Why does religion oppose communism?

[Ater Sanguis]

Sorry all, I'm sure this question has been answered inordinately and I apologize for this. But I have caught myself up on enough of the communist theory to get a pretty firm grasp of it. But something I have never found in words I can understand is why religion is opposed to communism. I'm Atheist myself so it's not a big issue, but I am still am curious. Is religion flat out prohibited in a communist state? Things of that nature. If you can help me out on this it would be immensely appreciated.

[Correa]

Traditionally communist believe that religion is simply the sigh of the enslaved workers. Meaning that it is disgned to control the masses and the masses turn to religion to cope with their oppression. However some religious factions have Marxist qualities. Such as the Dorthy Day and the Catholic Workers.

http://catholicworker.org/

[Martin Blank]

Most religions -- especially the Christian religion -- are rigidly hierarchical, and expect their followers to blindly ("faithfully") follow the commands of the church. Communism is anathema to that kind of structure, thinking and way of life.

In other words, religions oppose communism because of the latter's path to liberation from slavery, ignorance and blind faith.

Miles

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:19 PM
Most religions -- especially the Christian religion -- are rigidly hierarchical, and expect their followers to blindly ("faithfully") follow the commands of the church. Communism is anathema to that kind of structure, thinking and way of life.

In other words, religions oppose communism because of the latter's path to liberation from slavery, ignorance and blind faith.

Miles
Bullshit. Fucking hell, Christianity is in no way united. Christianity is also not as structured and strict as people make it out to be- Liberation Theology anyone? They also do not expect blind obediance, if this was so there would be no Protestant church...in fact there wouldn't be a church, Christianity would still be a Jewish Sect!

Not all religious people oppose Communism, in fact Christianity was one of the first mass egalitarian movements in the world. Jesus was the Lenin or Che of his time. There are also factions of pretty much every religion who believe that their religion actually advocates Communism, Islamic Communism is an entire theology and political movement. The first Communists (well, proto-Communists) were the True Levellers (Diggers) in 17th Century England.

No, I am not a Christian, but I am more familar with Christian theology than your average person. Most religions, particular Judaism, Christianity and Islam are wholely compatible with Communism and in fact advocate it themselves if you look clearly. Fucking hell, the Christian affirmation of faith has stuff about the meek inheirting the world and kings being overthrown!

Anyway, generally religion was discouraged but not banned in Socialist states. However it was made a far more personal affair, that is religion was completely seperate from politics. If you wished to practice any particular religion then you were free to do so and most of their constitutions ensured freedom of religion. The only state to make an active effort to destroy religion was Albania under Enver Hoxha, who declared Albania to be the worlds first Atheist state and proceeded to close or destroy all Mosques and churches in Albania. This ultimately failed, but then again religious observance wasn't ever particularly high in Albania anyway. Most Muslims in Albania were Muslims because the tax rate for Muslims was different to that of Christians when they were part of the Ottoman empire (it was lower, but they had to pay alms which would be used for charity work. Christians had a higher tax rate, but didn't pay alms).

At times it has been used to unite countries, for instance during WWII the Russian Orthodox church was given a lot more freedom of operation than prior by Stalin. This was slowly curbed after the war though.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:25 PM
Bullshit. Fucking hell, Christianity is in no way united. Christianity is also not as structured and strict as people make it out to be- Liberation Theology anyone? They also do not expect blind obediance, if this was so there would be no Protestant church...in fact there wouldn't be a church, Christianity would still be a Jewish Sect!

Not all religious people oppose Communism, in fact Christianity was one of the first mass egalitarian movements in the world. Jesus was the Lenin or Che of his time. There are also factions of pretty much every religion who believe that their religion actually advocates Communism, Islamic Communism is an entire theology and political movement. The first Communists (well, proto-Communists) were the True Levellers (Diggers) in 17th Century England.

No, I am not a Christian, but I am more familar with Christian theology than your average person. Most religions, particular Judaism, Christianity and Islam are wholely compatible with Communism and in fact advocate it themselves if you look clearly. Fucking hell, the Christian affirmation of faith has stuff about the meek inheirting the world and kings being overthrown!
You are confusing religion -- an institution -- with spirituality -- a set of principles and beliefs. I agree that many spiritual people see their views as wholly compatible with communist politics. I also happen to agree with you about the historical figure we know as Jesus.

Where we disagree is on the role that religious sects, as institutions, fulfill in society. The Protestant sects split from the Catholic Church because of disagreements over doctrine. But that did not make them free thinkers. Once they had severed their ties to Rome, most of these sects became just as rigid and repressive as those they split from. The only sect I know of that has not taken on these characteristics is Unitarian Universalism, and that is because they really have no set principles akin to those of the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

Miles

[Severian]

I think Rosa Luxemburg explained it pretty well a long time ago. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm)

IMO the material interests of the clergy should be especially considered.

[Technique3055]

I don't think, at all, that the religions themselves oppose communism. I think the modern churches of their respective religions oppose communism. The Christian church is a good example of this, as many of Jesus's teachings express socialist beliefs, yet whenever someone mentions leftist beliefs to an ardent member of the modern Christian church, they always will mumble something about "godless commies."

[More Fire for the People]

I don't think the religious or the churches (or mosque, temples, etc.) are the problem -- but the bureaucrats and fascists who control the organizations of the religious and the churches.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:19 PM
Most religions -- especially the Christian religion -- are rigidly hierarchical, and expect their followers to blindly ("faithfully") follow the commands of the church. Communism is anathema to that kind of structure, thinking and way of life.

In other words, religions oppose communism because of the latter's path to liberation from slavery, ignorance and blind faith.

Miles
i couldnt have put it better myself, kudos

[danny android]

Why is religion opposed to communism?

It isn't.

jesus radicals (http://www.jesusradicals.com)

[Hiero]

Communism is materialist and relies on study of past and present. Religion is anti materialist.

Materialist as in the theory that only matter exists.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Hiero+Sep 1 2005, 01:06 AM--> (Hiero @ Sep 1 2005, 01:06 AM) Communism is materialist and relies on study of past and present. [/b]
Communism post Marx, for the most part...


Religion is anti materialist.

Religion is idealist to be specific. I am not sure you would cal that "anti materialist" but then most religious people are against us materialists because we reject "faith."


Materialist as in the theory that only matter exists.


Philosophic Materialism
The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

[Donnie]

When communism comes around the god idea will have no meaning or necessity in society. The God idea was created because people didn't understand things so they created the idea of an external force working on the environment. In today’s society people turn to the god idea because they don't understand or feel that they are alienated in society. However in a communist society people will not be alienated and they will be allowed to flourish into an enlightened human being.

As a Libertarian Communist I oppose religion because the God idea destroys human reason and justice.

[Zingu]

Religon is the spawn of the alienated man; you worship something of your own likeness, why do that?

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:26 PM
However in a communist society people will not be alienated and they will be allowed to flourish into an enlightened human being.

I highly doubt that in a communist society no one will feel alienated. there will still most likly be social groups or cliques or whatever that people feel alienated from. Communism will not destroy this problem.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 1 2005, 02:53 PM

I highly doubt that in a communist society no one will feel alienated. there will still most likly be social groups or cliques or whatever that people feel alienated from. Communism will not destroy this problem.
Thats not the type of alienation he is talking about. Its alienation of estranged labor that he is talking about.

[Marxist]

Help me , how can i place an avatar image . There is no option for it. And religion - Marx said religion is an opium of mankind.

[guerillablack]

Marx, Marx Marx. Do you know Marx was wrong in cases? So why pick and choose what you think is correct or true?

Look at alot of indegenious people and their way of life, it was community based AND they practiced religion.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:48 PM
Marx, Marx Marx. Do you know Marx was wrong in cases? So why pick and choose what you think is correct or true?

Look at alot of indegenious people and their way of life, it was community based AND they practiced religion.
Yes, thats the beginning of Marx's materialist conception of history! :D

[guerillablack]

Explain to me how that is moving backwards and how backwards is a bad thing. Because i do not think we have moved "forward" since communalism.

[STI]

Marx, Marx Marx. Do you know Marx was wrong in cases? So why pick and choose what you think is correct or true?

Only one person here even quoted Marx, and of course we "pick and choose" what we think is correct. Everybody does that with literally everything.



Look at alot of indegenious people and their way of life, it was community based AND they practiced religion.

You know very well that they practiced communalism because they couldn't afford an idle ruling class. It was a necessity. They couldn't afford anything different. As soon as they could, they became despotisms. Their systems required the creation of despotisms as soon as it could be allowed by material conditions.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:52 PM
Read.

Capital Volume 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm) by Karl Marx (See part VIII)

The Materialist Conception of History (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm) Selected Writtings by Marx and Engels
How you going to give me Marx to read when i do not look at him as an authority in this subject.

[Correa]

I'm with Companero on this issue.

[STI]

Because we don't believe it "because marx said so". We're not saying "marx said this therefore it's true". We're saying "the arguments contained within this work convinced us by their own merit, not because they were written by marx, but because they're convincing. Maybe they'll do the same for you."

[Donnie]

Marx, Marx Marx. Do you know Marx was wrong in cases? So why pick and choose what you think is correct or true?
You seem to think that Marx was the only one on the left who spoke out against religion; there are many other left thinkers who spoke out against religion like Bakunin and my dearest favorite Emma Goldman. :D


How you going to give me Marx to read when i do not look at him as an authority in this subject.
If you don’t like him, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pass on all his works. I’m a class struggle anarchist but I still read some of Marx’s works for time to time. In some parts of Marx’s works I would disagree with him on other parts he’s hit the hammer on the nail.

I think it would be certainly backward if we were to incorporate religion into a communist society because it would lead onto an elite class by that I mean priests would go around telling the commune’s that they cannot participate in work because they have to dedicate themselves to this god of theirs, thus the workers would work for some of the priests and thus the priests would form an elite class because they’d live off the labour of others.

[TheReadMenace]

CompanerdeLibertad -

Sorry mate, but I'm going to have to disagree on some parts of your post:


1. The "after life" promise of many religions ("the meek shall inherit the earth") was designed specifically to keep oppressed people from striving for something better. Why fight for a better life now? Just stay meek and you'll be in "heaven" when you die

I'm sure you know this, but just in case - you need to recognise the distinction between Jesus and Christianity (yes, there is a great one!)

The idea of an 'afterlife' - as far as I've seen - does not stem from a historical Jesus, but rather, is an interpolation by later authors. It is a misinterpretation of 'Kingdom of God,' which is not a spiritual, heavenly kingdom, but an actual physical manifestation of the mercy and Justice of God. We need to understand here, as well, that we cannot retroject our post-modern ideologies into an peasant agrarian Jewish community. To them, there was no questioning as to whether or not God existed, but rather, is God a just God?

To first century Jews, the existence of evil was not an argument against God. From a historical Jesus perspective, Jesus's life stated boldly: 'We believe in a just God. We made a covenant with a just God. Look around, and tell me this is just?' God was no longer with the temple - that belonged to Caiaphus and the Romans. God was no longer in the Jewish communities, because they had been corrupted by hundreds of years of foreign dominance. The idea of God was active - that is, it was up to the Jews to bring about that divine justice that they all hoped for.

So the kingdom of God was the idea of the removal of the Roman Empire and all the injustice and inequality that came along with it - the taxes, the arrests, the crucifixions, the debts - to be replaced by an earthly kingdom built on reciprocity (the fundamental concept of honour-shame societies), redistribution (the function of the Temple of God), justice, peace, and overall, egalitarianism.


2. Religion's traditional reliance on structures of oppression. Subordination of women to men, children to adults, slaves to owners, one caste to another, one religions "superiority" to another, etc are all upheld.

Eating practices in the first century symbolised important religious, social, and gender hierarchies. Elite groups only invited certain people into their midst, and the eating practices of lesser people - the peasants - were expected to follow within socially acceptable norms.

One of Jesus' parables involved a master who told his servant to invite all these important people to a dinner. When they wouldn't come, the master said to his servant to invite all the people off the streets, and in the bushes, and that they were all to feast with him. By doing this, Jesus criticised the master-servant bond - which was symbolic of the bond between Rome and Israel - as well as the eating habits that had been indoctrinated into the Jewish mindset by foreign powers. Here, Jesus challenged those views, and was even accused of socialising and eating with publicans and sinners.

Likewise, Jesus' actions and teachings denied and challenged gender hierarchies. He constantly reached out to the poor, the disenfranchised. Foreign dominance, and the arrogance of political leaders, put women in subordination to men, and demanded their subservience. But Jesus puts them all on the same level: the women are outcasts of society; thus, they are befriended by Jesus. The poor, the homeless, the sick, the sinners - they are all outcasts, and find their home with Jesus.

Personally, I feel that such a teaching even extended to homosexuals (take that, modern Christianity!), as Jesus was extremely close to Lazarus. Some of his baptisms as well, as recorded in the Secret Book of Mark (non-canonical), were performed to his disciples, secretly and by night, and involved the removal of clothes. There is a markedly sexual hint in such baptisms, even when adopting a first century mindset.


[...]The world isn't flat, the story of Noah's arc is a crock of shit, and the "virgin" Mary had sex. How can you have a realistic world view if you think otherwise?

That is true, but again, you must beware of retrojection. If you read through the Bible, everything parallels itself. Why? Because it's a mythology, and it's meant to be read as a mythology. Do you think it's merely coincidence that Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha all parted waters of some sort? It is just by happen-chance that the crossing-over of the Jews into the promised land across the river Jordan is echoed by Jesus' 'triumphal entry' into Jerusalem after baptism by way of the Jordan? As with all mythological 'histories,' they are composed in such a way as to be easily remembered, and spiritually significant. It's not meant to be read literally; that's just what religious fundamentalists want you to think, because for some reason they can't come to terms with the idea of contradiction in their books.


As for your last point, I whole-heartedly agree :lol:

That being said, my beef is with modern Christianity and the modern Church, NOT the historical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (to be distinguished from Jesus the Christ, developed after his death by Christian theologians).

Also, I suggest anyone interested in this subject to look into John Dominic Crossan's The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. I don't agree with everything he says (I, being an atheist), but as far as Christianity goes, I think this is a must-read. The Jesus portrayed in this book (that is, the historical Jesus) is more or less a revolutionary, heh. Check it out, you won't regret it.


andrew

[Ater Sanguis]

Thanks all, that helped a lot. I appreciate it. And I'll definately check on some of them books. Thanks again.

-Jeff

[anomaly]

I'm with guerrilla black on this issue (the communalism issue). Many have not moved forward since communalism. So why not go back (forward) to communalism in these areas that are currently stuck in a feudal-like state? Who determines that communalism would be 'backward'? Do you say Marx? Then I say you are far too orthodox for me! Besides, as I've mentioned to Companero, what I've proposed would be communism, as it would be without capital, without class, and without a state. The fact that communism may be achieved in a third world nation by cooperative peasants is irrelevant.

As far as religion goes, I think it is very unwise for us to have the mindset that we must destroy religion. Beliefs, throughout history, have been extremely important to mankind. Shall we simply rip it away from mankind now? If we do things intelligently, with an open mind, then we can use religion to our advantage. As the redmenace points out, Jesus can be viewed as quite the revolutionary. Would Jesus support capitalism? This is what we should ask the Christians! Buddhism, I've found, has absolutely no conflict with communism. Other major religions, like Hinduism and Islam, I am far more ignorant of, so I shall make no judgements about them. But I suspect they too may be able to be used in favor of communism.

[enigma2517]

lol at religion and communism

c'mon guys its not that hard

yes...modern religious figures and organizations are bastards

people like jesus might have "similar" views to your own, and may have even possesed some "communist" traits, but beyond being very altruistic I see nothing about happened then that helps us.

"Let God have what is his and let Caesar have what is his"

Look everything about capitalism and before is fucked up because of class antagonisms!

Whether they're real people who own all the resources or mythical figures in the sky that hold the key to the "afterlife", they both deserve to abolished.

Plain and simple.

Religion is irrationality down to the core.

[TheReadMenace]

Let God have what is his and let Caesar have what is his

If I may comment on this...

You have to understand, again, the world at that time. Jesus wasn't saying to pay taxes. He was saying the exact opposite.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus if they should pay taxes, he asked for a denarius, which was the equivalent to a day's wages. The fact that the Pharisees readily had a denarius on hand created a divide between rich and poor: it takes a whole day to earn that, and for the peasants it is gone as fast as it came; how can the Pharisees just come up with it so easily?

So he separates rich from poor. Then one has to look at the currency of the time. The ruler over Judea was Tiberius, so the denarius would have had inscribed in it, 'Tiberius August, the Son of God.' The title 'Son of God' was used metaphorically, asserting the power and authority of the person claiming the title. But it also, in a way, asserts equality with God. So Jesus looks at the denarius, sees that Tiberius equates himself with God (which is blasphemy), and gives the denarius back to the Pharisees, saying, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's' - that is, nothing; he is a blasphemer - 'and give to God what is God's.'

Sorry I'm a bit picky about this stuff. I study Christianity religiously (hah!), and I get a little touchy when people misinterpret the texts or twist them for their own benefit (which is why I despise many Christians).

Andrew

[Correa]

I guess we have specialist in all fields! Thanks for doing the studies for us because only god knows I'd never waste my time opening up the bible. Well maybe after reading mother goose and getting myself into "fairy tale mode" I might be up for it.

[TheReadMenace]

Hahaha, yeah...it's a good mythology to read. Don't get me wrong: I prefer Irish and Norse mythology over Jewish, but it's worth studying, regardless.

I guess it's just that Christianity is a major religion, and I want to understand the things I stand against, you know? But studying it has led me to believe that I'm not so much against its idea as I am against its practice. Make sense? The historical Jesus is nothing like the theology Christ. That's the interesting thing, because modern Christianity (and even the latter portion of the bible!) has it completely wrong. Jesus, to them, is some person whom the Jews had crucified and somehow saved mankind. But any fool could figure out that crucifixions were performed by Romans against political threats.

I could go on about the subject, but I won't, heh. Suffice it to say that I enjoy studying it, because it gives me perspective, and ammunition to gun down the christian hordes.

note: Now that I think about it, it's kind of like 'Communism' and communism; except it's 'Christianity' and Christianity, or something.


Andrew

[Correa]

Amen. :D

[TheReadMenace]

Companero -


I agree that religion is reactionary. I separated Jesus from Christianity because you said that Christianity was a form of keeping people of oppressed, promising them an 'afterlife' in which all suffering would vanquish, leading to a type of apathy in the real world. I can agree to an extent, because I don't view Jesus as a Christian, but a Jew - but even then, to say that the purpose of the religion was to maintain oppression is rather off.

The Christian concept of 'heaven' is relatively new; as I said in my post, Kingdom of God is not spiritual, but earthly. If you want to draw the parallel, it's basically a communist society, except imagined within the confines of the Jewish mindset.

I don't see Jesus as reactionary. For his time, he was revolutionary, because he questioned and overturned every doctrine that had previously been held. He didn't support the hierarchy set up by the temple rulers and Rome. He rejected it so completely, and spoke out against those oppressions so strongly, that it got him crucified.

I will agree, though, that his teachings haven't any relevance now, because it's situational. They're applicable, yes, but they are ideas that we already know and hold, so it shouldn't be any new.


Andrew

[TheReadMenace]

Sorry man, but you're wrong.

Jesus didn't set up a new hierarchy; if you think that, then I suggest you go read a book about the historical Jesus tradition. There are quite a few out there, so take your pick.

And I mentioned Christianity not because you specifically pointed it out, but because you mentioned 'the meek shall inheret the earth.' I haven't studied other religions enough to speak with any authority on them, so I keep my mouth shut on all but Christianity. That's why I mentioned it; not because you expressly stated Christianity, but because you hinted at it, and it's the only religion I know enough about to speak about. Sorry I was pretty vague about that, heh.

And you can say all you want about Jesus being a 'country preacher,' but until you provide some proof (not quoting some verse interpolated by later authors into the bible), then you have to be a little more open. I don't doubt that being a 'country preacher' was part of Jesus life; but that wasn't the sole purpose of it. He opposed the Temple, the Pharisees, the current Jewish lifestyle, and the Roman Empire so strongly that he was crucified for it. Yeah, it may not be revolutionary for us, but as his time no one dared to question the Torah or the Priests or the Temple, and certainly not the Roman Empire.

Don't get me wrong, man: I'm as hostile towards Christianity as anyone here. I fucking hate Christians. But that's why I study their religion, because 1) I can't speak out against something I have no knowledge about, and 2) maybe I'll find something they've never seen and slap them around a bit.

Like I said, I agree with you that religion is reactionary; I made the mistake of saying I don't view Jesus as reactionary. But that is a bit of a tough spot for me, because looking into the life of the historical Jesus, I see a guy who was concerned ONLY with the liberation of the poor from oppression, and with an open commensality that was found only in peasant societies (primitive communism). But at the same time, he was a Jew, a follower of YHWH, so he was therefore reactionary.

So I guess it all comes down to, Jesus was a socialist, and yeah, his philosophy does oppose true communism. But I don't think following the teachings of the REAL Jesus would be of any harm; it would just become completely obsolete and unnecessary pretty quickly, since he isn't the only one to have ever thought the way he did.

Andrew

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:16 AM
So I guess it all comes down to, Jesus was a socialist, and yeah, his philosophy does oppose true communism.
Maybe a Utopian Socialist...

[TheReadMenace]

I could see that, too.

But yeah...Sorry Companero, I see where you were coming from now. My apologies :)

[anomaly]

CompanerodeLibertad,

We haven't had this debate, oh righteous one. Before, we debated whether a communist can be religious. I believe in some form of a God, though I'm sure my views will sway throughout my life. It is true, however, that I largely oppose Christianity, for reasons that are irrelevant here. One need not accept dialectics to be a communist, comrade, that is your opinion. To clear up your assumptions (you ass..for assuming), I fully understand dialectics. I do not neccesarily agree iwth them. I've formed a much more abstract reason why communism is inevitable. Opinion, in this discussion, has no value.

This debate is something quite different. The question is: should communists publically state that they are all for destroying religion itself? I say most definitely no, not for any reason based on belief, but simply to better recruit communists. There billions of people on this planet who believe God is the most important thing in their life. If you truly believe the old dogma that this world will have scientific revelation and drop their religious beliefs, go about believing that nonsense (Freud thought that as well, and he wrote so 100 years ago...he was wrong, you are wrong). The truth is, religion is here to stay. Personally, I do not think it is wise for communists to blast religion, and then wonder why so many people are against communism. Either communism must coexist with religion (which it certainly can) or communism is an unreachable goal. I, for one, like to think that I'll live to see some form of communism, and I believe that it is only a matter of time before we see communism. We will not ever live to see communism (nor will anyone else) if we do not stop this silly "kill God, burn the Christians, destroy religion" nonsense. Do you not agree?

BTW, it should be known that the most revolutionary area in the world (Latin America) is largely a Christian area. That fact has not stopped their revolutionary activity, and the push of some nations toward socialism.

[TheReadMenace]

Anamoly has a point - it's counterproductive to be so anti-Christian. For instance, you could have a guy who is completely for communism, and feels it is the only type of society that is morally acceptable, and yet he could think this because he believes in God. If someone were to follow the historical Jesus, as I mentioned above, then they would inevitably desire to move towards a completely just and egalitarian society. Why, then, should they be bashed? They are pushing for the exact same goal as we are, and they are as discontented with mainstream religion as we are.

Don't get me wrong, I hate religion...but it's too counterproductive to come straightout and say, 'It needs to be abolished,' because there are lots of people who could be swayed to believe as we do, but won't do so if you offend them like that.


Andrew

[Donnie]

Anamoly has a point - it's counterproductive to be so anti-Christian. For instance, you could have a guy who is completely for communism, and feels it is the only type of society that is morally acceptable, and yet he could think this because he believes in God. If someone were to follow the historical Jesus, as I mentioned above, then they would inevitably desire to move towards a completely just and egalitarian society. Why, then, should they be bashed? They are pushing for the exact same goal as we are, and they are as discontented with mainstream religion as we are.
You can’t have religion in a communist society because communism entrench freedom of thought and upholds logic, reason and equality; if you have the god idea implemented in a communist society you're upholding that this god idea is more supreme and more important than humanity.

[enigma2517]

We honestly have no way of knowing "who" Jesus was or what he was like.

The Bible has undergone so many translations that its pointless to use it. Any other evidence seems pretty circumstancial.

All I have to go on is practice...and as we've agreed here, religious practice is shit. It needs to go. The sooner the better. Violently if needed.


If someone were to follow the historical Jesus, as I mentioned above, then they would inevitably desire to move towards a completely just and egalitarian society. Why, then, should they be bashed?

Because! All of that superstitious bullshit rests on two things, extrinsic rewards and irrationality!

"Being a communist" doesn't just involve sharing and helping the poor. Lots of people have done that. They are definetely NOT communists.

Religion (organized, or this "historical jesus BS") is all the same. Jesus thought he was the son of God?

How much more dellusional can you get?

Christianity is a poor excuse for setting up an egalitarian society. The reasons we do things are equally as important as the actually things we do.


The truth is, religion is here to stay

Sorry, but I think you're a bit deattached from reality there. Religion and its influence over people's lives has been steadily decreasing over the past few hundred years. Only 500 years ago the church could dicate almost ANYTHING. Now where are they? In case you don't realize this, 500 years of human history is not that large of an amount.

It won't just go by itself though. It must be viciously denounced and attacked. Its one of the most terrible things on earth. You and I both know that. And even then, people like this have the balls to stand up and say they're communists, yet adopt the most defeatist attitude possible when addressing such a vile topic.

Sure...don't worry about the Nazis...they'll be around forever, so whats the point of resisiting.

I know I come off as sounding extremely aggressive and pissed off...but thats only because I am. This is after all, only a discussion. But here is my addition to this discussion.

It is all bullshit, it has ABSOLUTELY NO FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE, and it has GOT TO GO!

[TheReadMenace]

Enigma -

Great post. There are only two things I take issue with, though...


We honestly have no way of knowing "who" Jesus was or what he was like.

The Bible has undergone so many translations that its pointless to use it. Any other evidence seems pretty circumstancial.

There are sources other than the bible, ie Josephus, gnostic texts, coptic texts, et cetera. There's an extremely extensive methodology behind it, and John Dominic Crossan covers it well in his Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. I honestly recommend you reading through at least his methodology before saying that we can never know who Jesus was.


Jesus thought he was the son of God? How much more dellusional can you get?

Going by the methodology strongly argued for by not only Crossan, but John Meier, E.P. Sanders, Graig Evans, Hans Dieter Betz, and several more who would compose a list too long to post - going by that tedious process, you'll find that the only really 'reliable' gospel is the book of Mark, which has its roots in the Gospel Q, the book of Thomas, the secret book of Mark, and a few others. But in Mark, there is no evidence that Jesus refers to himself as the actual son of god (and if you quote Mark 1.1, I'm going to call bullshit :lol:). He uses 'son of man,' but that in no way insinuates that he is 'god' in the flesh, or the son of god, or whatever.

I agree with all your other points, though. Religion and its practice both need to go. I say that not only from a Marxist perspective, but also from a philosophical perspective. Like you said, it's irrational, and serves only to hinder humanity in its quest for not only purpose, but peace and justice.

I see a bit better where you're coming from, regarding resistance to religion. Like you said, the Nazis won't go away by reason; they must be resisted STRONGLY. The same is with religion, I agree; but, like feudalism before capitalism, and capitalism before the final revolution, it serves its purpose. If people follow the historical Jesus (which, again, I strongly emphasise is NOT bullshit, you just haven't seen enough on it, since its relatively knew in its explorations [20-30 years]), then they will push for the same goals we push for. Let it serve it's purpose, all the while explaining to people that it isn't rational, but being careful not to offend them. While capitalism works, there are still people extremely opposed to it, and we'll eventually turn the tables. While people are still religious, we'll still be strongly opposed to it, and eventually we'll turn the tables. But milk that shit like a cow, as long as we educate, instead of prodding people on in their ignorance.

You kind of catch what I mean?

Andrew

[enigma2517]

Yes, agreed comrade :)

You really need to strike a good balance between not violating our own principles and working to educate the proletariat.

If we come off as being too aggressive (even dogmatic) it will accomplish nothing. The main point of it all is to have people analyze (and hopefully agree) with our ideas. However, if we attack such a vital part of their lives, which could in fact be the only thing that keeps them happy under a life of wage-slavery, we could be met with extreme resistance.

Whos going to think about our ideas if they're not even receptive to them?

So I feel the need to explain my stance a bit better.

Our treatment of religion and the religious should be firm...but not overbearingly aggressive.

Also, having an anti-religious rally would allow ourselves to be much more easily demonized, while something in a more positive frame (like a...i dunno...secular life and government rally) could help people see what the alternative is. Blindly attacking faith does little, if not polarize some people more. We must choose our angles on this wisely.

With that said, any more suggestions for curbing religion.

Namely evangelism in the US....I'm not very cultured about the Islamic world or Asia or anything of that sort.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:41 AM

Anamoly has a point - it's counterproductive to be so anti-Christian. For instance, you could have a guy who is completely for communism, and feels it is the only type of society that is morally acceptable, and yet he could think this because he believes in God. If someone were to follow the historical Jesus, as I mentioned above, then they would inevitably desire to move towards a completely just and egalitarian society. Why, then, should they be bashed? They are pushing for the exact same goal as we are, and they are as discontented with mainstream religion as we are.
You can’t have religion in a communist society because communism entrench freedom of thought and upholds logic, reason and equality; if you have the god idea implemented in a communist society you're upholding that this god idea is more supreme and more important than humanity.
My friend, aren't you a materialist? If this God has no negative material effects upon a commune, what use is it then in denying people the right to worship God? People have belief, the need and want for belief, tattooed in the brains from birth, I'm sure you've heard this. People will always want to believe. What you must realize is that this belief could be productive. Theists are often all-around happier people than atheists, they feel the need to do good things from a higher power. What we do not want is the feeling that this life doesn't matter, correct? That can be easily removed, simply by saying this life is a test for the afterlife, that this life is used by God to judge our character (since we have free will). This is what I personally believe, and I do not think it is at odds with communist thought.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:40 PM

Sorry, but I think you're a bit deattached from reality there. Religion and its influence over people's lives has been steadily decreasing over the past few hundred years. Only 500 years ago the church could dicate almost ANYTHING. Now where are they? In case you don't realize this, 500 years of human history is not that large of an amount.

It won't just go by itself though. It must be viciously denounced and attacked. Its one of the most terrible things on earth. You and I both know that. And even then, people like this have the balls to stand up and say they're communists, yet adopt the most defeatist attitude possible when addressing such a vile topic.

Sure...don't worry about the Nazis...they'll be around forever, so whats the point of resisiting.

I know I come off as sounding extremely aggressive and pissed off...but thats only because I am. This is after all, only a discussion. But here is my addition to this discussion.

It is all bullshit, it has ABSOLUTELY NO FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE, and it has GOT TO GO!
Oh, I am the one detached from reality? Let us look at the stats. In the USA, around 90% of the population believs in God. In Latin America, that percentage is even higher. Now, in Europe, the percentage is lower, true, but still an overwhelming percentage of the public believes in God (or some higher power). When we accept the reality we see (which you apparently do not), we realize that worldwide, simple an enormous percentage of people believe in God. Freud as well thought that people would experience scientific revelation and drop their 'childish' beliefs, as he called them. But, from 1939 to now, roughly the same percentage of people believe in God. At this rate, if we assume that percentage is even dropping, it will be some 3000 years before a majority of people on earth will not believe in God!! That means, according to you, that communism will not happen for some 3000 years. (calculation done by assuming constant rate of 5% drop in belief over every seventy years, assuming that belief has dropped from 95% to 90% since 1939, which itself is a stretch...belief now is about the same as it was then). Again, I must point out that it is extremely unwise to assume that people will accept communism if that means they must drop their beliefs. They will not, and I assure you, religion isn't going anywhere! These are facts that we must live with, and adjust to. Communism can coexist with religion.

[Hiero]

90% say they believe in god. This does not represent the real numbers of people who are regular in relgious activities. Numbers in Australia are droping, but there is still a fair portion that say they are religious.

Most people's belief in god is only hanging on by a thread. Their believe could be easily broken.

[TheReadMenace]

Thanks for clearing it up, Enigma. Education is the key - and that goes well on both sides.

One of the things that I try to emphasise to Christians when we debate is that yes, pain and suffering in this life are temporary, but you can't leave liberation to death. That's why I study so deeply into the historical Jesus tradition, because he didn't preach release from suffering through death. He promoted an active lifestyle that pushed constantly towards earthly liberation. That's why I try to point out to Christians, and I think that's what should be pointed out to all religions in general. Defeatism is ludicrous, because it promotes apathy, which any religious person will say is contrary to their beliefs.

As far as evangelism in the US goes...shit. That sucks, haha. I think those types of fanatics should be dealt with like fascists, because that's essentially what they are. :lol:


Andrew