As Members of the Revolutionary Left.... [Archive]

TakeBackChechnya

5th April 2006, 20:11

Does this mean that you supported the US invasion,

With George shithead Bush as the leader? No.

or merely preferred it to the maintaining Saddam?

Yes, by far.

I am assuming that a favoured option would have been an internal revolution by the people of Iraq, and self-governance in the aftermath?

The Iraqis had provent hemselves incapable of revolting against Saddam. At the peak of his power, Saddam's armies boasted nearly 2 million equipped men, hundreds of thusands were veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, a superior air force for an Arab nation, and dangerous Soviet and Chinese technologies. His policy of "Arabization" weakened the Kurdish will to resist, the peshmerga fought bravely but never got the independant state they wanted, the Halabja incident shows how Hussein kept power, and how far he was willing to go to keep it.

As an atheist and a materialist i have to condem it just as i would any religion.

So let me get this straight, most of you are heavilly against any form of organized faith?

For fundementalists their treatment of women is completely unacceptable and wrong. No human being should be dominant over another. No one should be confined to thier house or force to conform to a role.

Correct, but this idea of wifebeating and the opression of women is grossly overblown. Most of these tales of women opressors come from Taliban era Afghanistan and Iran, countries like Libya, Egypt, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are much more free lands, even though many wouldn't wish to believe it I've been to each, and women are treated there as equally as they are here.

The idea of submission to god is repulsive.

To you it may be, but to me it is something great.

You can certainly be 'left wing' and religious but only to a point. At some point you have to choose between what you can see, understand, and reason and what you believe without evidence (faith).

I don't know how much farther left I could go then while retaining my faith. :)

Let's start with this first,

how do you feel about queer peoples? That is, lesbian/gay/bi/trans/intersex peoples?

I really don't mind them at all, I see them as fellow humans, I've never formulated an opinion of homsexual marriage yet though.

TakeBackChechnya

5th April 2006, 20:14

sennomulo & Disciple of Prometheus:

I am not a fundamentalist Muslim, I don't agree with every moral it lays out in some cases. I don't believe in "punishing" gays, or enslaving people, and much of those quotes are taken out of context, read the part of the Quran they are in to understand.

Lord Testicles

5th April 2006, 20:30

So let me get this straight, most of you are heavily against any form of organized faith?

Most of us disagree with faith, because it is unrealistic and irrational.

The idea of submission to god is repulsive.

To you it may be, but to me it is something great.

You think that to be submissive to a higher being is "great"? The idea that anyone is higher than anyone else is totally against the idea of leftism.

I've never formulated an opinion of homosexual marriage yet though.

Why should someone not have the right to get married just because of there sexual orientation?

Disciple of Prometheus

5th April 2006, 20:34

To you it may be, but to me it is something great.

So you like being submissive and being a servent to allah?

and much of those quotes are taken out of context, read the part of the Quran they are in to understand.

How are they out of context, it says right there, black and white, does it continue to say the clerics will punish me with candy? Or is the punishment sitting on some naughty stool? I don't see how that could be taken out of context.

LSD

5th April 2006, 20:34

So let me get this straight, most of you are heavilly against any form of organized faith?

More than that, we're against any form of "faith", be it organized or otherwise!

"Faith" is an inherently destructive an coercive entity that is fundamentally contrary to a materialist understanding of the universe. The glamourization of irrationality and the promotion of blind obediance are two of the most dangerous concepts in human history.

Reason and logic are debatable. In a reasoning society, policy can be fairly and democratically discussed.

But once "faith" enters into it, fruitful dialogue becomes impossible. The "faithful" don't only disregard logic, they intentionaly ignore it! And so when a "believer" proposes some reactionary measure like a ban on abortion or a ban on homosexual adoption, there is simply no way to reason with them.

Until religion is removed from all aspects of puplic life, a free society will be impossible. Without any hyperbole, "the sacred religion of Islam" is an enemy of human progress and must defeated.

Correct, but this idea of wifebeating and the opression of women is grossly overblown.

"Overblown"? How exactly is it "overblown"?

The suppression of women in the middle-east is one of the worst examples of subjugation and oppression in the world today. That fifty percent of the population of such a vast area lives in virtual slavery is unspeakably reprehensible and how you could even attempt to defend such atrocity is frankly beyond me.

Personally, I'm hoping that this is all a joke because I really don't want to believe that you could be this insane.

Most of these tales of women opressors come from Taliban era Afghanistan and Iran, countries like Libya, Egypt, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are much more free lands, even though many wouldn't wish to believe it I've been to each, and women are treated there as equally as they are here.

Ok, now I know you're joking!

Women in the "kingdom of Suadi Arabia ... are treated a as equally as they are in the [west]"??? :blink:

"treated a as equally as they are in the [west]"??? :o

I'm sorry, I had to quote that line twice there as my mind refuses to acknowledge that you actually said that.

There is probably no country on the planet right now that is more oppressive than Saudi Arabia. It is an unspeakably horrific place to be a women and it is in no way a "free land".

Did you, perhaps, forget about the religious police forces? About the forced burkas? About the many many women who have burned alive because the authorities wouldn't let them leave a burning building uncovered?

How on earth do you justify calling a fundamentalist salafist despotism like Saudi Arabia "free" or equating its civil rights to those found in the west???

Let me tell you, if I didn't have enough reason to restrict you before, I certainly do now. Clearly, OI is the only forum appropriate for you. I don't care if you call yourself a "socialist", you are certainly no comrade of mine! :angry:

To you it may be, but to me it is something great.

Perhaps, but the problem with seeing subjugation as "great" in a metaphysical sense, is that it inevitable leads to supporting subjugation in a practical one.

That is, if "God" must be obeyed in all things, then so must those who "speak in his name" or read from "his words". Once you accept the premise that there is an infallible source of authority, you tacitly accept hierarchy as a social model

I really don't mind them at all, I see them as fellow humans

Well, their Humanity has never been in question, their rights, however, clearly are.

So, again, what is your opinion regarding homosexual activity and homosexual rights? Do you agree with the Koran that homosexuality is "abomination"?

And if not, how can you selectively interpret the "words of God"? Did not Mohammed perfectly transcribe the words the Archangel spoke to him in the cave? Are not his writings the "unadulterated" scripture of "Allah"?

If you truly believe in Muslim superstitious doctrine, then by what right to you defy the words of your "lord"?

Eleutherios

5th April 2006, 22:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:23 PM
sennomulo & Disciple of Prometheus:

I am not a fundamentalist Muslim, I don't agree with every moral it lays out in some cases. I don't believe in "punishing" gays, or enslaving people, and much of those quotes are taken out of context, read the part of the Quran they are in to understand.
I fail to see the logic in accepting a religion based on a supposedly divine text written by a divine prophet with a direct link to God, then disagreeing with some parts of it just because they clash with your own senses of reason and empathy. It's up to you to explain why the institution of slavery is not condemned once in God's direct word to man. Why would he just tell us to treat our slaves nice? Why doesn't he say "hey, guys, slavery is a gross violation of basic human rights"? God can save Moses and his followers from persecution with the snap of his fingers, but he left the slaves of the world in oppression for centuries until they took action to liberate themselves?

redstar2000

5th April 2006, 22:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:43 PM
I am a left winger myself but I am religious. How do you feel about Islam?
About the same way I feel about AIDS.

Hopefully we'll find a cure before the end of this century.

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

CLOCKWORK ORANGE

5th April 2006, 22:25

I am a left winger myself but I am religious.
How can you be left wing and religious?

How do you feel about Islam?
My feelings are that it should be destroyed, along with Christianity, Judaism, and all other religions.

More Fire for the People

6th April 2006, 00:12

How do I feel about Islam? The same way Marx does. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm).

Dark Exodus

6th April 2006, 02:13

About the same way I feel about AIDS.

Coulden't have said it better myself.

CubaSocialista

6th April 2006, 03:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:52 AM
Islam like other non-marxist ideologies is incorrect and silly but useful in circumstances where it organizes people against imperialism like in Palestine and Iraq and harmful if it organizes people in a reactionary fashion like in Iran, Afghanistan, parts of Iraq, Yugoslavia and Chechnya.

No offense intended but how am I supposed to believe in Marxism if it belittles the sacred religion of Islam? Islam is not a tool for anyone to strategically impose their beliefs or political goals on anyone else, Saddam Hussein did that in the last ten years of his rule in Iraq and while I don't like the Americans treading on Muslim lands, I find tyrants everywhere to be bad people who are allowed to stick around longer than they should.
Comrade, as long as your faith remains a spiritual inspiration upon which you do not act upon as a universal truth to others, there is no reason for you to think that your religion will conflict with Marxism.

Simply, Marxism's anti-religious stance comes from the fact that A) it's often used by upper classes to mislead people and B) it divides people.

However, if you're interested in Marxism, it's likely that you do not believe Islam should be used to mislead others or make them prejudiced, and you do not want it to become a divisive issue with your comrades.

However, certain Islamic cultural things like sexism, hard-line Sharia law, etc. shouldn't be of mention or importance.

As well, I would not bring religious beliefs into conflict with others or show any disrespect or dislike for other religions (a.k.a. you can criticize the Vatican and Catholicism in its reactionary manner, but you cannot say all Catholics are "blood drinking fanatics" or whatever. or you can be firmly Anti-Zionist (as we all are) but not anti-semitic, and not critical of Israel for things we do not criticize other nations for. but that's simply because we believe in the brotherhood of humyns and do not hold any nations to higher standards than others.

basically, your spirituality is fine, as is your faith or pious manner. just don't make it a political motivation in such a manner that it divides people, makes a prejudice, or misleads people. since that happens alot with religion.

welcome to the fold, comrade

CubaSocialista

6th April 2006, 03:17

By the way, when someone shows open-mindedness and an acceptance to Marxism, I would suggest we show them the same respect we show any comrade, no matter how that person's personality or personal spirituality differs from our own.

Anyone who believes in the Communist ideal in the way it should be seen can hold whatever religion they choose for themselves.

Religion is not a one way street to theocracy. Religions may be obsolete "pseudo-sciences" of old to us, but it is within civilization's current mindset, no matter how progressive we see ourselves.

Let's not alienate potential allies, and let's definitely not condemn all religion as a plague...Can't we put forth legitimate criticisms and tolerance instead of some things I see here?

Or perhaps I'm a reformist. I am after all a Soviet-Era leftover.

More Fire for the People

6th April 2006, 03:23

Cuba Socialista: postmodernistic liberalism much? Faith in the unknown by definition is irrational. Marxism is a scientific [rational] doctrine. Of course, the absence of evidence doesn’t mean the evidence of absence, but to have faith is still irrational.

Cheung Mo

6th April 2006, 03:51

Saddam sucked, but compared to lunatics like Sistani, who calls for Shi'ite Muslims to kill homosexuals and Sunnis on the streets, the man's a saint.

Ian

6th April 2006, 06:26

Al-Sistani advocates peace between Shia and Sunni. Don't know what he thinks about homosexuals, but I'm sure he's a piece of shit.

redstar2000

6th April 2006, 09:04

Originally posted by CubaSocialista
Religion is not a one way street to theocracy.

That is exactly what it "is". :angry:

At its heart, every religion dreams of being the only religion and determining the complete range of permitted human behavior "according to God's Will".

What serious believers really want is to be "God's Police Force on Earth".

Naturally, this is rarely said in a forthright way...except when they think they have the power to make it happen!

Let's not alienate potential allies, and let's definitely not condemn all religion as a plague...

They are not "potential allies" and all religion is a plague! :angry:

I am after all a Soviet-Era leftover.

And a good illustration of one of the reasons why your "era" was a catastrophic failure. You "tolerated religion" until sleazy godsuckers like Gorbachev and Yeltsin took over your "communist" party and wrecked everything!

Good work! :angry:

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

Lord Testicles

6th April 2006, 10:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:26 AM
By the way, when someone shows open-mindedness and an acceptance to Marxism, I would suggest we show them the same respect we show any comrade, no matter how that person's personality or personal spirituality differs from our own.
Look in the trashcan, the guy wouldn't have known communism if it smacked him in the face. He was seriously misguided.

Redeye

6th April 2006, 10:54

Islam, like any religon has to be dismantled and exposed as the bullshit it is.

Intifada

6th April 2006, 14:01

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 5 2006, 09:19 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 5 2006, 09:19 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 07:43 PM
I am a left winger myself but I am religious. How do you feel about Islam?
About the same way I feel about AIDS.

Hopefully we'll find a cure before the end of this century.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
:lol:

That has to be the funniest thing I have read on this board.

Nicky Scarfo

6th April 2006, 16:27

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 6 2006, 08:13 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 6 2006, 08:13 AM)
CubaSocialista
Religion is not a one way street to theocracy.

That is exactly what it "is". :angry:

At its heart, every religion dreams of being the only religion and determining the complete range of permitted human behavior "according to God's Will".

What serious believers really want is to be "God's Police Force on Earth".

Naturally, this is rarely said in a forthright way...except when they think they have the power to make it happen!

Let's not alienate potential allies, and let's definitely not condemn all religion as a plague...

They are not "potential allies" and all religion is a plague! :angry:

I am after all a Soviet-Era leftover.

And a good illustration of one of the reasons why your "era" was a catastrophic failure. You "tolerated religion" until sleazy godsuckers like Gorbachev and Yeltsin took over your "communist" party and wrecked everything!

Good work! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
I'm a militant atheist and agree with most of what you say here, except this:

They are not "potential allies"

That's total bullshit. Although decidedly a minority, and by no means an argument against disposing of religion entirely, religious leftists have made significant contributions to the cause of social progress.

People like Father Hagerty, Gustavo Guttierez, Camilo Torres Restrepo, and Gerrard Winstanley did more to fight for socialism than I'm willing to bet anybody on this board has. I will continue to advocate for a religion-free society, but I'm not gonna say there's no such thing as a religious socialist either (because there plainly are) or say that someone's not a potential ally in struggle just because they hold some beliefs I regard as irrational superstitions.

In the labor movement we often find ourselves allied with religious organizations and leaders, so what am I gonna do, say "no, Father, we don't want your help on this strike because religion is a plague on the working-class"? Or lambast otherwise progressive fellow union members and leaders for going to church? I don't think so. If anyone asks my opinion on the subject, I'll argue against religion till the cows come home, but that's no reason to reject religious people as potential allies out of hand.

Rejecting support for social progress based solely and exclusively on the fact they happen to belong to an organized religion is a grave strategic error. If you haven't noticed, we (socialists) ain't been doin so hot lately. We can use all the help we can get and we don't have the luxury of choosing allies in the struggle based solely on some personal belief (or lack thereof) in a supreme being.

redstar2000

6th April 2006, 19:58

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
People like Father Hagerty, Gustavo Guttierez, Camilo Torres Restrepo, and Gerrard Winstanley did more to fight for socialism than I'm willing to bet anybody on this board has.

I hate it when people make me work...having to go off to Wikipedia to look up a list of religious "bit-players" is a royal pain in the ass!

Ok, here we go...

1. Father Hagerty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Hagerty) -- was one of some 200 individuals who were present at the founding convention of the Industrial Workers of the World. He was not a priest at the time, by the way. Apparently he became a "Christian anarchist" towards the end of his life.

2. Gustavo Gutierrez (http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/1999-00/99-126.html) -- the Jesuit founder of the "Liberation Theology" racket.

3. Camilo Torres Restrepo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilo_Torres_Restrepo) -- another "liberation theologian" but with greater prestige among the ignorant since he was killed in combat with the Colombian Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN). The ELN is presently negotiating its surrender to the Colombian authorities.

4. Gerrard Winstanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrard_Winstanley) -- Gerrard Winstanley was an English Protestant religious reformer and political activist during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. Winstanley was aligned with the group known as the True Levellers for their beliefs, based upon Christian communism, and as the Diggers for their actions because they took over public lands and dug them up to plant crops.

So what have we here? A peasant "communist" from the 17th century. A renegade ex-priest from New Mexico. And two "liberation theologians"...one of whom managed to get his ass killed.

Woo hoo! Break out the champaign!

In the labor movement we often find ourselves allied with religious organizations and leaders, so what am I gonna do?

Suck up to them, of course. The present-day "labor movement" is so bad that even the priests couldn't make things any worse.

It's when the workers really rebel -- even in the form of a "wildcat" strike -- that you must tell those "religious organizations and leaders" to fuck off!

Because if you don't, they'll be telling the workers to be "peaceful" and "negotiate an agreement" (surrender) with the bosses.

Up to you.

Rejecting support for social progress based solely and exclusively on the fact they happen to belong to an organized religion is a grave strategic error.

Another "argument" that's raised over and over again...we "need to be popular" so we "have to suck up" to anybody who's willing to let us.

No, we don't "need to be popular"; we need to tell people the truth! That's where real popularity begins...a reputation for honesty!

A reputation for "strategic cleverness" does not help us...the bourgeoisie has a lock on that one!

And "social progress" is just babble; I'm only really interested in proletarian revolution.

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

cyu

6th April 2006, 21:04

There are a lot of religious people in the world. If I had the choice of turning them all into religious socialists or non-religious capitalists, I'd pick religious socialists. Of course, I would prefer it if everyone was an agnostic like me too, but I don't feel it's necessary.

All you atheists are deluded! You should all be agnostic, the only logical choice! We must abolish your atheism if the revolution is to proceed!

I'm only kidding of course. It doesn't really matter to me what you believe about a supreme being if we agree on the more important things, like politics and economics. I could start a whole thread here arguing why atheism is illogical, but I don't see any value to anyone even if you all did believe the same thing I do in this regard. It wouldn't be worth the effort.

LSD

6th April 2006, 23:10

There are a lot of religious people in the world. If I had the choice of turning them all into religious socialists or non-religious capitalists, I'd pick religious socialists.

And if I had the "choice" of going to work tomorrow or not, I'd choose not. Unfortunately, though, the world doesn't work like that.

You may "prefer" religous socialists to atheist cappies, but that's a made-up dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot have atheist communists!

Besides, even accepting your paradigm, at least atheist capitalists can be reasoned with. In my life, I've argued with many different kinds of people and without a doubt the most frustrating were with the "faithful".

You see, when a person "believes" his opinions instead of holding them, he becomes a brick wall. There's no reasoning with "God" and so there's no convincing the believers on any issue which intersects "God's word".

Now, that's not to say that religious people can't change. Hell, we even have an admin on this board who used to be a die-hard religious believer! :o

But nonetheless it is undeniably harder to convince the religious to abandon their faith than to convice capitalists to abandon capitalism.

Capitalism, you see, doesn't offer "paradise".

And, as I've said before many times, I may not respect libertarianism, but I understand it. It emerges from an attempt at a logical and rational analysis. I believe that it is genuinely flawed attempt, but it is an attempt nonetheless.

On the other hand, I cannot understand "faith". It simply mystifies me why someone would knowingly give up their mind and abandon their basic human reason.

Frankly, I would rather be locked in a room with a rational capitalist than a Christian "socialist". At least with the capitalist, I wouldn't have to discuss my "mortal soul"... <_<

I could start a whole thread here arguing why atheism is illogical

It's already been done: Agnosticism Debate (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361)

redstar2000

7th April 2006, 01:13

Originally posted by cyu
All you atheists are deluded! You should all be agnostic, the only logical choice!

Agnosticism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111678407&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

cyu

7th April 2006, 01:29

You see, when a person "believes" his opinions instead of holding them, he becomes a brick wall. There's no reasoning with "God" and so there's no convincing the believers on any issue which intersects "God's word".

That's the thing - I wouldn't be arguing with the religious socialist at all. If I don't need to convince the homosexual socialist to be heterosexual, I also don't need to convince the religious socialist to be non-religious. It just doesn't matter to me. If they've reached the same conclusions as me regarding political economics, it doesn't matter to me how they arrived at those conclusions.

Would you persecute religious socialists after the revolution? You could try to educate them and convince them the errors of their ways, but what if they refuse to listen? What if they shut the doors of their church on you? Will you be closing down churches? Banning religious speech? Freedom of religion as long as it's atheist?

red team

7th April 2006, 02:07

But nonetheless it is undeniably harder to convince the religious to abandon their faith than to convince capitalists to abandon capitalism.

Capitalism, you see, doesn't offer "paradise".

That is a debatable point.

If they are indeed Capitalist by the formal definition of the term instead of simply Capitalism Advocates, they have an objective material interest in the continued existence of the system. I would really expect these type of people to fight on beyond any reasonable debate even to the point of violent conflict.

There's a crude saying with Capitalists that goes like this: Money Talks, Bullshit Walks

They may feed people the bullshit of religion, but when it comes to taking away their loot or source of excess money. Watch Out!

As for the religious belief in an immortal soul, that's easy enough to dispel.
Just follow this hypothetical conversation:

god sucker: follow my religion or your soul will go to hell.

atheist: You believe in an immortal, unchanging soul so that means you're the same person spiritually as when you're born. Am I right?

god sucker: Yes, I suppose.

atheist: Tell me how many times have you gone to the toilet after eating in your lifetime?
Clearly you don't have an immortal soul because the atoms in your body isn't the "same" atoms you have in your body since you were born. Cells in your body die and are produced all the time. Does it mean parts of your soul dies and are produced all the time? What about all the atoms that you've flushed down the toilet? If you do have an immortal soul, that soul must have been flushed down the toilet many times over. :lol:

If the god sucker haven't yet lost all reasoning capacity he'll toddle off to think about what you've just said. If the "member of the faithful" that you've just been talking to have lost all reasoning capacity then he's a lost cause. I doubt there are that many people that are lost causes. There are some totally brain-dead diehards, but I think less than what you would expect. Simply functioning in daily life in a modern society insures that you must be minimally reasonable.

Nicky Scarfo

7th April 2006, 02:08

was one of some 200 individuals who were present at the founding convention of the Industrial Workers of the World.

Also devised the IWW's Chart of Industrial Organization.

He was not a priest at the time, by the way

No, because he was already excommunicated for labor agitation.

So what have we here? A peasant "communist" from the 17th century. A renegade ex-priest from New Mexico. And two "liberation theologians"...one of whom managed to get his ass killed.

Woo hoo! Break out the champaign!

All four of whom I'm willing to bet risked a lot more than anyone on this forum has to advance socialism and had a great impact.

Another "argument" that's raised over and over again...we "need to be popular" so we "have to suck up" to anybody who's willing to let us.

Wrong. When did I say we needed to "suck up" to anyone? When did I say atheist socialists should sacrifice their principles and keep quiet? In fact, I stated the contrary. Hell, I've argued against prayers at union meetings, but if that's what the majority of people want to do I'm wasting my time trying to argue them out of doing it. I'd rather let them pray and get on with the business of real class-struggle in the here and now rather than waste everybody's time by launching into endless diatribes against religion that will only shatter unity in the middle of a class war.

You are asserting a logically false position-- that accepting comrades in struggle regardless of whether they believe in a god or not is tantamount to "sucking up" to religion. We're soldiers in the class war and we don't need to be turning away other soldiers willing to fight for their class simply because of their belief in a supreme being. That's fuckin insane in my opinion.

Someone wants to fight for their class and for a just and democratic society and economy than I could give a fuck less if they believe in Jesus, Allah or the fuckin Easter Bunny (provided they do not want to impose their religious faith on others). That's their damn business and revolutionaries don't have the luxury of turning away support b/c they can't agree with someone on a personal belief. It's just as effective as the Sparts' strategy of starting fights with everybody who disagrees with them one iota rather than getting over being so goddamn correct all the time and building a damn movement.

A reputation for "strategic cleverness" does not help us...the bourgeoisie has a lock on that one!

If strategy is irrelevant to our side because the enemy has a lock on it then we're cooked.

And "social progress" is just babble; I'm only really interested in proletarian revolution.

Social progress ain't babble. It's the fuckin reason we can debate shit like this on the internet instead of farming some feudal lord's land. It's the reason I can attend a union meeting in North Carolina with Black, White and Hispanic workers and not worry about the fuckin Klan firebombing us. We got a LONG way to go, that's for damn sure, but others came before us and got beaten, murdered, imprisoned and deported to ensure "social progress". Just cause things didn't end up the way we wanted them to, with a glorious revoultion is no reason to belittle social progress, and by exension, the people who fought and suffered for that progress.

It's like revolutionary leftists who constantly whine about the Civil Rights movement not having been "revolutionary" enough and being led (or co-opted) by the bourgoeisie and religious leaders. That's all true and better results surely could have been acheived through other means/leadership/strategy/organization. And its important to make those criticisms so as to avoid future mistakes. But it is equally important to recognize that social progress WAS achieved, even if we don't think it was enough, and to give credit where credit is due. And this "social progress" which you deride as babble is the foundation of revolutionary change.

CubaSocialista

7th April 2006, 03:02

redstar2000

7th April 2006, 12:47

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
...real class-struggle in the here and now...

The ritual dance of "labor and capital"...with the tune called by capital, of course.

By all means pray before meetings...you don't have any other chances. :lol:

We're soldiers in the class war and we don't need to be turning away other soldiers willing to fight for their class simply because of their belief in a supreme being. That's fuckin insane in my opinion.

What's "fuckin insane" is the idea that we "are" or "should be" soldiers.

We are or should try to be revolutionaries.

Any dumbass can be a fucking soldier.

I could give a fuck less if they believe in Jesus, Allah or the fuckin Easter Bunny (provided they do not want to impose their religious faith on others). That's their damn business and revolutionaries don't have the luxury of turning away support b/c they can't agree with someone on a personal belief.

Religious people do want to "impose their religious faith on others". It's their religious obligation to do that. Religion is not a simple matter of "personal belief"; it is a reactionary social force.

And always the enemy of communist revolution.

Just cause things didn't end up the way we wanted them to, with a glorious revolution is no reason to belittle social progress, and by extension, the people who fought and suffered for that progress.

You want to build some monuments...go ahead.

I see no reason to celebrate failure or make it sound like "victory".

And this "social progress" which you deride as babble is the foundation of revolutionary change.

If that were true, then it would show. People would emerge from struggles for "social progress" with a more radical outlook than when they went into them.

Doesn't happen...or, to be more precise, only happens when the social order itself approaches collapse.

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

Hiero

7th April 2006, 14:34

And "social progress" is just babble; I'm only really interested in proletarian revolution.

Any revolutionary rhetoric is just babble if your average working is striking for better conditions. How does it sound if they are saying "we want better wages" and your trying to tell people they need to kill the local priest and take over the factory. I think the reply would be get of the drink"

That's why you Redstar need take a nap out back untill the proletarait revolution is a realistic option, if all you are going to do is spew ultra left wing sectiaran nonsense.

In Australia to defeat the IR laws the unions and the progressive parties have worked together with the Church. Some parts of Church here have good conection with many disadvanted people here. We can't be left wing secterian towards the church because they are religious. If the progressive leftist parties here told the religious to piss off, then it would turn around and the anti-IR movement would tell the leftist parties here to piss off. Then it wouldn't matter how much truth you were talking no body would be listening.

Even if we could push out the religious from the anti-IR movement it would not be wise to. Due to their connections with the poor that the Unions can not reach out to nor the political parties.

Your left wing secterianism only hurts building the reputation of revolutionary parites.

On the topic of Islam. Islam is overexagerated. Not on the fact that Islam is oppressive but that how oppressive Islam is, how much of a threat Islam is, and the methods of removing Islam.

The main problem in the Middle East is not Islam, it is brutal imperialism. The main attacks on Islam in the West come from imperialists, pro capitalist. These people cheered the down fall of the USSR. The did not care about the old Muslim nations who without a secular government would fall prey to religious bourgeoisie. These people didn't care then. They only claim to care now because there is a further push for imperialism in the Middle East.

Why should we do the work for the imperialist and constantly attack Islam? We should be constantly attacking Imperialism in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia the main contradiction of the proleterait there is not between them and religious order. It is between the proletariat and the imperialists. In Iraqi the battle is between the people of Iraq and the imperialists.

We should not be wasting our time and become dupes of the imperialist in trying to act in the best interest of oppressed women in the Muslim world. We should be trying to act in the best interest of oppressed people in the neo-colonial world.

Islam is basically a non issue in the Middle East, imperialism is the issue.

redstar2000

7th April 2006, 20:07

Originally posted by Hiero
That's why you Redstar need take a nap out back until the proletariat revolution is a realistic option, if all you are going to do is spew ultra left wing sectarian nonsense....

Your left wing sectarianism only hurts building the reputation of revolutionary parties.

And you? I have no idea what reformist crap you are babbling about but I'm sure it has nothing to do with proletarian revolution.

So go ahead and babble...I ain't stopping you.

The main problem in the Middle East is not Islam, it is brutal imperialism.

Well, yes, in a way.

But note that imperialism is not "opposed" to Islamicism...they simply demand obedient Islamicists.

Just as imperialism has no problem with fascist dictatorships...as long as they are obedient fascist dictatorships.

It's pretty clear that you want to take Islam "off the hook" and think that we should just "look away" from its more embarrassing practices.

Well, screw that one! :angry:

Islam sucks across the board...just like all the rest of the reactionary superstitions that plague this planet.

I can see why you like them.

What reformists and godsuckers always have in common is a superstitious reverence for authority.

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

red team

8th April 2006, 00:26

Religious people do want to "impose their religious faith on others". It's their religious obligation to do that. Religion is not a simple matter of "personal belief"; it is a reactionary social force.

That really depends on what you mean by religious people. They are not a homogenous group and it's a mistake to think that they are.

Are they serious believers or are they unserious believers?

Do they take every single word of their "holy book" as the literal truth and use that as a guide for their daily life or are they just using religion as an emotional crutch?

Are they god leaders or are they god suckers?

Not as clear cut to separate into friend and foe now is it?

Hiero

8th April 2006, 03:36

But note that imperialism is not "opposed" to Islamicism...they simply demand obedient Islamicists.

It is not opposed to Atheism if there are obedient Atheists. Imperialism will make comprador bourgeoisie of anyone.

Therefore Islam has nothing special in regards to Imperialism. Islam is not the main player in oppression of Imperialism. The imperialist do not need Islam to create imperialism.

That should also be taking on the side. It means that Islam is not automatically anti imperialist. There is no contradiction between the imperialist and Islam. It is between the people and the imperialist, Islam is more abstract in the contradiction between national liberation and imperialism.

It's pretty clear that you want to take Islam "off the hook" and think that we should just "look away" from its more embarrassing practices.

No i want to take it off the peoples number one agender. The rise of socialism in Muslim based countries will be the downfall of Islam.

I can see why you like them.

I don't like them, never once said i did. Im just not helping the imperialists with there anti Islam propogada.

Islam is not the main agender, imperialism is. If people are constantly taking a anti-Islam aproach to the Middle East, then 1) they are doing the imperialist's propoganda work 2) they are ignoring imperialism in the middle east.

People need to understand Islam is a non issue in regards to the Middle East.

redstar2000

8th April 2006, 03:37

Originally posted by red team
That really depends on what you mean by religious people. They are not a homogeneous group and it's a mistake to think that they are.

Are they serious believers or are they unserious believers?

No one would contest the observation that unserious believers outnumber serious believers anywheres from 10 to one up to as much as 1,000 to one or more...depending on which religion you sampled.

The smaller the religion, the more likely it is that every believer is serious, of course.

But that doesn't really "solve the problem".

An "unserious" believer is vulnerable to the appeals of the serious believers. That is, he might never think "on his own" that the neighborhood is getting overrun with witches and it's time to start burning some.

But if his "spiritual leaders" start raising a fuss, he's likely to "go along for the ride". :o

Most American Christians probably live pretty normal lives...that is, they pay no attention to Christianity at all except for Sunday rituals.

But suppose their preacher starts "working them up"...you know, Christianity is "under attack" by "secular liberals" and "godless commies".

Well, you just don't know what kind of atrocity they'd be willing to support or even participate in. :o

They are, by definition, mentally unbalanced...and should not really be approached casually or without thought for your own self-defense.

It's all well and good for "western" lefties to think that what happens in Baghdad or Tehran or Warsaw "could never happen here".

That's very dangerous complacency.

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

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 05:57

I feel that Islam is dangerous in a civilized society because it serves no purpose other than to unite warring tribes under one banner. Once there is no more war, the society stagnates economically, culturally and technologically until it's time to fight some more.

This wasn't always so but it seems that those who were the brilliant minds of Islam, the mathemagicians, the poets, the architects, were so assimilated by the Ottoman Turks that the result was a back to the old new Islam that allowed no growth outside of being fanatical about the rules and regulations of the religion.

Jesus tells us that we must just love, that is our only rule, while Muhammed is the seal of the Prophets to a Muslim, the Koran is the perfect word of Allah and it seems that that's all they care about and have cared about for a long time culturally. They've decided that they like being submissive to Allah and by handing Allah that power over their free will they have given up the part of God within us that creates.

So now they can only destroy to keep what they have the way they believe they need to in order to serve Allah.

It's sad. But it's wrong. That's how I feel. I feel it's a cult. Not a religion because they all have to do the same things at the same time 5 times a day, and this is a true fact, if they fart while praying they have to go do wudu, which is ritual cleansing. They have to do wudu all the time because if they don't they think God won't like their prayers. That is a cultish practice, God hears all prayers that come from a sincere heart.

Now I'm rambling.

Annie :ph34r:

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 10:00

I feel that Islam is dangerous in a civilized society

So is Christianity you hypocrite.

it serves no purpose other than to unite warring tribes under one banner

It serves the same purpose as any other religion.

Once there is no more war, the society stagnates economically, culturally and technologically until it's time to fight some more.

I'm sure you know a lot about this, because you’ve travelled all over the middle east and such <_<

Jesus tells us that we must just love, that is our only rule,

Yeah, I guess that’s why you had a few crusades, and that you discriminate against homosexuals.

They've decided that they like being submissive to Allah and by handing Allah that power over their free will they have given up the part of God within us that creates

What an utter load of crap, they are submissive to allah the same way you are submissive to him. I think you will also find that a muslim can be as creative as you. (if not more due to your complete lack of thought)

I feel it's a cult

Like ever other religion.

they all have to do the same things at the same time 5 times a day, and this is a true fact

They pray 5 times a day, they don’t have to, but most do.

if they fart while praying they have to go do wudu, which is ritual cleansing

Lol what? Is this another load of shit is see before my eyes? The clean them selves before each prayer not if they fart :lol:

That is a cultish practice,

Like every other religion

God hears all prayers that come from a sincere heart

god hears nothing due to the fact it is non existent.

EDIT: Spelling

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:03

Skinz,

You obviously know nothing about Islam. Take a class.

Annie :ph34r:

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 16:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:12 PM
Skinz,

You obviously know nothing about Islam. Take a class.

Annie :ph34r:
Take a Class?!?! Fuck you!

When was the last time you were in a muslim country or sat down with a muslim faimily and had lunch and talked to them?

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:12

If you have wudu' and any of the matters which invalidate wudu’ takes place, you must not pray until you make a new wudu' Among the invalidators of wudu' are:

1. The emission of any substance from the eliminatory outlets, such as urine, defecation, or gas, except maniyy.

2. Touching the penis or vagina, or the anus with the inside of the bare hand (the palm).

3. Losing the mind or losing consciousness

4. Sleeping without having the buttocks firmly seated, such as sleeping on the stomach, back, and on the side.

5. Skin to skin contact with a member of the opposite sex, who has reached an age where he or she is normally desired. (the females whom one is not allowed to marry in any circumstance such as his mother, sister etc. (are not included).

6. If one of these matters happens to you during prayer, you stop the actions of the prayer, perform wudu' and then start the prayer from the beginning.

Basics of the Muslim Prayer (http://www.sunna.info/Lessons/islam_360.html)

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 16:19

Just because the Quran tells them to do something does not mean it is done. Do you follow your "holy" book to the letter; do you treat women like lower animals and stone gays and Adulterers?

Besides whats wrong with washing?

P.S not everyone prays 5 times a day.

redstar2000

8th April 2006, 16:22

Originally posted by AnnieAngel
Jesus tells us that we must just love, that is our only rule...

We do not know what "Jesus told people" as there are no contemporary accounts nor did he ever write anything down (probably he was illiterate).

We know what later people claimed "he said"...but since there are multiple "gospels", we have no way of knowing who is telling the truth.

The most plausible version of Jesus's message is: Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!

Stop sinning (especially stop fornicating :lol:) and prepare for "the end of the world". :o

The "love stuff" could have all very well been added afterwards; there's simply no way of knowing.

I feel that Islam is dangerous in a civilized society...

It sure is...but so is any religion. "Civilization" is based on human reason...something which all religions oppose as a matter of principle.

That is why they must be driven out of public life altogether...and left to "wither away" in the darkness.

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

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:23

If the Koran tells a Muslim to do something, they DO IT. And not only the Koran, to the extent where the hadiths do not contradict the Koran, they follow them too.

MOST, like 99% do pray 5 times a day. Especially in what you term a "Muslim" country.

All will stop prayers if they fart. All will wash before prayers, and there is more than one type of washing, there is ghusl which is a full shower to be taken under different rules.

Cult.

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:25

Love God with all your heart and love your Brother as yourself. That is all I need to do. I don't need to go to Church. I don't need to pray at the same time as every other Christian on earth while we all face the same direction. I can fart and God still loves me and hears my prayers.

Annie :ph34r:

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 16:28

First its Quran not koran you dolt.

Secondly

Originally posted by AnnieAngel+--> (AnnieAngel)MOST, like 99% do pray 5 times a day. Especially in what you term a "Muslim" country.[/b]

Tell me when was your last visit to a muslim country?

Originally posted by AnnieAngel+--> (AnnieAngel)All will stop prayers if they fart. All will wash before prayers, and there is more than one type of washing, there is ghusl which is a full shower to be taken under different rules.[/b]

Everyone dosent stop if one farts, and yes everyone does wash before they pray as a sign of respect for god.

Again whats wrong with a wash?

[email protected]
I don't need to go to Church

When i was in Egypt the people i talked to didnt all go to the mosque when prayer was called because they were to busy working

AnnieAngel
I don't need to pray at the same time

Same again some people work to hard to pray 5 times a day. Or dose everyone stop work?

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:33

But Skinz, I thought it was a load of shit??

Thank you in your lesson of how to phonetically spell words in English which are written in Arabic. Muhammed, Mohammed, Mohamat, Koran, Quran, Qur'an....it's NOT ENGLISH....lol.

Why does God need you to wash? Why is a dirty inner nostril offensive to God? It's a mind control tactic, to have everyone doing the same thing at once AT LEAST five times a day, those are the COMPULSORY prayers. They all face a great big stone in Mecca and pray without farting five times a day.

Annie :ph34r:

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:35

They sure do stop work. There are concessions in the Koran for people who are unable to perform for some reason, but again they follow the Koran on those matters to find out how to make up for it.

Annie :ph34r:

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:36

You don't have to pray in the mosque except on Fridays.

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 16:44

Originally posted by AnnieAngel+--> (AnnieAngel)But Skinz, I thought it was a load of shit??[/b]

Yes it is a load of shit, like every other religion, including your warped christian believes

Originally posted by AnnieAngel+--> (AnnieAngel)Thank you in your lesson of how to phonetically spell words in English which are written in Arabic. Muhammed, Mohammed, Mohamat, Koran, Quran, Qur'an....it's NOT ENGLISH....lol.[/b]

It was my pleasure. I don’t give a flying fuck if its english or not spell it right.

Originally posted by AnnieAngel
Why does God need you to wash? Why is a dirty inner nostril offensive to God?

Maybe (If god does exist) god has OCD and gets very annoyed when people don’t wash and because he has a child like psyche (because he never had an adult figure to discipline him) he sends you to hell.

[email protected]
It's a mind control tactic, to have everyone doing the same thing at once AT LEAST five times a day,

Oh yeah I get it now the imams want everyone to do something the same time at least 5 times a day because that get them what exactly?

AnnieAngel
those are the COMPULSORY prayers

But not everyone dose them, ive been in a muslim house when the call to pray has sounded, they didn’t pray. The quran also says not to drink alcohol but I know countless muslims who drink.

Again I ask you how much contact have you had with this culture?

violencia.Proletariat

8th April 2006, 16:44

MOST, like 99% do pray 5 times a day. Especially in what you term a "Muslim" country.

How many times a day do you hear someone "praising god" in America? If you turn on the tv, I GUARANTEE you will see it if you turn on your tv. I can't go ANYWHERE with out seeing something religious. Now just because they don't have to pray 5 times a day, does that mean it's not serious? Does that mean its not bullshit? Do you know how many times people pray a day in mostly christian countries? More than once I'd bet! It's just not a requirement.

If the Koran tells a Muslim to do something, they DO IT. And not only the Koran, to the extent where the hadiths do not contradict the Koran, they follow them too.

And the same is not true of the bible? :lol: They just persecute homosexuals and revolutionaries because they have nothing else to do right? :rolleyes:

violencia.Proletariat

8th April 2006, 16:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:34 AM
Love God with all your heart and love your Brother as yourself. That is all I need to do. I don't need to go to Church. I don't need to pray at the same time as every other Christian on earth while we all face the same direction. I can fart and God still loves me and hears my prayers.

Annie :ph34r:
I really hope we can ban you :) . If your going to spread BULLSHIT like this, I really hope we do. Your christianity is just as fucking reactionary as any religion. Your god does not exist, there is no one there to love you. Something which does not exist can not hear you. If they can why the hell don't you ask for some outrages sum of money? Why aren't we all ok? Why are we poor, why are we hungry? Because you LIE, scum.

leftist resistance

8th April 2006, 16:51

MOST, like 99% do pray 5 times a day. Especially in what you term a "Muslim" country

That is what a pious Muslim should be doing.On the other hand,like all religions,there are the non-pious.To put it at 99% is a complete guessing game.

Love God with all your heart and love your Brother as yourself. That is all I need to do. I don't need to go to Church.

That'll put you in the non-pious category

I don't need to pray at the same time as every other Christian on earth while we all face the same direction.

If you're implying that all Muslims pray at the same time,then you're wrong.Unless the Earth has only one time zone.They pray according to the changes in their local time.

Pls have a background knowledge on what you are putting across

Why does God need you to wash? Why is a dirty inner nostril offensive to God? It's a mind control tactic, to have everyone doing the same thing at once AT LEAST five times a day, those are the COMPULSORY prayers. They all face a great big stone in Mecca and pray without farting five times a day.

Do you practise baptism?if yes,then the question should also be thrown to you.

You are an example of ppl whom i regard as religious fascists.every other religion is dumb except yours

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 16:51

Originally posted by nate+Apr 8 2006, 03:56 PM--> (nate @ Apr 8 2006, 03:56 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 11:34 AM
Love God with all your heart and love your Brother as yourself. That is all I need to do. I don't need to go to Church. I don't need to pray at the same time as every other Christian on earth while we all face the same direction. I can fart and God still loves me and hears my prayers.

Annie :ph34r:
I really hope we can ban you :) . If your going to spread BULLSHIT like this, I really hope we do. Your christianity is just as fucking reactionary as any religion. Your god does not exist, there is no one there to love you. Something which does not exist can not hear you. If they can why the hell don't you ask for some outrages sum of money? Why aren't we all ok? Why are we poor, why are we hungry? Because you LIE, scum. [/b]
Seconded.

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:56

Jesus didn't say to persecute anyone. Man does that.

I pray when I want, if I want. Jesus said to "pray in private not in public as the pagans do". If man is hijacking Christianity for fun and profit, that is not the fault of Jesus because He did not command it.

Now, Muhammad, or is it Mohammed (skinz let me know, lol) was very specific in what he dictated. The Koran is a rulebook for how to live your life to please Allah. They chop off your hands, they chop off your head, they chop off one leg and one arm, they like to whip ya, and stone ya, all because the Koran says it pleases Allah.

Jesus says, go forth and sin no more. Jesus says we will be persectued, not that we will persecute.

Wolves in sheeps clothing are no more representative of Christ than some kid who just likes throwing bricks is representative of classical anarchism.

Annie :ph34r:

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 16:59

Ban me for answering questions? Is this a trap then? I know quite a bit about Islam becuase I am a member of a few religion boards and Islam is a topic we discuss....with Muslims in their own forum, so I am not an expert but my knowledge comes from Muslims, as my knowledge of anarchism comes from anarchists.

All Muslims pray at the same moment. There are changes made for where you are in the world time wise.

Annie :ph34r:

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 17:03

So an anarchist who hates all religion is a fascist??

I'm not following here. I don't CARE if people want to be Muslim. That's their problem not mine. I would never try to stop someone from being any religion they want.

That would be kind of stupid, since Christians were thrown to the lions for being Christian.

And of COURSE I think Jesus is right, that's why I'm a Christian. Sheesh!

Annie :ph34r:

violencia.Proletariat

8th April 2006, 17:12

I would never try to stop someone from being any religion they want.

That would be kind of stupid, since Christians were thrown to the lions for being Christian.

I guess you haven't been reading up on the bible lately. You skipped the part where it says stone non-believers to death. Let me guess, god didn't "really mean that" :lol: Fuck that noise.

Lord Testicles

8th April 2006, 17:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:12 PM
That would be kind of stupid, since Christians were thrown to the lions for being Christian.

Christians were never thrown to the lions for being Christian.

I sugest you read up on your history. Take a class <_<

Infact during the reign of a christian emperor more people were thrown in with the lions.

Disciple of Prometheus

8th April 2006, 18:52

Yea, let's be nice and respective to these people, :rolleyes: ;

http://aarons.cc/i/bloody-muslims11.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/ashoura-02.jpg

http://www.drabruzzi.com/images/Ashoura%20bloodied%20flogging2.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/5/5146048_be5fb9b420.jpg

Note: These are actual photos from the muslim festival of Ashoura.

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 18:56

Where does Jesus say to stone the unbelievers to death?

I know the Koran says to kill the unbeliever wherever you find them.

Christians refused to offer sacrifice to the Emperor because their lives and sacrifice belong to God not Ceasar, this wasn't a tax but an offering to the deified Emperor. So basically they were killed for not bowing down to authority other than God. :)

I stand behind the fact their religion was the cause of their martyrdom. Jews did not have to sacrifice to the Emperor and their reasoning was the same as Christians, so it was persecution. I mean Jews were still sacrificing to God through some of this time, Christ was the final sacrifice for Christians.

Annie :ph34r:

theraven

8th April 2006, 19:50

Originally posted by Skinz+Apr 8 2006, 04:23 PM--> (Skinz @ Apr 8 2006, 04:23 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 04:12 PM
That would be kind of stupid, since Christians were thrown to the lions for being Christian.

Christians were never thrown to the lions for being Christian.

I sugest you read up on your history. Take a class <_<

Infact during the reign of a christian emperor more people were thrown in with the lions. [/b]
Christians were thrown to the lions for being Christian. there were other reasons to get thrown to the lions, but Christianity was one.

I stand behind the fact their religion was the cause of their martyrdom. Jews did not have to sacrifice to the Emperor and their reasoning was the same as Christians, so it was persecution. I mean Jews were still sacrificing to God through some of this time, Christ was the final sacrifice for Christians.

actually not really, by the time christianity grew to a decent size the temple in jerusulam had been burned down, and that was the only place we could sacrifice. this is the reason why we still don't give sacrifices.

Nicky Scarfo

8th April 2006, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:06 AM
Now I'm rambling.

Annie :ph34r:
Agreed.

Where does Jesus say to stone the unbelievers to death?

No, cause according to Jesus all the unbelievers are going to spend an eternity in Hell. No need to punish them in this life. According to Christ's teachings, Gandhi is now wailing and gnashing his teeth in the lake of fire and will for all eternity.

Sure Jesus taught love and peace, but he also said that if you didn't believe in him, his daddy was gonna come down from Heaven and kick your ass. And he wasn't always a nice guy.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."-- Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)

And as a Christian you also owe allegiance to God the Father, of the Old Testament, who was a genocidal, meglamonical, murderous, violently sexist maniac. I won't bother to quote from the OT, since many have already done so elsewhere in this subforum.

In any case, Islam is a violent and oppressive religion, but they were just carrying on the Biblical tradition.

Disciple of Prometheus

8th April 2006, 20:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:59 PM
Christians were thrown to the lions for being Christian. there were other reasons to get thrown to the lions, but Christianity was one.
They were thrown into the lions den, because they were idiots, they lived in Rome, but wouldn't abid by Roman rules, or any rules, and they could have cause possible riots, between them, the jews, and the romans; thus the Roman leaders saw this as not only a possible embarassment, but also a possible opposition to the Roman state, so they were executed as "treasonous criminals." Am I saying the should have bowed to the Roman government, and been obeidant? No. However Rome was the state colossus of the ancient world, and it would be counterproductive, and just plain idiotic, to stay there and cause trouble, your only asking to be executed, I would have told them to migrate, away from Roman control, maybe to Egypt, where Roman control wasn't as strong.

AnnieAngel

8th April 2006, 20:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:59 PM

I stand behind the fact their religion was the cause of their martyrdom. Jews did not have to sacrifice to the Emperor and their reasoning was the same as Christians, so it was persecution. I mean Jews were still sacrificing to God through some of this time, Christ was the final sacrifice for Christians.

actually not really, by the time christianity grew to a decent size the temple in jerusulam had been burned down, and that was the only place we could sacrifice. this is the reason why we still don't give sacrifices.
I did say through some of this time.

Nicky,

I owe nothing to God but love.

Nicky Scarfo

8th April 2006, 21:00

The ritual dance of "labor and capital"...with the tune called by capital, of course.

The oppressor always determines the nature of the struggle, but be assured it is class struggle nonetheless. Just a low-level guerilla fight, so to speak, rather than direct conventional engagement with the enemy.

What's "fuckin insane" is the idea that we "are" or "should be" soldiers.

We are or should try to be revolutionaries.

Any dumbass can be a fucking soldier.

We are at war with our class enemy. All revolutionaries are soldiers, whether they carry a gun or not, because we are engaging in a form of battle. Though, obviously our model should be more along the lines of the Spanish anarchist militias or democratc trade unions rather than that of the US Army. We need discipline and organization, but without democracy, even if we win, the victory will be short-lived and we'll just install a new oppressive system, equal to or worse than the old one. To stray from the topic a bit, that's where I think Leninism came up short.

Religious people do want to "impose their religious faith on others". It's their religious obligation to do that.

Not all of them do. The monolithic entity of "religious people" you have created in your own mind is absolutely ludicrous. I know plenty of people who believe in God who don't give a fuck if I don't believe or if others don't believe and have no interest in doing anything w/ their religion but praying and occasionally going to church.

You mean to tell me you've never met any religious people who don't want to impose their faith on others? Where the fuck do you live? A box? Mississippi? (personally, I'd choose the box)

Religion is not a simple matter of "personal belief"; it is a reactionary social force.

Yes, it's a reactionary social force, but for many it is just a personal belief. Just like there are some people on this board, I'm sure, that personally believe in social progress, but ain't gonna do a damn thing about it but believe in it, therefore I would say those people may have progressive ideas, but they are not a "progressive social force".

And even that analogy is short-changing many religious people, because not every religious person necessarily holds conservative or reactionary beliefs simply because they hold irrational superstitous beliefs.

Now I'll grant you that many more do hold conservative or reactionary beliefs as a result of their religious beliefs, but you're making it seem like they all do, and therefore cannot be allies in the struggle for socialism. Many just want to believe in God(s) so they can think they and their loved ones don't just rot in the ground when they die or to make sense of the things that don't make any damn sense, and I can't really blame them for it. Can such belief in the afterlife and a "higher power" hamper material analysis and action? Sure, happens a lot, but, again, not all the time with every person as you suggest. For example, even among our union's most conservative and evangelical Christian members, I don't hear a lot of them saying "Well, I won't fight for higher wages or against abuse from my boss cause God will take care of everything in the end."

Again, I must state that I fully believe that religion is a destructive social force and we'd be better off without it entirely (I even debate with religious friends on the subject), but I'm not gonna write off every person that doesn't believe in God as not worthy of struggling for socialism just cause they hold some superstitions.

If that were true, then it would show. People would emerge from struggles for "social progress" with a more radical outlook than when they went into them.

Well, sometimes it does radicalize people and sometimes it has the opposite effect by mollfying them. Myself and many other people I know were not political at all (or even right-wing) before engaging in union struggle, but became radicalized through it, not by reading Marx or whatnot. And for another example, the Civil Rights struggle did radicalize many people. Out of the Liberal SNCC grew the Black Panthers. SDS created the Weather Underground. The simple abolitionism of the Republican Party turned into a call for full equality of Blacks and Whites by the Radical Republicans after the Civil War.

Whether you agree with these organizations and outcomes is irrelevant to my argument-- although I'm sure you can counter with many examples of when "social progress" movements pacified people, history is also replete with examples of more moderate "social progress" movements radicalizing people.

Doesn't happen...or, to be more precise, only happens when the social order itself approaches collapse.

Yes, it is true that is when successful revolutions occur. But any social progress acheived before then will undoubtedly better prepare the people for revolution when the socity nears collapse. For example, there is not a doubt in my mind that the gains of the Civil Rights movement will make the organizing of Black and White workers together when revolutionary conditions exist much easier than if Jim Crow had never been abolished.

redstar2000

9th April 2006, 01:31

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
The oppressor always determines the nature of the struggle...

Oh come on...you know better than that.

The oppressor sets up formal channels of conflict resolution...but the oppressed always have the choice of staying within or going outside those channels.

Trade unions in late capitalism are such channels...and in and of themselves will not go "beyond the trivial".

Until such time, of course, that everything is "cracking up".

We need discipline and organization...

We need the willingness to rebel...without that, neither "discipline" nor "organization" will make any difference at all.

The monolithic entity of "religious people" you have created in your own mind is absolutely ludicrous.

I have made the distinction before between the seriously religious and the "peripherally religious".

What you seem reluctant to recognize is that the "peripherally religious" will, for the most part, follow their "spiritual leaders" in the midst of struggle or even controversy.

It is the seriously religious that "set the tone" of a religion and determine its social role.

You mean to tell me you've never met any religious people who don't want to impose their faith on others?

I've met godsuckers who say that...but I do not believe them!

Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone who knows anything about the history of religion would believe such an assertion. It's on the level of a con-man saying "trust me on this one." :lol:

...not every religious person necessarily holds conservative or reactionary beliefs simply because they hold irrational superstitious beliefs.

The positive correlation is so close to 1 that it makes no perceptible difference.

I'm sure there were a few Nazis who were not anti-semitic...but the number would be so tiny as to be insignificant.

For example, even among our union's most conservative and evangelical Christian members, I don't hear a lot of them saying...

There's nothing in present-day union activities that would particularly upset a Christian...and indeed, there are Biblical quotations that could be invoked in support of trade unions.

Only if the possibility arose of some genuinely radical action would you be likely to hear from them...and they would be against it!

I'm not gonna write off every person that doesn't believe in God as not worthy of struggling for socialism just cause they hold some superstitions.

Suit yourself. The "socialism" that they would "struggle for" ain't worth a puddle of piss to me.

Myself and many other people I know were not political at all (or even right-wing) before engaging in union struggle, but became radicalized through it, not by reading Marx or whatnot.

This seems frankly implausible to me; you didn't "invent anti-capitalism" out of a routine strike for a pay increase...unless, of course, you are a "genius".

You may never have read Marx, but it's almost certain that you read stuff written by people who were strongly influenced by Marx.

But any social progress achieved before then will undoubtedly better prepare the people for revolution when the society nears collapse.

True.

But I contend that "social progress" is not the job of revolutionaries. There are already forces that exist for that purpose; they do not require our assistance. We call them reformists.

Our task is to spread a revolutionary understanding of capitalist society in any way we can. We may participate in "struggles" that are not, in and of themselves, revolutionary...but that's for our purposes, not those of the people who happen to be running them or the particularities of what they might be "struggling" for.

To be revolutionary in the present period means putting the "revolutionary option" on the table.

Talking about it, what it would mean, why it's the only really practical solution to capitalism, etc.

If we don't do that, then no one will.

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

Disciple of Prometheus

9th April 2006, 01:42

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 8 2006, 08:09 PM

Religious people do want to "impose their religious faith on others". It's their religious obligation to do that.

Not all of them do. The monolithic entity of "religious people" you have created in your own mind is absolutely ludicrous. I know plenty of people who believe in God who don't give a fuck if I don't believe or if others don't believe and have no interest in doing anything w/ their religion but praying and occasionally going to church.

Whether your friends try to convert you or not doesn't matter, are they high ranking members of their religion? Are they theologians? Did they write any holy texts? The koran, and the bible, and all religions try to get people to come in their fold, that's the whole point of their religion, is to get people into "the grace of god," and to save them from hell, or the birth cycles, and what have you. The "holy," books are the outlining of the religions, not peers, who don't even actively practice their religion.

Furthermore, though they may not voice their opinions, it is only out of convince, they don't want to impose their religion, or talk about it, because they don't want to come off as some crazy religious type.

cyu

9th April 2006, 03:14

But suppose their preacher starts "working them up"...you know, Christianity is "under attack" by "secular liberals" and "godless commies".

All the more reason to study things like liberation theology. It's basically a scenario like this that convinced me to study liberation theology - you need arguments a Christian can accept if you want to convince them that capitalism is wrong, or at least not to persecute socialists. And from what I learned from liberation theology, it's given me a whole new respect for Latin American Christians. I think the chances of converting all American Christians to atheists / agnostics first in order to make them more accepting of socialism is much less likely than making them accept the arguments from liberation theology.

redstar2000

9th April 2006, 12:45

Originally posted by cyu
It's basically a scenario like this that convinced me to study liberation theology - you need arguments a Christian can accept if you want to convince them that capitalism is wrong, or at least not to persecute socialists.

A really good sales pitch to gull the godsuckers into supporting us, eh?

What happens when they find out that we've been bullshitting them? :o

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

VonClausewitz

9th April 2006, 13:59

What happens when they find out that we've been bullshitting them?

Do what every other political entity does with things it doesn't need around anymore - dispose of them. That'd actually please you redstar2000 I think, use the religious to get your revolution going, then take them all proverbially out the back and shoot them.

Nicky Scarfo

9th April 2006, 19:03

Oh come on...you know better than that.

The oppressor sets up formal channels of conflict resolution...but the oppressed always have the choice of staying within or going outside those channels.

Trade unions in late capitalism are such channels...and in and of themselves will not go "beyond the trivial".

Until such time, of course, that everything is "cracking up".

Okay, that is true for the most part. But unions are still engaging in class struggle, even if only on a microcosmic level, and the experience workers gain from such struggle will be important when everything starts "cracking up".

We need the willingness to rebel...without that, neither "discipline" nor "organization" will make any difference at all.

True.

What you seem reluctant to recognize is that the "peripherally religious" will, for the most part, follow their "spiritual leaders" in the midst of struggle or even controversy.

Again, you are so overgeneralizing people its ridiculously prejudicial. One of our union's high-ranking officers is a religious Catholic. She doesn't go to mass every Sunday, but probably every other Sunday. She knows little, if anything, about Liberation Theology. Her priest basically told the parish to vote for Bush b/c he's against gay marraige, abortion, etc. Did she "follow" him? No, she spent Monday telling the story to us and complaining about what an asshole her priest was, saying she supported gay marraige. Another Local president, who is a strict Catholic, said although the Church may view it as a sin, he was going to back a resolution in support of gay marraige.

So much for all religious people blindly following their leaders in the midst of struggle or controversy.

I've met godsuckers who say that...but I do not believe them!

Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone who knows anything about the history of religion would believe such an assertion. It's on the level of a con-man saying "trust me on this one."

Furthermore, though they may not voice their opinions, it is only out of convince, they don't want to impose their religion, or talk about it, because they don't want to come off as some crazy religious type.

Redstar, I like what you write on most things, but you and Disciple are crossing the line into religious bigotry. I support smashing religion, both institutionally and as a system of thought, but the way you guys are talking would make Enver Hoxha blush. You guys are really so paranoid and hateful of anyone who believes in god that you think even one the ones who don't want to impose their faith on you are "deceiving" you? Yeah man, all the religious people I've met like that (and some of whom have been friends and comrades for years) have just "tricked" me.

The positive correlation is so close to 1 that it makes no perceptible difference.

I'm sure there were a few Nazis who were not anti-semitic...but the number would be so tiny as to be insignificant.

That is such horseshit. You really do live in a box (or Mississippi).

There's nothing in present-day union activities that would particularly upset a Christian...and indeed, there are Biblical quotations that could be invoked in support of trade unions.

Uh, that wasn't the point. You should go back and read that quote in its original context.

Only if the possibility arose of some genuinely radical action would you be likely to hear from them...and they would be against it!

What? The conservative and evangelical Christians in my union? Yep, I'd be willing to bet 90-99% would oppose a socialist revolution, but again, that is straying very far from the limited point I was making.

Suit yourself. The "socialism" that they would "struggle for" ain't worth a puddle of piss to me.

Right, because you are so bigoted against them you can't see them ever having any positive contribution to socialism.

This seems frankly implausible to me; you didn't "invent anti-capitalism" out of a routine strike for a pay increase...

No sir, I did not. I simply said that union activity radicalized me. I had encountered some socialist ideas before becoming a union activist, but I pretty much either dismissed them or paid little attention at best. I was a Libertarian Party member when I became active, then became a Social Democrat, and within a year was an Anarcho-Syndicalist. Now I'm what I call a Red Libertarian-- you can see my intro thread as to what that is or my debate on Publius's thread in this forum.

unless, of course, you are a "genius".

Yes I am, and very good-looking too, but that's beside the point.

You may never have read Marx, but it's almost certain that you read stuff written by people who were strongly influenced by Marx.

Since I became radicalized I have indeed read Marx.

True.

But I contend that "social progress" is not the job of revolutionaries. There are already forces that exist for that purpose; they do not require our assistance. We call them reformists.

Our task is to spread a revolutionary understanding of capitalist society in any way we can. We may participate in "struggles" that are not, in and of themselves, revolutionary...but that's for our purposes, not those of the people who happen to be running them or the particularities of what they might be "struggling" for.

To be revolutionary in the present period means putting the "revolutionary option" on the table.

Talking about it, what it would mean, why it's the only really practical solution to capitalism, etc.

If we don't do that, then no one will

I'm not sure if you are a Leninist or not, but that statement seemed to reflect at least some aspects of Leninist thought. I generally disagree with Leninism, but I don't discount all of his ideas. The idea that you seem to be reflecting, the idea that revolutionaries should operate within the mass organizations to push them towards revolutionary action, is not one I necessarily disagree with in theory. I'm just not sure at this point what the practical application should be.

Disciple of Prometheus

9th April 2006, 23:18

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 9 2006, 06:12 PM

I've met godsuckers who say that...but I do not believe them!

Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone who knows anything about the history of religion would believe such an assertion. It's on the level of a con-man saying "trust me on this one."

Furthermore, though they may not voice their opinions, it is only out of convince, they don't want to impose their religion, or talk about it, because they don't want to come off as some crazy religious type.

Redstar, I like what you write on most things, but you and Disciple are crossing the line into religious bigotry. I support smashing religion, both institutionally and as a system of thought, but the way you guys are talking would make Enver Hoxha blush. You guys are really so paranoid and hateful of anyone who believes in god that you think even one the ones who don't want to impose their faith on you are "deceiving" you? Yeah man, all the religious people I've met like that (and some of whom have been friends and comrades for years) have just "tricked" me.

How is it bigotry? I genuinely dislike something, that I have researched, and am simply voicing my opinion on the matter; bigotry implies a blind hatred of something, this is not blind hatred. Why would I support religions, and give a "neutral," outlook, that's "holy," texts label me a sexual deviant, and a sinning abomination? They dislike me, so I mutually oppose and dislike them.

I know in today's society, and the general feeling of the populace, is if you hate something your instantly a "bigot," and you need to be "sensitive," to people's cultures, and religious beliefs, because hell forbid anyone feel any negative emotions, and dislike something, but I ask to what extent should we be "sensitive?" If a certain book and mindset, infringes on my rights, and has made my life a lot harder than it should be, why should I be sensitive? If a religion, has caused the deaths of millions of people, why should we be sensitive? When two religions can't play nice with the world, and are constantly causing wars and strif with one another, why be sensitive? Generally when people see a weed, or cancerous cell they would want it removed, and that is what religion is.

Sure you can overshadow that with, "no, god helped me over come addiction," and all those "success," stories, but god, and the bible did nothing, the individual him or herself got them selves out of the depth of addiction; so really religion has done nothing but placate the masses for their needs and wants of enchantment and purpose, and left many dead in exchange.

Nicky Scarfo

10th April 2006, 00:49

Originally posted by Disciple of Prometheus+Apr 9 2006, 10:27 PM--> (Disciple of Prometheus @ Apr 9 2006, 10:27 PM)
Nicky [email protected] 9 2006, 06:12 PM

I've met godsuckers who say that...but I do not believe them!

Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone who knows anything about the history of religion would believe such an assertion. It's on the level of a con-man saying "trust me on this one."

Furthermore, though they may not voice their opinions, it is only out of convince, they don't want to impose their religion, or talk about it, because they don't want to come off as some crazy religious type.

Redstar, I like what you write on most things, but you and Disciple are crossing the line into religious bigotry. I support smashing religion, both institutionally and as a system of thought, but the way you guys are talking would make Enver Hoxha blush. You guys are really so paranoid and hateful of anyone who believes in god that you think even one the ones who don't want to impose their faith on you are "deceiving" you? Yeah man, all the religious people I've met like that (and some of whom have been friends and comrades for years) have just "tricked" me.

How is it bigotry? I genuinely dislike something, that I have researched, and am simply voicing my opinion on the matter; bigotry implies a blind hatred of something, this is not blind hatred. Why would I support religions, and give a "neutral," outlook, that's "holy," texts label me a sexual deviant, and a sinning abomination? They dislike me, so I mutually oppose and dislike them.

I know in today's society, and the general feeling of the populace, is if you hate something your instantly a "bigot," and you need to be "sensitive," to people's cultures, and religious beliefs, because hell forbid anyone feel any negative emotions, and dislike something, but I ask to what extent should we be "sensitive?" If a certain book and mindset, infringes on my rights, and has made my life a lot harder than it should be, why should I be sensitive? If a religion, has caused the deaths of millions of people, why should we be sensitive? When two religions can't play nice with the world, and are constantly causing wars and strif with one another, why be sensitive? Generally when people see a weed, or cancerous cell they would want it removed, and that is what religion is.

Sure you can overshadow that with, "no, god helped me over come addiction," and all those "success," stories, but god, and the bible did nothing, the individual him or herself got them selves out of the depth of addiction; so really religion has done nothing but placate the masses for their needs and wants of enchantment and purpose, and left many dead in exchange. [/b]
Are you intentionally ignoring what I just wrote?

I never fucking asked you to have a "neutral" opinion towards religion as I strongly oppose it myself and think society should abolish it. What I am saying is you and redstar's contention that nearly all people who believe in a supreme being are also socially conservative and/or reactionary simply by dint of their belief is total and utter bullshit.

And yes, it's bigoted. At best it's highly prejudicial. I don't expect you to like religion. I condemn it myself. But I could do without the sweeping negative generalizations of every person on the planet that believes in the supernatural. Voice your hatred of the fundamentalists all you want you'll get no complaint from me-- if Jerry Falwell's followers all got their balls cut off I wouldn't shed a tear. But don't compare everyone who believes in a god(s)/higher power/other such superstitious nonsense to the fundies. It's unfair and it's bullshit.

redstar2000

10th April 2006, 04:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:08 AM

What happens when they find out that we've been bullshitting them?

Do what every other political entity does with things it doesn't need around anymore - dispose of them. That'd actually please you redstar2000 I think, use the religious to get your revolution going, then take them all proverbially out the back and shoot them.
No it would not "please me"...I don't want to shoot anybody unless it's necessary.

In this instance, I don't want to "fool" the godsuckers into "supporting us", I want to completely alienate them away from their superstition...and, in my opinion, the best strategy to accomplish that is a frontal attack.

Some others on this board vehemently disagree with me about that; it's one of the "hot button" issues here.

Some of them think that there really are "religious leftists" that we should "unite with". Some think that religion is "personal" or "harmless" or "trivial".

My open intolerance of superstition means that I'm sometimes labeled a "bigot" and even a "racist".

I am against "freedom of religion" (an old bourgeois value) and in favor of freedom from religion!

This particularly upsets reformists...because they must, of necessity, seek the support of many superstitious people in order to build popular support for their reforms. Any kind of open opposition to superstition would be self-defeating from their perspective.

Oh, they'll offer a few muted criticisms of the "really outrageous" stuff...but it will usually take the form of "they're perverting Christianity" or "they're perverting Islam" or whatever.

When, in actual fact, it is the "fundamentalist extremists" who are the most authentic representatives of Christianity, Islam, etc. Those guys are the bastards who take their religion really seriously!

And who, over time, "set the tone" of a successful religion. It isn't the "ordinary" godsuckers who decide that burning a "witch" or hanging a gay man might be "a good idea", it's the fundamentalist extremists.

The ordinary godsuckers respect their spiritual leaders and "go along with it" and even "participate in it." :o

Not always and not on every occasion, but often enough that we should know what to expect!

And plan accordingly. :)

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

AnnieAngel

10th April 2006, 17:07

So you want to force people to abandon their beliefs?

Remember, if you try to fuck with my freedom, on any level, by doing so you give up your right to not have your freedom fucked with.

Annie :ph34r:
(you know nothing about Christianity)

cyu

10th April 2006, 19:34

A really good sales pitch to gull the godsuckers into supporting us, eh?

What happens when they find out that we've been bullshitting them?

Liberation theology comes from Christians. I doubt they're trying to bullshit other Christians. I'm certainly not making up Christian theology myself and pretending I'm a Christian. I would just be introducing Christian thought to pro-capitalist Christians. If they have a problem with it, it's not me they should be arguing with, but the priests from which it came.

I know you disagree, but I think your strategy of trying to convince them to be atheists first before trying to convince them to be socialists will take you forever. You're welcome to try, but I doubt you'll have as much success as liberation theology.

AnnieAngel

10th April 2006, 19:55

After the revolution I'll still be Christian.

The only difference will be that I'll have a gun and shoot at anyone who who tries to come around telling me that my beliefs are wrong.

I think too many people let their politics influence their religion and vice versa. I just love Jesus.

Annie :ph34r:

Disciple of Prometheus

10th April 2006, 23:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:04 PM
The only difference will be that I'll have a gun and shoot at anyone who who tries to come around telling me that my beliefs are wrong.

I think too many people let their politics influence their religion and vice versa. I just love Jesus.

So you would be shooting at innoecent people and comrades all for a maggoty old corpse who could sell snake oil really good, to which is probably dust by now, for what reason? To me comments such as that may seem like "wow, their really spiritual," to the lay person, but I can't see why. People tend to believe what is in a book must be true, and the older the book, the more validity it must have, the same with a religion, the older it is, the more "mystical," and "true," it must be.

Take the stories away from the historical figures, and place them into modern times; what do we think, when we hear some drifter claiming to be god, and or the son of god? We think he is insane, and deluded, so why should we uplift and exalt, the deluded drifter of a past generation?

Which is why I don't think very highly of people, who try to refute the stories of the bible, because I think it is really a waste of time; who said these really happened in the first place? No one, but jews, christians, and so called spiritual people, and last time I checked they would have a tremendous bias, and are NOT ACTUAL HISTORIANS. People even in the Atheist circles flock to any study done that disproves the bible, again I ask why? These myths are no different from the myths of Greece and Rome, and are a lot poorly crafted than said myths, so why do they have any validity in the first place?

Talking snakes, wrestling mortals and angels, burning bushes, talking donkeys, apocalyptic stories, sounds like myths to me, does it not? And yet christians, swear their life on these stories, that they are infallible.

I mean can you honestly say (with a straight face), that all of collected human consciousness came from eating one fruit? I mean come on. They only have so called validity because people are afraid to question and recognize them for what they really are (myths), because they don't want to come across as a mean, hateful, or bigotous person, and go "against," the grain when you have the general populace defending them when they don't realize how many contradictions, and plagirized ideas, are contained it.

I agree with Redstar, we shouldn't con any religious person into the revolution because that is counterproductive and possibly destructive, because who is to say these people can't "sweet talk," a lot of people into their way of thinking, do you think they will stop talking about religion, even if there was a ban? No, they think that what they are doing is "right," and "divinely protected," and they see no problem in bringing other people to the flock.

Why have all Communist systems tried to eliminate counter revolutionary thought? Because you have some idiots whom eventually read about it, like it, and want to fully support that, and it is a lot harder to just come up with these theories, than to read about them and expand upon them.

Also it is highly hypocritical to be preaching, freedom from oppression, and freedom from stifling superstitions, and allow those exact same people into our ranks.

There is a reason why they say it is easier to sell snake oil on a sunday, ;) .

AnnieAngel

10th April 2006, 23:39

If they try to force me to change my beliefs, they are not innocent nor comrades. They'd be fascists.

Annie :ph34r:

drain.you

11th April 2006, 00:05

How do I feel about Islam? That people should be able to follow it if they wish and that the media is putting out very nasty stereotypes of followers of Islam due to capitalist interests in the Middle East.
Everyone is allowed freedom of religion, unless you're in the CC :P

Don't Change Your Name

11th April 2006, 03:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:04 PM
The only difference will be that I'll have a gun and shoot at anyone who who tries to come around telling me that my beliefs are wrong.
Great, so now you want to shoot atheists because they're atheists... :rolleyes:

I think too many people let their politics influence their religion and vice versa.

Religion and politics are related. Religions have economic interests and also have an important role on society, so it's obvious that religions attempt to influence politics.

Getting rid of religion would have an important role in getting rid of oppression.

I just love Jesus.

And I love Santa Claus.

Eleutherios

11th April 2006, 03:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:04 PM
The only difference will be that I'll have a gun and shoot at anyone who who tries to come around telling me that my beliefs are wrong.
Ah, there's that good old Christian tolerance. :lol:

Some non-Christian: "I don't think Jesus was divine."
You: *BANG BANG!* "PRAISE THE LORD!"

AnnieAngel

11th April 2006, 05:16

What part of "If they try to force me to change my beliefs", don't you understand?

I won't shoot an atheist who wants to debate, sheesh! But if said atheist comes to my peaceful little slice of post-revloution heaven and says, "if you don't change your beliefs I'm going to come here everyday and harrass you with talk of chickens and communes with lots of work for all and no God until you agree I'm right and jump on my bandwagon"....

BOOM! Over their head the first time. After that I don't miss.

Annie :ph34r:

AnnieAngel

11th April 2006, 05:19

Politics tries to influence religion. Since 325AD politicians have been putting on sheeps clothing and sneaking around Christianity.

They can't beat Jesus, so they'll try to control those who love Him.

Annie :ph34r:

Disciple of Prometheus

11th April 2006, 22:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:28 AM
Politics tries to influence religion. Since 325AD politicians have been putting on sheeps clothing and sneaking around Christianity.

They can't beat Jesus, so they'll try to control those who love Him.

LMAO. Obviously politicians did beat jesus, considering that's how he died, ;) .

Eleutherios

11th April 2006, 22:48

I don't think anybody here disputes your right to believe in whatever crazy shit you want to believe in. But the minute you try to force your God's morality on other people, or use your beliefs to justify something like selling your daughter into slavery (see Exodus 21:7), that's when we claim the right to fight back.

redstar2000

12th April 2006, 02:27

Originally posted by AnnieAngel
What part of "If they try to force me to change my beliefs", don't you understand?

No one can "force" you to "change your beliefs". Even with a proverbial gun pointed at your head, you could simply lie and still secretly believe whatever you wished. There are no machines that can see "inside your head" and discover "what you really believe".

What communist society will abolish are the public manifestations of religious belief. What people privately believe is a matter of indifference...unless they make a public nuisance of themselves.

Then and only then will something have to be done.

Otherwise, believe whatever you wish. Nobody cares except you.

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

PS: Keep in mind that in communist society, children are not the property of their parents to do with "as they please". Indoctrinating children with superstition is apt to be regarded as serious child abuse...with very unpleasant consequences for the "perp".

chaval

12th April 2006, 05:42

i agree with redstar

my parents indoctrinated me with their lies of santa claus and (to a lesser extent) te easter bunny and i ate up those lies like the foolish ignoramus i was

damn my fascist opressive parents and their capitalist lies

AnnieAngel

12th April 2006, 06:14

Who says the revolution will end with a communist society?

My little spot will be my little spot, if I choose to trade with others outside of my spot, I will, but if any fascists come around telling me what I have to do in my spot under the "new rules" I won't lie there believing what I want while I take a bullet. I'll put a giant cross on my roof viewable to any of the public who chooses to bother me, if others choose fellowship based on my symbol, that's a blessing. You all can put up your pictures of Marx or your public notices with no complaints from me unless you do it on my stake. Dig me?

You seem to think I'd be telling others what to believe, I wouldn't because I don't care what others believe. Please stop assuming you know me.

Annie :ph34r:

redstar2000

12th April 2006, 11:43

Originally posted by AnnieAngel
Who says the revolution will end with a communist society?

Fellow named Marx...you may have heard of him.

Was he right?

We don't know yet...although there's some fragmentary evidence that points in that direction.

Consider the "rival" predictions...

Capitalism will just "roll on forever"...it's "eternal".

Civilization will totally collapse because the oil runs out.

Civilization will totally collapse because of global warming.

Civilization will totally collapse because of global nuclear war.

Jesus will return, gather up the "saved", and damn nearly all of the human species to eternal hellfire.

Any of those options sound particularly appealing? :blink:

Well, perhaps you like the "Jesus option"...in which case, you don't really have to worry about communism at all, do you?

I'll put a giant cross on my roof...

And we'll send some folks around to pull it down; no public religious propaganda. Do not shoot at them, please. They will shoot back!

My little spot will be my little spot.

The concept of "ownership of land" will probably "fade away". One's "own space" will be the space that one uses...and when you no longer need it, someone else will use it. It won't really "belong" to anyone.

Naturally, people living in a class society like we do find this a bewildering idea...somebody owns "everything in sight". That which is not owned is, by definition, "garbage".

So communism will take some "getting used to". :)

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

AnnieAngel

12th April 2006, 18:12

And we'll send some folks around to pull it down; no public religious propaganda. Do not shoot at them, please. They will shoot back!

That sounds fascist.

I'm voting for anarchy, a state in which I can do as I wish. Communisim is just another form of government and ummmm....Americans won't go for communism EVER.

So yeah, anarchy and my big cross and perhaps a whole little town of us, and next town over could be marxist or stalinist or whatever it's not our concern.

Annie :ph34r:

Nicky Scarfo

12th April 2006, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:04 PM
I just love Jesus.

Annie :ph34r:
Look, I talked with Jesus the other day and he said you're confused and don't even know what love is. He said you been stalking him since you met in that bar in Tijuana and to tell you that a one-night stand does not equal love. He also told me to let you know that if you keep posting about him on public internet forums, he's contacting his attorney to inform the court that you have violated the restraining order. Jesus furthermore told me that if you were gonna keep leaving messages on his machine about being "cleansed in his blood", the very least you could do is pronounce his name correctly-- it's pronounced "hay-zoos". Now please leave poor Mr. Henriquez alone.

fernando

12th April 2006, 20:42

Jesus rules! Did you see that Mel Gibson movie? Damn that guy rocked, even after all the torture and betrayal he stayed cool and wasnt even pissed off at those who fucked him over really badly.

Disciple of Prometheus

12th April 2006, 21:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:21 PM
That sounds fascist.

You keep on using this word, but I don't think it means what you think it means, lol, ;) .

fernando

12th April 2006, 21:24

Most of the members (even some prominent ones) here dont really know what it means and will use to against anything that sort of goes against them or has some authoritarian twists...

Lord Testicles

12th April 2006, 21:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:21 PM
I'm voting for anarchy, a state in which I can do as I wish. Communisim is just another form of government and ummmm....Americans won't go for communism EVER.
Last time i checked a religion with a supream diety doesnt conform with anarchism.

violencia.Proletariat

12th April 2006, 21:51

I'm voting for anarchy, a state in which I can do as I wish. Communisim is just another form of government and ummmm....Americans won't go for communism EVER.

There's a little problem with that one Annie dear, anarchists are communists. Communism is a stateless classless society. You can't "do what you wish" when it affects other people.

Let me let you in on a little history here, anarchism has a very bad track record with religion. When anarchist insurrection takes place, the priests are some of the first in front of the firing squad. :lol:

So yeah, anarchy and my big cross and perhaps a whole little town of us

Expect to feed yourselves and make all your own products, no communist community will have any positive relations with you.

Nicky Scarfo

12th April 2006, 22:04

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 10 2006, 04:03 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 10 2006, 04:03 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 08:08 AM

What happens when they find out that we've been bullshitting them?

Do what every other political entity does with things it doesn't need around anymore - dispose of them. That'd actually please you redstar2000 I think, use the religious to get your revolution going, then take them all proverbially out the back and shoot them.
No it would not "please me"...I don't want to shoot anybody unless it's necessary.

In this instance, I don't want to "fool" the godsuckers into "supporting us", I want to completely alienate them away from their superstition...and, in my opinion, the best strategy to accomplish that is a frontal attack.

Some others on this board vehemently disagree with me about that; it's one of the "hot button" issues here.

Some of them think that there really are "religious leftists" that we should "unite with". Some think that religion is "personal" or "harmless" or "trivial".

My open intolerance of superstition means that I'm sometimes labeled a "bigot" and even a "racist".

I am against "freedom of religion" (an old bourgeois value) and in favor of freedom from religion!

This particularly upsets reformists...because they must, of necessity, seek the support of many superstitious people in order to build popular support for their reforms. Any kind of open opposition to superstition would be self-defeating from their perspective.

Oh, they'll offer a few muted criticisms of the "really outrageous" stuff...but it will usually take the form of "they're perverting Christianity" or "they're perverting Islam" or whatever.

When, in actual fact, it is the "fundamentalist extremists" who are the most authentic representatives of Christianity, Islam, etc. Those guys are the bastards who take their religion really seriously!

And who, over time, "set the tone" of a successful religion. It isn't the "ordinary" godsuckers who decide that burning a "witch" or hanging a gay man might be "a good idea", it's the fundamentalist extremists.

The ordinary godsuckers respect their spiritual leaders and "go along with it" and even "participate in it." :o

Not always and not on every occasion, but often enough that we should know what to expect!

And plan accordingly. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Although this post wasn't a direct reply to me, I believe it is addressing points I raised, so I will respond.

My open intolerance of superstition means that I'm sometimes labeled a "bigot" and even a "racist".

No, I think it is your open intolerance of the superstitious themselves, not the superstition, that makes you a bigot (in that regard at least). You've done more than assert that they are not worthy of being "allies", but go on to say that none of them should be trusted, and that nearly all of them will be brought to the bidding of reactionary religious leaders in time of struggle or controversy-- which may be true for the majority of religious people, but for a sizable minority, this is complete and utter bullshit.

You've even created your own slur-- "godsucker". I would not consider you a bigot if you held those in contempt that hold reactionary or even conservative viewpoints as a result of their religion, but although belief in the supernatural may be irrational, it is not a guarantee that such a person would not also hold socially and economically progressive, or even revolutionary, viewpoints. Though you don't care to admit it, history has shown that some sects can in fact be progressive and revolutionary, even if have always been in the minority historically.

Although you may make a distinction between religious individuals and sects when forced to through debate, effectively you lump Quakers, Liberation Theology adherents, and Unitarians in with Pentecostals, Southern Baptists and Right-Wing Catholics. You all hold them in contempt as "godsuckers". At best it's fundamentally unfair and prejudicial. At worst it's pure bigotry.

I should know. I hate religion, from personal experience, so much that I've skated over that line a couple of times myself. When I actually started working with left-wing religious folks is when I started to moderate my beliefs about the religious, if not religion itself.

This particularly upsets reformists...because they must, of necessity, seek the support of many superstitious people in order to build popular support for their reforms. Any kind of open opposition to superstition would be self-defeating from their perspective.

Please correct me if my ego is getting the better of me, but I think this was at least partly directed at me.

First off, whether you consider me to be a reformist or not, I do openly oppose religion and superstition, but if the only substantive difference between myself and someone else involved in struggle is a belief in the supernatural, then let's agree to disagree and get on with the work of building a social movement, whether that end in reform or revolution.

And it's self-defeating for reformists and revolutionaries alike. I agree with many of your opinions here, redstar, but your belief that the religious (no matter what their political, social, economic beliefs) are not to be trusted and cannot be allies is garbage. For just one historical example among many: The IWW was very vocal about their opposition to religion, and when they led the historic 1912 Lawrence Strike they carried banners proclaiming "No Gods, No Masters!". Now don't you think most of those 20,000 strikers probably did believe in a god, and that many were regular church-goers? Don't you think that some (if not most) of their priests opposed the strike?

Yet they didn't back down under pressure from the priests or soldiers and they won. And back then, make no mistake, a strike (especially one led by the IWW) was an act of revolutionary struggle, not simple "reformism".

Now how far do you think Giovanni and Ettor would have gotten in their organizing at Lawrence if they declared no Catholics were eligible for IWW membership and started deriding the mill workers as "godsuckers"?

Oh, they'll offer a few muted criticisms of the "really outrageous" stuff...but it will usually take the form of "they're perverting Christianity" or "they're perverting Islam" or whatever.

You won't hear that shit from me.

When, in actual fact, it is the "fundamentalist extremists" who are the most authentic representatives of Christianity, Islam, etc. Those guys are the bastards who take their religion really seriously!

We agree on this and in fact I've argued this very line on Liberal internet forums. Where we differ is your belief that 99% of the "ordinary godsuckers" will always be brought about to the fundamentalist leadership. History and contemporary real-world experience should clearly demonstrate to anyone who is not blinded by bigotry that at various times, in various places, there have always been and always will be a sizable minority of the religious who are socially progressive. In some cases, such as the English Civil War, the American Abolitionist movement, the American Civil Rights movement, and the ongoing stuggles in Latin America-- those religious movements have played a leading role in the struggle for social progress or even revolutionary change.

Now granted, the counterexamples of religious oppression are much more numerous, and it is likely that, as a whole (due at least in part to the irrational basis and authoritarian theological presuppositions and institutional stuctures of many religions) religion will always continue to be a reactionary social force, and the "bad guys" the majority within any religion. For that reason, society should move to dispose of religion first as an institutional force and then as a cultural force (though I think it can only be successfully accomplished through a voluntary ideological/social movement, not coercion of any sort-- well, I might be open to forcefully breaking the organizational power of the most reactionary religious groups, but that about it).

But in the meantime, we have left-wing religious people willing to struggle with us against the right-wing and against other conservative and reactionary forces. Some are even willing to engage in patently revolutionary activity with people who openly oppose religion as a social and institutional force. It's stupid to reject their help, in fact, it's suicide for revolutionaries and reformists alike. Unless you want to be an ultrasectarian revolutionary who's more concerned with being correct than actually building a movement and winning anything.

redstar2000

13th April 2006, 10:03

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
No, I think it is your open intolerance of the superstitious themselves, not the superstition, that makes you a bigot.

"Hate the sin but love the sinner", eh? :lol:

Nope. Those bedazzled by reactionary superstitions will turn out to be our enemies 99.999% of the time...the exceptions will be as rare as the proverbial summertime snowfall.

I would not consider you a bigot if you held those in contempt that hold reactionary or even conservative viewpoints as a result of their religion, but although belief in the supernatural may be irrational, it is not a guarantee that such a person would not also hold socially and economically progressive, or even revolutionary, viewpoints.

History offers no "perfect guarantees"...but some things are so close to certain as makes no measurable difference.

Here's a student (about to depart) at "King's College" in New York City...

"My roommate says there will be free-market capitalism in heaven."

Christian college takes root in the Empire State Building (http://villagevoice.com/arts/0615,aviv,72805,12.html)

The most you can reasonably expect in our times is that someone who is superstitious may hold a "progressive" view on a particular single issue.

Muslim fundamentalists seeking to forcibly drive out the U.S. imperialists from Iraq, for example.

Such "historical accidents" will be increasingly rare with the passing of time, in my opinion. That is, with every passing year, religion becomes, of necessity, more and more objectively reactionary.

How could it be otherwise? It is more and more "out of date" and "intellectually obsolete" with every passing year. What else could it be but more and more reactionary?

Though you don't care to admit it, history has shown that some sects can in fact be progressive and revolutionary, even if have always been in the minority historically.

Yes, you can root out some occasions when the rise of the bourgeoisie cloaked itself in the garments of the Protestant Reformation...which was certainly revolutionary for those times.

But, in the "old" capitalist countries, that's no longer relevant. There are no modern "religious communists" and, in my view, there cannot be such a thing.

Why pretend otherwise?

A small number of religious people are still interested in reformism, of course...but why should we give a rat's ass about that?

Reformism is just as obsolete in the "old" capitalist countries as religion is.

Although you may make a distinction between religious individuals and sects when forced to through debate, effectively you lump Quakers, Liberation Theology adherents, and Unitarians in with Pentecostals, Southern Baptists and Right-Wing Catholics. You all hold them in contempt as "godsuckers". At best it's fundamentally unfair and prejudicial. At worst it's pure bigotry.

Yeah, it's all shit and the people who "push it" are all no damn good!

There's no legitimate excuse for that crap anymore...and the people who nevertheless get involved in it are hustlers, dummies, or people who have simply not yet thought the matter over.

The third category is by far the largest, to be sure. But they won't be persuaded to abandon superstition by any approach that suggests "respect for religion"...any more than we persuade someone that racism is a totally reactionary idea by displaying "respect for racial identity".

When I actually started working with left-wing religious folks is when I started to moderate my beliefs about the religious, if not religion itself.

No surprise there. The usual consequence of "working with" reactionaries is that the "lefty" moves to the right.

He says to himself, "hey, they're not as bad as I thought they were."

Old story. :(

First off, whether you consider me to be a reformist or not, I do openly oppose religion and superstition, but if the only substantive difference between myself and someone else involved in struggle is a belief in the supernatural, then let's agree to disagree and get on with the work of building a social movement, whether that end in reform or revolution.

I'm not stopping you; go right ahead and "work with" the religious all you like for whatever reforms you think worthy.

For revolutionaries, your efforts are simply irrelevant. We are uninterested in abstract "social movements"...except insofar as one of them may demonstrate some revolutionary potential.

When millions of angry people fill the streets, you'll get our attention. :lol:

But in the meantime, we have left-wing religious people willing to struggle with us against the right-wing and against other conservative and reactionary forces. Some are even willing to engage in patently revolutionary activity with people who openly oppose religion as a social and institutional force.

Don't forget their agenda: they have a racket to save and if pretending to be "left" or even "revolutionary" will "help save it", some of them are willing to do that.

They're not there to "help us" but to hold us back! We may as well unite with "progressive CIA agents". :lol:

Unless you want to be an ultrasectarian revolutionary who's more concerned with being correct than actually building a movement and winning anything.

You know there's something to be said for "being correct" if one can actually manage to pull that off.

Being "correct" means we don't get suckered.

That doesn't mean we "automatically win", but it helps quite a bit not to beat ourselves!

There are a lot of historical defeats of revolutionary risings due, at least in part, to the inability to recognize real enemies and deal with them appropriately.

It would be interesting to have the testimony here of some old Stalinists from Poland or East Germany...to see what "tolerance of religion" ended up doing for them. :(

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

Ol' Dirty

15th April 2006, 02:30

Islam, as an enterperation, is a load of shit. I really have no problem with Muslims.

Goatse

15th April 2006, 10:29

I'm voting for anarchy, a state in which I can do as I wish.

That doesn't mean you can kill homosexuals.

What, you don't?

Then you're not a real Christian! :o

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 14:05

Late Fashion Bulletin from Iran

Originally posted by BBC
Iran launches Islamic dress drive

Authorities in Iran are to crack down on women failing to follow the regime's definition of good Islamic dress.

Some 200 extra police are to patrol the streets of Tehran confronting women who reveal ankles, sport thin headscarves or wear short or tight jackets.

Those found to be in breach of Iran's Islamic dress code could face instant penalty fines.

The move is part of a blitz against anti-social behaviour, also targeting drugs and people who play loud music.

People walking pets or men sporting outlandish hairstyles could also face fines, of up to $55 (£31), said Tehran's police chief, Mortaza Talai.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/4929504.stm

Walking pets? :o

Islam...a religion for today! :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Dyst

21st April 2006, 14:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:20 PM
Authorities in Iran are to crack down on women failing to follow the regime's definition of good Islamic dress.

Some 200 extra police are to patrol the streets of Tehran confronting women who reveal ankles, sport thin headscarves or wear short or tight jackets.

Those found to be in breach of Iran's Islamic dress code could face instant penalty fines.

The move is part of a blitz against anti-social behaviour, also targeting drugs and people who play loud music.

People walking pets or men sporting outlandish hairstyles could also face fines, of up to $55 (£31), said Tehran's police chief, Mortaza Talai.
Jeeez....

Glad I don't live in Iran. I would be facing immediate execution! :P

I listen to heavy metal, have what you could call "outlandish hairstyle" and a serious problem with authorities. I could also probably be spotted ripping off those damn blankets on the women.

Too bad I don't own a pet.

RevMARKSman

21st April 2006, 14:27

They're not there to "help us" but to hold us back!

You underestimate me. I'm here to help. You're the one holding us back--"divide and conquer." It may be unintentional but by excluding some of those that want to help, you're hurting this revolution.

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 15:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:42 AM

They're not there to "help us" but to hold us back!

You underestimate me. I'm here to help. You're the one holding us back--"divide and conquer." It may be unintentional but by excluding some of those that want to help, you're hurting this revolution.
You say you are "here to help" and you may be completely "sincere".

That's irrelevant!

What is relevant is the ongoing social role of the superstition you embrace...which is, to all intents and purposes, always reactionary.

That's what superstitions are!

By supporting the propagation of a reactionary superstition, you will hurt us even when you "mean to help".

Sorry.

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

RevMARKSman

21st April 2006, 16:04

Ouch...I get KO'ed again... :blink:
This guy's GOOD.

hassan monwar al-moudjahid

24th April 2006, 00:37

i just joined the revolutionary left, and i hope to join constructive debates. i dont really like the terms "left" and "right". those are western created terms. i dont like to put myself in a bag. i am not leftist or rightist. i am simply a muslim. i also believe in socialism and communalism. i also dont think religion and communism are idealogically opposed. i think communism is in its nature very religious and capitalism in its nature is very athiest and materialistic.

RedAnarchist

24th April 2006, 00:54

Our Marx in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from capitalism,
and deliver us from decadence.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours,
now and forever. Amen.

:lol:

Disciple of Prometheus

24th April 2006, 01:05

Capitalism (shudders), preys upon and uses spirituality as a tool, because it is easier to control the masses that way, so thus Communism is the opposite of that, Communism is and to my knowledge always has been Atheistic and Materialistic.

violencia.Proletariat

24th April 2006, 02:15

Communism is NOT, never was, and never will be religious or compatable with religion! END OF FUCKING STORY! :angry:

RedSabine

24th April 2006, 02:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:30 AM
Communism is NOT, never was, and never will be religious or compatable with religion! END OF FUCKING STORY! :angry:
Fucking bigot.

chaval

24th April 2006, 02:39

wow nate that was welcoming. i think turning those who wish to learn away immediately based on some prima facia criteria is rather fascist
i was under the impression that this site was for socialists/communists/anarchists etc. not just one rigid form of orthodox communism

let the man speak
onwards with the mujtahid!

hassan monwar al-moudjahid

24th April 2006, 05:04

wow this is sad. u guys follow marx as if he was god. apparently everything that contradicts marx was false. so did marx have all the answers? is he god? but u guys dont believe in god. im confused. u guys r no different from religious fundementalists. u guys r athiest fundementalists. whats wrong with letting ppl practice their religion? ru just gonna kill them like mao did and stalin did? u guys r so close minded, u claim to b "logical" whatever that means, but u act very illogical once religion is brought up. i think u guys need to start thinking for urselves. stop being obediant marxists and obediant athiests. i was mistaken in thinking this was a progressive site. by the way "communism" or communalism as its properly called was NOT invented by marx. cultures practiced it way bfore him. i think its a very religious philosophy. in islam, there is 1 god, so that means everyone is equal under the one god, there is no room for classes or castes or any of that. islam was the religion of abraham, moses, and jesus also. they certainly were not capitalists. capitalists have no moral concious bcuz they strive for wordly goods like money and wealth. while socialists (and muslims) believe in a higher cause, we are selfless "EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE AND NOTHING FOR OURSELVES" as the zapatistas say. we want to serve the well-being of the people. y? bcuz that is islam, that is submitting to god. ok u guys can start ur athiest ranting now

Jaden

24th April 2006, 05:21

I like how you think we're the mindless ones. Islam is an outdated religion. Even in the Koran it says that a woman is worth one-half of a man. That is NOT equal. It's sexist. Religion robs people of their money because in this day and age money is power. The Vatican has millions stored away to influence the governments. We KNOW that communism was practised by other cultures, in fact, my ancestors had practiced the communalism you speak about. In my eyes, you can believe what you want but have an organized religion that promotes sexism and the supremacy of a certain group over another group is a hindrance to our cause. Our cause is to bring REAL equality to everyone. In Islam, Judaism and Christianity it is state that homosexuals should be killed. Is that equal? No, it's not. I think perhaps YOU should stop and think about your religion. There are plenty of contradictions in the Koran and the Bible. Perhaps this site will enlighten you to them: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com it includes the Koran and the Book of Mormon.

hassan monwar al-moudjahid

24th April 2006, 06:19

its not good to negatively remark about something before u objectively research it. im not into nihilism, frankly it opposes everything communalism stands for. i think ud b surprise, u treat islam the same way ur capitalistic imperialist enemies do. like socialism, islam is against residual income, forbids monopolies, interest, and usury. it allows private property but with a limit, although communaly owned property is favored. we must pay zakat which is a religious tax, EVERYONE pays it and the goal of this demandatory charity is to eliminate poverty in the muslim community. it doesnt go to the "church", we dont have religious institutions, nor do we have clergy. islam is against materialism(which is bourgoise), we are against the selling of women, bcuz the west sells its women like a product. and u talk abt how we treat our women? a true muslim respects women, not their bodies. islam is against prostitution, liquor, gambling and all of the other vices that are destructive to the community. by the way im a convert to islam, i used to be an athiest :) but im glad the sickness of those days are over

Eleutherios

24th April 2006, 07:42

Why would anybody who cares about freedom want to outlaw prostitution, liquor or gambling, or for that matter any activity that harms no one except potentially the person who chooses to do it?

In many Islamic countries a woman cannot choose to have sex with a man for money without being murdered by the state. Some respect for women that is.

If Islam is as anti-capitalistic as you claim, then why is the Muslim world not socialist? Why are they not rising up against their capitalist oppressors? Why are so many more of them instead trying to fight against Jews, prostitutes, gamblers, drug users, and other scapegoats who are not the actual sources of our society's problems? Just goes to show that you cannot simultaneously be religious and a productive revolutionary.

hassan monwar al-moudjahid

24th April 2006, 07:53

they are society's problems. oftimes the institutions of gambling and prostitution assist the capitalist state. if u recall when castro came in power in cuba, he got rid of prostitution, gambling, and all the casinos. it is a bourgiousie past time. u r advocating prostitution? it is a form of slavery u know, and a product of a capitalist society. so is gambling. anyone will tell u that these are diabolical to the well being of a society, just as drugs and alcohol are. u'd be surprised, we are rising against our oppressors. ever hear of al-qaeda? they were formed originally to overthrow the capitalist saudi regime! i suggest u read people like shariati, qaddafi, sayid qutb, even osama bin laden is anti-capitalist, not that i support him. check out whats happening in palestine, in iraq, indonesia, the philipines. read about sukarno. better yet click on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism)

bloody_capitalist_sham

24th April 2006, 07:54

Basically, you make assumptions based on a book written by some "prophets".

Despite not being able to prove anything, even remotely "divine", it is still accepted as truth.

Then we see women, walk around with their heads covered in scarves, but not the men who walk around next to them, and that’s thought of as okay?

People waste their own time devoting themselves to a god that doesn’t exist, and telling us we need to respect them despite that.

Rampant and extreme brainwashing from parents to children, because it just so happens that luckily mommy and daddy chose the "right" religion.

Laws and guidance from books most rational people equate to an old version of lord of the rings.

I hope Islam and all other religions get swept away and consigned to history, just like ancient Greek and roman theology has.

Our Marx in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from capitalism,
and deliver us from decadence.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours,
now and forever. Amen.

ahahahahaha

Eleutherios

24th April 2006, 08:21

they are society's problems. oftimes the institutions of gambling and prostitution assist the capitalist state. if u recall when castro came in power in cuba, he got rid of prostitution, gambling, and all the casinos. it is a bourgiousie past time.
Sorry, I'm not one of those people who praises everything Castro has done just because Castro did it.

u r advocating prostitution? it is a form of slavery u know, and a product of a capitalist society.
I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying people shouldn't be punished for it. It is no more a form of slavery than any other occupation is in capitalism. Even if it is a form of slavery, what's the sense in punishing the slaves? Just because some dude hundreds of years ago who thought he was talking to God said prostitutes are immoral? Pushing your morals on other people by means of the state is just wrong. If you want to get rid of prostitution, forcing people to stop isn't going to work, as evidenced by the fact that there are lots of prostitutes in every country on the planet despite the fact that it is illegal in most of them. If you want to get rid of prostitution, abolish money and wage labor instead, so that selling sex doesn't make any sense economically.

so is gambling.
Really? I've played my share of poker games, and as far as I can tell, all my actions were completely voluntary.

anyone will tell u that these are diabolical to the well being of a society, just as drugs and alcohol are.
Anyone? Really? Have you tried talking to people with opinions different from your own? If you did, you would realize that is completely false. Because most people I know use drugs and/or alcohol, and don't regard them as diabolical to the well-being of society. In fact, we get along with each other pretty well.

u'd be surprised, we are rising against our oppressors. ever hear of al-qaeda? they were formed originally to overthrow the capitalist saudi regime!
And how have they helped the revolution against capitalism? Oh, that's right, they killed lots of innocent proletarians.

i suggest u read people like shariati, qaddafi, sayid qutb, even osama bin laden is anti-capitalist, not that i support him. check out whats happening in palestine, in iraq, indonesia, the philipines. read about sukarno. better yet click on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism)
What is that link supposed to prove? That a tiny minority of Muslims declare themselves to be socialists? That does nothing to show that Islam has the slightest bit of revolutionary potential. I thought this was evident by the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not revolutionary anti-capitalists. If you ask me, the socialist movement would be better off without terrorist fundamentalist wackos like Osama bin Laden calling themselves anti-captilaists.

Eleutherios

24th April 2006, 08:29

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 05:34 AM
by the way im a convert to islam, i used to be an athiest :) but im glad the sickness of those days are over
It's obvious you didn't take atheism very seriously, or you'd at least be able to spell "atheist".

RedAnarchist

24th April 2006, 08:51

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 05:34 AM
by the way im a convert to islam, i used to be an athiest :) but im glad the sickness of those days are over

Yes, you were so sick. Not being the mortal slave of a god, doing exactly what he tells you must have been so damaging to your health :lol:

redstar2000

24th April 2006, 16:03

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-moudjahid
wow this is sad. u guys follow marx as if he was god. apparently everything that contradicts marx was false. so did marx have all the answers? is he god? but u guys dont believe in god. im confused. u guys r no different from religious fundementalists. u guys r athiest fundementalists. whats wrong with letting ppl practice their religion?

Did you "learn" to "type" on a cellphone?

Or is your semi-literacy a pose of some kind?

Marx was not a "god" or even a "prophet".

What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095081406&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Yes, most of us here are "fundamentalist atheists"...our tolerance for superstition is small and getting smaller! In a few years, I expect godsuckers will be summarily banned just like Nazis are now.

What's "wrong" with letting people "practice their religion" is what they do when they have that "freedom".

Practicing Islam in Iraq (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/04/at_last_bbc_fir.html)

I find it very implausible that you were ever any kind of "atheist"...and I suspect that's also a "pose" on your part.

No one, having once seen through the godracket, would ever take seriously as incredibly silly a document as the Qu'ran.

Or any "holy book" for that matter.

I think you're really an ex-Christian who converted to Islam because you think it's "cool" and "anti-western".

Evidence of your historical ignorance, as the "west" borrowed freely from Arab culture in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance periods.

What you need is a ham sandwich and a beer...to clear your head. :D

i was mistaken in thinking this was a progressive site.

If you define "progressive" as licking the boots of the superstitious, yes, you were very mistaken. :angry:

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

Eleutherios

24th April 2006, 17:34

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 04:19 AM
in islam, there is 1 god, so that means everyone is equal under the one god, there is no room for classes or castes or any of that.
That's like saying "under fascism, there is one ruler, and everybody is equal under the one ruler". There is no such thing as equality so long as there is a supreme dictator telling everybody what to do and what not to do. That includes invisible dictators of the universe like Allah. Besides, are there not proletarians and bourgeois in Muslim countries? Or have they already achieved classless societies throughout the Muslim world? I think if you'll give the matter at least 3 seconds of thought, you'll find that even under Islam there is "room for classes". This comes as no surprise, of course, seeing as how the Koran condones slavery. All Muhammed had to say about slaves was to be nice to them. Don't release them from their subservient economic position; just be nice to them while you exploit them.

Goatse

24th April 2006, 19:36

i think communism is in its nature very religious and capitalism in its nature is very athiest and materialistic.

Best quote ever.

wow this is sad.

:(

u guys follow marx as if he was god.

And you follow "Allah" as if he was a god. :lol:

ru just gonna kill them like mao did and stalin did?

Why yes. Yes we are.

i think u guys need to start thinking for urselves. stop being obediant marxists and obediant athiests.

This seems very ironic coming from a Muslim...

a true muslim respects women, not their bodies.

Is that why you clad them in black in the middle of a desert?

Just wanted to say all that. Not that you're likely to reply.

AnnieAngel

24th April 2006, 20:05

Isn't temporary marriage just Allah validated prostitution?

Oh YES it is.

And of course, beating women, LIGHTLY pleases Allah. Of course, you have to use your words first, but if she still doesn't obey, WHACK with the stick.

And of course, a woman cannot choose to marry outside of Islam, but a man can. And a man can legally have FOUR wives.

Equal??? How so??? Do men and women pray together??

Laughable to call Islam anything other than totalitarianism.

HAHA! I LAUGH!

Annie :ph34r:

Dark Exodus

24th April 2006, 20:18

AnnieAngel

24th April 2006, 21:03

No it's NOT fitting. They should leave Jesus OUT of their blasphemy.

They only use Jesus because they stole Him when they were giving their moon god religion an overhaul.

Jesus hates Islam.

Annie :ph34r:

Disciple of Prometheus

24th April 2006, 22:41

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 05:34 AM
im not into nihilism
Nihilism is far better than islam will ever be.

Long Live Nihilism!

Disciple of Prometheus

24th April 2006, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:18 PM
Jesus hates Islam.

No, jesus hates everything that wasn't himself, because he was idiotic drifter with a god and messiah complex, and an inferiority complex, no different than the so called messiahs that exist today.

adenoid hynkel

25th April 2006, 00:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:20 PM
Isn't temporary marriage just Allah validated prostitution?

Oh YES it is.

And of course, beating women, LIGHTLY pleases Allah. Of course, you have to use your words first, but if she still doesn't obey, WHACK with the stick.

And of course, a woman cannot choose to marry outside of Islam, but a man can. And a man can legally have FOUR wives.

Equal??? How so??? Do men and women pray together??

Laughable to call Islam anything other than totalitarianism.

HAHA! I LAUGH!

Annie :ph34r:
You seem to be annoyed by the sexism of Islam. But, curiously, you do not seem to be annoyed by the Christian sexism. Your Bible clearly states that women are inferior to men; that Eve was responsible for the downfall of humanity and that she will be punished for leading Adam to sin by being to him. St.Paul clearly stated that the wife should unconditionally submit to the will of her husband.

These are only few of the signs of sexism in the Bible. Now can you tell me why is the Muslim sexism worse than the Christian one? Of course you can answer to me that women are treated better in the Christian countries than in the Muslim ones. But this happens only because the Muslim countries are REALLY Muslim countries governed by MUSLIM LAW. While the Christian countries are not so much Christian anymore and they are run by secular laws.

Personally I am an atheist and I am against allreligions. But I have to say that I dislike Christianism more than I dislike Islam. At least Islam does not teach the stupid, coward "turn the other cheek" doctrine. It teaches AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.

redstar2000

25th April 2006, 01:28

Another great leap forward for Islam

Originally posted by Yahoo News
Iran to Let Women Go to Soccer Games

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian women will be allowed to attend soccer matches for first time since the country's 1979 Islamic revolution,
Iran's president said in a decree posted on his Web site Monday.

Women would sit in separate section of the stands, away from the usually raucous male fans.

"The presence of families and women will improve soccer-watching manners, and promote a healthy atmosphere," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. "They will be allocated some of the best stands in stadiums," he added.

Iran's Islamic law imposes tight restrictions on women. They need a male guardian's permission to work or travel, and have rarely been allowed to attend public sporting events.

Women in Iran are not allowed to become judges, and a man's court testimony is considered twice as important as a woman's. Iranian men can divorce almost at will, while women must go through a long legal battle and often relinquish rights in return for divorce.

Despite such restrictions, Iranian women have more rights than their counterparts in Saudi Arabia and other conservative Muslim countries. They can drive, vote and run for office.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_.../soc_iran_women (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_sp_so_ne/soc_iran_women)

No word yet on whether Iranian women will be allowed to brawl with female supporters of other teams. :lol:

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

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 02:19

Of course I'm annoyed at the sexism Paul introduced into Christianity.
I'm a woman.

Islam doesn't teach turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye. It teaches kill the unbeliever wherever you find them.

Annie :ph34r:

violencia.Proletariat

25th April 2006, 02:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:34 PM
Of course I'm annoyed at the sexism Paul introduced into Christianity.
I'm a woman.

Islam doesn't teach turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye. It teaches kill the unbeliever wherever you find them.

Annie :ph34r:
Meh in Islam at least you get a choice of death?

Christians are supposed to stone non-believers to death, but I guess you neglect those parts of the bible dear Annie

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 02:35

Christians stone unbelievers????? Where is this in the New Testament? I don't even think that's in the OT.

Jesus was all about go forth and sin no more...repentance, salvation, you know?

I think you're a bit confused, I'm glad I'm here! ;)

Islam is a VERY strict religion of total submission to a bunch of stuff some guy dictated to a bunch of other guys a collected into a book. It's more or less a great book on how to brainwash and subjugate entire populations by conversion or death and keep them there through total obidience to the rules of the religion, or death.

Annie :ph34r:

Jaden

25th April 2006, 03:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:50 PM
Christians stone unbelievers????? Where is this in the New Testament? I don't even think that's in the OT.

Jesus was all about go forth and sin no more...repentance, salvation, you know?

I think you're a bit confused, I'm glad I'm here! ;)

Islam is a VERY strict religion of total submission to a bunch of stuff some guy dictated to a bunch of other guys a collected into a book. It's more or less a great book on how to brainwash and subjugate entire populations by conversion or death and keep them there through total obidience to the rules of the religion, or death.

Annie :ph34r:
Deuteronomy, Chapter 13:6-10 - If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers
(7) Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
(8) Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
(9) But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
(10) And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Deuteronomy, Chapter 13:12-16 - (12) If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
(13) Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
(14) Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
(15) Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
(16) And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:12-13 - (12) And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
(13) And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

Acts, Chapter 3:23- (23) And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Romans 1:31-32 - (31) 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 - (14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
(15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
(16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

I would list more, but I figure this link would suffice. Click it like gossip (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html)

Christianity was SUPPOSED to be a VERY strict religion. I would have to say that no "true" Christian exist these days. Religion has been bent and formed to exploit people, not help them. Honestly, what DOES the Vatican do with their money besides bribe politicians?

adenoid hynkel

25th April 2006, 03:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:34 AM
Of course I'm annoyed at the sexism Paul introduced into Christianity.
I'm a woman.

Islam doesn't teach turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye. It teaches kill the unbeliever wherever you find them.

Annie :ph34r:
ANNIE ANGEL QUOTE FROM HER USER'S BLOG POSTED AT 12/04/06 (12 days ago)

A good wife is to be submissive to her Husband.

The Husband is the head of the family just as Jesus is the head of the Church. That is religous, Catherine.

A person who in one of her posts says that she is annoyed by Paul's sexism, while at another post says that "A good wife is to be submissive to her Husband" and that "The Husband is the head of the family just as Jesus is the head of the Church" cannot be considered serious

And about Islam teaching "kill the unbeliever wherever you find them"...... the Islam does NOT teach such a thing. I am aware of the Islamic culture and I have read some parts of the Koran. The Koran says that in an Islamic state the infidels should have a second-class citizenship, paying more taxes, having smaller temples etc. My Greek Christian people was under the Muslim Turkish occupation for 400 hundred years. If these Muslim Turks had the "kill the unbeliever wherever you find them" policy, today there would NOT be any Greek people.

I am not trying to say that Islam is good. I consider Islam (and religion in general) harmful. But it is not worse than your precious Christianism, as your Rebuplican friends tell you in order to make you support the war on Iraq (or Iran as well?). They tell you ... evil Muslims.......... barbarous........ they kill kill kill.....Saddam Hussein........hate America......... destroy America...... The fact that Saddam Hussein was NOT an Islamist, but a secularist and that he did NOT have WMD is unimportant.
And you, as a good American Christian, continue to support your good American Christian president who sent to death thousands of Americans and Iraqis in order to protect America from some WMD that finally...........................did not exist :blink:

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 03:41

Noid, So it's not possible to be bothered by the fact I have to be submissive?

Hmmmm? And you do know that Muslims consider NOI to be not only not Muslim but blasphemy?

And to Jaden who posted the NT quotes...none of them say that we are to kill unbelievers....I think you need to try harder.

And the OT quotes are telling Israelites to kill Israelites who fall away from worshipping Yahweh or people who are actually trying to pervert the religion of the Israelites. If you don't like those quotes take it up with a Jew not a Christian.

Annie :ph34r:

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 03:43

Sorry Noid, I confused you with the NOI guy. My apologies.

Annie :ph34r:

adenoid hynkel

25th April 2006, 03:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:56 AM
Noid, So it's not possible to be bothered by the fact I have to be submissive?

Annie :ph34r:
According to WHOM, do you have to be submissive?
If, as YOU say, being submissive bothers you, why don't you try NOT being submissive?

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 05:13

Because it pleases God that we have a certain social order so that we can live in peace. It does bother me at times, but think of it like this, you can't have two people making decisions. One person has to be in charge, in business or in a family. So while there are times I would like to say NO DO IT MY WAY, I realize that is my pride and pride is a sin and I need to just give in in order for there to be harmony in the home.

Annie :ph34r:

adenoid hynkel

25th April 2006, 07:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:28 AM
Because it pleases God that we have a certain social order so that we can live in peace. It does bother me at times, but think of it like this, you can't have two people making decisions. One person has to be in charge, in business or in a family. So while there are times I would like to say NO DO IT MY WAY, I realize that is my pride and pride is a sin and I need to just give in in order for there to be harmony in the home.

Annie :ph34r:
It is obvious that YOU consider these supposed ""God-given"" laws depressing and unfair. Now the reason why you consider " God-given" a religion whose laws are despessing and unfair is really beyond me.

IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. If a parent had two children and he gave all the good presents to one of them and the worst to the other, would you consider him a just parent? NO

Now if a God created man and woman, and he gave to man the privilege to be the master and to woman the task to be submissive, would you consider this God a just God? OFFCOURSE NOT.

I know that many times the conservatives say that feminists, and leftishs in general, want to force women to have careers, to have no children etc. They say that women who are stay-in-home traditional housewives are self-confident and happy and that the leftishs want to force them to become career-women. NOW I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. I say that if you are self-confident and happy by being a traditional submissive mother, then be one. But when YOU say that this submissive role "bothers"you, then surely there is a problem.

I do not believe in the God or in the Devil; I do not believe in the afterlife. I do believe in earthly life. Whether you like it or not, this earthly life is the only thing you have for sure. It is important to make it as happy and pleasant as possible. If, I say if, YOU consider this "submissive" lifestyle an obstacle to your happiness, you should get rid of it. Plain and simple.

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 15:51

It bothers me because my personality rebels against authority. However, my personality is not God, therefore I need to do what God wants not what I want.

It's not all bad, I'm fairly happy. I'm really rather spoiled. And of course, I don't mean that I do every single thing I'm told and I do have the right to give input and stuff, but if it comes down to my way or his way and we can't compromise, someone has to give, so I give because I don't feel it's right that we keep fighting because it's not what God wants.

And anyway, I'm too old for a real carreer or anything like that. I would have liked to have had one, but it's too late now anyway so I'm not going to worry about it. So getting rid of my "lifestyle" would pretty much make me homeless and starving.

Annie :ph34r:

Goatse

25th April 2006, 16:50

LMFAO

We've got a Christian and a Muslim trying to prove their faith is better...

:D

Jaden

25th April 2006, 17:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:56 PM
And to Jaden who posted the NT quotes...none of them say that we are to kill unbelievers....I think you need to try harder.

And the OT quotes are telling Israelites to kill Israelites who fall away from worshipping Yahweh or people who are actually trying to pervert the religion of the Israelites. If you don't like those quotes take it up with a Jew not a Christian.

Annie :ph34r:
If you don't use the Old Testament your faith loses the basis that Christianity is founded on. Christianity is NOT solely on what Jesus taught because Jesus came to re-inforce the Judaic religion with some new additions. I will take it up with you because Christians today seem to pick and choose at what to keep from the Old Testament. The Jews who fell away from Judaism are unbelievers and they promote the killing of them. God had sent forth the Israelites to kill whole tribes of people because they merely occupied the land God had "promised" them. God also promised Jacob that he would take Jacob out of Egypt but Jacob died before God got around to it.

The New Testament quotes encourage the killing of homosexuals - most of who are unbelievers no doubt. The quote from Acts also promotes the destruction of those who don't believe in Jesus (the prophet). That would be unbelievers.

I also think you failed to look at the link I provided so let me give it to you straight up. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

I love how Lot was considered a just and righteous man even after he impregnated his own daughters.

NOW, if you are a Christian of a deep faith and you are so adament about being a true Christian then lmaybe you should eave this site immediately (entirely your choice - oh wait, sorry, it's God's choice not yours). After all Christians aren't supposed to associate with non-Christians. That's just SINFUL! :lol:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

AnnieAngel

25th April 2006, 18:55

LOL!

Jesus was silent on homosexuality.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, or covenant, and He is the foundation of the New Testament, which begins with Him. Our covenant as Christians is with Jesus. If we accept Jesus died for our sins and believe in Him, we have only two laws: Love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves.

Again, if you have a problem with what Jews believe they need to do to please God, take it up with them.

Annie :ph34r:

redstar2000

25th April 2006, 19:50

Originally posted by AnnieAngel+--> (AnnieAngel)If we accept Jesus died for our sins and believe in Him, we have only two laws: Love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves.[/b]

And never mind the traffic regulations. :lol:

AP
Church-Goers Claim Right To Double-Park

WASHINGTON -- In the nation's capital, where parking is scarce, churchgoers say plans to crack down on double-parking infringe on their religious rights.

Cars have commonly been double-parked near DC churches on Sundays for decades, but police had largely ignored the practice until neighbors complained.

http://www.wsbtv.com/family/8962978/detail.html

Thou shalt "love thy neighbor"...but taking his parking place or blocking his car is a "religious right".

Gotta love them Christians! :lol:

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

Disciple of Prometheus

25th April 2006, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:10 PM
Jesus was silent on homosexuality.

Probably, because there have been some scholars saying that there might have been a sexual initation rites between lazarus and jesus, which would make jesus bi-sexual.

But seeing how you are probably opposed to the gnostic scripts I don't think it matters much anyway.

Jaden

26th April 2006, 00:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:10 AM
LOL!

Jesus was silent on homosexuality.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, or covenant, and He is the foundation of the New Testament, which begins with Him. Our covenant as Christians is with Jesus. If we accept Jesus died for our sins and believe in Him, we have only two laws: Love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves.

Again, if you have a problem with what Jews believe they need to do to please God, take it up with them.

Annie :ph34r:
So does YOUR bible exclude the Old Testament, then? I do believe that Paul put down a lot of laws for Christians to follow, certainly much more than two. Some of them being to shun the non-believers.

And if by saying that Jesus was silent on homosexuality you would say that it is permissible then WHY do all the big-name Christians and church-goers condemn the act? Because it is written in the Bible both the old and NEW testament. Don't think that I'm ignorant of the Christian religion. I've had it stuffed down my throat for 16 years, and your view of Christianity as fallen away from what the bible says.

Oh, and I do believe that Jesus was silent on polygamy and if that is the case, wouldn't that mean that our near-Theocratical government should legalize polygamy? I would have to say that the Bible, from old to new testament, is a book of contradictions, homo-hatred, sexism and "kill the non-believers".

Didn't Jesus say that your neighbor is the one who cares for you? He also claimed that his family is only the family through God (as Christians say that it is a family through Christ) thus, "love your neighor" is really "love your fellow Christian". No room for unbelievers in that.

By the way, I'm just wondering, do you blame the Jews for killing Jesus?