muslims are a bit tougher...the giving of alms to the poor is compulsory -- if you don't do it, it's the fiery pit! :o

:redstar2000:

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

Invader Zim

18th November 2004, 17:44

I personally have never seen the need for "treasure in heaven. If it is as we are told a place of absolute bliss, then why would you need treasure? Why would you need to purchase things when everything you could want is already is supplied in abundance?

Yet another piece of illogical rubbish stemming from the bible.

ComradeChris

18th November 2004, 21:38

No, I didn't say that or "seem to think" that. He just said that poor people would always be around.

His message had nothing to do with "ending poverty".

When the rich give their possessions to the poor? That seems like a redistribution of wealth to me.

Two interesting quotations promoting charity -- something that all religions do to the best of my knowledge.

But the "sub-text" of these remarks is notable for the fact that believers are invited to give to the poor so that they can "gain treasure in Heaven".

If all religions promote charity why are you opposed to them?

And why bother being "good" or charitable if there is no incentive to do so? People then (and even primarily today) looked out for their own interests.

This suggests, does it not, that there are rich and poor in Heaven. If you want to be on Heaven's "A-list", then you should give to the poor; if you're satisfied with a basement flat in the New Jerusalem, then you get to keep your earthly treasures.

I don't know if it says that. Want to tell me where it says that? As you said, and I've said a couple times before you said it, I still have to read the Bible. Have you ever read it? I'm just curious.

Here the Muslims are a bit tougher...the giving of alms to the poor is compulsory -- if you don't do it, it's the fiery pit!

I don't know a lot about Islamic religion, other than it is (from what I've heard) a lot like Christianity in a lot of aspects. The Koran is on my list after the Bible.

redstar2000

19th November 2004, 00:48

Originally posted by ComradeChris
When the rich give their possessions to the poor? That seems like a redistribution of wealth to me.

Yes it is but on a trivial scale.

If I give a small hand-out to a beggar, then wealth has been redistributed...but nothing fundamentally has changed.

You'd think the text of Matthew 19:21 would be interpreted as "sell all your possessions and give it all to the poor"...but that's only if you "want to be perfect" -- get on Heaven's A-list.

Wealthy Christians have never done such a thing, of course. I know of no reason to anticipate that they ever will.

If all religions promote charity, why are you opposed to them?

In this case, because it's a lie...charity has never ended poverty or oppression and never will.

And why bother being "good" or charitable if there is no incentive to do so?

Have you ever run across the concept of "enlightened self-interest"?

The "incentive" to be "good" is that a social order in which people behave badly (like ours) is a shitty society to live in.

I don't know if it says that. Want to tell me where it says that?

It is the implication of what is being said there.

1. Give to the poor.

2. Even though you will diminish your earthly treasure...

3. You will increase your treasure in Heaven.

4. Some people in Heaven must have more heavenly treasure than others.

5. Therefore, there must be classes in Heaven.

Q.E.D.

Have you ever read it? I'm just curious.

Not all of it, of course. But significant amounts at one time or another.

Usually because some godsucker makes some outrageous claim and I have to go to the text to demonstrate that he's talking out of his ass.

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

:redstar2000:

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

Hiero

19th November 2004, 01:46

But as I said though, if their beliefs make them a better person, I really don't understand why personal beliefs must be abolished.

Why would religion be taught when it is not needed.A socialist society will no longer need to scare people into being good, they will be taught in schools how to contribute to soceity. Religion will wither away. Churches will not be state funded and atheist thought being taught in school will add to the diminishment of religion.

If all religions promote charity why are you opposed to them?

Charity is only a part of religion. The majority is about preparing people for the afterlife. Many of the spiritual theories of religion are slowly starting to to provern wrong and now people say things in the bible are not to to be read literal.

Why allow a mainstream religion to be continued when the class that supports them financial will be overthrown. We no loner need a religion to be charitable. A socialist society can fund foriegn aid, it can feed the poor, it find jobs etc. Religion is no longer need when a revolutionary socialist society is created.

ComradeChris

19th November 2004, 16:52

Yes it is but on a trivial scale.

If I give a small hand-out to a beggar, then wealth has been redistributed...but nothing fundamentally has changed.

You'd think the text of Matthew 19:21 would be interpreted as "sell all your possessions and give it all to the poor"...but that's only if you "want to be perfect" -- get on Heaven's A-list.

Wealthy Christians have never done such a thing, of course. I know of no reason to anticipate that they ever will.

I know, and in socialism/communism there wouldn't be a rich or poor (theoretically). So the writtings will change as values do. I said the Bible was written for political reasons.

In this case, because it's a lie...charity has never ended poverty or oppression and never will.

They all promote charity, I don't know how that's a lie. It's always the rich who are the fundamentalists who use religion to only further manipulate faithful people. I mean the Pope every day lavishes himself in luxery and praise. It's very contradictory and would obviously be changed in a socialist/communist setting.

Have you ever run across the concept of "enlightened self-interest"?

The "incentive" to be "good" is that a social order in which people behave badly (like ours) is a shitty society to live in.

It's going to be hard to convince people who are "decent" in this society to see it that way. I'm talking about the middle class which is growing and growing. Unfortunately every dollar in someone's pocket means a dollar out of someone elses. And I don't think those dollars are coming from the rich.

It is the implication of what is being said there.

1. Give to the poor.

2. Even though you will diminish your earthly treasure...

3. You will increase your treasure in Heaven.

4. Some people in Heaven must have more heavenly treasure than others.

5. Therefore, there must be classes in Heaven.

Q.E.D.

Where does it say you will have MORE treasure in heaven? And more's relative anyway. Maybe they mean more treasure than material wealth. And what's Q.E.D. means?

Not all of it, of course. But significant amounts at one time or another.

Usually because some godsucker makes some outrageous claim and I have to go to the text to demonstrate that he's talking out of his ass.

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

I'm mainly reading it to find all the references towards Communist beliefs. Maybe then we can make the religious people see it the Socialist way, rather than the Christian Heritage Party's way *shudders at the though*.

ComradeChris

19th November 2004, 17:00

Why would religion be taught when it is not needed.A socialist society will no longer need to scare people into being good, they will be taught in schools how to contribute to soceity. Religion will wither away. Churches will not be state funded and atheist thought being taught in school will add to the diminishment of religion.

You don't teach it. It's a secular government, I agreed with that :lol: . But if people have their beliefs and wish to pass them on, as long as they are towards a constructive mannerism, I still don't see the problem. I mean you're not going to be able to delete religion over night. It will take generations.

I know Churches will not be state funded. They may go back to an older time and have outdoor services or something still. There's one stupid hymn I remember when I went to church and something about the people are the church, and the church is just a building. If that's there belief, they don't need a building :lol: .

Charity is only a part of religion. The majority is about preparing people for the afterlife. Many of the spiritual theories of religion are slowly starting to to provern wrong and now people say things in the bible are not to to be read literal.

The words of Jesus in Christianity are probably the only things that should be. But even those may be false. All the other prophets or whatever those people are called (I can't think of the name for the life of me), seemed pretty authoritive.

Why allow a mainstream religion to be continued when the class that supports them financial will be overthrown. We no loner need a religion to be charitable. A socialist society can fund foriegn aid, it can feed the poor, it find jobs etc. Religion is no longer need when a revolutionary socialist society is created.

They wouldn't need to be supported. Like I said outside worship and BYOC (bring your own chair :lol: ). The only thing they may need is the Bible, but as I said, that would probably be revised to a modern version anyway in a socialist society.