Islam and Communism [Archive]

AfricanSocialCommunist

11th November 2005, 02:20

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 11 2005, 01:28 AM
Oh, I dislike religious people, especially muslims, see I'm from Iran, you know, where homosexuals are hanged and young girls are stoned to death because of "gods word".

And saying that you got your Communism from reading the Quran is ridiculous, Communism is anti-religious to it's core.

Try reading the people who "invented" it instead.
I am sorry we disagree, this is the kind I dont like, a leftist against a leftist. We must I deally stand together in hand to hand and say down with. by disagreeing with me and throwing me as trash, you have violated a must rule in communism. You have turned into an underclass unworthy of social justice.

I am not here to argue but merely to introduce meyself. I am a muslim and if you hate Muslims, you hate my religion and not me, I will however, hate you once you start hating and this my friend as a direct rule of my theory of the left. I am not a pure Communist but rather an African Social Communist. A variation of Orthodox Marxist.

I thought about my theory of African Social Communism, I will write about and introduce it briefly, I am not the genious of people like Che' and Marx, who developed their thory and wrote all of its aspects, so dont expect me to introduce a 20 page paper about African Social Communism. I love Che' and Marx for their writings and giving people through out the world a hope to be free.

I will Answer and answered question first... why do you say "African" instead of Social Communism instead. Well, here is the reason, because my theory in potential will only work if applied in africa because it has many people who believe in classes and has many ethnic groups unlike Orthodox communist, which was developed in Slavic Russia or some European/western region in which the people were more or like the same.

Thank you for your understanding.

I still would like people to introduce themselves, so I can talk back to them in an understanding way, I can respond to your questions better if I know who you are and where your stand is. You dont have to do this, I just want to make it easy for me, instead looking back through many posts and reading a lot just find out your stand and who you are.... and yeah... I am currently looking into some people profiles... you know, just to know you that way... but generally it does not help.

Thank you in advance to whomever introduces themselves here. ;)

Led Zeppelin

11th November 2005, 14:58

I am sorry we disagree, this is the kind I dont like, a leftist against a leftist.

Good thing you said "leftist" instead of Communist, because you are obviously not a Communist/Marxist/Leninist of any sort.

I couldn't care less about other "leftists".

by disagreeing with me and throwing me as trash, you have violated a must rule in communism.

No I haven't, in fact I stood by a "must rule" in Communism, religion and Communism are incompatible.

You have turned into an underclass unworthy of social justice.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

I am not here to argue but merely to introduce meyself.

If you introduce yourself as a muslim on a revolutionary leftist forum you better expect some arguing.

I am a muslim and if you hate Muslims, you hate my religion and not me, I will however, hate you once you start hating and this my friend as a direct rule of my theory of the left.

I don't hate muslims, I dislike them, it would be silly for me to hate people who hold reactionary, ignorant views.

My job as a Communist is to try and enlighten them, your job as a muslim is to try to stop me from doing that, so you are my enemy, as you are the enemy of all Communists.

And no, that is a direct rule of the Quran, not of your "theory of the left", unless of course if you are talking about your "own" theory, if that's the case, I don't know anything about it, so I can't properly respond to it. I might want to add however that new "theories" made by people who don't know anything about other theories are usually worthless.

I am not a pure Communist but rather an African Social Communist. A variation of Orthodox Marxist.

Revision of Marxism, not variation, revisionist variation can work too.

I love Che' and Marx for their writings and giving people through out the world a hope to be free.

You do know that both Che and Marx were anti-religious, right?

why do you say "African" instead of Social Communism instead. Well, here is the reason, because my theory in potential will only work if applied in africa because it has many people who believe in classes and has many ethnic groups unlike Orthodox communist, which was developed in Slavic Russia or some European/western region in which the people were more or like the same.

I can understand from this that you have --in reality-- not read or understood Marx at all.

AfricanSocialCommunist

12th November 2005, 01:19

First of all, I would like to correct few things, I am sad that i had typo, evn though I proofread my last post. Instad saying "You have turned into an underclass unworthy of social justice." I meant to say ""You have turned me into an underclass unworthy of social justice.
__________________________________________________ __________________

With that said, I would like to thank everyone who said Hi, I feel I finally found a place a I was looking for all my time in the Internet.... since we bought this computer and started using the Internet at about 2001.

Thank you for such a warm welcome.

After that, I would like adress few comments by Marxism-Leninism

Good thing you said "leftist" instead of Communist, because you are obviously not a Communist/Marxist/Leninist of any sort.

I couldn't care less about other "leftists".

Sorry, But your views, as I have stated yesterday are pure Communist and I am not against such thoughts, but I feel they are just too unproven. No nation in the world has been able to developed a true communist state including the Soviets and the Chinese, who before power promised to produce a true communist state and once in power twicked those views. Its unfortunate but on top of that, there are many reasons why I just can't be a Pure Communist, as stated yesterday too, I am a communist, but just because I am not a Marxist, does not mean I am not a communist.... you can say its tweaked, but just enough to add a name to it.

No I haven't, in fact I stood by a "must rule" in Communism, religion and Communism are incompatible.

Again, you are wrong, In Islam, People must not separate themselves into classes, people are forbidden to judge the other and Islam is the Most Social valued religion in the world , unlike Christianity which I believe just preaches for social values and does not do much more than that and since I am not Christian, I am just saying that, you can correct me if I am wrong. To come back to the Communist Idea, What part of the bold area is not a Communist Value? To add to the Bold Area, Prophet Mohamed (S.A.W) was in fact a Communist if you can charge him by that way. He cared for the people, in his lifetime, he eliminated classes from the Islamic Society, implemented Social Values beyond the world he was living in, and proved unlike Christianity, that you do not need a preacher or any to get into heaven. Can have access to anyone like he has access to Preachers. Continuing with that. Islam is the only religion that has no one who is above any other person, now, if I am not completely wrong, what part of that is not a Communist Value.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

I have corrected that above!

I am not here to argue but merely to introduce meyself.

I believe you misunderstood me here, the reason I came here is to argue also, I am not here, like Bush to see people of my opinion everywhere, I am here to be proven wrong , to be proven right and to prove right and in any case, to prove wrong. When I said that comment that “I am not here to argue” I meant “I am not here [in this post] to argue” but merely to introduce myself like the title says.

I don't hate muslims, I dislike them, it would be silly for me to hate people who hold reactionary, ignorant views.

My job as a Communist is to try and enlighten them, your job as a muslim is to try to stop me from doing that, so you are my enemy, as you are the enemy of all Communists.

And no, that is a direct rule of the Quran, not of your "theory of the left", unless of course if you are talking about your "own" theory, if that's the case, I don't know anything about it, so I can't properly respond to it. I might want to add however that new "theories" made by people who don't know anything about other theories are usually worthless.

I can't help you here because you hold such old valued "No hatred but dislike them" views. You are in my views, an Ignorant one when you call others ignorant and you do not know them or even know their views, to prove this, what do you know about Islam without researching it now and what are their views. If you believe that a Communist Should Forbade all sense of world, drop his views on everything, and trounced by the population of the world, then I am not a communist. I believe that I should work within the system of today if the Orthodox Communism is not going to work today. Social communism as I believe is unknown to the world is purely something I jotted down in my head to describe my views. I thought I was pure orthodox Communist, until I read the work of Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. After reading it, I found that all of his views at the time were correct and at the time, they should have been implemented. But now, its more almost or if I am not wrong, more than 100 years ago. In today's world, Marxism or Orthodox Communism will not work! So if you are communist in the sense that Karl Marx was, then you are truly unchanging person. On the other hand, I am different, I believe Changing when needing a change is correct. With that said, Should I remind you that you do not need to believe in what I believe in.

Revision of Marxism, not variation, revisionist variation can work too.

I said, its a Variation of Communism. I do not believe by changing few of the words, and eliminating some of the words is a revision. You revise when you change every word, you variant when you change and eliminate some of the words.

You do know that both Che and Marx were anti-religious, right?

I know they are both anti-religious. That is why Marxism is anti-religion. That is there views and your views because you believe what Karl Marx believed... and that is why my version of Communism is a variation of their Communism. Because some of the stuff are changed and some like the anti-religious views, are completely eliminated. I call this Social Communism… with my little “African” twist.

I can understand from this that you have --in reality-- not read or understood Marx at all.

Again, Wrong... I read the Communist Manifesto in its purest form about 2 to 3 days ago. Now I am reading many other things. I want to print out, instead of reading it in the computer, the Che' Guerrilla Warfare readings. I want to print out some of Rosa Luxemburg works. The reason I came here is to learn and see the believes of the other people.... isn’t that the purpose of the Revleft site. So we can learn from each other and argue, prove, or be proven wrong.

__________________________________________________ __________________

to argue my points of Social Communism, I will have to read more and more books about Social differnces in the western world and especially Rosa Luxemburg articles/papers. I am positive within few months, I can write a working draft manifesto of Social Communism.

Led Zeppelin

12th November 2005, 01:52

Sorry, But your views, as I have stated yesterday are pure Communist

Thanks for saying that.

No nation in the world has been able to developed a true communist state including the Soviets and the Chinese, who before power promised to produce a true communist state and once in power twicked those views.

No they didn't "tweak" those views, the ones who replaced the pre-revolutionary vanguard "tweaked" them.

Its unfortunate but on top of that, there are many reasons why I just can't be a Pure Communist, as stated yesterday too, I am a communist, but just because I am not a Marxist, does not mean I am not a communist.... you can say its tweaked, but just enough to add a name to it.

You are not a Communist, Communists are materialists, they are anti-religion, deal with it.

In Islam, People must not separate themselves into classes, people are forbidden to judge the other and Islam is the Most Social valued religion in the world

Who cares? It's not being done in any islamic country, so basically what you just said was excessive information.

unlike Christianity which I believe just preaches for social values and does not do much more than that and since I am not Christian, I am just saying that, you can correct me if I am wrong.

I don't care about any religion, but what I see is clear, both in nations which are predominately christian and in nations which are predominately muslim, class society exists, I don't care what "this or that religion says" or "preaches", I care about what is done in practice.

To come back to the Communist Idea, What part of the bold area is not a Communist Value?

How about the fact that it's not true?

(S.A.W)

What does that mean?

To add to the Bold Area, Prophet Mohamed (S.A.W) was in fact a Communist if you can charge him by that way.

:lol: No he wasn't.

He cared for the people, in his lifetime, he eliminated classes from the Islamic Society, implemented Social Values beyond the world he was living in, and proved unlike Christianity, that you do not need a preacher or any to get into heaven.

Excessive information, fact is, muslim nations are Capitalist and do have a class society today.

And what's this nonsense about "you don't need a preacher to get into heaven"? First of all you are talking about a place which doesn't exist, secondly there are preachers in islam, more backward than most christian preachers are by the way.

Islam is the only religion that has no one who is above any other person, now, if I am not completely wrong, what part of that is not a Communist Value.

What you are telling me is fucking nonsense, sorry, had to be said.

Ever been to Iran or any other islamic nation? Are you blind? Don't you watch the news or something?

Islamic nations have bourgeoisie.

“I am not here [in this post] to argue” but merely to introduce myself like the title says.

I did not misunderstand you, you misunderstood me, what I was saying is that you can't expect to not argue (including in this thread) about being a muslim on a revolutionary leftist internet forum.

You are in my views, an Ignorant one when you call others ignorant and you do not know them or even know their views, to prove this, what do you know about Islam without researching it now and what are their views.

All I need to know; they believe in something which doesn't exist and hasn't been proven. You know, like all religions.

Sue me for not being void of logic.

If you believe that a Communist Should Forbade all sense of world, drop his views on everything, and trounced by the population of the world, then I am not a communist.

I have no clue what that means.

I believe that I should work within the system of today if the Orthodox Communism is not going to work today.

So you want to work within "the system" (be a Capitalist)?

In today's world, Marxism or Orthodox Communism will not work! So if you are communist in the sense that Karl Marx was, then you are truly unchanging person. On the other hand, I am different, I believe Changing when needing a change is correct.

Marxism is not "what Marx said 100 years ago", it's a science and theory to analyze and understand the world.

That science and theory has been changed, it hasn't stayed the same as it was 100 years ago, many people have "added" to it, most notably Lenin.

With that said, Should I remind you that you do not need to believe in what I believe in.

I thought the Quran says that every muslim must "try their best" to "convert heathens"?

I do not believe by changing few of the words, and eliminating some of the words is a revision.

If "those words" are basic tenets of the theory it is a revision.

You revise when you change every word, you variant when you change and eliminate some of the words.

Not if you revise basic tenets, you can't say "I'm a Marxist but I don't believe his critique of Capitalism is correct", that's a revision, even though you've only changed "some words".

I know they are both anti-religious. That is why Marxism is anti-religion.

Communism is anti-religion too, Communist theory is based on Marxism.

The reason I came here is to learn and see the believes of the other people.... isn’t that the purpose of the Revleft site. So we can learn from each other and argue, prove, or be proven wrong.

Yes that is the purpose of RevLeft, and that is why I am arguing and proving you wrong.

AfricanSocialCommunist

12th November 2005, 02:25

I can't go throught all of them but most of them are just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

First of all, I never said I wanted this or that when I was telling you about Islam, I am about 100% sure by the way you are were talking did not take any of my comments. by that I mean you did not read the full thing but read few things and hurried to reply.

What you are telling me is fucking nonsense, sorry, had to be said.

Ever been to Iran or any other islamic nation? Are you blind? Don't you watch the news or something?

Islamic nations have bourgeoisie.

No, I am not blind, No, I am not deaf, and No I am not crazy!!!!!!

Islam is like any other religion to you, but for me it is unique.
I want to ask you, have seen any true Communist state anywhere? NO!
its like Islamic nations...they never really follower the complete beliefs fearing the west. Islam is not anti-capitalist and so on and what not.

I talked about the beliefs and you just threw this into an unwanted field. Islamic Nations and so on. I am not here to argue for or against Islamic Nations. I am here to argue for my beliefs... ISLAM and my ideology, Social Communism.

Please... Dont take this argument/conversession anywhere its not needed, in other words do not change subjects every 2 posts to prove your point somewhere else.

All I need to know; they believe in something which doesn't exist and hasn't been proven. You know, like all religions.

Do you mean GOD has not been proven? if so, then you are ludicurious... we are believers, that is any religion's beliver, because you cannot be a beliver... just believing, and know and see and prove the thing. that is why were are belivers, we just believe!

I don't care about any religion, but what I see is clear, both in nations which are predominately christian and in nations which are predominately muslim, class society exists, I don't care what "this or that religion says" or "preaches", I care about what is done in practice.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

If you knew Islam, you would know that Islam strickly forbids any Class Society, any mention of hierarchy, fo you think Prophet Mohamed (S.A.W) asked people to worship him, because he talked to god... NO! He told everyone to treat him like they treated anyone else... because he hated the concept of Social hierarchy. Thank you... and do not comment on Something you do not know... try to know something first.... It really makes me mad when you talk about things you have no knowlodge of.

if you are true believer of Marx and Lenin, then follow them.... learn and read and do not make comments on things you have no idea of.

S.A.W

What does that mean?

it means Salalahu Alayhi Wasalm or peace be upon him. its a thing you have to say when you mention the name of Prophet Mohamed (S.A.W) for my own good... there are 2 pages I can write to tell you why I say this, but i am not going to get in it.

I have no clue what that means.

it means I am not going to be left behind.... I am going to change my views on how to change the world based on my time... based on today Marxism is not possiple. we can discuss that if you want to... just open a new thread and tell me about it.

So you want to work within "the system" (be a Capitalist)?

Wrong!!! You misunderstood me, I never talked about Capitalisim as the system of today.

When I said that, I meant that I will work within the system of today as in, I will not try to work myself out in trying to argue for and support a system I know would fail, especially in Africa. True Communism will fail Africa if implemented today as it is. that is why I have made changes.

Not if you revise basic tenets, you can't say "I'm a Marxist but I don't believe his critique of Capitalism is correct", that's a revision, even though you've only changed "some words".

Wrong again! I am starting to believe you have no idea what the difference between the two words are, in any case, here are my believes: By Changing things like Anti-Religious idea... which is only mentioned in a small sentence of Marx's Manifesto.

I hate to be in this religous thing, but let me opened an example: Lutherans and Catholics.

the only thing that seperates them is the POPE and since a lutheran does not believe in the Pope, he is not a catholic.... but that does not make him some other religion... he is still chiristian. get it now? <span style='color:red'>If anyone else gets this... please tell him or just write about what you think?</span>

redstar2000

12th November 2005, 03:47

AfricanSocialCommunist, you sound like a "nice guy" who "means well".

I'm sure it's not "your fault" that you have succumbed to Islamic superstitions...any more than it's the "fault" of kids who are raised Christian grow up to believe that crap.

But now that you have reached "the age of reason", you must begin to take personal responsibility for your "mental landscape".

You can't just say to yourself (or others) that "I was raised to believe such and such and therefore I am such and such."

One place to begin is here...

The Skeptic's Annotated Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html)

I warn you that you will find much of this material "shocking"...and you may be tempted to dismiss it as "the work of the devil".

You do so at your peril. Even in Africa, the time will come when intelligent young people will learn the "wisdom of the west".

Such as?

That there are no gods. Reality is exclusively material. Those who advocate superstition in any form are con-men!

Or worse! The "sincere" believers are the ones who burn people for "witchcraft".

Or, as is the particular case with Islam, those who murder teenage girls for having sex with their boyfriends.

As you become aware of the atrocious practices of all religions, you cannot just "shrug it off" and pretend that "it doesn't affect you".

It does affect you and will affect how you will be seen at such time as real communist revolutionaries emerge in Africa.

If you "defend Islam" then you will be seen, like it or not, as a reactionary.

Is that how you want to be thought of?

Or remembered after you die?

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

AfricanSocialCommunist

12th November 2005, 04:08

First of all, by giving such a website, you are in all and all showing your true colors
redstar2000. I DO AGREE WITH EVERYONE HERE, THAT ISLAM DOES NOT SUPPORT ALL THE TEENETS OF COMMUNISM. So, by showing a website developed by mormons, who are anti-muslim, you are not trying to prove your point. you are merely attacking a religion in favor of another as that. I will debate, and prove...with the help of some of my friends... anything that piece anti-muslim/islam junk says.

You do so at your peril. Even in Africa, the time will come when intelligent young people will learn the "wisdom of the west".

The Wisdom of the west, is the same wisdom that doomed the world today in the graps and the grooms of Capitalism... I despise and frankly hate to the last trickle of my being the 'wisdom of the west'.

That there are no gods. Reality is exclusively material. Those who advocate superstition in any form are con-men!

I disagree, not to insult you are degrade your thought but, Those who believe nothing are people who do not see anything, who have no future, no goals to aspire for and or anything that keeps them a real human. a human has an ambition whether is to get food or takeover a nation, and those without any belives of anyone higher than them in the heavens should see themselves and watch things around them. There is a reason Science can't explain everything...and will never explain.

If you "defend Islam" then you will be seen, like it or not, as a reactionary.

Is that how you want to be thought of?

I do not care for the effection of people, nor di i care of how I will be thought of when I die... when I die, I hope my deeds on earth, helping people, doing the right thing and being the best human I can be, against capitalism, against Cooperation who seek to destroy all and every trace of a humans life.

May Allah have mercy on us!

Do you want to convert me here... or something.. I can argue even the people who write this... you can get quotes from that website and I will... to be honest... humiliate you, because it does not make sense... there have no intention to prove or not to prove a religion... but to prove their religion is the right thing... and oh yeah... is that itself against Communism.

REDSTAR... can we go back to the subject here once you reply to my points... ISLAM and COMMUNISM or ISLAM and POLITCS. it seems that I am the only MUSLIM here and this are mine and only my qoutes.. my words or what I say about ISLAM may prove wrong and sometimes could be dead wrong... like ISLAM(as a whole) is like COMMUNISM. I completely retract that comment.

bcbm

12th November 2005, 04:34

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 07:28 PM

Try reading the people who "invented" it instead.
You mean some people around the turn of the 18th century who tended to believe in religious utopianism? <_<

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/watchthecitiesburn/Al-Shike.gif

:lol:

LSD

12th November 2005, 04:43

So, by showing a website developed by mormons, who are anti-muslim, you are not trying to prove your point.

um ..."mormons"? :huh:

I disagree, not to insult you are degrade your thought but, Those who believe nothing are people who do not see anything

On the contrary, we're the people who see things as they are.

Without the cloud of superstition and supernaturalism we are able to make rational, verifiable observations without worrying about how they fit into our "belief system".

That's a whole lot more than I can say for the "Muslim community"!

A materialist, you see, would never stone a woman to death for what she does on her own time.

There is no logical reason to kill a young woman for engaging in consensual sex and so a materialist would not do so. The Quron, however, demands that we do precisely that and so anyone who truly believes it to be the word of God has no choice but to obey.

You see, the problem with religion is that despite the protestations of its adherents, it never stays private. If one really believes that they have a list of instructions from the "allmighty", one tends to carry them out.

...and we all know how that always turns out. <_<

who have no future, no goals to aspire for and or anything that keeps them a real human.

What utter lunacy!

Atheists have "no future" because we don't believe in an invisible man in the sky?

:lol:

a human has an ambition whether is to get food or takeover a nation

Of course he does, that goes without saying. The real question is on what should those ambitions be based.

Should he motivate his actions on reason and logic or on superstition and "faith"?

Of course, the thing about "faith" is that it is by definition without basis. "Faith" by its very nature means believing in those things for which there is absolutely no evidence. Predicating ones entire worldview on such a foundation can not help but lead to tragedy.

Reason is the greatest possession of humanity. It is what distinguishes us from every living thing. Surrendering that gift in the name of "Gods" is the greatest personal tragedy you can commit.

and those without any belives of anyone higher than them in the heavens should see themselves and watch things around them.

And should we do so, what would we see?

What about "[ourselves]" or "things around [us]" would lead us to reconsider our position?

I've lived in this world for a fair bit now, and I have yet to see a thing that supports or even suggests the existence of any "Gods".

There is a reason Science can't explain everything...and will never explain.

Really? And what would that be?

Scars

12th November 2005, 05:00

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Nov 12 2005, 04:34 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Nov 12 2005, 04:34 AM)
Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 07:28 PM

Try reading the people who "invented" it instead.
You mean some people around the turn of the 18th century who tended to believe in religious utopianism? <_<
[/b]
Exactly. Look at the first Socialists, teh first Communists- all were religious. In fact Christianity would be the first mass egalitarian movement.

The problem with most religions is their leadership. Much like society in general a small group of people up the top will make all sorts of decisions and interpretations and enforce them on the weaker sections of the group in order to maintain and strengthen their position of power. If you look back you'll find that most of the more distasteful pieces of Islam appear nowhere in the Quran. Most of them are derived from the Hadith (the sayings and deeds of Mohammad (pbuh)), and the majority of these are (most likely) dubious in origin. Hundreds of thousands have been invented because they could be used to justify a persons actions- in fact a guy was executed in Syria for forging over 10,000 Hadith for people.

The form that Islam takes today is due mainly to the ruling class using as a instrument to control people and enforce their vision on the people that they rule. Telling people that definance will result in eternal damnation is a fairly convincing arguement, if it was actually true. Religion should be a person matter, not influenced by other people. It should be between you and whatever God, or force you wish to follow.

The problem is the people at the top of the religion, not the religion itself. Islam is compatible with communism, you just have to look beyond the bullshit expoused by the Caliphes over the years.

<<There is no logical reason to kill a young woman for engaging in consensual sex and so a materialist would not do so. The Quron, however, demands that we do precisely that and so anyone who truly believes it to be the word of God has no choice but to obey.>>

Actually, no. The Quran forbid premarrital sex because of the social problems that premarrital sex could cause in a age before contraception. Having a guy having 12 kids to 12 women, none of which whom he is married to can cause many problems. The Quran is the word of God, but it was teh word of God over a thousand years ago and teh Quran is not a infinate document- it's finite, just like all mortal things. As for the execution, it depends on what fiqh you wish to look at- Islam is not as monolithic as people would like it to be.

<<You see, the problem with religion is that despite the protestations of its adherents, it never stays private. If one really believes that they have a list of instructions from the "allmighty", one tends to carry them out.>>

You assume that the commandments are bad and wrong. If every Christian actually modelled themselves on Jesus and society was based on the teachings of the New Testiment we'd live in a egalatarian society. It depends on the interpretation you wish to take from it, it depends on the sect, the beliefs, many, many things. Generalisations have this tendency to be simplistic and incorrect.

I'm going to say that me and AfricanSocialCommunist are the only people who have posted on this thread that has actually read teh Quran. Possibly Marxist-Leninist.

Master Che

12th November 2005, 05:12

I was like you once Africansocialistdemocrat i was raised in a near extremist Roman catholic family when i learned about communism i automatically claimed i was a communist catholic. Then as i learned more, more about communism, reality and shit i became a athiest.
What i am trying to say is Communism is ANTI RELIGIOUS, a real communist is a pure athiest. You may be a Socialist but you are not a communist.

LSD

12th November 2005, 05:34

The problem with most religions is their leadership.

No, the problem with religions is faith.

Again, "faith" is the surrender of reason. It is a fundamentally destructive act in that we give up our ability to impartially analyze.

There is precisely as much reason to believe in "God" as there is to believe in Fascism. And once you start down the road of believing because you're told to, there is no way to ensure that you're not told something very very wrong.

"Faith" is naturally antithetical to communism not because of some esoteric theoretical concern, but because of its basic corrosive effect on human independence. "Faith" teaches us that our own natural skills of reason and our own abilities are not sufficient. That we must abandon what we can materially experience and "believe" in "something higher".

Once we accept that premise, we have subjugated ourselves. We are no longer masters of ourselves and are ripe for manipulations.

Actually, no. The Quran forbid premarrital sex because of the social problems that premarrital sex could cause in a age before contraception.

Oh, so oral sex was fine, then?

And how about homosexual sex? Clearly that can never lead to pregnancy ...so why doesn't "Allah" like it again?

Having a guy having 12 kids to 12 women, none of which whom he is married to can cause many problems.

:lol:

You aren't seriously arguing that the moral prohibitions contained in the Quran are pragmatic, are you? :rolleyes:

Alright, I'll bite. If your theory is correct, how do you explain those societies which did not outlaw premarital sex? How about those societies in which "marriage" did not even exist as such? Why didn't they "fall into chaos"?

Oh, and, by the way, if the effort here is to keep property relationships simple, why does Islam allow polygamy? It would seem to me that a woman sleeping with her boyfriend results in far less social confusion than a man marrying 4 women and impregnating them all.

But it's the former that gets the "hundred lashes", isn't it?

Also, did you forget that the Quran allows one to be unchaste with ones slavegirls? What, that doesn't "complicate" things because they're "property"?

Good to know that sex is "wrong" but slavery's just fine... <_<

The Quran is the word of God,

And you know this how?

but it was teh word of God over a thousand years ago and teh Quran is not a infinate document- it's finite, just like all mortal things.

:lol:

You might want to tell that to "Allah"!

Originally posted by The Quran 6:115
Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

You assume that the commandments are bad and wrong.

No, I assume that they are groundless.

That they are based in nothing but thousand year old scribblings with absolutely no relevence to contemporary society.

Social decisions must be based on logic, that is the only way that we can ensure that they are propper. If we, instead, rely on "faith", we are trapped in an unchanging, oppressive society that cannot help but fail to meet our needs.

If you claim that "commandments" are "good", prove it!

Present the evidence, demonstrate your case. But don't ask me to accept it as "truth" because you "say so", show me that you're right.

If a plan is good, it's good. There is no need for "Gods".

Korol Aferist

12th November 2005, 06:09

AfricanSocialCommunist

12th November 2005, 08:10

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, a long name... I will refer you as LAD if you do not mind.

I want to counter few points and support few points here. One of those points I will like to counter comes directly from LAD himself. He said:

Again, "faith" is the surrender of reason. It is a fundamentally destructive act in that we give up our ability to impartially analyze.

No, my friend, that is your own belief, do not try to make it sound like you are the one who defines things and so on. You do not define nor do anything but come up with illogistical, and barbaric thoughts. Faith is the acceptance of reason, its the analyzation, its the only way you can broaden you learning.

With that out of the way, I would like to support and argument said well by black banner black gun:

You mean some people around the turn of the 18th century who tended to believe in religious utopianism? <_<

He is the point I was trying to get into. Orthodox Communism is what black banner black gun said, a believe developed in the 18th century that could have done what it was intended to do in 18th century if taken up by the right people.

That is no longer true today, Capitalism has gained so much ground that you can't just dropped it and just go on and start something.... When say that I dont mean t say use Capitalism or believe in Capitalism, I mean to say... we have to find stragetic ways in order to kill Capitalism and slowly but surely bolden our people and the working class with our believes, ideas and our system which in fact is not a dead document that cannot be added to or subtracted from. A dead document cannot pass into time, it dies as soon as it finishes implementing what it wants.

The Quran is the word of God,
And you know this how?

I would like to say, you questions, arguments, and sometimes comments get to me deeply, I seem to be talking to you sensibly and not just saying things right there and then without thinking, I think a little bit and return an honest post, you seem to rush to answering with out judgement and anything, for example, the above question. You ask and how does that happen? are you psychologicallly well enough to know that Scars or anyone on this earth can't answer and I am not mad or rude about this because of that, I am mad and rude about this because I have said well enough in my last post that We are believers and we believe, that is why we are guided by our believe and not our know how or what we know. if everyone knew god, and we knew he was as humans, do you think we would have all those religions and do you think we wuld have proplems.... NO! If you read my last document, I said well enough that we are guided by believe and in the believe of god, we are believers.

Social decisions must be based on logic, that is the only way that we can ensure that they are propper. If we, instead, rely on "faith", we are trapped in an unchanging, oppressive society that cannot help but fail to meet our needs.

You are wrong again LAD... do not imply that so fast. To have logic you have to be thinking and to be thinking you have to logical. Islam is logical because of what it teaches, I am going to say this without getting into what it teaches. Islam is thinking and is not jotted down by someone. Can you tell me how people knew how mountains form in that time when Mohamed (S.A.W) was on Earth. Can you explain how people back then knew how the Universe was born. These people, explained and were memorazing the BIG BANG theory before anyone even thought about it. Like Scars said. dont Judge a religion you do not know and do not compare Muslim Nation to the religion like you have been doing constantly.

I am done so far, with LAD, now lets go to Korol Aferist:

Korol Aferist said:

There's Islamic socialism

Islamic Socialism is redundant, ISLAM is a socialist religion... its a religion which cares for the people and has no higher ups like POPES and such things like that. If you here anything like Islamic Socialism, then just tell that person not to speak anymore because that word is non-existance. You can be a muslim and not be a Socially minded.

Scholars have highlighted the similarities between the Islamic economic system and socialist theory, e.g., both are against unearned income. Islam does allow private ownership but natural resources and large industries are owned collectively."

Exactly... these also disproves Islamic Socialism more. In my yet unwritten Theory of Social Communism. Islam is a religion friendly to the Social life and not the Individual goals and life as stated in Capitalism and the western minded pig minded Capitalist assholes. that is just pure greed, which ISLAM forbides.

Really? And what would that be?

OK, here is one, Preservation of Genetic Data...I have not seen a succusful run at that so far, but before it even happens...some centuries ago, One man who could not read and write was given the word of god and here is what it says:

Preservation of gentic data, “Does the human being think that We will not reconstruct his bones ? Yes indeed; We are able to recreate even his fingerprint.” [Qur’an 75:3-4]

That is te preservation of Genetics in true words... A french scientist now is dedicated to finding scientific facts in ISlam, he became a Muslim after seeing countless facts that were undoscovered be in the QURAN: for starters... read this page:

http://www.islamicity.com/Science/iqs/

there countless discoveries that Humans have just discovered in the quran...this is the same readings that Prophet Mohamed, centuries ago was reading.

cormacobear

12th November 2005, 10:42

Communist political theory calls for a secular state it nowhere requires the opposition of religion. Therefore a religious individual may quite easily hold communist political beliefs and all or some of the doctrines of the many philosophical interpretations. For example how many people here consider themselves communists without agreeing with dialectics. So perhaps you should consider Engels oppinion when he said "The last great help you can do for the church is to oppose it.".

Che's only position on religion was ambivalance that I am aware of M-L if you can show me otherwise please do. On needing to adhere to one small segment of the communist ideolgy's many interpretations, such as your oppinion that if you are not anti-religious you cannot be a communist, Che also had some advice when asked if he was a Marxist he pointed out no one would expect a modern western politician to describe himself as a 'Smithist', unfortunately I don't have the exact quote at hand but the gist of the statement is that ideologies evolve change and are contributed to, so your claim to have the patent on Communism holds no more ground than Stalins.

As for inclusion I doubt the all men Che and Castro led were athiests, and I doubt they expected them to be.

I doubt you would find very many women who think Islam is the most socially just religion. and Allah did nothing to the social structure of Arab society and islamic subjects in terms of class, except lower the class of women, and restricted their millions of slaves to the not yet converted.

cormacobear

12th November 2005, 11:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:10 AM

There's Islamic socialism

Islamic Socialism is redundant, ISLAM is a socialist religion... its a religion which cares for the people and has no higher ups like POPES and such things like that. If you here anything like Islamic Socialism, then just tell that person not to speak anymore because that word is non-existance. You can be a muslim and not be a Socially minded.

Exactly... these also disproves Islamic Socialism more. In my yet unwritten Theory of Social Communism. Islam is a religion friendly to the Social life and not the Individual goals and life as stated in Capitalism and the western minded pig minded Capitalist assholes. that is just pure greed, which ISLAM forbides.

No higher ups telling what to think then Imams and Caliphs haven't declared fatwas.

'Islam is a religion friendly to the Social life'

I find nothing social in imprisoning women in their homes, or in endorsing slavery, while I suppose public stonings are a social interaction of a sort but their certainly not friendly. The Quaran the Hadiths, and sharia law are full of grotesque inhumammity.

Korol Aferist

12th November 2005, 15:23

AfricanSocialCommunist...

Islam calls for a caste system...

1st Class:Muslims that were born Muslims by the birth of mother.
2nd Class:Converts to Islam.
3rd Class:Anyone who isn't Muslims.

Noah

12th November 2005, 16:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:10 AM

These people, explained and were memorazing the BIG BANG theory before anyone even thought about it.

Firstly, you must get your facts correct.

I am an Iraqi who has been brought up in a Mandaean family. Mandaeanism is a gnostic religion from Iraq and has existed for 6000 years (much evidence of this!). We have suffered about 2000 years of persecution.

If you study the history of Islam you will find when Islam spread to Iraq and the Muslim's began slaughtering us (and Jews) because we refused to convert to your religion, you learnt our Mandaean Lore (our own language) and began reading our books (some of which still exist today) and stole alot of knowledge from us. If you study your religion in depth and wonder 'How did Muslims get this Knowledge?'. Study the History of Mohammad and where he went, you'll find that the only time he began finding out Scientic facts if after he began persecuting and reading the books of the Mandeans.

I have studied this alot as I have been brought up as a Mandaean (gnostic religion, in fact the only surviving gnostic religion left, there are only 20,000 left) but because of my leftist beliefs I am athiest, as religion creates my problems than it can solve.

I don't see any logic in trying to make Islam (or many other religions) anyway compatible with leftist beliefs.

I despise religion.

Don't Change Your Name

12th November 2005, 17:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:10 AM
No, my friend, that is your own belief, do not try to make it sound like you are the one who defines things and so on. You do not define nor do anything but come up with illogistical, and barbaric thoughts. Faith is the acceptance of reason, its the analyzation, its the only way you can broaden you learning.
?

chologicallly well enough to know that Scars or anyone on this earth can't answer and I am not mad or rude about this because of that, I am mad and rude about this because I have said well enough in my last post that We are believers and we believe, that is why we are guided by our believe and not our know how or what we know.

???

if everyone knew god, and we knew he was as humans, do you think we would have all those religions and do you think we wuld have proplems.... NO! If you read my last document, I said well enough that we are guided by believe and in the believe of god, we are believers.

?????

Islam is logical because of what it teaches, I am going to say this without getting into what it teaches.

??????????????????????

Islam is thinking and is not jotted down by someone. Can you tell me how people knew how mountains form in that time when Mohamed (S.A.W) was on Earth. Can you explain how people back then knew how the Universe was born. These people, explained and were memorazing the BIG BANG theory before anyone even thought about it.

??????????????????????????????????

Lemme guess...are you trying to argue that science support islam? All religions claims the same crap.

dont Judge a religion you do not know and do not compare Muslim Nation to the religion like you have been doing constantly.

For this kind of argument to be successful I'd have to get informed about ALL religions that exist or ever existed, which is an extremely hard, lengthy, painful task.

Knowing that their arguments are usually based on blind faith on invisible entities is enough for me to know that there's something wrong with (at least) most of them.

Islamic Socialism is redundant, ISLAM is a socialist religion... its a religion which cares for the people

Populist blah blah blah which is not very different from what other religions claim and doesn't seem to be grounded in reality.

and has no higher ups like POPES and such things like that.

As many other religions, we must obey a deity under Islam...is that right?

The problem is that we must assume that the Quran is the actual word of the deity but where's the evidence of that?

Until you show that us why the Quran is Allah's real word and not, for example, some shit made up by a bunch of ignorant primitive reactionaries thousands of years ago while trying to explain everything and make their status quo look legitimate, I will take this comment as a way to ignore that we would still be under the rule of a deity.

"Suprisingly", elites are (and always have been) very confortable with religions...weren't the egyptian rulers "gods"?

"A boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." - Mikhail Bakunin

By the way, I thought islam had certain "human authorities"...

Forward Union

12th November 2005, 17:13

As the Skeptics Annotated Koran points out...

Islam is Sexist!

The Cow
-Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
-A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

Anti-semetic
Jews are the greediest of all humankind. 2:96

And Homophobic.

The Heights
-Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) 7:80-81

It's also completly oblivious to scientific fact, and has horrible anti-poor pro-aristocracy laws and punishments. Communism can have nothing to do with it.

Ownthink

12th November 2005, 18:22

Only once Religion is totally wiped out, an unpleasant mark on the history of humankind, will people truly be free.

12th November 2005, 18:42

No, my friend, that is your own belief, do not try to make it sound like you are the one who defines things and so on. You do not define nor do anything but come up with illogistical, and barbaric thoughts. Faith is the acceptance of reason, its the analyzation, its the only way you can broaden you learning.

Faith is "illogistical" and barbaric. Faith is the suspension of reason, analyzation. The only way you can broaden your learning is by using logic and not faith. Once you step down the road of faith you're undebatable as you are not willing to accept facts as they are.

I would like to say, you questions, arguments, and sometimes comments get to me deeply, I seem to be talking to you sensibly and not just saying things right there and then without thinking, I think a little bit and return an honest post, you seem to rush to answering with out judgement and anything, for example, the above question. You ask and how does that happen? are you psychologicallly well enough to know that Scars or anyone on this earth can't answer and I am not mad or rude about this because of that, I am mad and rude about this because I have said well enough in my last post that We are believers and we believe, that is why we are guided by our believe and not our know how or what we know. if everyone knew god, and we knew he was as humans, do you think we would have all those religions and do you think we wuld have proplems.... NO! If you read my last document, I said well enough that we are guided by believe and in the believe of god, we are believers.

This is the problem with religion. You are "guided by your belief in god". This basically means that you will do anything and justify it with that statement. You are blind.

Can you explain how people back then knew how the Universe was born.

They didn't. They made a guess, and justified it with religion. This is why religion is completely outdated.

Religion and logic are polar opposites, buddy. Get it straight.

Noah

12th November 2005, 18:52

It's true the people did guess. My parents religion and all their ancestors who were Mandaean and in fact (evidence to back this up) they predicted how the universe was made around 6000 years ago but it was only a PREDICTION and then the spread of Islam inherited this prediction and used it to win over the faith of people and slaughtered the majority of Mandaeans in Arabic countries as they were considered 'Unpure' because they weren't Muslim and they still are persecuted because of religion hence there being 20,000 left and decreasing. Sad really as it's the only gnostic belief system left in the world.

Go Islam!

AfricanSocialCommunist

12th November 2005, 21:24

I never disagreed with you on the point of Islamic persucution of other religions that have no one god. Some religions had to forced out because they were just disgusting. the reason Chiristians and Muslims live together so well for most of the times is because they have the same root and the same god, even though we disagree with each other who that god is and what that god supports.

I am going to give up on the point of trying to convince you guys about ISLAM, you just don't get it. All your sources are inaccurate mostly, all your reasons are Illogical. Some Anti-Religious people use other religions views to degrade and say untruthful things about Islam.

I will tell you one thing though, unlike the many of you who have not showed me the same thought: I respect your view no matter what it is, I don't care if have 30 gods or one god, I dont care if you are an atheist or like me, you seek a way to revise good thinking, and I wish I got those same words from you guys, especially my first few days here. :)

12th November 2005, 21:51

I am going to give up on the point of trying to convince you guys about ISLAM, you just don't get it.

You don't get it. You are clinging to your religion so tightly that you fail to realize the logic of sound arguments against it.

All your sources are inaccurate mostly, all your reasons are Illogical.

Then prove it. That is, after all, what debate is about.

Some Anti-Religious people use other religions views to degrade and say untruthful things about Islam.

Faith is all that is needed as a reason to crush religion.

I will tell you one thing though, unlike the many of you who have not showed me the same thought: I respect your view no matter what it is, I don't care if have 30 gods or one god, I dont care if you are an atheist or like me, you seek a way to revise good thinking, and I wish I got those same words from you guys, especially my first few days here. smile.gif

We aren't here to "respect others beliefs". We are here to debate; we are here to try to change others beliefs, as well as our own. If you want to "respect others beliefs" then this is no place for you, as you will not be a productive person to debate with.

AfricanSocialCommunist

12th November 2005, 22:40

I am going to answer to one of your comments:

Then prove it. That is, after all, what debate is about.

I said this because LAD tried to prove his own beliefs by showing me an anti-Quran Mormon site [ its said Mormom on top ], this directly violates his belief and makes him look like a fool. On top of that, they kept on trying to show me some of their 'evidence' in a way that conflicts with their belief.

to add more on that thought, you can't just say I am against this because communsims says No it. Communism is a thought of Marx, He was alive in the 18th century.

I am not "dodging" the debate but stating that I am not going to debate with inaccurate information and or views that cannot be supported, but that is not just the only reason.

The biggest reason I am trying to ease this debate is because I can argue for ISLAM. it is too big to be argued for by one person [me], I do not have the resources and the ability to try to comment one every misinformative comment posted by another member.

I prefer to work on my believes on other Issues such Che' and his believes and I have to read few Articles/Books like Marx's Wage Labour & Capital, Che's Biography, Guerrilla war, a method by Che', and "Chapter I - General Principles of Guerrilla Warfare" also by Che'.

12th November 2005, 22:47

I said this because LAD tried to prove his own beliefs by showing me an anti-Quran Mormon site [ its said Mormom on top ], this directly violates his belief and makes him look like a fool. On top of that, they kept on trying to show me some of their 'evidence' in a way that conflicts with their belief.

You don't have to agree with the beliefs of the person that collects the evidence to support it. Evidence is evidence; the beliefs of whoever gathers it is irrelevant.

I am not "dodging" the debate but stating that I am not going to debate with inaccurate information and or views that cannot be supported, but that is not just the only reason.

If you're not going to debate then you don't belong here. A better way to handle this would be to prove the evidence wrong. If it is inaccurate, then prove it!

The biggest reason I am trying to ease this debate is because I can argue for ISLAM. it is too big to be argued for by one person [me], I do not have the resources and the ability to try to comment one every misinformative comment posted by another member.

So far, you can. Whether you choose to or not, of course, is your decision. You don't have to defend your position if you don't want to, but then what's the point of debate if you don't?

Noah

12th November 2005, 23:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:24 PM
I never disagreed with you on the point of Islamic persucution of other religions that have no one god. Some religions had to forced out because they were just disgusting.

What is so disgusting about my parents and their ancestors' religions? They sat by rivers studying astronomy and sciences? Is it because they don't worship God that's why they are 'disgusting'? Or is it because they refuse to get circumcised because they don't see why one should be playing with their natural bodies?

The only religion that disgusts me, is the one that went around all the Arabic countries pressing beliefs on others by slaughtering them if they don't convert , hint hint wink wink.

What disgusts me even more if that you are so very narrowminded and insulting.

redstar2000

12th November 2005, 23:11

Originally posted by AfricanSocialCommunist
First of all, by giving such a website, you are all in all showing your true colors redstar2000...So, by showing a website developed by mormons, who are anti-muslim...

Whoa!

Not only is the site I offered you not "developed by Mormons", they are just as critical of Mormonism as they are of Christianity and Islam.

The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.html)

On the other hand, I'm not surprised by your flat refusal to investigate the absurdities and atrocities that are advocated by your own superstition.

Your own peers will judge you much more harshly than I do...when they learn the truth.

I despise and frankly hate to the last trickle of my being the 'wisdom of the west'.

Of course you do. It means the total ruin of your barbaric superstition.

And what will you do with yourself when that happens???

Those who believe nothing are people who do not see anything, who have no future, no goals to aspire for or anything that keeps them a real human.

:lol:

That's why it's "ok" to kill unbelievers, isn't it? They're not "real humans".

I take back what I said about you being "a nice guy" who "means well".

Like all seriously religious people, you are not nice and don't mean well at all!

But at least you're honest in your hatred of "non-human" atheists.

Be assured that the time will come when we will cheerfully return the favor.

After we "finish off" Christianity, we communists will turn our attentions to whatever's left of Islam.

For starters, we'll put your "holy meteorite" in a museum of natural history.

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

LSD

13th November 2005, 00:04

Faith is the acceptance of reason, its the analyzation, its the only way you can broaden you learning.

The "analyzation" of reason is called ...reason.

"Faith" is believing without proof, that's what the word means! This isn't "my" definition, although it is yours, by the way: "we are guided by our believe and not our know how or what we know".

In other words, you don't know ...but you "believe" anyways.

Can you honestly not see how fundamentally illogical that is?

...nor how destructive?

If you believe despite having no reason to, what is to ensure that what you're believing in is at all correct? How do you know that it's the best option available?

Unless you're willing to critically analyze everything, you can never be certain that you're not making a horrible mistake. A mistake like, say, whipping a woman 80 times because she "dared" to sleep with her boyfriend. <_<

I would like to say, you questions, arguments, and sometimes comments get to me deeply, I seem to be talking to you sensibly and not just saying things right there and then without thinking, I think a little bit and return an honest post, you seem to rush to answering with out judgement and anything, for example, the above question.

The "above question" that you refuse to answer?

You are claiming that the Quran is the "word of God", that it's commandments, even though they are objectively inferior to alternative options, should be obeyed.

That's a pretty large request and so I am asking you how do you know this?

I have said well enough in my last post that We are believers and we believe, that is why we are guided by our believe and not our know how or what we know.

Well, why do you "believe"?

More importantly, why should I "respect" that "belief"?

This is a religion that teaches that women are inferior to men, slavery is acceptable, and homosexuality is "abomination". These convictions are objectively disgusting. More so, they are contasted by every piece of empirical evidence that we have.

Your "belief" is not only objectively incorrect, it is demonstraby harmful. Accordingly, I, and everyone else who realizes it, has a moral obligation to try and stop you from spreading this harmful "belief system".

Can you tell me how people knew how mountains form in that time when Mohamed (S.A.W) was on Earth. Can you explain how people back then knew how the Universe was born. These people, explained and were memorazing the BIG BANG theory before anyone even thought about it.

:lol:

Oh, so now you are trying to "prove it"?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you want us to take your "evidence" seriously, you have to willing to accept ours as well. If you intend to "prove" that Islam is actually correct, because of, say, it's "scientific" veracity, then you must, in turn, be willing to concede if we prove the opposite!

If we can demonstrate -- and we can -- that Islam is objectively wrong and socially undesirable, will you abandon it?

...well, no, no you won't. Unfortunately, we both know that no matter how much evidence we present, no matter how strong our case, you will still "believe".

That's the danger of "faith"!

That even if it can be shown again and again that what you're adhering to is wrong, you will still stick to it. Remember, the Nazis had "faith", as did the Crusaders. Even though what they were doing could be easily shown to be objectively destructive, they had "faith".

Reason is, by definition, maleable. It is debatable, it is changable. It is dependent on evidence and discussion and is never static. "Faith", however, is precisely the opposite.

And so it must be destroyed.

Led Zeppelin

13th November 2005, 17:30

by that I mean you did not read the full thing but read few things and hurried to reply.

No, I took all of it. Replying to illogical babble is pretty easy.

No, I am not blind, No, I am not deaf, and No I am not crazy!!!!!!

Then stop having the point of view of someone who is.

I want to ask you, have seen any true Communist state anywhere? NO!
its like Islamic nations...they never really follower the complete beliefs fearing the west.

That is complete nonsense, if there was a real Communist (Socialist) state they would not "fear the west" (fear Imperialism), in fact, they would fight it.

Exactly like what the USSR did for about 20 years, the USSR being the only state that I acknowledge as being Socialist for a short period of time. Sure, they "gave up" on it later on, that is why I don't support revisionism.

Now, you could argue that all Islamic nations are "revisionist" also, but frankly I don't think anyone cares, since the vast majority of muslims do not hold that view. In Communism it's different, a lot of Communists do hold the view that those so-called "Socialist states" were revisionist.

Actually, I believe there is not one Communist party left in the world which supports Kruschev and co.

Islam is not anti-capitalist and so on and what not.

No it's not, that's what I have been saying all along. Now you tell me why you support a "movement" which is not anti-Capitalist, maybe because you are not anti-Capitalist?

I talked about the beliefs and you just threw this into an unwanted field. Islamic Nations and so on. I am not here to argue for or against Islamic Nations. I am here to argue for my beliefs... ISLAM and my ideology, Social Communism.

You have to argue "for or against Islamic nations", just like how I have to argue "for or against nations which called themselves Socialist", you said your religion was something it's basically not, at least not in practice, so what you said was misinformation.

It's called defending your beliefs.

Please... Dont take this argument/conversession anywhere its not needed, in other words do not change subjects every 2 posts to prove your point somewhere else.

I did not change the subject, I proved that what you said your religion "was supposed to be" is not what it is in practice.

Do you mean GOD has not been proven? if so, then you are ludicurious

I prefer not void of logic.

we are believers, that is any religion's beliver, because you cannot be a beliver... just believing, and know and see and prove the thing. that is why were are belivers, we just believe!

And that is why I don't believe!

If you knew Islam, you would know that Islam strickly forbids any Class Society, any mention of hierarchy

Again, that is not what is done in practice, Islam has never created a classless society, nor will it ever do as such.

Plus, that is most certainly not what Islam says, women for example are a seperate class on their own, remember? One man is worth 2 women.

Prophet Mohamed (S.A.W)

This is getting annoying.

He told everyone to treat him like they treated anyone else... because he hated the concept of Social hierarchy.

Sure, that's why he was the founder of a religion which might have the highest degree of hierarchy.

Denying historical reality seems to be another one of your problems, I guess it's a symptom of being irrational.

and do not comment on Something you do not know... try to know something first.... It really makes me mad when you talk about things you have no knowlodge of.

If you actually understood my posts you would have known that I don't give a shit about making you mad, in fact it makes me happy, it's my job to make you mad.

Now, on the "commenting on something I don't know", well, historical fact proves that I do not what I'm talking about, unlike you, who has been reading the Quran version of history, I suggest you lay off it.

if you are true believer of Marx and Lenin, then follow them.... learn and read and do not make comments on things you have no idea of.

Like Islam right? I have "no idea" of Islam because I haven't read the "holy book", right?

:lol:

That's like a Nazi saying I have "no idea" of Nazism because I haven't read Mein Kampf. Get real.

it means Salalahu Alayhi Wasalm or peace be upon him. its a thing you have to say when you mention the name of Prophet Mohamed (S.A.W) for my own good

Prophet Mohamed, Prophet Mohamed, Prophet Mohamed, Prophet Mohamed Prophet Mohamed.

Oops, I didn't say it, does that mean I'll burn in hell? :lol:

I am starting to believe you have no idea what the difference between the two words are

Sure, everyone is wrong, including the dictionary, except you.

By Changing things like Anti-Religious idea... which is only mentioned in a small sentence of Marx's Manifesto.

:lol: The Manifesto is not the only book he wrote, in fact, it's one of his least important books.

By changing the anti-religious "idea" you change the entire theory, because by doing as such you remove the concept of materialism, and guess what, Marxism is based on materialism.

We call that a revision, or better yet, a distortion.

I hate to be in this religous thing, but let me opened an example: Lutherans and Catholics.

the only thing that seperates them is the POPE and since a lutheran does not believe in the Pope, he is not a catholic.... but that does not make him some other religion... he is still chiristian. get it now? If anyone else gets this... please tell him or just write about what you think?

I don't think any sane person can "get that".

FREEMIND1863

17th November 2005, 20:40

AFRICANSOCIALCOMMUNIST
FIRST AND FOREMOST ASALAAMULAYKUM
NEXT WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME WITH THESE WANNA BEE REVOLUTIONARYS .ITS CLEAR THESE GUYS HAVE NO SENSE AT ALL AND NONE OF THEM HAVE A OPEN MIND THEY CLAIM THEIR MARXIST AND LENINIST BUT TO ME ALL THEY ARE ARE CHILDREN WHO PROBABLEY ARE GOING THROUGH A STAGE OF REBELLION AGAINST THEIR PARENTS.THESE CLOWNS ARE AMERICANS TO THE CORE GIVING THE CHANCE IF IT WAS LIFE OR DEATH THESE CLOWNS WILL BE BACK ON AMERICAS SIDE WITH A HEARTBEAT.
MALCOLMX ONCE SAID A REVOLUTION MEANS BLOODSHEAD
YOU HEAR PEOPLE TALK A GOOD ONE BUT WHEN THE TIME TRULY COMES THESE CLOWNS WILL BE BACK AT THEIR PARENTS HOUSE LOADING THE SUV TO HEAD FOR SAFETY.
AS A BLACKMAN I THINK I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO STRUGGLE
THESE GUYS ARE JOKES
PEACE
REMEMBER A REAL REVOLUTIONARY DOES NOT THINK WITH A GUN BUT WITH A FREEMIND

Led Zeppelin

17th November 2005, 21:18

All caps is also annoying on the forum.

:lol:

Amusing Scrotum

17th November 2005, 21:35

NEXT WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME WITH THESE WANNA BEE REVOLUTIONARYS .ITS CLEAR THESE GUYS HAVE NO SENSE AT ALL AND NONE OF THEM HAVE A OPEN MIND THEY CLAIM THEIR MARXIST AND LENINIST BUT TO ME ALL THEY ARE ARE CHILDREN WHO PROBABLEY ARE GOING THROUGH A STAGE OF REBELLION AGAINST THEIR PARENTS.

So what are you? ......are you currently fighting in a revolution? ......do you have the sense to turn "Caps Lock" off? :lol:

THESE CLOWNS ARE AMERICANS TO THE CORE GIVING THE CHANCE IF IT WAS LIFE OR DEATH THESE CLOWNS WILL BE BACK ON AMERICAS SIDE WITH A HEARTBEAT.

You only have to look in my profile to see I'm not an American. Though how does ones country of origin dictate whether they are opposed to imperialism or not?

YOU HEAR PEOPLE TALK A GOOD ONE BUT WHEN THE TIME TRULY COMES THESE CLOWNS WILL BE BACK AT THEIR PARENTS HOUSE LOADING THE SUV TO HEAD FOR SAFETY.

So big man, what are you doing now for the revolution? .....and what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

AS A BLACKMAN I THINK I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO STRUGGLE

As a brown working class man I think I really understand what it means to struggle.

See, I can play the self righteous victim of oppression game too.

THESE GUYS ARE JOKES

Says the person who can't find the "Caps Lock" button. :lol:

REMEMBER A REAL REVOLUTIONARY DOES NOT THINK WITH A GUN BUT WITH A FREEMIND

So much for a revolution meaning "bloodshed." I guess a real revolution has nothing to do with violence as all you have to do is "free your mind." :lol:

RebelOutcast

18th November 2005, 21:29

Firstly "Freemind1863" I'm not american, infact the majority of members on this forum aren't american, but while we're talking about americans who's the prat that watches C-span? I guess that'd be you!
Although there may be a minority on this forum who are angsty teenagers kicking out against their parents and society, they tend to be the ones that post once, get their ass kicked and run away.
Lastly, don't call people, "wannabe revolutionaries" I know that many people on this forum go beyond wanting to be revolutionaries and commit revolutionary acts, no matter how small, every day, I suggest for your next post you try not to insult people, and manage to find the caps lock key, you know the one above the shift key and to the left of the "A" key?

Raisa

20th November 2005, 03:01

Not for nothing, but Mohammad was a man who had a revelation a long long time ago, and I think it is stupid to criticise the Quaran in literality like on the Skeptics Annoted Quaran, because I think certain shit was to be applied to the times and those people are just looking to demonize Islam and miss the point.

Ownthink

20th November 2005, 04:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:45 PM
AFRICANSOCIALCOMMUNIST
FIRST AND FOREMOST ASALAAMULAYKUM
NEXT WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME WITH THESE WANNA BEE REVOLUTIONARYS .ITS CLEAR THESE GUYS HAVE NO SENSE AT ALL AND NONE OF THEM HAVE A OPEN MIND THEY CLAIM THEIR MARXIST AND LENINIST BUT TO ME ALL THEY ARE ARE CHILDREN WHO PROBABLEY ARE GOING THROUGH A STAGE OF REBELLION AGAINST THEIR PARENTS.THESE CLOWNS ARE AMERICANS TO THE CORE GIVING THE CHANCE IF IT WAS LIFE OR DEATH THESE CLOWNS WILL BE BACK ON AMERICAS SIDE WITH A HEARTBEAT.
MALCOLMX ONCE SAID A REVOLUTION MEANS BLOODSHEAD
YOU HEAR PEOPLE TALK A GOOD ONE BUT WHEN THE TIME TRULY COMES THESE CLOWNS WILL BE BACK AT THEIR PARENTS HOUSE LOADING THE SUV TO HEAD FOR SAFETY.
AS A BLACKMAN I THINK I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO STRUGGLE
THESE GUYS ARE JOKES
PEACE
REMEMBER A REAL REVOLUTIONARY DOES NOT THINK WITH A GUN BUT WITH A FREEMIND
This idiot is a fucking joke.

redstar2000

20th November 2005, 04:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:06 PM
Not for nothing, but Mohammad was a man who had a revelation a long long time ago, and I think it is stupid to criticise the Quran in literality like on the Skeptics Annoted Quran, because I think certain shit was to be applied to the times and those people are just looking to demonize Islam and miss the point.
"Those people" are trying to show what all the 'holy books" actually say.

This is embarrassing to the superstitious...who would prefer that their more barbaric doctrines remain unspoken in public.

Too late! :lol:

In the "age of the internet", the truth comes out and very quickly at that!

With specific regard to the Quran, it is considered the direct word of Allah and not just "Mohammed's interpretation" limited to "his own time".

The Quran consists of explicit commands of Allah to all humans...and disobedience is punished by the eternal flames of "Hell".

If that makes you uncomfortable, well, it should. You are a modern civilized human, not a superstitious barbarian.

Don't forget, Raisa, that according to the Quran you are a "disobedient woman" who "deserves" beating in this life and hellfire in the "next".

Just in case you were wondering. :)

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

Publius

20th November 2005, 04:43

I was wondering today: How can peaceful, Western muslims claim to follow 'true' Islam, and state that their barbaric brethern from Asia/Africa do not, when they are significantly outnumbered and are a very, very recent addition to the Muslim religion?

The TRUE Muslims, from the area where the religion started, where its traditions have been passed down for 1500 years, the great majority of muslims on earth, all follow the same (Rough) interpretation of the text, yet you, a Westerner think you can supplant the thousands of years of thought with your own wishy washy verions? You think you understand the 'true' version?

At least the fools over there are correct in being wrong.

Raisa

20th November 2005, 06:47

"Don't forget, Raisa, that according to the Quran you are a "disobedient woman" who "deserves" beating in this life and hellfire in the "next"."

Hahaha, you talkin love now Papi......what did I do to deserve that?

redstar2000

20th November 2005, 11:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:52 AM
"Don't forget, Raisa, that according to the Quran you are a "disobedient woman" who "deserves" beating in this life and hellfire in the "next"."

Hahaha, you talkin love now Papi......what did I do to deserve that?
Think of all the posts you've made on this board demanding respect for a woman's right to choose her own course in life...instead of being the property of some guy.

Serious Muslims would regard your attitude as completely unacceptable and, if they thought they could get away with it, would probably have you publicly beheaded as an "example" for other women.

Just as women "like you" were burned by the Christians only a few short centuries ago.

The major religions of today all emerged in a period in which "women were property"...and their views have never really changed -- though some have "softened their terminology" a bit.

It is "theologically impermissible" for "property" to act as if it were "really human". If women were permitted to rebel against male authority, then that would strongly imply that male rebellion against "God's authority" might be justified.

And where would that lead? :lol:

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

A Man of no Nation

13th December 2005, 03:35

I do not see why you are putting down this guy just because he is muslim. I am not religious myself, but I still think that people should be able to believe what they want to believe. Not to mention it is a beutiful culture (I am a student of Arabic and Farsi).

For example: let us say there is a small community of christians living together. And through their brainwashed community, they feel the need to help those around them and make the world a better place. If they do no harm to the society and living by this "faith" makes them very happy...then let them believe the lie. If it makes them happy, then why not? Why put someone down for something that they feel is right in their heart and mind?

And who ever said that Communism had to be anti-religion?

When one becomes radically anti-religion, they are no better than the religious fanatics themselves.

Saying to someone, "You are stupid because you believe something different than I do" is not going to welcome people the socialistic cause. Fuck, if I was fighting along side people as ignorant as this, I would even have to think twice before I got involved.

violencia.Proletariat

13th December 2005, 03:43

For example: let us say there is a small community of christians living together. And through their brainwashed community, they feel the need to help those around them and make the world a better place. If they do no harm to the society and living by this "faith" makes them very happy...then let them believe the lie. If it makes them happy, then why not? Why put someone down for something that they feel is right in their heart and mind?

thats an example not based in reality.

And who ever said that Communism had to be anti-religion?

KARL MARX!

When one becomes radically anti-religion, they are no better than the religious fanatics themselves.

of course we are. im not willing to opress/supress/humiliate/torture/kill anyone who does not deserve it. the christian fascists are willing to do that to ANYONE they want.

Saying to someone, "You are stupid because you believe something different than I do" is not going to welcome people the socialistic cause.

thats not what we are saying. we are saying religion is reactionary and fake, and god can not be scientifically proven. so tell the church to take a giant leap and leave that bullshit behind.

ComTom

13th December 2005, 03:53

I agree that the church is a evil instrument of the state. But we must allow religon to be worshipped in a country of religous peoples. Religous peoples, are good peoples, most of the time. Religon's purpose is to create morals and laws for people and create stability for the human's mental state. We need to seperate people from this slavery, but we shouldn't force it.

Its good to be anti-religous. But to be against the people's beliefs is wrong. Religon is a counter-revolutionary force, but it makes the people happy. This is about people, not about communist intellectuals.

ReD_ReBeL

13th December 2005, 03:58

I agree with A Man With No Nation, if ppl are worshipping religion harmlessly then let thm believe in it. I bet half of you comrades are only anti-religion becoz Karl Marx wrote bout anti-religion. Some of you people are just like religious people, you treat Karl Marx as a prophet and think every exact thing he says is the right path. well let me tell you the philosopher Plato was writing communist literature long before Mr Marx. Think for yourselfs, is it really worth alienating people due to there religious beliefs if it is harmless? check the Cban revolution out thy had Catholic priests fighting alongside thm.

ComTom

13th December 2005, 04:48

We disagree with religon because it oppresses the people, just look in the history books. I hate the church though, not religon.

James

13th December 2005, 08:49

nate;

thats an example not based in reality.

It is (you really don't know any christian communities/groups that don't/havn't harmed others?). But it doesn't coincide with what you want to be the case. Thus you deny its existance.

of course we are. im not willing to opress/supress/humiliate/torture/kill anyone who does not deserve it. the christian fascists are willing to do that to ANYONE they want.

No, you will be just the same. A totalitarian fascist.
Just is you think different groups/ideas "deserve" torture/kill/suppress.

Ironically though you think it will be you who, in this hypothetical society, makes the decision as to whome is deserved.

+ + +

well let me tell you the philosopher Plato was writing communist literature

If you define the concepts of the "rulling guardians" as communist....

violencia.Proletariat

13th December 2005, 21:23

It is (you really don't know any christian communities/groups that don't/havn't harmed others?). But it doesn't coincide with what you want to be the case. Thus you deny its existance.

i dont deny their existance they are just a small minority. we also must consider what is harmful. you may say preaching whats in the bible or raising their kids with religion is not harmful, but i beg to differ.

No, you will be just the same. A totalitarian fascist.
Just is you think different groups/ideas "deserve" torture/kill/suppress.

um no. im not a fascist and im not totalitarian. ive never heard of an totalitarian anarchist, but i have heard of anarchists shooting priests :lol: i do think different groups need to be supressed. i dont support torture as it is a useless tactic. do these groups need to be killed? if they take armed action against revolution then yes.

Ironically though you think it will be you who, in this hypothetical society, makes the decision as to whome is deserved.

how many times must i say this? i dont not control anything but my individual actions. but as a proletarian i support the idea that religious hierarchies are reactionary and MUST be destroyed. religious people, no, unless they take armed action against revolution.

If you define the concepts of the "rulling guardians" as communist....

what the fuck do you define communism as? BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SEPERATE OURSELVES FROM REACTIONARIES! some people say its idealistic and unrealistic to be a communist, i say its very realistic to have communism, but not when the majority of people are religious.

James

14th December 2005, 12:56

i dont deny their existance

You don't??

Then why did you say:
"thats an example not based in reality."

Clearly there is an inconsistency in your opinion. Which is it? Are you a little confused as to what you actually think/believe?

I think you are... what you said next is, again, slightly inconsistent.

um no. im not a fascist and im not totalitarian. ive never heard of an totalitarian anarchist, but i have heard of anarchists shooting priests i do think different groups need to be supressed. i dont support torture as it is a useless tactic. do these groups need to be killed? if they take armed action against revolution then yes.

Totalitarians are those who are intollerant of others/certain life styles/beliefs/opinions; yet have power (i.e. means to act on their values/beliefs).

So you have a totalitarian point of view - you think they should be shot. Yet, you then contradict yourself by stating "i've never heard of a totalitarian anarchist".

Its also interesting that you are now refering to yourself as an anarchist, which links into my next point....

what the fuck do you define communism as? BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SEPERATE OURSELVES FROM REACTIONARIES! some people say its idealistic and unrealistic to be a communist, i say its very realistic to have communism, but not when the majority of people are religious.

That is a very good question. What is a communist? You advocate collective action, but only if it is collective action which has the same aim that you have.
Communists are different. you for example claim to be an anarchist (and i assume communist?). I'm sure i don't have to tell you that not all communists are anarchists: some for example think that plato's guardians is a communist idea (where as in actual fact it is a totalitarian, central "guidance", concept).

Collectivism requires collective action/will.
It is a single view point and action.

May i assume from your violent reaction that you think plato was a communist? Because if so, i really am confused. Well its not me that is confused, it is your "opinion" which is confused. Attempting to follow your opinion is a confusing business.
Plato believed that there should be "guardians" and.... well, go read republic, then we can talk about this.

redstar2000

15th December 2005, 02:48

I see that you have returned, James, to "enlighten" the heathen once more.

Totalitarians are those who are intolerant of others/certain life styles/beliefs/opinions; yet have power (i.e., means to act on their values/beliefs).

Did "Jesus" tell you that's what the word meant?

Perhaps you should have consulted a secular dictionary...

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed. -- emphasis added.

By your strange definition, of course, everyone is a totalitarian...since there are "others/certain life styles/beliefs/opinions" that everyone refuses to "tolerate" -- and would suppress if they had the power to do so.

Are you "tolerant" of murderers, rapists, child abusers? Would you suppress them right out of existence if you could?

"Totalitarian!" :lol:

Your "argument by indirection" is pretty transparent. What you're really trying to suggest is that anyone intolerant of superstition who wants it suppressed is a "totalitarian" -- that is, "a bad person".

I, however, can "live with that". If intransigent opposition to superstition (religion) makes me a "totalitarian", that doesn't bother me a bit.

I'm equally "intolerant" of the bubonic plague.

Another example of my "totalitarianism." :lol:

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

violencia.Proletariat

15th December 2005, 03:03

You don't??

Then why did you say:
"thats an example not based in reality."

i dont deny there are peaceful christian groups. your example of these groups doing a lot of good IS NOT based in reality. while a small number might exist, they do not play a significant enough role to change christianity or its rap.

Totalitarians are those who are intollerant of others/certain life styles/beliefs/opinions; yet have power (i.e. means to act on their values/beliefs).

So you have a totalitarian point of view - you think they should be shot. Yet, you then contradict yourself by stating "i've never heard of a totalitarian anarchist".

:lol:

i dont hold any power, except my one vote that i would have in a communist society. i dont care what peoples beliefs are, i only care when they AFFECT OTHERS OR STAND IN THE WAY OF REVOLUTION!

i think big time priests should be shot yes, if they do not "give up the faith". just as cops would be shot after revolution. its no different.

That is a very good question. What is a communist? You advocate collective action, but only if it is collective action which has the same aim that you have.

nope. never said that, dont believe it. i just happen to think that a communist society will be ANTI RELIGIOUS. many others would agree with me.

some for example think that plato's guardians is a communist idea

we are referring to communism as envisioned by marx.

I'm sure i don't have to tell you that not all communists are anarchists: (where as in actual fact it is a totalitarian, central "guidance", concept).

obviously not all communists are anarchists, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and the movement, this is obvious.

are trying to say that communism is totalitarian and requires "central guidance". maybe you would like posting in OI from now on eh?

Plato believed that there should be "guardians" and.... well, go read republic, then we can talk about this.

we arent talking about plato here.

i love how lately when people take a TOUGH anti-religious stance, all the "tolerant" (so they say) people have to resort to calling us totalitarians or stalinists.

are we hitting your soft spot? :lol:

as redstar said, if this makes us "totalitarians" or "stalinists" then SO BE IT! IM HAPPY TO BE ONE. since your method of changing deffinitions of words to fit your arguement, your words are therfore worthless.

James

15th December 2005, 21:12

Did "Jesus" tell you that's what the word meant?

Perhaps you should have consulted a secular dictionary...

No, its derived mainly from Locke's letter on toleration.

By your strange definition,

It isn't mine. It has a long historical record. And it isn't strange.

It is perfectly logical.
Toleration translated into state power means no totalitarian state.
No toleration, translated into state power means intollerant coercion.

Doesn't have to be left wing (if you feel that i'm "having a go").
For example Hitler and national socialism. Intolerant of certain religions/races/ways of life/opinions.

Totalitarian.

Its not hard to understand. Please explain how you find the above "strange"?

everyone is a totalitarian...
Well, according to Locke, people who arn't tolerant should not be tolerated. I'm guessing that this will answer what ever "argument" you shall now give.
Lets se...

since there are "others/certain life styles/beliefs/opinions" that everyone refuses to "tolerate" -- and would suppress if they had the power to do so.

Aye, well according to locke's argument, nothing should be tolerated that is not tolerant (think of it like a contract - you get toleration if you are tolerant).

Are you "tolerant" of murderers, rapists, child abusers? Would you suppress them right out of existence if you could?

Ah well you see that is you harming someone.
Even the most basic basic simpleton understand that "individualism" does not tolerate an invasion the individual's "sphere". Especially when it is harming them. It is an action which is not tollerant of the other individual - thus should not be tolerant.

"Totalitarian!"

Your "argument by indirection" is pretty transparent. What you're really trying to suggest is that anyone intolerant of superstition who wants it suppressed is a "totalitarian" -- that is, "a bad person".

wow, that is completely stupid. As my above comments show.

Anyone would think that you bring up the fact that i'm not an athiest (a belief in no belief) to make me seem inferior/mad.

blah blah blah
Well your argument has been total crap.
Toleration and totalitarianism - the link is quite obvious.

James

15th December 2005, 21:27

i dont deny there are peaceful christian groups. your example of these groups doing a lot of good IS NOT based in reality. while a small number might exist, they do not play a significant enough role to change christianity or its rap.

lol, changing our tune slightly. Go back and read your posts. You are changing your argument.

Which is fair enough, because your origional one couldn't stand up when faced with fact.

obviously not all communists are anarchists, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and the movement, this is obvious.

my friend... with you nothing is obvious. Not even the meaning of most of your posts (oh peaceful christians??? thats never happened! o well maybe it has: but i actually meant to argue that it doesn't happen all the time! so ner!).

are trying to say that communism is totalitarian and requires "central guidance". maybe you would like posting in OI from now on eh?

It would help me immensly if you finished, or rather started, your sentences. Are you asking whether i'm attempting to saythat communism is totalitatian and requires central guidance?
Well in answer to you question: it quite obviously does have central guidance, in that it has a philosophy guiding it.

Do you deny this?

Would i like posting in OI from now on?
(what is the eh for? Are you attempting to seem really cool because you are threatening me? Well how about you first learn to develop and stick to an argument. Oh and also finish (and start) your sentences. Before you worry your pritty little head about others....).

But in answer to your question. I couldn't really care either way. If i was restricted it would be on the grounds that i don't want to "get down" with the whole totalitarian fascist "thing". Therefore, to not be counted as "one of you" would be a good thing, to me. I'm afraid this bored is not my life: if my access was restricted i wouldn't cry. I'm only posting because i have to spend stupid amounts of time in front of a screen this week because i have lots of essays due.
(Whats your excuse btw? ;) )

we arent talking about plato here.
Wrong: scroll up and read the posts you ignorant person.

i love how lately

Its only lately?

Locke spoke of this in the C17th. And he was hardly the first.

How is that lately?

o oh... have you made yourself seem stupid again?

when people take a TOUGH anti-religious stance, all the "tolerant" (so they say) people have to resort to calling us totalitarians or stalinists.

Well yes.... i'm calling you intollerant if you want to kill people who have a different opinion to you.
I think that is a fair comment.

Its hardly "resorting". I'm merely pointing out that you are being intollerant of other systems of belief/opinions. If you go down that road: what is to stop another from being intollerant of your belief? (after all, as established, not all communists sing form the same hym sheet).

are we hitting your soft spot?

Hardly my soft spot. It is one of my core values though.
Try and tell me what to think or not think: and i'm against you and I will oppose you. I don't assume to tell you what to think, so i do not expect such assumptions from others. Especially someone like you (who struggles with his sentences, and also struggles to stick to one argument: indeed, why would i want you in a position of power in a system which is not tolerant: when you can't even decide for yourself what is right or wrong. )

as redstar said, if this makes us "totalitarians" or "stalinists" then SO BE IT!
hehe, maybe he'll be your friend now that you have backed him up in argument!

Yes, you sound very cool declaring that you want to be the next stalin or hitler.

IM HAPPY TO BE ONE.

that is because you are very thick.

since your method of changing deffinitions of words to fit your arguement,

OK I'M GOING TO PICK YOU UP ON THIS.
What word have i changed? and how? What is your definition of the word (by the way, using a dictionary for your definition is not always acceptable on che-lives. it is after all, a capitalist dictionary [i can't remember what or when i quoted the dictionary... but it was not popular!]

Also, don'T you think it is a bit rich. This. Coming from you. The person who can not even string a few words together?
Let alone the fact that you change the meaning of your statements when your origional meaning is proved to be as valuble as a lump of cat poo.

your words are therfore worthless.

Oh that hurts
:*(

please mr fascist, i want you to respect me!

violencia.Proletariat

15th December 2005, 22:12

Not even the meaning of most of your posts (oh peaceful christians??? thats never happened! o well maybe it has: but i actually meant to argue that it doesn't happen all the time! so ner!).

if 1000 people in a sect were very violent but 1 single person in that sect wasnt, would you call it a violent sect?

Are you asking whether i'm attempting to saythat communism is totalitatian and requires central guidance?
Well in answer to you question: it quite obviously does have central guidance, in that it has a philosophy guiding it.

but if this deffinition was accurate than everything is totalitarian. which would make the word pointless since it applies to everything.

If i was restricted it would be on the grounds that i don't want to "get down" with the whole totalitarian fascist "thing".

bullshit accusation. you go on a spew of not tolerateing the intolerant down below, and i think i fit that deffition just fine. I dont tolerate organized religion because it is intolerate of revolution and communism. it also has a great track record of being cruel and opressive. the church indoctrinates people, i wont tolerate that either.

(Whats your excuse btw? ;) )

to learn and to meet other revolutionaries.

Its only lately?

im referring to the increase of people who come to this board lately who have these views.

i'm calling you intollerant if you want to kill people who have a different opinion to you

where have i ever said i would do that. if individuals are religious, i dont care. but they should not have any power over the revolutionary left. i do not stand for the religious institutions (the church).

I'm merely pointing out that you are being intollerant of other systems of belief/opinions

yes beacause these ideas are very intolerant of other people. now if an individual beliefs these things, then thats fine, they wont do much harm. but when they start to organize and obtain power, it must be stopped.

where did you learn what im tolerant/intolertant of anyways? i am very sure that there is something out there you dont like too. and i could spew your whole arguement at you which makes anything you think "totalitarian".

Try and tell me what to think or not think: and i'm against you and I will oppose you

im not telling you what to think or not. thats you decisions. i DONT force shit on anyone because i have NO power to do that. nor would i want such power.
oppose me all you want, im just glad you come out and say it and dont pull fence sitting bullshit.

Especially someone like you (who struggles with his sentences)

my writing is fine. this is an internet message board which i post a lot on. therfore, i am not going to waste my time making complete perfect sentences if my writing can be understood without it.

Yes, you sound very cool declaring that you want to be the next stalin or hitler.

wow, comparing me to stalin and hitler, again. this is a stupid arguement which has no basis. you dont really know what i think. you have seen a couple posts from me on a certain subject. these posts dont please you so you put a label (which deffinition changes everytime you want it to) on me.

i am not a stalin or hitler. according to your deffintion of totalitarianism anyone can be one, so i say so be it.

What word have i changed? and how?

you have given a deffinition of totalitarianism that i have NEVER seen before. the common definition of it that i have always known is like the one redstar posted. as he has already demonstraited with your deffinition, anyone could be a totalitarian.

please mr fascist, i want you to respect me!

:lol: the secret police are on the way to your house right now.

James

17th December 2005, 21:28

if 1000 people in a sect were very violent but 1 single person in that sect wasnt, would you call it a violent sect?

Yes.
Although if they were vegetarians, i wouldn't say that it is because they are vegetarians.
This is the key point which you miss.

Christianity is following christ and his teachings. Jesus was not violent. Indeed he was pasive.
Not only is it false to say that his teachings tell followers to be violent; it is very stupid. Have you even read the gospels? I suspect you havn't. All that you seem to have done is read anti-christian propaganda.

but if this deffinition was accurate than everything is totalitarian. which would make the word pointless since it applies to everything.

Every "system" commands obedience.
Therefore, the important issue is what the guiding principle is, which is demanding this obedience.

You advocate a system where individuals will be persecuted for their beliefs.
That is totally unacceptable.

Liberal ideology is based in toleration (read what i said about toleration; and tolerating everything that is tolerant).
"You'rs" is not. What are the limits to your system?

"If i was restricted it would be on the grounds that i don't want to "get down" with the whole totalitarian fascist "thing". "

bullshit accusation. you go on a spew of not tolerateing the intolerant down below, and i think i fit that deffition just fine. I dont tolerate organized religion because it is intolerate of revolution and communism. it also has a great track record of being cruel and opressive. the church indoctrinates people, i wont tolerate that either.

You say that it is bullshit, but then you proceed to confirm what i said!

Christianity is not in any way intolerant toward a system where the means of production are controlled democratically. If you think different, please show me how the gospels are intolerant to it.
Christianity opposes violence, true.
But that is all violence.
Not just violence for one specific purpose.

Indoctrination happens everywhere with every system. Indeed you probably think it is ok if used for your specific purpose/in the cause of your end.

You have screamed your protest against those who have been intollerant to certain beliefs, and holders of such beliefs. But you are fine with it at the same time.

When individuals are oppressive "in the name" of christianity, you oppose it.
When individuals are oppressive "in the name" of your belief, you are happy.

The track record? Please, show me how such "cruel and opressive [sic]" behaviour is inspired by the gospels.

What is cruel and oppressive is when individuals have tried to ENFORCE their ideas onto others, and persecute others for their opinions.
Which seems to be EXACTLY what you are proposing.

The "track record" isn't too kind on communism either you know.
Doesn't prove jack.

to learn and to meet other revolutionaries.

Well turn your computer off and go outside!

im referring to the increase of people who come to this board lately who have these views.

Yes i'm aware of your ignorance.
I was however pointing out how this isn't a "recent thing"; just with this board.
Oppressively intollerant attitudes have been opposed long before you were born, and it will continue long after your passing.

where have i ever said i would do that.

I said you would be, if you did. Read what i write.

where did you learn what im tolerant/intolertant of anyways?

Please read my posts again.
You don't get the whole point that i'm making (which is essentailly liberal principle of toleration).

Once you do away with toleration, it is done away with. True, you may not personally kill others. But once you implement the idea that individuals are subordinate to arbitary will of the majority (or rather, largest minority).

wow, comparing me to stalin and hitler, again. this is a stupid arguement which has no basis.

ahem.... "if this makes us "totalitarians" or "stalinists" then SO BE IT!"

you have given a deffinition of totalitarianism that i have NEVER seen before. the common definition of it that i have always known is like the one redstar posted. as he has already demonstraited with your deffinition, anyone could be a totalitarian.

I think i disprove you claims in my reply to redstar. If you disagree, quote the bits you are not convinced by.
As i said: "No toleration, translated into state power means intollerant coercion."

If your intolleration only extends to not allowing religious people to come together in "assembly", then fair enough: you are certainly far more tolerant than others on this board and in wider life.
Although my challenge still stands: once such "rulling" happens, what restricts it?

You are basically opposing the right to assembly: a right which has been a core value of fellow leftists for many years. Erosion of rights is a dangerous process, because erosion by its very nature is not limited.

My criticism also applies to your assumptions regarding christianity. An issue which, beyond stating "well they say they are christians", you have dodged.

Amusing Scrotum

17th December 2005, 23:16

Christianity is not in any way intolerant toward a system where the means of production are controlled democratically.

Well of course the Bible does not comment on this particular issue. After all, it would have been impossible for the Bible writers to even imagine a working class, never mind a workers democracy.

So too answer this question we need to look at how Christians, especially the Christian leaders, have reacted to the idea of a workers society. The Priests, Mullahs etc. are supposed to have a "direct line to God" and the higher up you go, the more direct the line. So by the time we get to the Pope, we must expect that he must have Gods mobile number, house-phone number, e-mail address etc.

Now how did the Catholics and other Christian Priests act in the Spanish Civil War? .....well they sided with the fascists. They helped protect them, housed them and gave them supplies.

So great was their help, that by the end of the of the Civil War the Republicans (who were originally reasonably tolerant of religion) ended up executing every Priest that they came across.

If we then move onto the second world war, we will find that the Catholic Church more or less shunned the resistance precisely because Communists were involved. They also had an active role in giving protection to Nazi's after the war had ended.

There are two examples where Christians and Christian institutions, have chosen fascism over Communism and Anarchism.

Therefore if we use "Locke's letter on toleration." Communists and Anarchists should definitely not tolerate religion. Precisely because religion was and still is intolerant of us and because they were intolerant first.

Oh, I almost forgot. The Ayatollah in Iran executed most of the Communists in Iran. After they had helped him "win" the revolution.

Again Locke's letter would dictate that Communists should not tolerate his particular "brand" of religion.

James

18th December 2005, 18:11

Well of course the Bible does not comment on this particular issue. After all, it would have been impossible for the Bible writers to even imagine a working class, never mind a workers democracy.

Christianity is following christ: i'd just like to point that out again. I don't see anything in the gospels which would prevent collective ownership.

Indeed an argument could be made that one of the earlist christian communities, described in Acts, held all in commune.
Not a ridiculous argument either. This is how mmany of the early medieval monestaries functioned.

So there you go, several historical cases of christians being a collective. This demonstrates how the gospels does not in any way preach against holding things in commune.

So too answer this question we need to look at how Christians, especially the Christian leaders, have reacted to the idea of a workers society.

Hardly. That is like saying to see how communism functions we need to look at the past. The past record is nothing but exactly that: the past.

The Priests, Mullahs etc. are supposed to have a "direct line to God" and the higher up you go, the more direct the line.

And i challenge you to find any basis for that in the gospels.

Indeed, i would like to point out that jesus was not loved by such "religious officials" (whom eventually were the ones to get him murdered), and issued many stern warnings to ANYONE whom tried to tell others how to live or think.

So by the time we get to the Pope,

Christianity doesn't mean catholicism.
Personally, i'm not a catholic. Many christians are not.

Now how did the Catholics and other Christian Priests act in the Spanish Civil War? .....well they sided with the fascists. They helped protect them, housed them and gave them supplies.

So great was their help, that by the end of the of the Civil War the Republicans (who were originally reasonably tolerant of religion) ended up executing every Priest that they came across.

If we then move onto the second world war, we will find that the Catholic Church more or less shunned the resistance precisely because Communists were involved. They also had an active role in giving protection to Nazi's after the war had ended.

There are two examples where Christians and Christian institutions, have chosen fascism over Communism and Anarchism.

Well actually its primarily two examples of catholic action (did you know also that catholics, including some rather high up catholics, were put into the old concentration camps too?).

Anyhow, the nature of history is that it is selective, thus makes judgements. I'm sure we don't have to go over all of this again. Surely?
Yes christians have acted like bastards; as have all humans.

Therefore if we use "Locke's letter on toleration." Communists and Anarchists should definitely not tolerate religion. Precisely because religion was and still is intolerant of us and because they were intolerant first.

Actually no, that is rather incorrect. Have you read the letteR? I think you should if you are going to insist on making arguments about it.

It is primarily concerned with individuals tolerating other individuals.

Your argument would be stronger if all history painted a picture of christians acting in the way that you depict. And of course, if ANY such action was supported by the gospels.

True the argument could be made that christians should not participate in violent actions (thus some revoutions). But beyond that, you argument is based on selective use of history. The main point though is that you shall not find support for such claims in the gospels.

Oh, I almost forgot. The Ayatollah in Iran executed most of the Communists in Iran. After they had helped him "win" the revolution.

Stalin killed many to consolidate power. Its got more to do with individuals and power than faith in the gospels. Or do you think otherwise?

Amusing Scrotum

18th December 2005, 19:48

So there you go, several historical cases of christians being a collective.

If I'm not mistaken, these communes treated women horribly.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that whatever form of collective that appeared in the past, this is not what Communism advocates for the future. Many of these communes, for instance, cut themselves completely off from outside development and "foreign ways."

That's not what a Communist society would be about.

That is like saying to see how communism functions we need to look at the past. The past record is nothing but exactly that: the past.

Well a key tenet of historical materialism is to look at history for clues.

We look at Russia and say what happened there? .....what went wrong? .....what went right? ......the Leninists blame Stalin and Trotsky, the Trots blame the "evil" Stalin, the Stalinists and the Maoists blame the "revisionists."

I however, have no time for "great men" theories and therefore take a different approach. Did the Russian working class seize political power? .....no. Was the Russian working class big enough and strong enough? .....no. Would the Russian working class being strong enough and seizing political power changed the outcome? .....no. Why? .....because Russia wasn't ready for Communism. It was a backwards feudal society.

And i challenge you to find any basis for that in the gospels.

I have a pleasant ignorance of the Gospels. I imagine it is the "nice" part and therefore nice Christians (like yourself) who don't like the brutality of the rest of the Bible, limit your religion to the Gospels.

It fits your political outlook and if you wish to try and incorporate religion into liberalism, then you have to ignore the bad parts.

Christianity doesn't mean catholicism.

No it doesn't. However Catholicism is still the biggest "branch" of Christianity and therefore, not too surprisingly, there is more Catholic history on which we can comment.

Well actually its primarily two examples of catholic action

The Republicans shot non-Catholic Priests too.

(did you know also that catholics, including some rather high up catholics, were put into the old concentration camps too?).

Indeed they did, but these were in the minority. Most of the Catholic hierarchy was perfectly happy with helping Nazi's flee.

Yes christians have acted like bastards; as have all humans.

Yet this is the fundamental problem. Christians are supposed to be above vile acts. They have "God" and therefore they should be better.

Of course Muslims, Christians and Jews if they wish to be good believers, should commit certain atrocities. Muslims for instance, should beat their wifes, it says so in the Qu'ran and the Qu'ran is Allah's word.

Have you read the letteR?

If you mean this one -- A Letter Concerning Toleration (http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm) -- then yes.

I think you should if you are going to insist on making arguments about it.

Locke basically argues all religions should be tolerated provided they are not coercive. Therefore the argument still stands, if Christians were willing to side with fascists, the Catholic Church in particular, then as they acted coercively. We should not tolerate Catholicism at the very least.

Your argument would be stronger if all history painted a picture of christians acting in the way that you depict.

Ok then, point to one religious leader of some significance who has endorsed Communism or Anarchism.

The main point though is that you shall not find support for such claims in the gospels.

In other parts of the Bible you will find support for opposing Communism. Take the sticky in this forum for instance, and how it outlines passages from the Bible which oppose women's liberation.

I can't think of one major Christian "brand" that supported the feminist movement wholeheartedly and the feminist movement was nowhere near as radical as the Communist and Anarchist movements.

Stalin killed many to consolidate power. Its got more to do with individuals and power than faith in the gospels. Or do you think otherwise?

However Stalin never claimed he had "divine authority" and therefore we can easily call him a butcher.

However people of various religions aren't supposed to do these things. Well that is except persecuting gay people, sinners and oppressing women. They're supposed to treat other male Christians well, but they can't even manage that when they have state power.

How is it that people who are supposedly immune to such things can do these things?

Technique3055

19th December 2005, 02:00

Originally posted by "AfricanSocialCommunist"
But your views, as I have stated yesterday are pure Communist and I am not against such thoughts, but I feel they are just too unproven.

:lol:

Absolutely ridiculous.

You talk about how you feel things are unproven, yet you blindly follow and are obedient to a dogma and a man who may or may not have existed. If you want to talk about what is "too unproven" perhaps you should talk about religion, specifically Islam, instead of communism.

Ownthink

19th December 2005, 20:51

So there you go, several historical cases of christians being a collective.
Just because I fucking share something with you does not mean I am a fucking Communist.

I am sick of people calling these little Chritsian "collectives" Communism, or that "Jesus was the first Communist".

James

19th December 2005, 21:09

I would like to first reply to "Ownthink":

Just because I fucking share something with you does not mean I am a fucking Communist.

I am sick of people calling these little Chritsian "collectives" Communism, or that "Jesus was the first Communist".

And you know what? I get irritated (not to the degree of sick though ;) ) when people don't read the whole post with an understanding of the context of the point.

I was demonstrating that the gospels do not preach explicity against collectivism as had been suggested. Indeed, i pointed out that many christians have been collectivist.

Thus not-only do the gospels (which is essentially the essence of christianity) not preach against collectivism; but christians have even been collectivists.

So i advise you go back and re-read the posts properly. Your "point", Mr "OwnThink", really was irrelevant.

James

19th December 2005, 22:27

AS

I'm determined that this will not degenerate into a mess!

If I'm not mistaken, these communes treated women horribly.

Well i would say that that is a generalisation and, in some cases, an irrelevant one (for example the all male communes whom had nothing to do with women so couldn't treat them horribly)!

My point was that:
"I don't see anything in the gospels which would prevent collective ownership"

The communes comment was an extra point, demonstrating that christians have indeed been a collective commune.

Therefore it is not anti left wing.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that whatever form of collective that appeared in the past, this is not what Communism advocates for the future. Many of these communes, for instance, cut themselves completely off from outside development and "foreign ways."

Well. Some of these communes acted as a place that individuals were free to go to and join. True they did not enforce their collectivism on the rest of society. They were not however all cut off completely. Many, if not most, would be in contact/have a relationship (which in many cases i would describe as positive) with their surronding communities.

But i would say that the point is that they were collective societies that people could go to (true, not based on Marxism [whom was yet to be born in many of these cases]; but the point is that christianity does not "disalow" collectivism). They were a different way of living to main stream society. As opposed to enforcing their way on all, they led their own way and let others do as they wish (although again this is a generalisation. The problem is that we are discussing a stupid point).

That's not what a Communist society would be about.

Well it is what the paris commune was! (in a way!).

I agree.
I agree more however, with the approach of not FORCING others to live the way that you think that they should be living.

Indeed, this is fundamentally my key position and is why i will not support the replacement of one form of coercive state power for another.

(i'm not opposing ome forms of communism of course: i'm just pointing out that christianity is not anti-communist)

Well a key tenet of historical materialism is to look at history for clues.

Fair enough.
But a far more important "factor" to "consider" in a "balanced manor", is that all history is "bunk" in that it is selective. It is biased. It makes judgements.
This is true in "academic cirlces": and is ESPECIALLY true on a forum such as this, where each post is about 500 words long!

I however, have no time for "great men" theories and therefore take a different approach. Did the Russian working class seize political power? .....no. Was the Russian working class big enough and strong enough? .....no. Would the Russian working class being strong enough and seizing political power changed the outcome? .....no. Why? .....because Russia wasn't ready for Communism. It was a backwards feudal society.

I would argue that what you have done here is exactly what i've been doing with respect to christianity: i.e. examining the key fundamentals.

It was "called communism", but it wasn't really, as it wasn't "ready" for it, thus couldn't really "do it properly".

This is just like me going back to the gospels and the core foundations of christianity: as opposed to looking at how individuals (or great men theories) have behaved.
Sure they called themselves, and probably considered themselves, to be christian (thus in some people's eyes, constituted "christian"): but it is CLEAR that in most cases, in some way or another, they are christians who have FAILED to be christians.

Either way though; i really don't really care too much.
I fail to see how any of the actions which are often quoted in "anti christian arguments" relate to actual christianity: i.e. christ; i.e GOSPELS.

You can't explain how each of these individuals was "being christian", when they acted in these "anti communist" ways.

I have a pleasant ignorance of the Gospels.

THUS we shall be stuck in this disagreement. To you, christianity is how and in what ways certain "christians" have acted.

To me it is following christ: i.e. the gospels.

I fear that we are therefore using the same word, for two completely different things (its a bit like arguing about communism with someone who's knowledge of communism is restricted to an awareness of stalin).

May i ask why you don't? This isn't a "James covert attempt to convert you". I'm just trying to get you to understand a bit more. None of the gospels are long.
Indeed, if you are REALLY pressed for time, why not read the Temple on the mount extracts? Ten minutes max.

Then, i think, you shall understand my stance more.

I imagine it is the "nice" part and therefore nice Christians (like yourself) who don't like the brutality of the rest of the Bible, limit your religion to the Gospels.

Christians accept the bible is in some way the word of god. There are specific teachings/morals.
christians believe Jesus is the son of god.
He has teachings which can seem "contradictory" (which is a subject beyond the scope of this thread) to other parts of the bible. Jesus teachings take "priority" over the various conventions etc which emerged throughout the old test. Because jesus is the direct, "most recent", link with god (to christians).

For example look at the way jesus expanded upon "do not kill" in the sermon. It is characteristic of his entire teaching.

It fits your political outlook and if you wish to try and incorporate religion into liberalism, then you have to ignore the bad parts.

No i disagree.
Read the gospels if you wish, and we can discuss this further.

No it doesn't. However Catholicism is still the biggest "branch" of Christianity and therefore, not too surprisingly, there is more Catholic history on which we can comment.

And does not in anyway "disprove" the point that we both seem to make before (examining the key elements/foundations).
I don't take individuals/groups to be what christianity is: but the gospel.

In many cases, the actions of these "christians" have been completely contradictory to their foundation.
It is just like a group of vegetarians whom eat meat: it is equally as silly to still call them vegies (even though they may consider themselves to be such: thus constitute a "vegetarian"); and equally as silly to use their behaviour as a guide to what vegetarianism is/means.

Indeed they did, but these were in the minority. Most of the Catholic hierarchy was perfectly happy with helping Nazi's flee.

So the majority is what is "true"?

Yet this is the fundamental problem.

which applies to all humans. Therefore christianity has "fuck all" to do with it (as in your individual "historical cases")!

Ok then, point to one religious leader of some significance who has endorsed Communism or Anarchism.

May i ask why? Why is not the existance of "christian anarchists" (google it!) enough for you?
Jesus, a very significant religious leader ( :P ) was a total anarchist!

But may i ask why is it that you are not a "great man" theorist when it is about what you believe to be "right"; but you are when it is about stuff that you do not believe to be "right"?

In other parts of the Bible you will find support for opposing Communism. Take the sticky in this forum for instance, and how it outlines passages from the Bible which oppose women's liberation.

I can't think of one major Christian "brand" that supported the feminist movement wholeheartedly and the feminist movement was nowhere near as radical as the Communist and Anarchist movements.

Such an approach puts jesus in a secondary position.
This is not the position of christians. Read the gospels if you wish, and then we can discuss the finer points of christian theology.

However Stalin never claimed he had "divine authority" and therefore we can easily call him a butcher.

However people of various religions aren't supposed to do these things. Well that is except persecuting gay people, sinners and oppressing women. They're supposed to treat other male Christians well, but they can't even manage that when they have state power.

How is it that people who are supposedly immune to such things can do these things?

State how the gospels even suggest that christians are immune from such things?
You really don't understand christianity at all.

One final point on persecution and toleration. This is even more than arguable from my position as a christian. The gospels in a sense has it's own "letter on toleration", or perhaps to describe it more aptly: passage forbidding persecution - a principle to guide relations with others even!

It is a bit of the gospel that i'm sure you know: woman has been sleeping around, crowd gather to stone her;
Jesus agrees, but states that the first stones should be thrown by the ones with no sin.

This is a theme that is constant throughout the gospel: for example why so bothered about the "splinter" in your fellow man's eye, when you have "plank" in your own?

So whilst i appreciate you can give me numerous examples of christians being unchristian, in the name of the bible; as far as you've been able to demonstrate, it has all been just like meat eating vegetarians.

The gosple is what defines and forms the foundation of christianity.