Jesus a revolutionary?

[Ice]

Some time back when I was talking to my father he said, Jesus was a revolutionary and when I asked him why he just said, his ideas were highly revolutionary that time. What do you guys think, did Jesus really existed 2000 years back? I mean, like an ordinary human being with revolutionary ideas and do you think that he was killed because he was against the system he lived in?

[redstar2000]

No, he was not a "revolutionary" in any sense of that word.

He was an ordinary human who became a country preacher who didn't much like big-city Judaism. The polite term is "reforming Jewish rabbi".

Pretty much everything he had to say was commonplace in Jewish thought in the Palestine of his era...with the possible exception of "Hell". There was some idea of a "place of torment" for especially grievous "sinners"...but the idea that "nearly everyone" would be "sent there" may have been his unique theological contribution to western superstition.

He did not intend to "start Christianity"...that was Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") at work.

And this, of course, presumes that he ever existed at all; there is no contemporary evidence for that.

Your father is mistaken.

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

[Free Palestine]

He may have been an "enemy of the state," but were his ideas "revolutionary?"

[boosh logic]

He did not intend to "start Christianity"...

Wouldn't christians argue that god intended for him to though, as he is supposedly omnipotent? Or would that just mean he knew it was going to happen.

[Arca]

Jesus was not a revolutionary, or a communist. This has been attempted so much it's not even funny.

Matthew 13:12 "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."

Mark 4:25 "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."

Does that sound leftist to you? Sounds like the Republican motto or similar to me.

[SPQR]

His ideas were not revolutionary, yet led him to be crucified by his OWN people. Right.


Does that sound leftist to you? Sounds like the Republican motto or similar to me.

Obviously all revolutionary action is leftist?

[Arca]

I didn't say it was, I wasn't referring to that particular point when I said that. People like to make the point that Jesus was a revolutionary leftist. I was pointing out that it wasn't leftist, much less revolutionary.

If that makes sense. I'm tired so I don't expect to make an air-tight argument.

[bed_of_nails]

How can Jesus be a revolutionary if he advocates ignoring all injustices by turning the other cheek?

Jesus' attitude towards any injustice was more or less "Shit happens."

The man was supposedly omnipotent, yet decided to let himself get beat up and crucified. Where is the fucking sense in that?

Who dies for your sins? Who then comes back three days later? What was the point in coming back? Doesnt that negate his dying?

[Ice]

Why do you guys think jesus was crucified? I mean, usually people with revolutionary ideas are hated by the ruling class.

[James]

not defending the idea that jesus was a communist revolutionary (although i do think he was a form of social/religious revolutionary).

but....


The man was supposedly omnipotent, yet decided to let himself get beat up and crucified. Where is the fucking sense in that?

Basically, it is the idea of a second covenant. A different "deal"/"way" of dealing with sin.


Who dies for your sins? Who then comes back three days later? What was the point in coming back? Doesnt that negate his dying?

Not really. Still died. Still got the crap beaten out of him and hung up on a cross. Still suffered.

I think the resurection is crucial to christianity: if only to simply "prove" what he said.
It also inspired his followers. On the day of his deaths, he had only one or two followers left. Then suddenly, after he returned, he had many followers who were all of a sudden willing to die for the message (which shows how sure they had become - it had been proven to them by his return from the dead): which contrasts to before when one of his greatist followers denied all knowledge of him.

Of course, the above isn't arguing that it all happened. I'm merely voicing the basic christian argument.

[Big Boss]

Matthew 13:12 "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."

Mark 4:25 "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."

These two passages refer to spiritual gifts, not material things. You've heard of the saying, "If you don't use it, you'll lose it"?, well in this case it refers to habilities of the human self. For example: Let's say that you are an accountant and you haven't worked as one for a long time. In time, you will lose the ability of memorizing the numbers of last month's statistics or solving problems as fast as you did when you were in the prime of your carrer. I'm saying this because my sister was an accountant and stopped working as one. Now she can't help my little brother in his high school algebra homework.

Anyways, the passage refers to gifts of the spirit that you are born with. Everybody has them. But if you don't use them for the benefit of others as well as yourself, you will lose them. Our job as humans is to find those gifts first and then help others with them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ice
Why do you guys think Jesus was crucified?

Most likely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Romans crucified tens of thousands of people. Were they all "guilty of something"?

There's nothing in the Gospels that suggests that most people even noticed. Crucifixions were probably routine...like executions in the U.S. if not even more so.

The "big crowd" scenes in the Gospel of John are almost certainly fictional as they were written more than a century after the "events" they purport to depict.

Also remember that writers of "holy books" were not historians in our sense of the word. Their concern was not to depict "what actually happened" but rather to articulate a "higher truth". To "make up something" to fit their purpose was a routine practice -- they could and probably did claim to be "inspired by God" with the "knowledge" of "what must have happened" in the course of "spiritually significant" events.

There's no contemporary evidence, for example, that the earth was "dark for three hours" or that the facade of the Temple spontaneously cracked from top to bottom. Those sorts of things would have been noticed...and they weren't.

The Gospels do make it clear that "Jesus" was crucified at the behest of the Jewish high priesthood...who regarded him as a trouble-maker and possibly even a threat to their own pre-eminence. That makes a kind of sense; it sounds plausible...as does Roman willingness to go along with the idea.

The Jewish priesthood, much like their Vatican successors, were not at all above murdering each other...so why not just get rid of a troublesome country preacher? And the Romans regarded the Jewish superstition as semi-barbaric...so why would they give a rat's ass for some minor-league pissant?

If any of this stuff really happened, then "Jesus" was a dumbass...deliberately placing himself where his obvious enemies could get to him. The deluded fool probably thought "His Heavenly Father" would "protect him".

That's where "faith" usually lands you...in the shit!

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

[Ice]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 31 2006, 04:38 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 31 2006, 04:38 PM)
Ice
Why do you guys think Jesus was crucified?

Most likely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Romans crucified tens of thousands of people. Were they all "guilty of something"?

There's nothing in the Gospels that suggests that most people even noticed. Crucifixions were probably routine...like executions in the U.S. if not even more so.

The "big crowd" scenes in the Gospel of John are almost certainly fictional as they were written more than a century after the "events" they purport to depict.

Also remember that writers of "holy books" were not historians in our sense of the word. Their concern was not to depict "what actually happened" but rather to articulate a "higher truth". To "make up something" to fit their purpose was a routine practice -- they could and probably did claim to be "inspired by God" with the "knowledge" of "what must have happened" in the course of "spiritually significant" events.

There's no contemporary evidence, for example, that the earth was "dark for three hours" or that the facade of the Temple spontaneously cracked from top to bottom. Those sorts of things would have been noticed...and they weren't.

The Gospels do make it clear that "Jesus" was crucified at the behest of the Jewish high priesthood...who regarded him as a trouble-maker and possibly even a threat to their own pre-eminence. That makes a kind of sense; it sounds plausible...as does Roman willingness to go along with the idea.

The Jewish priesthood, much like their Vatican successors, were not at all above murdering each other...so why not just get rid of a troublesome country preacher? And the Romans regarded the Jewish superstition as semi-barbaric...so why would they give a rat's ass for some minor-league pissant?

If any of this stuff really happened, then "Jesus" was a dumbass...deliberately placing himself where his obvious enemies could get to him. The deluded fool probably thought "His Heavenly Father" would "protect him".

That's where "faith" usually lands you...in the shit!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Thanks man, I never thought it that way and I am an atheist too. :D

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:18 AM
No, he was not a "revolutionary" in any sense of that word.

He was an ordinary human who became a country preacher who didn't much like big-city Judaism. The polite term is "reforming Jewish rabbi".

Pretty much everything he had to say was commonplace in Jewish thought in the Palestine of his era...with the possible exception of "Hell". There was some idea of a "place of torment" for especially grievous "sinners"...but the idea that "nearly everyone" would be "sent there" may have been his unique theological contribution to western superstition.

He did not intend to "start Christianity"...that was Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") at work.

And this, of course, presumes that he ever existed at all; there is no contemporary evidence for that.

Your father is mistaken.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Redstar, is there any evidence he did not exist? Or is it simply a case of no evidence pointing either way?

I've been somewhat curious of this for a while.

[La Comédie Noire]

I do not think the Issue is wether or not he existed but wether or not he was the son of god and this being a communist forum I think we already know the majority consent on that question :lol:

Anyways Jesus was a man, a Rabbi, who saw the current form of Judaism in his time as to harsh and extreme, like being stoned to death and what not. So he decided to preach a diffrent method, he also saw the Idea of giving money to temple as defilement, maybe even a little exploiting. So anyways after three years of traveling around, so they say, temple authority finally reported him to The Roman's as causing "Civil Unrest". So they strung him up. Something along thos elines I am not exactly an expert on the bible and other such things.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
Redstar, is there any evidence he did not exist?

The problem of "negative evidence" is a thorny one. Why, for example, would someone in 35CE make a point of writing down the fact that, by the way, "Jesus" never existed?

Consider other historical figures from antiquity. We know that Socrates existed because there are several contemporary references to him that have survived the ravages of time. We don't know very much about what he really thought...because either he never wrote anything himself or, if he did, it has been lost.

The earliest documents that make any reference to "Jesus" are the "authentic" letters of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul")...dated around 50-60CE, a couple of decades after the crucifixion.

The earliest "gospel" is thought to be that of "Mark"...dated around 75CE.

It's certainly possible that there was contemporary evidence...which was destroyed in the confusion of the great Jewish uprising against Roman rule, 68-70CE.

One argument in favor of the existence of "Jesus" is the general lack of anachronisms in the "synoptic gospels" (Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

The Old Testament is stuffed with anachronisms because it was composed many centuries after the "events" that it purported to "depict". As if someone a thousand years from now sat down to write about "ancient" America: George Washington founded America, built a trans-continental railroad, and then invaded Iraq.

If the "gospels" were entirely fabricated, then you'd expect to find stuff like that: King Herod appealed to Pericles of Athens and King Cyrus of Persia for help in tracking down Jesus but they refused him.

(Both Pericles and Cyrus lived five centuries earlier than "Jesus".)

The "gospels" get the general historical details "right" for that place at that particular time.

Of course that doesn't mean that the "details" of the life of "Jesus" are authentic...indeed, many of them are certainly fabricated. Not just the miracles, either.

For example, there was certainly no "flight into Egypt" or Herodean "massacre of the innocents". "Jesus" was not born in Bethlehem but rather in Nazareth -- without shepherds, "wise men from the east", or odd astronomical phenomena in attendance.

Such stories were commonplace in antiquity; anyone who did anything of note accumulated a large number of posthumous legends surrounding their birth...and often their death as well.

It's quite unlikely that Socrates spent his final hours discussing philosophy with his friends before drinking the poison...but it "makes a good story".

And "the Last Supper" probably didn't happen.

It's often amusing to learn how far the pious are willing to go. The last "pagan" emperor of Rome was Julian (360-363CE), called the "apostate" because he quit the Christian superstition and returned to "the old gods". So "infamous" was his memory that it was thought useful to invent a whole series of Christian "miracles" to confound him during his reign "in Rome".

But it is quite clear from the contemporary sources that Julian never entered Rome in his entire life...he always ruled from Constantinople or Antioch.

As to what "Jesus really thought", I think it's pretty clear that he wanted to drastically simplify the Jewish faith. The Temple priesthood, heavily influenced by Greek and even Roman culture, had been making Jewish "Law" more and more "complicated" for several centuries...and more and more difficult for "country folk" to either understand or practice.

Thus a simple message that's almost certainly authentic: "Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand." Worship Yahweh and refrain from sin (especially fornication)...and just forget all the "big city" complications.

Whenever he talks about "the end of the world" as something that "will happen soon", that's probably authentic.

It's not clear why he thought that...except for the general climate of Jewish unrest under Roman rule. Taxes were burdensome and Roman arrogance didn't help matters any. I'm sure there were many Jews who thought "things can't go on like this".

Well, they didn't. After two massive uprisings against Roman rule, the Jewish presence in Palestine was virtually eliminated by around 140CE or so.

And "Jesus" was well on his way to becoming "a God"...actually, a "part" of "God". As a pious Jew, "Jesus" himself would probably have been horrified and disgusted by the idea.

Not that the Christians were much concerned with what he thought. :lol:

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

[ItalianCommie]

Jesus wasn't a revolutionary in any way. I'm convinced that Christianity was invented tomaintain existing society, to keep the people and the ruling classes under the Church's control. Very handy.

[James]

how under the church's control?
It is anti establishmentarian.

(of course a church has since arisen, so the argument could be made that it has since been used by another authority.... but origionally, it was against the existing authority)

[KC]

Redstar, is there any evidence he did not exist? Or is it simply a case of no evidence pointing either way?


Who has the burden of proof? (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 1 2006, 05:28 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 1 2006, 05:28 AM)
anomaly
Redstar, is there any evidence he did not exist?

The problem of "negative evidence" is a thorny one. Why, for example, would someone in 35CE make a point of writing down the fact that, by the way, "Jesus" never existed?

Consider other historical figures from antiquity. We know that Socrates existed because there are several contemporary references to him that have survived the ravages of time. We don't know very much about what he really thought...because either he never wrote anything himself or, if he did, it has been lost.

The earliest documents that make any reference to "Jesus" are the "authentic" letters of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul")...dated around 50-60CE, a couple of decades after the crucifixion.

The earliest "gospel" is thought to be that of "Mark"...dated around 75CE.

It's certainly possible that there was contemporary evidence...which was destroyed in the confusion of the great Jewish uprising against Roman rule, 68-70CE.

One argument in favor of the existence of "Jesus" is the general lack of anachronisms in the "synoptic gospels" (Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

The Old Testament is stuffed with anachronisms because it was composed many centuries after the "events" that it purported to "depict". As if someone a thousand years from now sat down to write about "ancient" America: George Washington founded America, built a trans-continental railroad, and then invaded Iraq.

If the "gospels" were entirely fabricated, then you'd expect to find stuff like that: King Herod appealed to Pericles of Athens and King Cyrus of Persia for help in tracking down Jesus but they refused him.

(Both Pericles and Cyrus lived five centuries earlier than "Jesus".)

The "gospels" get the general historical details "right" for that place at that particular time.

Of course that doesn't mean that the "details" of the life of "Jesus" are authentic...indeed, many of them are certainly fabricated. Not just the miracles, either.

For example, there was certainly no "flight into Egypt" or Herodean "massacre of the innocents". "Jesus" was not born in Bethlehem but rather in Nazareth -- without shepherds, "wise men from the east", or odd astronomical phenomena in attendance.

Such stories were commonplace in antiquity; anyone who did anything of note accumulated a large number of posthumous legends surrounding their birth...and often their death as well.

It's quite unlikely that Socrates spent his final hours discussing philosophy with his friends before drinking the poison...but it "makes a good story".

And "the Last Supper" probably didn't happen.

It's often amusing to learn how far the pious are willing to go. The last "pagan" emperor of Rome was Julian (360-363CE), called the "apostate" because he quit the Christian superstition and returned to "the old gods". So "infamous" was his memory that it was thought useful to invent a whole series of Christian "miracles" to confound him during his reign "in Rome".

But it is quite clear from the contemporary sources that Julian never entered Rome in his entire life...he always ruled from Constantinople or Antioch.

As to what "Jesus really thought", I think it's pretty clear that he wanted to drastically simplify the Jewish faith. The Temple priesthood, heavily influenced by Greek and even Roman culture, had been making Jewish "Law" more and more "complicated" for several centuries...and more and more difficult for "country folk" to either understand or practice.

Thus a simple message that's almost certainly authentic: "Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand." Worship Yahweh and refrain from sin (especially fornication)...and just forget all the "big city" complications.

Whenever he talks about "the end of the world" as something that "will happen soon", that's probably authentic.

It's not clear why he thought that...except for the general climate of Jewish unrest under Roman rule. Taxes were burdensome and Roman arrogance didn't help matters any. I'm sure there were many Jews who thought "things can't go on like this".

Well, they didn't. After two massive uprisings against Roman rule, the Jewish presence in Palestine was virtually eliminated by around 140CE or so.

And "Jesus" was well on his way to becoming "a God"...actually, a "part" of "God". As a pious Jew, "Jesus" himself would probably have been horrified and disgusted by the idea.

Not that the Christians were much concerned with what he thought. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
I hope you won't mind, Redstar, that I decided to give this post of yours to my Christian friend, as I found the post rather informative.

However, the Christian was less impressed.

Let me inform you of what he said, and since much of it is either or 'yes' or 'no' type thing, hopefully we can get somewhere.

First of all, he said that the anachronisms you say are in the OT are actually not there. He claims that "archaeological evidence shows what the OT said really happened." He also said that all of the events in the OT are in order, not out of place as you said.

About the details of the life of Jesus, he says that eyewitnesses account for these.

Next, he wants "proof" that the Last Supper didn't happen. If I assume correctly, you reach the conclusion that the Supper never happened by way of reason and logic, correct? Or is there simply no historical evidence that it did happen?

Finally, he claims that Jesus did, in fact, declare himself the son of God. "Early Church history shows this," according to the Christian.


I am rather curious of the circumstances of Jesus' death. For example, was he in fact put in a tomb, and then disappeared? Is a part of that story fabricated? Is the entire thing fabricated?

This may be annoying to you, my questions I mean, but I have grown rather hostile towards the Christian faith, and any help in refuting such things is greatly appreciated.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by ItalianCommie+--> (ItalianCommie) I'm convinced that Christianity was invented tomaintain existing society, to keep the people and the ruling classes under the Church's control. Very handy. [/b]

Religion and the ruling classes go hand in hand. Religions are tools of control used by rulers. Emperor Constantine made christianity the official state religion, having first considered the worship of "the Invincible Sun", Sol Invictus.

There exists a christian myth that Constantine saw the sign of the cross in the sky before the battle of Ponte Milvio in a civil war against a rival of the throne.

However, a child could see that the calculating emperor wanted to unify the people of the empire under his rule by establishing an official imperial religion.


Originally posted by [email protected]
of course a church has since arisen, so the argument could be made that it has since been used by another authority.... but origionally, it was against the existing authority

The early christians were hardly revolutionaries, they believed in obedience of earthly masters.. They were persecuted by the early Roman emperors but that was because those believed they were gods themselves, and the christian god didn't fit into the picture so to say. ;)

No matter who Jesus was if anybody, we must consider christianity and other religions as serious obstacles on our way to communism. They are counter-revolutionary.


redstar2000
The last "pagan" emperor of Rome was Julian (360-363CE), called the "apostate" because he quit the Christian superstition and returned to "the old gods".

He was a controversial figure indeed. The Roman historian Marcellinus said about him: "He knew of experience, that no wild beasts are as cruel against human beings as most christians in their hatred against each other." :D

[redstar2000]

First of all, he said that the anachronisms you say are in the OT are actually not there. He claims that "archaeological evidence shows what the OT said really happened." He also said that all of the events in the OT are in order, not out of place as you said.

Well, it's obvious he's read nothing by serious Biblical scholars in the closing decades of the 20th century.

I cannot reproduce such works from memory, of course, but some things "stick" in my mind...

1. Diligent search of the Sinai peninsula has revealed no evidence for the "exodus"...not so much as a fragment of pottery. It's entirely mythical.

2. The "holy land" has been pummeled by archaeologists for the last 150 years...and the evidence indicates that the "Empire of David and Solomon" was basically Jerusalem and an agricultural hinterland.

3. The "prophetic" books describe the "future" in exquisite detail while the "present" is hopelessly confused and filled with anachronisms.

In other words, the books were written shortly after the events they "prophesied" and attributed to some legendary figure in the past.


About the details of the life of Jesus, he says that eyewitnesses account for these.

Oh? Who were the "eyewitnesses" at the appearances of "Jesus" before the Jewish priesthood or Pontius Pilate?

Were there "moles" back then? :lol:

The chances are that the early followers of Jesus, after his death, casually reminisced about some of the things they saw (or thought they saw) first hand...and some younger Christians started writing some of these "old stories" down, elaborating where "necessary".

But eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable...we know that from modern psychological testing in which events were staged and then people were asked to recount what they saw. At best, some of them got some of the details right.


Next, he wants "proof" that the Last Supper didn't happen.

It's too "neat" a story...like the "death of Socrates".

In fact, it's not even necessary to Christian theology...since it was decided later on to have Jesus' ghost hang around for a month or so, he could have "said" then everything he "said" at "the last supper".


Finally, he claims that Jesus did, in fact, declare himself the son of God.

"Son of God" was a title assumed by the kings of the Davidic dynasty...it wasn't meant in a "literal" sense. The idea that "Jesus" was an "avatar" (as a Hindu would say) of "God" would have struck him as horrifying.


Originally posted by anolamy
I am rather curious of the circumstances of Jesus' death. For example, was he in fact put in a tomb, and then disappeared? Is a part of that story fabricated? Is the entire thing fabricated?

Without contemporary evidence, who can say? Simple logic suggests that the corpse was removed and buried elsewhere...allowing the followers of "Jesus" to claim that he "rose from the dead".

But that suggests a degree of "advance planning" that I find implausible. Remember that the first followers of Jesus were, like him, pious Jews...not the "Central Committee" of "Christianity".

Most likely, the corpse was thrown into whatever nearby pit that the Romans used for disposal of their victims...and that was the end of it. The "resurrection" was a later invention...quite possibly by the energetic and rather devious Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul"). He is the first one that mentions it "as a fact". And his "details" are quite different from those in the gospels.

Modern biblical scholars consider "St. Paul" to be the real founder of "Christianity". Before him, it was a minor Jewish cult; after him, it was a "movement" spreading across the Roman Empire.

Of course, there were other such "movements" as well. The cults of Isis and Mithras enjoyed considerable popularity among the same people that Christianity appealed to: slaves, commoners, soldiers, etc. All three had an "egalitarian" thread that differed markedly from the "old religions".

Call it "immortality for the masses". :lol:

Quite possibly the strongest ideological weapon in the Christian armory was its novelty...it wasn't "Egyptian" and didn't involve the expense of sacrificing lots of bulls. It was actually very simple to become a Christian and came with extravagant "guarantees" -- simply avoid the sins that you probably couldn't afford to commit anyway and "eternal life in paradise" was "yours!"

One target that the early Christians really concentrated on was wealthy widows. If she could be convinced to leave her wealth to a Christian clergyman (or to the church after it became legal), then the money could be used to hire and train more missionaries and clergymen.

I suspect this was perhaps the most important material reason for the triumph of Christianity in the Roman world.


This may be annoying to you, my questions I mean, but I have grown rather hostile towards the Christian faith, and any help in refuting such things is greatly appreciated.

I'm not annoyed in the least. :)

I wish, in fact, that Christians themselves would start asking real questions about the history of their faith...I think a lot of them would become atheists if they did.

Unfortunately, Christianity "clouds the reason" almost as if it were like Alzheimer's Disease...they simply can't imagine using their brains to examine "holy stuff" as if it were like the ordinary problems that they solve in their daily lives.

Your description of this guy sounds very "typical"...stuff that's "in the Bible" is "just true, period". If confronted with contradictions, he'll use his powers of reason (such as they may be) to invent some sort of torturous verbal "reconciliation" of the plain and obvious discrepancies.

I expect that before the end of this century, serious religious belief might result in referral to a psychiatrist. :D

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

[Martin Blank]

This article may help the discussion along:

Jesus - from Jewish apocalyptic revolutionary to imperial god (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/269/jesus.html)

Miles

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:11 AM
How can Jesus be a revolutionary if he advocates ignoring all injustices by turning the other cheek?

Jesus' attitude towards any injustice was more or less "Shit happens."

The man was supposedly omnipotent, yet decided to let himself get beat up and crucified. Where is the fucking sense in that?

Who dies for your sins? Who then comes back three days later? What was the point in coming back? Doesnt that negate his dying?
BOURGEOIS EUROPEANS dominated teaching of scriptures for so long it WOULD say that.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Feb 2 2006, 08:16 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Feb 2 2006, 08:16 PM) This article may help the discussion along:

Jesus - from Jewish apocalyptic revolutionary to imperial god (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/269/jesus.html)

Miles [/b]
An astonishing document! :lol:


Originally posted by Jack Conrad+--> (Jack Conrad)Some comrades from within our tradition argue that with the seemingly relentless forward march of technology and science - itself a modern phenomenon - religious ideas are bound to undergo a natural and deserved death. Such vulgar evolutionism is profoundly mistaken. In itself it is a secular form of religion (i.e., an idealist worship of the means of production).[/b]

It happens to be an observed phenomenon for the last two centuries!

What planet does this moron live on?


Originally posted by Conrad
Take the United States. Here is the richest and most capitalistically advanced country on the planet (to use István Mészáros’ perceptive emphasis). It is also one of the most religious. There is, in other words, no automatic correlation between the progress or modernisation of the productive forces and the diminution of religious superstition.

An utterly a-historical observation. Consider how "religious" the U.S. was in 1950? Or 1900? Or 1850? Or 1800?

The influence of religious superstitions in American life has steadily decreased as capitalism has steadily advanced.

Yes, there have been "great revivals"...a fair number of them -- each one less successful than its predecessor.

Conrad, writing in 1998, evidently thinks the current "great revival" is "the real thing" and will actually achieve long-term success in bringing America "back to God".

It won't happen...even if we have to endure a period of outright Christian fascism.

On a global scale, the modernization of productive forces has inevitably compelled the decline of religious superstition.


[email protected]
Thus from these heavily redacted writings [The New Testament], if approached critically, it is possible to discover both the society and the contending ideas that produced Jesus and which saw the Jesus party transform itself over the span of three centuries from an organised expression of a communistic ideology of the oppressed into the state religion of imperial Rome.

So according to this pseudo-Marxist, "Jesus" really "was" a "communist". :lol:

As grotesque a hypothesis as any that I've ever seen produced "in the name of Marx".

Conrad relies heavily on Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity (1908) for his portrayal of "Jesus the communist".

The Proletarian Character of the Community (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch09.htm#s3)

Kautsky wrote, of course, without access to any modern Biblical scholarship...though I still think he was being dishonest.

Why? To make communism "acceptable" to the religious proletariat of his era.

Which is what Conrad wants to do! :angry:


Conrad
Jesus was a brave - albeit an ultra-left - revolutionary who wrongly staked all not on the masses, but a coup and outside intervention.

He didn't study Trotsky! :lol:

I've had the misfortune of reading an enormous amount of pure crap written by so-called "Marxists".

This document leaps to the head of my personal shit list!

Verdict: http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck32.gif

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

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:33 AM
Verdict: http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck32.gif
As with all other aspects of theory and history, the above is the extent of RedStar's insight and analysis. Personally, I am glad he is and will remain a poseur. If he actually had the nads to be active, he might be dangerous.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles
Personally, I am glad he is and will remain a poseur.

Personally, I find it regrettable that neither you nor Severian can halt your collective descent into personal abuse as a substitute for argument.

When you're not throwing up on each other, you're both delighted to take a few swings at me.

What do you think all the other people on this board gain from your verbal antics?

Do you imagine that dredging up all the "old left curse words" from the last century contributes to the political development of the people here?

I don't see how it does anything but discredit you and, by inference, anything that you might have to say in the way of political expression.

If you think I'm wrong about something, fair enough. You can say that without implying that I'm some sort of political cockroach in need of a fatal dose of insecticide.

I manage to do that with you (and Severian). If I can manage it, why can't you guys?

Do you imagine that if you were to succeed in personally "discrediting" me that people would just stop "paying attention" to my posts?

It's the old 20th century methodology: he's a Trot so nothing he says can be worth anything; he's a Maoist so nothing he says can be worth anything; he's an old guy who just types stuff on a computer, so nothing he says can be worth anything; she's just some teenager so nothing she says can be worth anything.

In the folly of my youth when I was rather impressed by one V.I. Lenin, one of the things I found most impressive was the manner in which he would quote (sometimes at considerable length) what his adversaries said and then explain in detail just why he thought they were wrong.

Can you imagine Lenin writing "oh, he's just a do-nothing Menshevik ultra-leftist petty-bourgeois cowardly poseur...he'll never amount to shit so there's no reason for anybody to pay any attention to his crap!".

Had he followed your example, his Collected Works would have been shorter by half. :lol:

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

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
As with all other aspects of theory and history, the above is the extent of RedStar's insight and analysis.

And how are ad-hominem attacks indicative of your own intellectual capacity? Abusive hyperbole makes you sound like a second grader.

[boosh logic]

Red Star, I made a similar point on a different post, where posts turned to criticising one of the right-wingers by making fun of their personal attributes instead of saying why they are wrong, which achieves nothing as it instantly turns what were decent arguments into just a competition of who can insult the other one more before they shut up.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 4 2006, 05:01 PM
And how are ad-hominem attacks indicative of your own intellectual capacity?
It's not indicative, and I never claimed it was. But if you want a gauge of intellectual capacity, try this link (http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/wr2005q4-theses.html).

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by boosh [email protected] 4 2006, 05:55 PM
Red Star, I made a similar point on a different post, where posts turned to criticising one of the right-wingers by making fun of their personal attributes instead of saying why they are wrong, which achieves nothing as it instantly turns what were decent arguments into just a competition of who can insult the other one more before they shut up.
It's often the case that right-wing "arguments" are so poorly constructed and self-evidently nonsensical that people would prefer to simply "poke fun" at them and at the people who put them forward.

Not to mention the observed fact that internet righties are, as a group, not "the smartest guys in the room".

But your point is not without merit. If one is going to take the trouble to criticize a right-wing viewpoint, then it follows that one should actually make an effort to respond to the righty's specific points.

I've done that sometimes...but to be honest, most of the time it is a waste of time.

You end up feeling foolish because you spent a half-hour crafting a thoughtful post and the righty's response is a barrage of mindless cliches.

At the moment, we have only one cappie on the board who actually makes an effort to respond with rational arguments. I sort of wish, sometimes, that we had a couple of people from The Economist here to argue with...it would sharpen us up a lot to really have to deal with sophisticated bourgeois ideologues.

And wouldn't things be more interesting here if we could actually confront the "big dogs" of contemporary Leninism?

I'd love to "have a go" with Bob Avakian or one of those big-name British Trotskyists that people here link to from time to time. :D

Unfortunately, they are "too important" for the likes of us. :lol:

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

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 4 2006, 03:35 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 4 2006, 03:35 PM)
Miles
Personally, I am glad he is and will remain a poseur.

Personally, I find it regrettable that neither you nor Severian can halt your collective descent into personal abuse as a substitute for argument.

When you're not throwing up on each other, you're both delighted to take a few swings at me.

What do you think all the other people on this board gain from your verbal antics?

Do you imagine that dredging up all the "old left curse words" from the last century contributes to the political development of the people here?

I don't see how it does anything but discredit you and, by inference, anything that you might have to say in the way of political expression.

If you think I'm wrong about something, fair enough. You can say that without implying that I'm some sort of political cockroach in need of a fatal dose of insecticide.

I manage to do that with you (and Severian). If I can manage it, why can't you guys?

Do you imagine that if you were to succeed in personally "discrediting" me that people would just stop "paying attention" to my posts?

It's the old 20th century methodology: he's a Trot so nothing he says can be worth anything; he's a Maoist so nothing he says can be worth anything; he's an old guy who just types stuff on a computer, so nothing he says can be worth anything; she's just some teenager so nothing she says can be worth anything.

In the folly of my youth when I was rather impressed by one V.I. Lenin, one of the things I found most impressive was the manner in which he would quote (sometimes at considerable length) what his adversaries said and then explain in detail just why he thought they were wrong.

Can you imagine Lenin writing "oh, he's just a do-nothing Menshevik ultra-leftist petty-bourgeois cowardly poseur...he'll never amount to shit so there's no reason for anybody to pay any attention to his crap!".

Had he followed your example, his Collected Works would have been shorter by half. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
I think you have a nerve trying to rally against "personal abuse". In the time I have been here, personal abuse -- and abuse of your position -- has been the standard fare of your posts. One only needs to read through your posts against people supporting the dialectical method, including your threats to restrict such people to OI (albeit couched in just enough equivocation to comfort the rest of the admin clique), to see that.

So, you get your wish, RedStar. I'm going into lurk mode for a while. From now on, you can trash Marx and communism to your heart's content without having to worry about me.

You are the reason the petty bourgeoisie is not allowed in the League.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Redstar, is there any evidence he did not exist? Or is it simply a case of no evidence pointing either way?

I've been somewhat curious of this for a while.

Please check out 'The God who wasn't there'

If you download movies (in a program like BitComet) you can find it fairly easily, or if you have money, you can order it from http://www.thegodmovie.com/

It's really a "must see".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here are some links on it:

Did Jesus Exist? (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html)

How Jesus Got A Life (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html)

The Bible and Jesus Myths (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/myth.html)

Where Jesus Never Walked (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html)

Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html)

[nickdlc]

Please check out 'The God who wasn't there'

I agree CDL the god who wasnt there is very good. Also i recently saw a bbc documentary called "the root of all evil?" and the host is Richard Dawkins (of "selfish gene" fame).

You can find a torrent for "the root of all evil" at chomsky torrents
there are two parts to the video

part 1: http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDeta...p?TorrentID=821 (http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=821)
part 2: http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDeta...p?TorrentID=822 (http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=822)

[Dien Bien]

Here's what I have to say on religion:

I personally believe that God exists, but I'm not going to even try to convince anyone else that He does. We can neither prove nor disprove His existence, so I think that we should just leave everyone to their own thoughts on that matter.

Did Jesus exist? No one knows; you just believe what you believe. Is the Bible all bullshit? Could be. I'd bet money that at least some of it is. But you know what? It doesn't matter. What matters is the message that you get from the Bible, from Jesus. Personally, the message I get is one of caring for others, of working together for the greater good and not for selfish gain or profit, of us all being equals.

I know that many of you strongly believe that Jesus was not a communist, but I disagree. I think that some of you are too caught up in hating Jesus and God and religion to step back and take a truly open and objective look at the message. I came away from reading the New Testament even more concrete in my communist beliefs.

The ideas of Jesus (whether the man was real or not) are, in my opinion, undeniably leftwing. And thats the important part. Don't bash people's religious beliefs, don't try to convert them to athiesm, but use those beliefs in your favour. I think that by showing people who already claim to be believers (what I consider to be) the true communist spirit of Chirstianity, we could stand to win many of them over politically.

It just doesn't matter whether you believe in God and Jesus or not.... it makes no difference at all. What matters is that we share the same basic social values (equality, cooperation, helping the less fortunate, etc.).

We must put our petty differences aside and work together towards communism. As communists, it is actually even more important that we put differences aside and not criticise other for their beliefs on matters such as religion, because if we didn't work to get along despite our differences could we truly claim to be communists?

As for the original question of was Jesus a revolutionary, I would say yes, and by today's standards, a leftist one.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I personally believe that God exists, but I'm not going to even try to convince anyone else that He does.

Maybe not but I have no reservation in thinking that you will do whatever it takes to serve that god in order to secure your place in an "afterlife", and that is unnexceptable if your going to call yourself a communist.


We can neither prove

Therefore, we dont have to do this,


disprove His existence

See Lazar's stickied thread at the top titled, "Who holds the burden of proof"


Is the Bible all bullshit?

Yes


But you know what? It doesn't matter.

Of course it fucking matters. We cant have people who believe in crazy ass stories calling themselves rational communists. THEY ARENT!


What matters is the message that you get from the Bible, from Jesus. Personally, the message I get is one of caring for others, of working together for the greater good and not for selfish gain or profit, of us all being equals.

Really? The message I get is give up all your shit and be poor and buy me some fucking foot cream because I am your lord.

There is absolutely no reason for taking your thoughts and values,that you live every single day of your life with, from a sexist, racist, slavebearing ancient pile of shit called a book.


The ideas of Jesus (whether the man was real or not) are, in my opinion, undeniably leftwing

They are undeniably related to what conmen do.


Don't bash people's religious beliefs, don't try to convert them to athiesm

Ill do the first as much and often as possilbe in an effective way, if they want to be atheists then great, but I do not have to convert them to shit history has been taking care of that for us.


I think that by showing people who already claim to be believers (what I consider to be) the true communist spirit of Chirstianity, we could stand to win many of them over politically.

There is nothing communistic about the bible, the bible promises you wealth in "heaven". Communists want to make positive material changes here ON FUCKING EARTH.

You sound like a reformist, even the liberation theologists cant fucking do what you propose, and they've been at it for years!


It just doesn't matter whether you believe in God and Jesus or not

Of course it does, its a blatant indicator of rationality.


matters is that we share the same basic social values (equality, cooperation, helping the less fortunate, etc.).

You make communism sound like a fucking charity. Maybe you should join the democratic party. Communism is not about "helping the less fortunate" IT'S ABOUT LESS FORUTNATE LIBERATION! Never again to have to live in a wage slave shit world!


as communists, it is actually even more important that we put differences aside and not criticise other for their beliefs on matters such as religion

You need to research exactly what communism is before you say bullshit like this


because if we didn't work to get along despite our differences could we truly claim to be communists?

By being different we are communists, WE DONT TOLERATE BULLSHIT.


As for the original question of was Jesus a revolutionary, I would say yes, and by today's standards, a leftist one.

By todays standards youd label him as a drifting lunatic hobo



Why must these godsuckers only quote Jesus? Why do you try to hide sections of the bible where it says to stone non believers to death, opress women, keep your slaves, etc?

We wont fall for that bullshit.

[James]

its utter nonesense assuming that one has the "correct interpretation" of the bible. Be it communistic or anti-female or whatever.
Some bits do heavily imply contradictions.

Indeed what is the bible.

It's basically what the catholic church said it was. So each and every interpretation ultimately depends on the fundamental interpretation by a few individuals, a couple hundred years ago, as to what books were "correct" (and thus to be included), and those books which were heresy or "incorrect".

I think the only thing you can safely assume is that you are wrong/don't know everything.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dien Bien
I personally believe that God exists.

And what would you say if someone said to you: I personally believe that Elves exist.?

And then went on to argue that "Elves" were "the first communists". That we need to study "Elf Theory" and the "Wisdom of the Elves" to reach communism. That we must learn to "live like the Elves" in order to become real communists.

Would you suggest that I should "put aside my differences" with this open Elfist and "unite with him"?

Maybe you'd be willing to do that...since you both believe in mythological entities that do not exist.

I am not willing to do that and I don't think any serious communist is willing to do that. Our concerns are real and we have no patience with mythology.

I see no reason whatsoever that we should.

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