jesus radicals confrence

[Organic Revolution]

to all who are anarchists, come to the jesus radicals confrence aug. 5-6 for a confrence on anarchism and christianity

http://conference.jesusradicals.com/

[Guest_rise up]

bump

[redstar2000]

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for Christians to use RevLeft to recruit anarchists to attend their conferences.

I have started a thread in the Commie Club to discuss a response.

In the meantime, I would urge anyone thinking of attending this conference to reconsider. Christianity (like all religions) is thoroughly reactionary...no matter how they choose to market themselves.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Clarksist]

Not only reactionary Redstar, but also extremely authoritarian and socially limiting. How anarchistic.

Though Catholic nuns and monks do use a type of socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm sorry riseup and slightly surprised.

I don't think that this forum is the right place to be discussing this kind of thing.

I am going to move it to the Religion forum.

[More Fire for the People]

Catholic socialism?
Haha.

The Catholic church is a façade of what Christianity was intended to be.
And I disagree with redstar, by excluding leftist Christians you exclude the broadest possible resistance to capitalism and revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rotmutter
...by excluding leftist Christians you exclude the broadest possible resistance to capitalism and revolution.

On what grounds do you make this astonishing assertion?

When and where have any significant numbers of "left Christians" mounted any genuine resistance to capitalism or manifested any genuine support of socialism?

Indeed, how could they ever do such a thing? Are you forgetting that it is Christian dogma to save souls? That means capitalist "souls" too!

And that means that capitalists are not our "enemy"...just sinners "like all of us".

We all need to "stop sinning" and things will be "just fine". :lol:

"Leftist Christian" is an oxymoron.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:35 AM
When and where have any significant numbers of "left Christians" mounted any genuine resistance to capitalism or manifested any genuine support of socialism?
Nicaragua comes to mind. Any number of Latin American countries.

And dissenting religious sects were one of the main recruiting-grounds for Russian socialists of all varieties.

For another religion, there's the Russian Revolution, where many thought it was very possible to be a Bolshevik and a Muslim, as one delegate to the Baku Congress put it. In Iran, there were mass demonstrations behind banners like "God is Great - All Power to the Workers Committees".

That'll do for a start.

But of course I don't know what you mean by genuine. I suspect that anything involving, or even tolerating, religion, will be defined by you as not genuine...this is one of your main arguments against the Cuban Revolution, it seems.

So this is circular...no "genuine" support to socialism is possible, because any socialism supported by religious people is not genuine.

[More Fire for the People]

Then is my support for socialism not valid?
I was not aware that my goal was to convert souls, when did this happen?
Was there a memo sent out?
I hate it when [email protected] forget to e-mail me :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:28 PM
Then is my support for socialism not valid?
I was not aware that my goal was to convert souls, when did this happen?
Was there a memo sent out?
I hate it when [email protected] forget to e-mail me :(
I take it that you must be a "nominal Christian" -- that is, you know little or nothing about your professed faith and care less.

Recall the words of the central figure in your religion: Follow me and I will make you a fisher of men.

As a Christian, you are supposed to be vitally concerned with the fate of your own "eternal soul" and that of others as well. "Salvation" is your central task...since "eternity" is clearly "far more important" than mere earthly concerns.

Does this sound strange to your ears? Have you never heard these words before?

If you don't even understand the basic foundations of Christianity, how can you claim to be one?

Perhaps you're like some of the newbies who come to this site claiming to be "Marxists" but saying that Marx "concentrated too much on workers". :o

We try as best we can to teach them what Marxism really is...but I'd hate to think we've reached the point that we now have to educate "Christians" as to what Christianity really is.

Surely you can locate Christian sites and educate yourself as to what you've "signed on" for.

It ain&#39;t socialism. <_<

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 1 2005, 01:59 PM--> (Severian @ Jun 1 2005, 01:59 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 11:35 AM
When and where have any significant numbers of "left Christians" mounted any genuine resistance to capitalism or manifested any genuine support of socialism?
Nicaragua comes to mind. Any number of Latin American countries.

And dissenting religious sects were one of the main recruiting-grounds for Russian socialists of all varieties.

For another religion, there&#39;s the Russian Revolution, where many thought it was very possible to be a Bolshevik and a Muslim, as one delegate to the Baku Congress put it. In Iran, there were mass demonstrations behind banners like "God is Great - All Power to the Workers Committees".

That&#39;ll do for a start. [/b]
Makes for a dramatic end, as well...since all of your examples are as dead as Catharism.

We could wrangle, no doubt, about the nature of their "support" and how deep it really ran.

But you evaded my central point: how can someone who is focused on "eternity" make any kind of serious earthly commitment?

You just assert that "they did that" -- they genuinely "supported socialism" -- but you do not say how that is possible.

Of course, they can say "we support socialism" -- but why should we believe them?

You seem to ignore the common human experience: people can say lots of things...and really mean only some of them or even none of them.

Note that I am not suggesting that "Christian leftists" are "conscious liars" -- though I think some of the leading figures almost certainly are.

What I have repeatedly observed is that the "average Christian leftist" is confused...has failed to examine the contradiction between commitment to working class revolution and commitment to "God" and its Church. Often I expect this results from gross ignorance both of communism and of their own religion...as we have seen in this and other threads.

I think your approach to this question has been very shallow -- if a religious person "repeats the right slogan correctly", that&#39;s "good enough" for you.

It is not "good enough"...there are several avian species that can be taught to repeat slogans -- even Marxist ones.

If people make a revolution without really understanding what they&#39;re doing and why -- if they are handicapped with superstitious notions of "salvation", "eternity", "sin", etc. -- then their revolution will come to grief.

I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s one of those "iron laws" of history.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[MKS]

If I may respond; I do not defend Christians, however Christian ideology and socialist ideology can be "mixed", or to better explain, certain teachings of Jesus and his apostles can be used to justify socialist ideas or principles. But the ideals are broad, and like most christian sects, teachings must be used selectively to promote ones views. I can justify just about any human behaviour from bible verses and teachings, up to but not limited to; execution of homosexuals, hookers and disobiedeant women, cutting children in half, having multiple wives, and animal sacfarice. Christian Testaments are no different from the Mosaic Testaments, which can be used to promote a more socialist or even communist way of life. The communal way of life, and the prinicples of justice, love and forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance are all preached by Jesus of Nazareth. Principles I think most modern socialists/communists hold (I hope).


What I have repeatedly observed is that the "average Christian leftist" is confused...has failed to examine the contradiction between commitment to working class revolution and commitment to "God" and its Church. Often I expect this results from gross ignorance both of communism and of their own religion...as we have seen in this and other threads
redstar2000

There is no such contradiction; If my concern for the working classes and poor classes develops into positive action, and that action and concern is derived from Christian teachings, then my positive action towards humanity will be rewarded by god when I die. Simply put if I work for Socialism/Communism and it creates a world of greater equality, justice and peace than I have lived a "model" Christian life. (This only applies to Catholics who believe good works as well as faith will gain reward, Protestants for the most part believe that only faith in Jesus is needed). However there is a contradiction when most Marxists promote a religion free state, which would seriously impede any path to heaven, if a christian helped establish such a state.



If people make a revolution without really understanding what they&#39;re doing and why -- if they are handicapped with superstitious notions of "salvation", "eternity", "sin", etc. -- then their revolution will come to grief.

I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s one of those "iron laws" of history

Well I can think of one revolution that has been successful, and it was created by men handicapped with superstitions. The American Revolution of 1776, which established a free nation for the Anglo-American Colonists, to my knowledge that nation still exists today... oh wait Im sitting in it. Another revolution comes to mind; The Cuban Revolution, while it might not have been intitated by Theists or Christians, im sure there are many religious people in Cuba, and the nations troubles have little to do with how many times the people pray.

The fact is that the majority of people in this world hold some sort of religion or belief system, therfore any Socialist/Communist revolution must embrace the moderate silent majority, who hold thier beliefs as a personal attribute, and allow them to contribute to the movement (if they&#39;re not burgoise) hopefully any society that is established will allow the people to continue to believe in what ever they want as long as it dosent look to oppress.

Im an athiest Socialist, the only reason I chimed in on this debate is because I dont think we as Socialists/Communists should act to destroy the revolutionary sentiment in any person, which is what I think many Athiest Socialists do by the constant "brow beating" of Christian Leftists, or anyone whoes definition of Socialism doesnt fit into thier own. By dismissing people who call themselves Christian Socialist, we make more enemies, who might have otherwise been valuable allies.

[redstar2000]

Well, MKS, you are an atheist yourself...so I can&#39;t very well criticize you for your ignorance of Christianity -- why should you know anything about it?

But your easy acceptance of Christian mythology is...regrettable.

For example...


The communal way of life, and the principles of justice, love and forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance are all preached by Jesus of Nazareth. Principles I think most modern socialists/communists hold (I hope).

If the Christian gospels are accurate (a separate question), there were times when "Jesus" was "forgiving", "tolerant", etc. and also times when he was none of those things.

One can easily find such passages...but "Christian leftists" pretend they don&#39;t exist.

Recall that "Jesus" himself preached the existence of "Hellfire" and "eternal punishment". Think about that...eternal torture&#33;

Compare that with the Mosaic Code -- "an eye for an eye", etc. When you&#39;ve given up an eye for the eye you took, your "debt of sin" is paid. A very human concept of justice&#33;

If "Jesus" -- a.k.a."Mr. Nice Guy" -- had wanted to go that route, he could have. He could have said something like "for every moment of human pain and suffering that you caused by sinning, you must suffer it yourself in the fires of Hell".

And then the punishment would end...your "debt" would be paid in full.

But that was not enough for him. No, he wants to torture and torture and then torture some more...forever&#33;

The stars burn out...but the torture continues. Black holes evaporate...but the torture continues. In a trillion years or more, the universe itself becomes a vast cold darkness with, here and there, a lonely electron or positron separated from its nearest neighbor by many thousands of light years...and the torture of the damned souls just rolls right along.

What a real sweetheart was this "preacher of love". :angry:

Do the "Christian leftists" not realize this? Or do they pretend that "it doesn&#39;t exist" or is a "mistranslation" or a "later insertion"?

(Note that Islam borrowed this doctrine from the Christians -- they too believe in eternal punishment for sin.)


If my concern for the working classes and poor classes develops into positive action, and that action and concern is derived from Christian teachings, then my positive action towards humanity will be rewarded by god when I die. Simply put, if I work for Socialism/Communism and it creates a world of greater equality, justice and peace, then I have lived a "model" Christian life.

I think there&#39;s very little Biblical justification for that view...and much more for the "Christian warrior" model.

Don&#39;t forget: your central task as a "good Christian" is to save people from being tortured by "Jesus" eternally&#33;

Medieval Catholics understood that very clearly -- that&#39;s why they eagerly embraced torture, war, etc. If you think that people are going to suffer for eternity, then no measure is "too extreme" to keep that from happening&#33; If you pray for the "soul" of a "witch" that you are burning to death, you "may" convince "Jesus" to be merciful and let her "soul" into Heaven. But if you show mercy yourself, then not only will her "soul" surely "go to Hell" but yours might too&#33; :o

It naturally follows that if you conquer a bunch of infidels and convert them to Christianity at sword-point, then you may well have saved thousands or even millions of souls from eternal torture -- so the atrocities you commit in the course of winning your victory are "trivial" (those infidels would all "go to Hell" anyway)...and you will certainly receive a "Hero&#39;s Welcome" in "Heaven".

(I reiterate: Islam has the same view.)

Of course, any form of conversion is acceptable to "Jesus" -- I&#39;m sure he has no objection to "love" or "social justice" or even a straight-forward earthly bribe. If you "accept Jesus as Lord", then you go to "Heaven" -- the reason doesn&#39;t matter. The more "souls" that you "win for Jesus", the higher your "Heavenly status"...meaning perhaps that you get to sit closer to him at ceremonial dinners. (:lol:)


Well, I can think of one revolution that has been successful, and it was created by men handicapped with superstitions. The American Revolution of 1776, which established a free nation for the Anglo-American Colonists...

That is...embarrassingly wrong.

The "movers & shakers" of the American Revolution were remarkably free from superstition by the standards of their era.

And they did not establish a "free nation" -- up until 1860, the ruling class in the United States consisted mostly of large slaveowners in the South. Although other classes had occasional significance in public events, the U.S., year in and year out, was dominated by slave-owners.

When the Republican Party was organized in 1856, it was dominated from the beginning by the rising capitalist class...and the Civil War brought that class to power.

Nor was that new capitalist ruling class particularly pious -- again by the standards of that era. (Some were...but most, I think, were not.)


I&#39;m sure there are many religious people in Cuba, and the nation&#39;s troubles have little to do with how many times the people pray.

We are denied first-hand reliable data about Cuban daily life and its "problems".

But if you imagine that the Castro government&#39;s "positive attitude" towards superstition is "having no effect"...I think you&#39;re wrong.

If the Americans return to Cuba, the arch-bishops will be out to welcome them...perhaps even sprinkling "holy water" on American tanks. They know who is really on their side...and whose side they&#39;re really on.


The fact is that the majority of people in this world hold some sort of religion or belief system, therefore any Socialist/Communist revolution must embrace the moderate silent majority, who hold their beliefs as a personal attribute...

But that majority is declining and I think it will continue to decline.

In fact, I don&#39;t think socialist/communist revolution is really possible until superstition is no longer a significant factor in the population as a whole.

Superstitious people can overthrow a government...but they remain unfit to govern themselves -- they can only submit to a new despotism.


By dismissing people who call themselves Christian Socialist, we make more enemies, who might have otherwise been valuable allies.

Well, that&#39;s the real controversy, isn&#39;t it? Can superstitious people be considered allies of a rational revolution?

Socialism, communism, and anarchism are rational alternatives to existing class society. They depend on the powers of human reason to be victorious. When you suggest that we should also welcome as "allies" people who are unreasonable, how does that help us?

What would we do with such "allies" after our initial victories? Set up a new "worker-approved" version of Christianity/Islam/Whatever? Write new "holy books" with pro-left messages? Create a bunch of "red" superstitions?

That seems to me to be foolish and stupid. Our purposes do not include the invention or propagation of superstitious folly in any form.

And Jesus said, Blessed are the Communists, for they shall enter the Commune of Heaven.

No, better we "pave Paradise, put up a parking lot". :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[encephalon]

god damn. That&#39;s all I have to say.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:55 PM

Makes for a dramatic end, as well...since all of your examples are as dead as Catharism.
Gee, how ancient are your favored examples of revolutionary workers&#39; democracy? The Paris Commune?

I could point to the participation of religious believers in the Cuban Revolution, if you prefer current. But the examples I gave involved larger-scale participation of believers.


But you evaded my central point: how can someone who is focused on "eternity" make any kind of serious earthly commitment?

Not every religious believer is completely obsessed with the next world. Most are less obsessed with religion than you are.


You just assert that "they did that" -- they genuinely "supported socialism" -- but you do not say how that is possible.

See, first comes the observed fact, then comes the explanation. While you seem to start with an explanation, and deny observed facts which contradict it - the observed fact that religious believers have participated in many major revolutions (probably most. Maybe all.)

I think there&#39;s a couple explanations invovled, first: it is possible for some people to reach correct conclusions with a bad philosophical method. (Don&#39;t think so? You and Marx use different philosophical methods - he was a dialectical materialist - yet presumably you claim your major political conclusions are fundamentally similar to his.) Also, some people operate with a more-or-less correct method of reasoning despite not having formally learned dialectical materialism. Then there are others who give lip service to materialism or even dialectical materialism without actually applying it. The former are more likely to reach correct conclusions than the latter.


Of course, they can say "we support socialism" -- but why should we believe them?

By their actions...all the examples I&#39;ve given were cases where religious believers acted in support of socialism.

Many religious believers fought and died in those revolutions, and gave a lot solider evidence of their genuine commitment to socialism than you ever have. Especially since you persist in pissing on the graves of these revolutionary martyrs.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
I could point to the participation of religious believers in the Cuban Revolution, if you prefer current.

Better not...the next thing you know, you&#39;ll be quoting sermons from the Archbishop of Santiago.

Favorably. :o


Not every religious believer is completely obsessed with the next world. Most are less obsessed with religion than you are.

Very witty. Could my "obsession" have anything to do with my understanding of the reactionary social role that religion plays?

Nah.


See, first comes the observed fact, then comes the explanation.

No, on occasion, theory comes first and the observation serves to confirm or disprove the theory.

You just assert that "lots" of Christians have "supported" revolutions. But you have no real data on either the numbers or the depth of that "support"...much less what role the Christians played within the revolutionary process itself.

Theory predicts that they played a conservative or reactionary role...and I would submit that what fragmentary evidence we possess actually does confirm that theory.


I think there&#39;s a couple explanations involved, first: it is possible for some people to reach correct conclusions with a bad philosophical method.

Agreed...though it&#39;s hard to be consistently correct if you use bad methodology, you can certainly "get it right" on occasion.


Also, some people operate with a more-or-less correct method of reasoning despite not having formally learned dialectical materialism.

Setting aside your claim that "dialectics" is "the way to go", any "more-or-less correct method of reasoning" would have to be, first of all, non-supernatural. As soon as you admit supernatural "data" into your reasoning process, your chances of being "correct" about anything at any time are in the toilet.


Many religious believers fought and died in those revolutions, and gave a lot solider evidence of their genuine commitment to socialism than you ever have. Especially since you persist in pissing on the graves of these revolutionary martyrs.

Goodness gracious. If what you say is true, then they died in the firm conviction that they were "going to Heaven to be with Jesus". (Or with a whole bunch of virgins&#33; :lol:)

That doesn&#39;t count&#33;

And, of course, I piss on graves as often as I can...the symbolism is irresistible.

What a strange fellow you are and what odd notions you have.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[More Fire for the People]

(1) Salvation is something one must realize on their own;
(2) I offer answers for those with questions, not enforce my opinion on them;
(3) MKS, the combination of socialism and Christianity is a farce;
(4) But no matter what I or redstar2000 state nor how compelling the arguement, neither of us will ever change our opinion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rotmutter
But no matter what I or redstar2000 state nor how compelling the argument, neither of us will ever change our opinion.

Here you are speaking for yourself. I have changed my views over the years...in the face of compelling evidence.

There was a guy back in the 19th century (I think) who put it this way...

To prove a miracle would require evidence of such a nature that the absence of a miracle as the explanation would be, in itself, an even greater miracle.

Or, in another&#39;s phrase: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence&#33;

To persuade me of any supernatural claim would require first-hand experience on my part of the validity of the claim.

Nothing less would do.

If "Jesus" wants my "soul", he&#39;ll have to come to my door and ask for it...politely.

And he&#39;ll have a good deal of explaining to do before I&#39;ll turn loose of it. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[More Fire for the People]

I do to change my opinions as well, my state was an exaggeration.
I mean, I use to be a vehemnt conservative Christian who wanted to imprision homosexual people and support strict capitalism + free health care.

Eh... perhaps one day I will be a militant atheist, but a revolution will need Christians who aren&#39;t afraid to fire a gun at the bourgeoisie more than it needs a non-violent atheist.

[encephalon]

revolution will need Christians who aren&#39;t afraid to fire a gun

Well if there&#39;s one thing history proves, it&#39;s that Christians aren&#39;t afraid to fire a gun at anyone.

[MKS]

Well, MKS, you are an atheist yourself...so I can&#39;t very well criticize you for your ignorance of Christianity -- why should you know anything about it?

But your easy acceptance of Christian mythology is...regrettable.

My ignorance of Christianity stems from 2 years of theological study at the University of Notre Dame, which included a semster of study at the North American Pontifical College in Rome. There is no better cure for dogmaticism than deep study of Religion, it cured me.




If the Christian gospels are accurate (a separate question), there were times when "Jesus" was "forgiving", "tolerant", etc. and also times when he was none of those things.

One can easily find such passages...but "Christian leftists" pretend they don&#39;t exist.

Recall that "Jesus" himself preached the existence of "Hellfire" and "eternal punishment". Think about that...eternal torture&#33;

Compare that with the Mosaic Code -- "an eye for an eye", etc. When you&#39;ve given up an eye for the eye you took, your "debt of sin" is paid. A very human concept of justice&#33;

If "Jesus" -- a.k.a."Mr. Nice Guy" -- had wanted to go that route, he could have. He could have said something like "for every moment of human pain and suffering that you caused by sinning, you must suffer it yourself in the fires of Hell".
redstar2000



But the ideals are broad, and like most christian sects, teachings must be used selectively to promote ones views.
MKS

If you would have read my entire post you would have seen my argument that most Chrisitans take a subjective view of the bible, that is to say, they can form almost any arguement from Biblical texts. Sure there are passages that could be anti-socialist, but there are some that could be argued as pro-socialist/communist. Christian Leftist select only certain teachings, just as Protestants, Catholics, Fundamentalists, etc.


Don&#39;t forget: your central task as a "good Christian" is to save people from being tortured by "Jesus" eternally

Well there is a theological schism between many Christians on that fact; in my expierence (as a former Catholic), the goal of salvation is important, however the best way to gain salvation and to bring people to the message of the Gospel is to act as a Christian, to be charitable, to fight for justice, to create a more equal and peacful world. Protestant Chrisitans usually hold the opposite view, and believe faith and faith only can gain forgiveness and eternal peace (heaven).

I agree that Christianity is a burdensome mytholgoy, however I think it is wrong to dismiss anyone who holds faith. Most Chrisitan Leftists I have met, are very intelleginet and work very hard for social justice and creation of a better world. Thier religous views act only as a foundation their actions, and if their actions have positive affects I can see no harm in their belief.


That is...embarrassingly wrong.

The "movers & shakers" of the American Revolution were remarkably free from superstition by the standards of their era.


The American Revolution of 1776, which established a free nation for the Anglo-American Colonists
MKS

I never argued the framers established a truly free nation, it still isnt a free nation.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many of the framers were Deists, and held a belief in the creation of the world by god, but not the intervention of god. Many of the other signers of the Constiution and Declaration of Independence were Christian Protestants, and I think one was Jewish. In fact, the people who held "unreasonable" beliefs, did create they very reasonable ideal of seperation of church and state.


Of course, any form of conversion is acceptable to "Jesus" -- I&#39;m sure he has no objection to "love" or "social justice" or even a straight-forward earthly bribe. If you "accept Jesus as Lord", then you go to "Heaven" -- the reason doesn&#39;t matter. The more "souls" that you "win for Jesus", the higher your "Heavenly status"...meaning perhaps that you get to sit closer to him at ceremonial dinners

Actually youre incorrect about this view. Conversion by violent force was never promoted by Jesus, judgement of the "sinful" was, but never violent conversion. In fact Jesus was against any form of violent reaction to sin; "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone", Jesus said that when an adulterer was about to be stoned to death for her sin. Good deeds and faith gain eternal reward.

The best synopsis of the teachings of Jesus is in his Sermon on the Mount and The Eight Beatitudes. This is what I think many Leftists use as justification for their views.


Socialism, communism, and anarchism are rational alternatives to existing class society. They depend on the powers of human reason to be victorious. When you suggest that we should also welcome as "allies" people who are unreasonable, how does that help us?

You are too quick to label all thiests as "unreasonable" just because they hold a belief in something that seems illogical to most athiests. I would argue many thiests are very reasonable and logical people in most other aspects of their lives.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MKS
My ignorance of Christianity stems from 2 years of theological study at the University of Notre Dame, which included a semester of study at the North American Pontifical College in Rome.

I am stunned&#33; :o

Now your outlook seems completely inexplicable&#33;


If you would have read my entire post you would have seen my argument that most Christians take a subjective view of the Bible, that is to say, they can form almost any argument from Biblical texts.

Indeed, but you seem to have a positive evaluation of this practice which to me is simply brazen dishonesty.

After all, if they were honest, they&#39;d draft a new "holy book" with just the stuff they really liked and denounce all the rest as a heretical forgery.

When they "bring the whole package" to the table, but just show you "the nice stuff", what kind of shit is that?

And meanwhile, all the "bad stuff" is still there...awaiting an appropriate occasion when they can bring it out and do it themselves&#33;

To us...among others. :o


...in my experience (as a former Catholic), the goal of salvation is important, however the best way to gain salvation and to bring people to the message of the Gospel is to act as a Christian, to be charitable, to fight for justice, to create a more equal and peaceful world.

John XXIII and the Liberation Theologians may have sincerely used such rhetoric...but I don&#39;t see it as anything even approaching the general practice or "party line" of the Church. Their rhetoric may be subdued compared to their glory years...but Opus Dei shows where their heart really is (and always has been).


I agree that Christianity is a burdensome mythology, however I think it is wrong to dismiss anyone who holds faith. Most Christian Leftists I have met are very intelligent and work very hard for social justice and creation of a better world.

You cannot deny, surely, that all of them envision that "better world" as one in which the Church itself plays a vastly expanded social role.

As it did, say, in the 14th century CE.


In fact, the people who held "unreasonable" beliefs, did create the very reasonable ideal of separation of church and state.

That&#39;s an anachronism. The modern "ideal" of the separation of church and state bears little resemblance to that of the founders.

The founders wanted no equivalent in the U.S. of the Church of England...an official state-supported church. And they arranged matters accordingly.

Note that I said that they were relatively free of superstition by the standards of their time...that doesn&#39;t mean that many of them didn&#39;t still pay tribute (at least publicly) to those superstitions.

In addition to which, the "ideal" of separation of church and state is flawed precisely because it is an "ideal". In real life, toleration of superstition equates, sooner or later, to promotion of superstition.

This can be seen most dramatically in the U.S. of course...but it is still going on even in civilized Europe.


Conversion by violent force was never promoted by Jesus...

So you think this quote is "not authentic"...

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


You are too quick to label all theists as "unreasonable" just because they hold a belief in something that seems illogical to most atheists. I would argue many theists are very reasonable and logical people in most other aspects of their lives.

That reminds me of "the quiet neighbor" who was "always polite" but "kept to himself"...you know, the one with corpses in his freezer. :lol:

Someone known to be so irrational as to believe in supernatural entities probably has some other little "quirks" as well.

Some of them quite shocking. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[cubist]

i find it funny that people wish to make a cocktail of two explosive ingredients,

Anarchy & christianity,

mindblowing it really is,

those who want to mix it should read more of each of them and see how opposed they are

[Organic Revolution]

im not christian at all... but there is very interesting speakers there. sorry about this