Tolerating "religious comrades"

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 11:51 PM
well i like all aspects of malcolm x, where i might not agree with racial seperation i do understand the sentiments behind it: self-determination, self-realization, that one race, whether it be black or native american, is capable of doing the same as another race, and that people dont need to be always integrated with white people in order to obtain their salvation. but no i am not for racial seperation, i am a muslim and believe in the brotherhood of all humans, BUT i have to look at the reality of the conditions in latin america and i see indigenous people with no confidence that they can take care of their own problems. indigenous people shouldnt feel that their salvation depends on the white man. ;) i hope that answers ur question. by the way i like your quote.

"the white man knows how to make everything, but can't distribute it"- sitting bull, the first native american "communist", but communalism has always been apart of the native american culture way before marx
Yes, I do feel that in Latin America today the identities of the indigenous is oppressed, however I wouldnt argue that they shoud isolate themselves from the wider socialsit movment, and that only through working class power can oppressed peoples really expirience freedom. Tat qutoe form sitting bull is good, however I think that it is really the white ruling class, and not all white people that are in power and keep the shackles on these oppressed peoples. Yeh I like that quote because I think that Malcolm X is often demonised by the American ruling class as some sort of racist, beacuse unlnk martin luther king they couldn't turn him into some sort of libreal icon. By the way, have you come under attack for being a muslim yet? I find the degredation of religoun comrades on this board a bit sickening. While I myself am an athiest I fully support religous socialists being allowed to air their views and you are evidentlys a knowlegable and able comrade.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

yea i had my taste of ridicule for being a muslim. i didnt expect to experience it here on the rev left but then again it is understandable coming from extreme atheists. i used to be an atheist myself actually.....

[Tekun]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 29 2006, 01:13 AM
yea i had my taste of ridicule for being a muslim. i didnt expect to experience it here on the rev left but then again it is understandable coming from extreme atheists. i used to be an atheist myself actually.....
Don't sweat it brother, therez alot of contempt towards religion on revleft, its nothing new nor personal

On various occasions, I've confronted anti-religion members who have driven away new members, solely for mentioning somethin about their religion or beliefs
I feel that its rather antisocialist to demean and attack another comrade simply for believing in something that the other person cannot tolerate and does not affect him
I understand and accept that socialism is a very scientific and empirical way of life
But that's no reason to confront and drive away a comrade who has all the desire to bring about a socialist revolution

After all...when the revolution comes about, we'll all be fighting in the same trenches

Don't sweat it bro, we still got love for ya on RevLeft

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, it's ridiculous. When the revolution comes are we gonna tell the masses that we won't fight with the huge majoraty of them that are religous? Most of the venezuelan workers are religous yet venezuela is probably where the most important events for world socialism are happening right now.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 29 2006, 10:00 AM
Yeh, it's ridiculous. When the revolution comes are we gonna tell the masses that we won't fight with the huge majoraty of them that are religious?
Why have you and some others chosen to interject superstitious babble into this thread?

Tolerate this...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357

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

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm not defending religon, I'm attacking this boards intolerance towards religous people. In all seriousness answer the question. Do you really think it's right to automatically restrict religous members?

[Colombia]

There must be a noted difference between the church and the belief of god. Both are not one and the same.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 29 2006, 05:08 PM
I'm not defending religon, I'm attacking this board's intolerance towards religous people. In all seriousness answer the question. Do you really think it's right to automatically restrict religous members?
Religious believers are not "automatically" restricted to Opposing Ideologies on this board.

But I expect we are headed "in that direction". :)

At the present time, only preaching will result in restriction.

If you (or anyone) wants to raise this (or other religious concerns), we have a subforum for that purpose.

Please use it.

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

[Red Axis]

I believe in Christ myself, but I think organized religion is a major farce, Christ himself did not even believe in it.

[redstar2000]

Now that we have this nonsense where it belongs, perhaps it can be discussed without interfering with discussions of more important issues.

So tell us why we should suck up to the godsuckers. :o

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

[RevMARKSman]

Nobody said anything about "sucking up." You just shouldn't bash us night and day when there are more important things going on in this world! Would you rather HAVE a revolution and tolerate the theists, or keep it as a dream because the left has been irreparably divided between theists and atheists?

[LSD]

Your problem, Monica, is that you imagine religion to be unrelated to matters of social revolution when in fact they are intimately related.

Religions do not merely "appear", their creations have direct material causes, as do their perpetuation. In capitalist society, religion functions as a social suppressant to dull the abject pain of otherwise glaring inequalies.

If all is "God's will" and we're all going to "paradise" in the end, then it really doesn't matter how miserable we are on earth or how much better the capitalist are doing.

Religion is an "answer" to bourgeois exploitation and it is one which is entirely incongruous with Marx's.

Proletarian revolution is not about accepting "God's plan" or obeying "divine law", it's about liberation and emancipation. Any "belief" that purports to contain "authority" or universal "morality" is incompatible with revolutionary interests and must therefore be confronted.

Religions, by their very nature, are socially stultifying and politically regressive. By codifying antiquated "morals" as "divine" they implicitly obstruct advancement.

If "Mohammed" or "Jesus" didn't like something then, even thousands of years later, their "followers" won't like it either! :o

That's why we still have opposition to abortion in the twenty-first century; that's why the gay rights movement is only in its infancy; and that's why hundreds of millions of women are enslaved around the world.

Religion will, of course, inevitably dissapear on its own; but personally, I don't want to wait. And so while the real world erodes the power of "faith" to trick and inodctrinate a rapidly awakening public; I'm going to help out history in any small way I can.

It's just my way of "giving back" to the religious community. ;)

[RevMARKSman]

Then can you tolerate progressive theists? Those who don't accept church or religious dogma and want to liberate people around the world? The ones who believe God exists and loves all equally?

Abolishing organized religion is fine with me, but I'm not going to give up my beliefs. I'm just not going to preach them to those who don't want me to.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Would you rather HAVE a revolution and tolerate the theists

As if a revolution of theists could result in anything appealing :lol:


You just shouldn't bash us night and day

Why? There have been many members who have come here unsure about religion and even accepting it, but they have become opposed to it because of us.


when there are more important things going on in this world!

Right, just forget about those people oppressing us! It's not what's important. GOD IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT!


keep it as a dream because the left has been irreparably divided between theists and atheists?

Since when does the revolutionary left even consider theists as revolutionaries?


But don't worry about us attacking religion, your discrediting yourself by being an anarchist and a theist :lol:

[Eleutherios]

Whether or not your invisible dictator of the universe is nice to people doesn't matter—it's still a dictator, and dictator worship cannot be tolerated among revolutionaries.

[bolshevik butcher]

Hugo Chavez? Marcos? Malcolm X? I am not religous. However I feel that comrades have the right to be religous and should still be considerd so if they are serious and dedicated socialists.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 30 2006, 11:34 AM
Hugo Chavez? Marcos? Malcolm X? I am not religous. However I feel that comrades have the right to be religous and should still be considerd so if they are serious and dedicated socialists.
I don't really see how any of those people are revolutionary leftists. Marcos has gone down a reformist path, Chavez is a bourgeois politician who says socialism a lot, etc.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist
I am not religious. However I feel that comrades have the right to be religious...

WHY?

What would you say if someone posted...

Comrades have the right to be sexist?

Comrades have the right to be racist?

Comrades have the right to be homophobic?

Comrades have the right to be patriotic?

Does the mere utterance of "pro-socialist" or "pro-communist" sentiments confer the right to hold on to reactionary ideas?

It strikes me that such a position is hopelessly self-defeating. What good is "socialism" or "communism" that comes with all the old shit tagging along behind it?

If all that's going to change is the colors of the flags and some of the public rhetoric, why bother?

Do we want a new world or just the old one with a fresh paint job and new faces on the posters?

In one sense or another, I think that's a question that every revolutionary confronts over and over again.

The "fresh paint job" approach has been chosen over and over again in past revolutions...which always leads to failure.

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

[RevMARKSman]

Ja, I think we should abolish organized religion and reactionary practices but allow people to have private beliefs in a god or gods.



Right, just forget about those people oppressing us! It's not what's important. GOD IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT!

I'd say getting this revolution going is what's more important than bickering about whether it's logical to believe in a god or gods, or whether revolutionary theists should be tolerated.

[Comrade-Z]

The ones who believe God exists and loves all equally?

First, even acknowledging that a god exists means that one accepts that there is a supernatural authority to which obedience is owed. This by itself is fundamentally incompatible with self-emancipation and communist revolution.

Secondly, it does not make sense to "love all people equally." I do not love Nazis. I want bash their faces in whenever an advantageous opportunity presents itself. I do not love capitalists. I want to "go 1789" on the motherfuckers. Except we'll probably use firing squads instead of guillotines. The point is, if god "loves all equally," then that's reason enough to reject its teachings, because those teachings are self-evident insanity.


Hugo Chavez? Marcos? Malcolm X?

They all deserve our intense criticism for being godsuckers.

And I would imagine that all three would reveal themselves as ardent counter-revolutionaries if real communist revolution ever erupted while they were alive. Even Marcos, who has been doing the most admirable work of the three, is leading a peasant movement. It makes sense that he would peddle to the godsuckers. But in any case, a peasant movement has little to offer as far as an example to us in the advanced capitalist countries. Marcos' work might be progressive, just like Stalin's reign in the USSR or the current Iraqi resistance, but they don't necessarily deserve our "seal of approval" or any efforts to use them as an example for our activities.


You just shouldn't bash us night and day when there are more important things going on in this world!

Where I am living right now (Missouri, USA), I can think of few things more important than attacking religion in all its forms.

Are you aware that the state government of Missouri wants to outlaw abortion? Abortion being outlawed means that I would potentially not be able to have nearly as much sex as I would otherwise. This stuff affects me in a direct and material manner!

And the best way to attack religious actions is to attack the basic premise of religion itself. Arguing about "what god wants" is futile because god's written "word" can be twisted any which way. And that's a terrible way to go about it anyways, acting as if god's "word" mattered one bit!

[Comrade-Z]

I'd say getting this revolution going is what's more important than bickering about whether it's logical to believe in a god or gods, or whether revolutionary theists should be tolerated.

But determining whether "revolutionary" theists should be tolerated will directly affect the outcome of any revolution. This is not just "bickering." This is as fundamental a question as "should capitalists or capitalist practices be tolerated after the revolution."

I don't necessarily know that I want to "get a revolution going" while there are still so many religious people (and especially religious "leftists") around. I'd be afraid of the consequences of any such "revolution" that was to be accomplished by such people.

[C_Rasmussen]

Only goes to show how closedminded you guys are if you dont tolerate those of differing beliefs. Personally I dont like the preaching or really even the concept of organized religion and I'm Catholic for fuck sake. Oh and Redstar, why restrict those of other beliefs? I can understand for the reason of preaching but even holding other views? Thats kind of hypocritical of what you guys stand for.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 29 2006, 06:20 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 29 2006, 06:20 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 29 2006, 10:00 AM
Yeh, it's ridiculous. When the revolution comes are we gonna tell the masses that we won't fight with the huge majoraty of them that are religious?
Why have you and some others chosen to interject superstitious babble into this thread?

Tolerate this...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Stop using the buzz-word superstition as a wedge and an end-all when talking about beliefs. You could make that argument for anything. The feeling you get that tells you water molecules tumbling over rock are beautiful and diarrhea molecules sprayed on bed sheets are disgusting is a "superstition" too. That you shouldn't fuck your pet dog, when you break it down, is just a superstition based on arbitrary social taboos. It is an incredibly weak argument.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 30 2006, 04:29 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 30 2006, 04:29 PM)
Clenched Fist
I am not religious. However I feel that comrades have the right to be religious...

WHY?

What would you say if someone posted...

Comrades have the right to be sexist?

Comrades have the right to be racist?

Comrades have the right to be homophobic?

Comrades have the right to be patriotic?

Does the mere utterance of "pro-socialist" or "pro-communist" sentiments confer the right to hold on to reactionary ideas?

It strikes me that such a position is hopelessly self-defeating. What good is "socialism" or "communism" that comes with all the old shit tagging along behind it?

If all that's going to change is the colors of the flags and some of the public rhetoric, why bother?

Do we want a new world or just the old one with a fresh paint job and new faces on the posters?

In one sense or another, I think that's a question that every revolutionary confronts over and over again.

The "fresh paint job" approach has been chosen over and over again in past revolutions...which always leads to failure.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Comrades have the right to think sexistly, homophobically, racistly. They have the right to think whatever they want, whether it's opposed to what you believe or not. That's freedom. When they choose to act on those beliefs, then they are infringing on the rights of others and others freedom. That is unacceptable. If they merely choose to think it, they're free to think whatever they want. Unless your vision of revolution incorporates the crushing of all thought opposed to yours, in which case you're a totalitarian/authoritarian and your revolution is incompatible with mine. If a capitalist after the revolution wants to think capitalism is good, that's fine. As soon as he starts hoarding goods, and trying to monopolize things and reintroduce capitalism then he is infringing upon the freedoms of others. As long as he thinks it rather than impedes upon someone elses freedom, he should be free to think it. People have the right to hold whatever ideas they want, no matter how blatantly putrid they seem. When they act upon these beliefs and restrict the freedoms of others then they must be stopped. Until then telling them what to think is as bad as they are. No person has the right to restrict another's freedom.

A lot of convincing and logical arguments need to be made for socialism, but if you're forcing a working class man at gunpoint to follow you because it's in his best interests when he doesn't want to, then I want no part of that. If you're going to try and restrict people's freedom to think what they want all you're really doing is changing the faces on the posters. This board clearly does have an atheist bias, even considering that atheism is as much a belief as theism, since there's no possible way to disprove the existence of God, only refute things found in supposed holy books which in no way refutes the possibility of God.

[RevMARKSman]

Thank you FoS!
Here is an excerpt from this article (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink) (it happens to be on homosexuality but it could apply to anything):



In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?

What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.

In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.

With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Ja, I think we should abolish organized religion and reactionary practices but allow people to have private beliefs in a god or gods.

And this is exactly what we are proposing! You can be religious in your house, you just can't build a church.


I'd say getting this revolution going is what's more important than bickering about whether it's logical to believe in a god or gods

Yes because looking at material reality to make decisions isn't important at all :rolleyes: Because Marxism has nothing to do with that at all


or whether revolutionary theists should be tolerated.

This shouldn't be a question, it only is because apologists like you exist. A revolutionary theist doesn't exist, but I'm not wasting my time by thinking that they can.

[Free Palestine]

That's nice, Nate. Got any thoughts of your own though? May I start calling you Redstar2000 wanna-be?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 30 2006, 03:21 PM
That's nice, Nate. Got any thoughts of your own though? May I start calling you Redstar2000 wanna-be?
I didn't know RedStar copyrighted atheism :lol:

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:32 PM

or whether revolutionary theists should be tolerated.

This shouldn't be a question, it only is because apologists like you exist. A revolutionary theist doesn't exist, but I'm not wasting my time by thinking that they can.
Apologists? Apologizing to who. Honestly you people seem more bigotted by the moment. A revolutionary theist can easily exist. If he is a pantheist, he thinks God is part of everything and by subscribing to a communist revolution is trying to promote the equality of things... Or that the person believes in God, but thinks God has nothing to do with life and that God doesn't even necessarily want to be "followed" in the human sense, and since God is so disconnected from life it's possible to still actively want a revolution. They can clearly exist, I'd like for you to point out why someone who believes in God can't believe in overthrowing capitalism to put in place a free and socialist society. :rolleyes:

[violencia.Proletariat]

If he is a pantheist, he thinks God is part of everything and by subscribing to a communist revolution is trying to promote the equality of things

What the fuck does that even mean? Everyone should have equal access to god? Why not give them all bibles and send them to church? Being a "pan-theist" is denying material reality.


Or that the person believes in God, but thinks God has nothing to do with life and that God doesn't even necessarily want to be "followed" in the human sense

Yes a deist. Deists don't exist in any significant numbers anymore, the probably became atheists :lol: These people are just confused and can be convinced to become atheists.


I'd like for you to point out why someone who believes in God can't believe in overthrowing capitalism to put in place a free and socialist society.

A theist cannot be a communist because communists accept material reality. Theists DO NOT! Not to mention the reactionary filth theists swim in while claiming to be revolutionary.

[redstar2000]

"Interpreting" scripture; fun for the whole family. :lol:


Originally posted by Luke RSV+--> (Luke RSV)12:54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.

12:55 And when [ye see] the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.

12:56 [Ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

12:57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?[/b]


Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right.

What "Jesus" appears to be referring to here is the "time of Divine Judgment"...and has nothing to do with "sovereign freedom" -- whatever that might mean.

Recall that Jesus's message was "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!" These verses suggest that Jesus is reproaching his audience for not immediately accepting his message.


1st Corinthians RSV
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?


The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone.

Here, Saulos of Tarsus ("Paul") is attacking the practice of Christians suing one another in Roman law courts...advising them that they should take their disputes to their fellow Christians for judgment.

This in no sense implies that Christians can judge "moral questions" on their own. What is "morally right" is commanded by God and cannot be changed to accommodate mere human desires.


Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it.

Indisputable.


The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.

It's not just "the Bible" as an abstraction; it's the Word of God! A Christian is not permitted to question that; it is "correct" by definition.


The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified?

The only reason that a Christian skips that argument is because of embarrassment.

"Jesus" has not a word to say against slavery and Saulos ("Paul") explicitly enjoins Christian slaves to obey their masters...even non-Christian masters.

The preachers of the old Confederacy were right...slavery was "ok with God".

Of course, they can't "say that" now...but there's no reason they "can't say it" if it should prove advantageous to them in the future.


What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor... :lol:

Slavery was abolished at the end of the civil war...and the churches had to go along with it.


It is that God sides with the powerless.

Just the opposite is true. "God" always shows up on the winning side.

Just ask the winners. :lol:


With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.

We can convert real slavery into verbal freedom with a new interpretation.

This guy should have been a "dialectician"...he's a "master" of converting words into their "opposites". :lol:

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

[Goatse]

Originally posted by nate+Apr 30 2006, 09:19 PM--> (nate @ Apr 30 2006, 09:19 PM)
Free [email protected] 30 2006, 03:21 PM
That's nice, Nate. Got any thoughts of your own though? May I start calling you Redstar2000 wanna-be?
I didn't know RedStar copyrighted atheism :lol: [/b]
Nor did I know he copyrighted the truth...

[RevMARKSman]

It's not just "the Bible" as an abstraction; it's the Word of God! A Christian is not permitted to question that; it is "correct" by definition.



No, we put this in context. There are many interpretations that openly contradict each other, so obviously one must be correct. Taking things literally is one of the least logical, dumbest options out there. The verse of the Bible used to condemn homosexuality was during a period when humans as a species were struggling and the man was thought to contain the "seed" for a child. In that time, "spilling the seed" was considered murder.

I don't take the Bible literally. Call me "not a true Christian" if you want.

[amanondeathrow]

MonicaTTmed

There are many interpretations that openly contradict each other, so obviously one must be correct.

There are no interpretations of the bible worth anybody's time.

Just because Christians argue over what their book means should not lead you to believe that one of the factions must be correct. That type of illogical decision making is not accepted here.

Even if your interpretation is not a literal one, it is still an illogical because the message is still the same.

[RevMARKSman]

Oooooookay...how about these two interpretations:

Being queer isn't wrong.
Being queer is wrong.


Two interpretations of the message about queers in the Bible.

Now look at that and tell me that both the messages are the same.

[Red Axis]

I really don't see why we focus on gay rights. I favor gay rights, but I don't think they are our problem. I think we should leave that up to democratic referendum. I really think we should focus on the economic rather than the social. I have my own opinions on social issues, but I focus on economics.

[amanondeathrow]

MonicaTTmed


Now look at that and tell me that both the messages are the same.

What I meant was that the message is still that you are basing your opinion of gays on a centuries old book. Basically saying that the only reason you do hold your opinion is because your bible told you to.

Any logical person would gather from this that you can just as easily be an enemy of gays as you can be a friend.

Why can't you simply base your opinions on logic, without brining the bible into you reasoning?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ScottishPinko+May 1 2006, 02:44 PM--> (ScottishPinko @ May 1 2006, 02:44 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:19 PM

Free [email protected] 30 2006, 03:21 PM
That's nice, Nate. Got any thoughts of your own though? May I start calling you Redstar2000 wanna-be?
I didn't know RedStar copyrighted atheism :lol:
Nor did I know he copyrighted the truth... [/b]
My application is pending...and I hope you all are prepared to pay royalties to me whenever you say something that's true.

Otherwise, like the recording companies, I'll see you in court! :lol:

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

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2006, 12:57 AM
I really don't see why we focus on gay rights. I favor gay rights, but I don't think they are our problem. I think we should leave that up to democratic referendum.
What if the majority of people vote to have homosexuals exterminated? What then, huh? :mellow:

Democracy is well and good and necessary, but just because most people want something doesn't mean we can infringe upon the rights of others.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:54 PM

If he is a pantheist, he thinks God is part of everything and by subscribing to a communist revolution is trying to promote the equality of things

What the fuck does that even mean? Everyone should have equal access to god? Why not give them all bibles and send them to church? Being a "pan-theist" is denying material reality.


Or that the person believes in God, but thinks God has nothing to do with life and that God doesn't even necessarily want to be "followed" in the human sense

Yes a deist. Deists don't exist in any significant numbers anymore, the probably became atheists :lol: These people are just confused and can be convinced to become atheists.


I'd like for you to point out why someone who believes in God can't believe in overthrowing capitalism to put in place a free and socialist society.

A theist cannot be a communist because communists accept material reality. Theists DO NOT! Not to mention the reactionary filth theists swim in while claiming to be revolutionary.
Being a "pan-theist has nothing to do with denying material reality. It's equating the notion of a supreme being to existence or the universe.

And a person who believes in God but believes so "rationally" is a deist. I personally think rationality doesn't mix with "belief", but that it's possible to believe and keep your religious beliefs far seperate from the way to live.

And communists accept material reality? Communism is a theoretical system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. So being a theist opposes none of that. Nor does being a theist equate disbelief in material reality at all. Someone who believes in God can easily believe God created material reality.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
I personally think rationality doesn't mix with "belief", but that it's possible to believe and keep your religious beliefs far separate from the way to live.

In religious circles, this is regarded as the sin of hypocrisy.

Religious beliefs that are not "lived" are simply meaningless noise...and the "fires of Hell" await those who adopt this approach. :o

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

[Red Axis]

Well can't we live them out without imposing them on others?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 2 2006, 09:47 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 2 2006, 09:47 PM)
Fistful of Steel
I personally think rationality doesn't mix with "belief", but that it's possible to believe and keep your religious beliefs far separate from the way to live.

In religious circles, this is regarded as the sin of hypocrisy.

Religious beliefs that are not "lived" are simply meaningless noise...and the "fires of Hell" await those who adopt this approach. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Perhaps I don't subscribe to those circles. Perhaps I think of things on my own and would prefer to think there is a God. In either way, I'm going to live my life to the best of my abilities. If there is or isn't a God I've lost nothing.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 2 2006, 06:22 PM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 2 2006, 06:22 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:47 PM

Fistful of Steel
I personally think rationality doesn't mix with "belief", but that it's possible to believe and keep your religious beliefs far separate from the way to live.

In religious circles, this is regarded as the sin of hypocrisy.

Religious beliefs that are not "lived" are simply meaningless noise...and the "fires of Hell" await those who adopt this approach. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Perhaps I don't subscribe to those circles. Perhaps I think of things on my own and would prefer to think there is a God. In either way, I'm going to live my life to the best of my abilities. If there is or isn't a God I've lost nothing. [/b]
Then why waste your energy believing in something that has no effect on you?

[Red Axis]

^ Why waste energy trying to prove something to someone that will never be proven. You will never convince an atheist otherwise nor will you convince a theist.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+May 3 2006, 12:57 AM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ May 3 2006, 12:57 AM)
Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 2 2006, 06:22 PM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 2 2006, 06:22 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 09:47 PM

Fistful of Steel
I personally think rationality doesn't mix with "belief", but that it's possible to believe and keep your religious beliefs far separate from the way to live.

In religious circles, this is regarded as the sin of hypocrisy.

Religious beliefs that are not "lived" are simply meaningless noise...and the "fires of Hell" await those who adopt this approach. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Perhaps I don't subscribe to those circles. Perhaps I think of things on my own and would prefer to think there is a God. In either way, I'm going to live my life to the best of my abilities. If there is or isn't a God I've lost nothing. [/b]
Then why waste your energy believing in something that has no effect on you? [/b]
It takes no energy for me to think "There might possibly be a God."

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2006, 09:01 PM
^ Why waste energy trying to prove something to someone that will never be proven. You will never convince an atheist otherwise nor will you convince a theist.
What the hell are you on about? Look at the stickied thread in this forum title "burden of proof." Atheists have nothing to proof, godsuckers do.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Its funny how the religous have to interperet their holy books in ways because they want to appear that they fit in with rational secular aociety.

It ultimately ends up in the person denying anything that was mystical in the holy book. All they are left with is the "moral" of the story, and so they are in some way morally superior to those lacking the "divine" insights of such holy books.

It goes like this, did jesus really walk on water, is that possible?

reply: um no, but the moral of story ..... blah blah blah

Did angels really come down from heaven and appear before mary and joseph when jesus was born?

Reply: um no, but the moral of the story ..... blah blah blah

Its not faith, these people just are scared of death and "hope" they might be more than human, like having a soul, and going to heaven.

Pretty arrogant really

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:13 AM
Its funny how the religous have to interperet their holy books in ways because they want to appear and fit in with rational secual aociety.

It ultimately ends up in the person denying anything that was mystical in the holy book. All they are left with is the "moral" of the storey, and so much be in some way morally supior to those lacking the "divine" insights of such holy books.

It goes like this, did jesus really walk on water, is that possible?

reply: um no, but the moral of story ..... blah blah blah

Did angels really come down from heaven and appear before mary and joseph when jesus was born?

Reply: um no, but the moral of the story ..... blah blah blah

Its not faith, these people just are scared of death and "hope" they might be more than human, like having a soul, and going to heaven.

Pretty arrogant really
Ah, but Jesus may have walked on water - regardless of whether it's possible or not (just like the fishes feeding 5000 story), if the "son of God" wants to walk on water then evidently he could do. Again, angels may have appeared - I've never met a Christian argue that they didn't and it is merely a metaphor for something else. If one assumes Jesus was the son of "God" then there is no reason to suspect that any of these things are not real, however, if you don't think so then obviously they seem far fetched.

(I'm not preaching, just pointing out my experience).



Personally, I think it would be stupid not to accept religious comrades because quite often they've been told about this religion from the day they were born. They may have been dragged to church every sunday for the first 16 years of their life and told all about going to hell or whatnot. To assume people can just then totally turn their back on this because someone else tells them to is ridiculous, imo. If we didn't accept people because they were Christian or whatnot, we would be loosing out on massive numbers of people.

I am quite against preaching in public etc though - it should purely be in one's own home. (yes, I realize this has already been said to some degree).

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:51 AM
Oooooookay...how about these two interpretations:

Being queer isn't wrong.
Being queer is wrong.


Two interpretations of the message about queers in the Bible.
Look at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and then find me a way of interpreting the Bible as giving the message "Being queer isn't wrong". Are you starting to see why there is so much antipathy towards the Book among leftists?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Red Polak
Personally, I think it would be stupid not to accept religious comrades because quite often they've been told about this religion from the day they were born. They may have been dragged to church every sunday for the first 16 years of their life and told all about going to hell or whatnot. To assume people can just then totally turn their back on this because someone else tells them to is ridiculous, imo. If we didn't accept people because they were Christian or whatnot, we would be losing out on massive numbers of people.

"Massive numbers" of zombies! :o

What kind of "communists" would they be?

You know the answer to that as well as I do. Out of habit, they'd flop on their bellies to the first "Great Leader" to come down the road.

Who needs that shit! :angry:

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

[Janus]

Religion is usually overlooked as long as it's not extreme. I'm not saying that it's not bad but that it's allowed here on RevLeft as long as one doesn't preach or anything like that.

[Jaden]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 3 2006, 03:34 AM
Personally, I think it would be stupid not to accept religious comrades because quite often they've been told about this religion from the day they were born. They may have been dragged to church every sunday for the first 16 years of their life and told all about going to hell or whatnot. To assume people can just then totally turn their back on this because someone else tells them to is ridiculous, imo. If we didn't accept people because they were Christian or whatnot, we would be loosing out on massive numbers of people.
Hey! I was dragged to church for the first 16 and a half years of my life. I was told over and over to believe. I had the bible shoved down my throat not just by my parents but overzealous classmates. And I really have no problem saying "There is no God" and meaning it. Why? Because even throughout that time I kept my own mind and actually sat down to think about life - not in a metaphysical way but in a way of our planet in relation to other planets, ours to other galaxies and I've come to find that IF there was a god why would it only create one life-supporting planet? Or did Satan just make the universe bigger to "throw us off"? (a friend of mine has classmates in her biology class who claimed to the teacher that satan put down the dinosaur bones to throw us off!! This would be an AP Biology, grade 12 student, too!) :lol:

I will admit, though, it took me a few months to strip off my agnosticism, as well. It's not that I'm constantly changing my beliefs, it's just that I don't want to be riding the fence. I either believe or I don't, and quite honestly I don't. So if there is a god up there demanding us to pray on a rug, or go to church, hate homosexuals, not masturbate ( :o I think the majority of the population would go to hell) and whatever-the-fook-else ridiculous shizz there is to it that then it's pretty fucked up. Not to mention, the bible claims God to be omnipotent, but if he is then he would know who is and isn't going to hell, so there isn't really that "free will", he knows that no matter what someone does they will STILL go to hell. Cross out free will, write in "pre-destination". Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day Puritans in that aspect...(not relevant to the conversation, but just thought I'd point it out).

What I'm saying, though, is that someone who's gone to church for the first 16 years of their life could easily turn from the religion. I'm not fond of following men who claim to be ordained by god as a minister to follow diligently in god's plan (whoa, a plan! there's another strike against 'free will'). I did it because all my life I had the feeling of not being in the right body, and after a while I recognized it as being transgender. Something totally against the bible. Did I believe it was a demon? Hell no, I figured that if I had been such a good little christian child to a strong christian woman that no demon could penetrate! Then after a while I laughed at the notion of Christianity being the TRUE religion. Simple history classes got that into my head.

I will admit, I love to theorize about it all, spirits, etc. but I only do so to stirr motivation for any fantasy novel I might try to take a swing at writing. The only uses holy books would be in a post-revolutionary world are for firepaper if you want that classic feel to your cabin in the mountains, fairytales to tell the children before they fall asleep or toilet paper. I have no respect for the books. None of them. I don't believe any "holy man" is worth following. Even the spiritual beliefs of my ancestors are laughable, but granted, I'd say better than anything else as I don't recall them killing in the name of their religion (but feel free to prove me wrong on this! I know some of the south american and mesoamerican tribes such as Inca, Mayan and Aztec did write their religions, but I don't believe the Aztecs pushed religion on anyone except their taxes as they wanted to be liked by their conquered by allowing them to keep their religious ways, but I've heard theories of the Aztecs slaughtering tribes who didn't assimilate or proved no use to them. I cannot recall much for the Maya or the Inca.) Their religious/spiritual beliefs were mainly to be in harmony with the world, and they only fought over stolent horses and buffalo. I can also back this up by the amazing tolerance that the pacific northwest tribes had of their neighboring tribes' beliefs. They often invited other tribes to festivals and feasts in celebration of their beliefs and the other tribes would comply and they would actually sit amongst each other as equals and neighbors in ready enjoyment of the festivities and food. but they didn't write them down and claim them to be all true, they had oral traditions that I would encourage the continuation of only to be accepted as fairy tales of a time past that can still be enjoyed. Nothing to press upon anyone else except those who choose to learn.

Haha, God put the dinosaur bones down to throw us off. :lol: It still cracks me up.

[cyu]

First, even acknowledging that a god exists means that one accepts that there is a supernatural authority to which obedience is owed. This by itself is fundamentally incompatible with self-emancipation and communist revolution.

What about a belief in god(s) that require no obedience? What about belief in god(s) that basically ignore our insignificant planet or a less than omniscient god(s) that doesn't even know we're here?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:57 PM

First, even acknowledging that a god exists means that one accepts that there is a supernatural authority to which obedience is owed. This by itself is fundamentally incompatible with self-emancipation and communist revolution.

What about a belief in god(s) that require no obedience? What about belief in god(s) that basically ignore our insignificant planet or a less than omniscient god(s) that doesn't even know we're here?
No one would even notice. :)

A view that "gods may exist" but have no relationship at all to "earthly matters" is irrelevant by definition.

It would be a kind of "word-game" that no one would really take seriously.

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

[cyu]

A view that "gods may exist" but have no relationship at all to "earthly matters" is irrelevant by definition.

So if this god is irrelevant to the issue of revolution, there's no problem working with such believers, right?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:16 PM

A view that "gods may exist" but have no relationship at all to "earthly matters" is irrelevant by definition.

So if this god is irrelevant to the issue of revolution, there's no problem working with such believers, right?
Why would anyone "believe that"? And even if they did, why would they ever bother to bring it up?

If I "believed" that the world was completely overun by invisible pink unicorns that never interacted with the perceived universe, what difference would it make?

If someone wants to "tolerate" imaginary religions, well, I could live with that.

Particularly if they refrained from bothering me or anyone else with any of that silliness.

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

[cyu]

Why would anyone "believe that"? And even if they did, why would they ever bother to bring it up?

Maybe they won't bring it up at all. It would be like working with someone who believes there's life on other planets - they have no proof and it doesn't affect their political views - it's just an irrelevant belief.


If someone wants to "tolerate" imaginary religions, well, I could live with that.

Particularly if they refrained from bothering me or anyone else with any of that silliness.

So you are willing to tolerate some religions at least then. I would just include religious socialists among those I tolerate - as long as they don't force me to attend their church.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cyu
I would just include religious socialists among those I tolerate...

Well, see, there's where things get a lot more problematical.

Suppose a "religious socialist" argues that we should "tolerate" the pollution of the urban landscape with churches?

Or "religious processionals"?

Or a big statue of "Jesus" at the entrance to the harbor?

Or special religious schools for children?

See what a mess you would have? :o

It's like letting your cat or dog piss and shit in your house...eventually the stink permeates everything!

That's no good.

If someone claims to be a socialist or a communist, then I expect them to be an atheist. If they're not, then I don't really want them to have any role in public life.

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

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The way I see it is that you can't force someone not to believe in something. If someone is religious and is communist it doesn't matter to me because we need all the support we can get.

BTW there's a branch of communism called christian communism. You can read up on it on wikipedia

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:05 PM
If someone claims to be a socialist or a communist, then I expect them to be an atheist. If they're not, then I don't really want them to have any role in public life.
That's not biased in the slightest.

[Comrade-Z]

Basically, it all comes down to this: whatever you believe, you must publicly behave as an atheist (which means you must talk like an atheist, advocate atheist ideas and measures, etc.) in order to be considered a comrade, to the extent that we should never be able to even guess from your behavior that you would believe in superstitious crap.

If any significant evidence surfaces that you are a believer, then you are already shit-out-of-luck, because trusting even a suspected religious person as a comrade is a bit like trusting a suspected pedophile as your babysitter -- NOT a good idea!

You can believe whatever you want to (that Jesus is your personal savior, that the flying spaghetti monster controls the universe, etc.), but if you start talking about it, get ready to be treated like a person with a big sign stuck to your back with the words "delusional psychopath" on it. Because that's what religious people are, basically--they are grossly irrational beings. They believe in things that there is no evidence to warrant belief in. That's the definition of psychopath, is it not? A person who believes things and sees things for which others can't find any evidence of existence.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by headful of steel
Comrades have the right to think sexistly, homophobically, racistly. They have the right to think whatever they want, whether it's opposed to what you believe or not. That's freedom.

These individuals are not our "comrades".

It is our responsibility as Communists to expose these dolts for what they truly are and remove any effectiveness their superstitious nonsense could have possibly had on our youth.

Luckily for us some folks (such as yourself and a couple other reactionaries) expose themselves.

Hopefully the bright ones are taking notes.

[cenv]

It's like letting your cat or dog piss and shit in your house...eventually the stink permeates everything!
Hmm... I have an indoor cat. It pisses and shits in a litter box that's located in - you guessed it - my house. But it's not a problem at all. You need to distinguish between cats, which can be trained to be fine indoor pets, and dogs, which generally don't do as well with litter boxes. Your analogy applies perfectly to comrades that believe in a God. As long as they keep their beliefs in that litter box, there's no problem in my opinion, but as soon as they start dropping their shit in other parts of the house (for instance, as soon as their religion starts effecting their political opinions), they shouldn't be tolerated any more.

Of course, ideally everyone would be atheistic, but there are going to be agnostics and theists, and without them the revolution will be much, much harder to acheive, so as long as they don't become overwhelmed by their own beliefs, I'm fine with them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)There's a branch of communism called christian communism. You can read up on it on wikipedia[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
In general, Christian communism evolved independently of Marxism, and most Christian communists share the conclusions but not the underlying premises of Marxist communists.

The Wikipedia article is rather "above average"...Wikipedia is usually not very reliable on revolutionary subjects but the authors of this one seemed to know what they were talking about.


Wikipedia
The Manifesto has had an enormous influence on the communist movement ever since. It has also been one of the founding documents of the secular communist tradition. Within a few decades, secular communists grew much more numerous than Christian communists had ever been.

And so it has been ever since. Superstition became irrelevant to communist thinking probably as far back as the 1860s if not a little earlier.

Nor is it exactly reasonable to maintain that "Christian communists" accept "Marxist conclusions"...as Marx was pretty blunt about superstition "withering away". He didn't think it had any useful role in communist society.

How could a "Christian communist" possibly accept that?

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

[Oh-Dae-Su]

guys seriously give up the idea, no matter what religion is not going to go away. Might as well deal with it ok. Even if your precious revolution does happen , the people are still going to be religious, Islam and Christianity are each 1 billion strong, trust me guys it's pointless fighting belief out of people, it's like me trying to convince any of you communism is a flawed system...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 5 2006, 01:04 AM
guys seriously give up the idea, no matter what religion is not going to go away. Might as well deal with it ok. Even if your precious revolution does happen , the people are still going to be religious, Islam and Christianity are each 1 billion strong, trust me guys it's pointless fighting belief out of people, it's like me trying to convince any of you communism is a flawed system...
Thanks for your encouraging response. :lol:

Our first task is to get rid of it among revolutionaries.

Then we'll see how we do on a larger scale. :D

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

[chimx]

oh great... redstar's tirade against religion again. its the one thing i'll never understand. attacking the morality of religion has grown irrelavent. spiritual institutions (and that is all they are) have been estranged from capital and state. attacks on them seem obsolute in this day and age. the only thing one is really going to accomplish is alienating the majority of folk that do subscribe to some religion denomination. why not attack the social institutions which create community alienation that send people to churches in the first place. that would make more sense to me. telling folk that their belief system is equivalent to that of believing in "pink unicorns" is simply belittling.


ps. jebus was an anarchist:

Luke 4:5-7

5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

[Comrade-Z]

why not attack the social institutions which create community alienation that send people to churches in the first place.

As far as I know, most people do not start out as atheists and then adopt religion out of alienation. Most people are simply indoctrinated with it in their childhood, and it continues on from one generation to the next. Anecdotal evidence from my life (which doesn't mean much, of course) is that once one is solidly atheist, you and your children are pretty well safe from falling back into religion.


telling folk that their belief system is equivalent to that of believing in "pink unicorns" is simply belittling.

It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Christianity, Islam, pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, it's all the same!


ps. jebus was an anarchist:

HAHAHAHA!!! :rolleyes:

[chimx]

that kind of intolerance is alienating.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx
oh great... redstar's tirade against religion again. its the one thing i'll never understand.

Upper-case letters and contractions seem to be a problem for you as well.

Try this...


Oh great...redstar's tirade against religion again. It's the one thing I'll never understand.

Once you achieve basic literacy, my arguments will probably be clearer to you. :lol:


Telling folk that their belief system is equivalent to that of believing in "pink unicorns" is simply belittling.

It's intended to be. :)


That kind of intolerance is alienating.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/014.gif


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

[chimx]

that's it? the crux of your counter-argument lays with attacking the fact that i don't capitalize letters on informal discussion boards? maybe i'll add some fuel to the fire and mispel some wrods to make your point that mcuh more sound.

[MysticArcher]

spiritual institutions (and that is all they are) have been estranged from capital and state.

Not these days, I'd say in fact the opposite is true: churches are more firmly entrenched in capitalism. They've learned that there's big bucks in, as Redstar calls it, the godracket.

It's become another market, only for supposed "spiritual" goods.

Being anti-capitalist means being against all types of "free" markets, even the ones dealing in "spiritual" goods.

attacking the morality of religion has grown irrelavent.

No, it's very relevant, the morality of religions is attrocious and people act on it.

What else is the "war" on drugs?

[RevMARKSman]

Mystic: exactly. Churches are big money. See the Superstition thread for some real laughs about it.
Also, the morality of these religions has grown stagnant. (Is that an oxymoron? "Grown stagnant"?) Religion has become a regressive, conservative, racist, sexist, homophobic social institution.

[RedAnarchist]

How would you tolerate agnosticism amongst communists and anarchists?

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:29 PM
How would you tolerate agnosticism amongst communists and anarchists?
The thing about agnosticism is that there's no such thing as behaving like an agnostic. Or rather, I guess there is, but nobody ever does it. Behaving like a real agnostic would mean suspending all vital moral decision-making until one has figured out, through vigorous experimentation, whether god exists or not.

Most agnostic's, on the other hand, aren't really concerned about further investigation. They say that the problem cannot be solved, and then they proceed to live and behave like atheists, as if, in reality, they have it completely figured out that god doesn't exist and just don't want to catch criticism from godsuckers.

Once again, publicly behaving like an atheist is what matters.

Thus, I would have no problem with these agnostics, although the wishy-washy nature of their rhetoric would annoy me.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:45 PM

spiritual institutions (and that is all they are) have been estranged from capital and state.

Not these days, I'd say in fact the opposite is true: churches are more firmly entrenched in capitalism. They've learned that there's big bucks in, as Redstar calls it, the godracket.

It's become another market, only for supposed "spiritual" goods.

Being anti-capitalist means being against all types of "free" markets, even the ones dealing in "spiritual" goods.

attacking the morality of religion has grown irrelavent.

No, it's very relevant, the morality of religions is attrocious and people act on it.

What else is the "war" on drugs?
Churches learned their was big bucks in it hundreds of years ago. It was called Indulgences, and it along with Nepotism and other corruption led to The Reformation. Read up on your Martin Luther history. The reality is that most churches opperate on donation, usually gifts from folk that have died. That is hardly an entrenchment in capitalism.

To even allude to the idea that the church has the same economic might as it did a few hundred years ago is ludicrous. The papal states were seized. future napoleons don't need to be crowned by the pope. The church is a social anachronism, yes, but to callously knock it--especially without good reason--is only going to succeed to alienating the majority of folk that otherwise could have been comrades.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:57 PM
that's it? the crux of your counter-argument lays with attacking the fact that i don't capitalize letters on informal discussion boards? maybe i'll add some fuel to the fire and mispel some wrods to make your point that mcuh more sound.
I don't have much respect for the views of people who haven't managed to achieve basic literacy in their native language.


The church is a social anachronism, yes, but to callously knock it--especially without good reason--is only going to succeed to alienating the majority of folk that otherwise could have been comrades.

Or possibly break away from superstition altogether and become real "comrades".

Part of what being a revolutionary means is "callously knocking" social anachronisms. There are always "good reasons" to do that. :)

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

[chimx]

i agree, one should stir the pot a bit with these "social anarchronisms", but one should focus attention on that which constitutes a real threat. believing in a god doesn't strike me as a significant threat. what strikes me as a threat is forever being a political minority because my "comrades" refuse to acknowledge the cultural mores and traditions within our society that are not bound to either capital or state. its political suicide.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx
Believing in a god doesn't strike me as a significant threat.

Try this...

The Christian Extremists are holding Battlecry youth rallies in city halls May 12th (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/69643.html)


What strikes me as a threat is forever being a political minority because my "comrades" refuse to acknowledge the cultural mores and traditions within our society that are not bound to either capital or state.

Religion loves capital and the state the way a hog loves slop.

Traditional cultural mores need to be smashed...as they have never been anything but instruments of oppression!

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

[chimx]

religion has been disfigured by capital, but so have most social institutions. should we abolish all of civilization for having at one time come into contact with either state or capital? should we place you in OI with the primitivists, because your logic seems quite similar.

the basic belief structure adhered to by theists however is not dependent on either the state or capital however. the very fact that religion has been capable of spanning multiple historical epochs implies that it would be perfectly capable of handling future historical transitions (ie. communism). you're a marxist and i am dumbfounded why you can't see that.

more importantly, learn your lesson from history. the Thermidorian Reaction was directly caused by Robespierre's insistance on creating the Cult of the Supreme Being as France's state religion (though not exclusively so). He alienated his powerbase, and allowed for the political right to seize power.


you should read Jacques Ellul for a wonderful marriage of anarchism and christianity.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)The very fact that religion has been capable of spanning multiple historical epochs implies that it would be perfectly capable of handling future historical transitions (i.e,. communism). you're a Marxist and I am dumbfounded why you can't see that.[/b]

The bastards will certainly try to keep their dirty little racket going in a communist society.

I do not intend to give them the chance to do that! :angry:


More importantly, learn your lesson from history. The Thermidorian Reaction was directly caused by Robespierre's insistance on creating the Cult of the Supreme Being as France's state religion (though not exclusively so).

The "cult" was widely ridiculed at its inception...and rightly so! Robespierre made other and more serious mistakes. See the marvelous novel by Marge Piercy City of Darkness, City of Light.


You should read Jacques Ellul for a wonderful marriage of anarchism and christianity.


Wikipedia
Jacques Ellul authored some 40 books and hundreds of articles over his lifetime, the dominant theme of which has been the threat to human freedom and Christian faith created by modern technology. His constant concern has been the emergence of a "technological tyranny" over humanity.

A Christian anarcho-primitivist.

Definitely Opposing Ideologies material.

Fortunately, he's dead! :D

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

[chimx]

ellul is loved by primitivists, true, but that book has nothing to do with the topic. bakunin hated jews, but that doesn't mean i can't derive some value from his God and the State.

i feel silly quoting from the back cover, but i've lost my copy of it and am having a hard time find it on the net: "anarchists need understand that much of their criticism of Christianity applies only to the form of religion that developed, not to biblical faith. Christians, on the other hand, need to look at the biblical texts and not reject anarchy as a political option, for it seems closest to biblical thinking."

christianity can take different forms. the form it was entrenched in during the feudal period was bound to state and capital. following bourgeois revolutions its land was annexed as a contradiction to liberal ideology, private property, etc. the institution changes and evolves, but there is nothing within actual biblical faith that is inherently antagonistic to communism. you may dislike pink unicorns, but the autonomy of the individual is sacred. anything short is unnecessarily authoritative.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Christianity and religion are both utter bullshit and destructive towards society. Anyone who cannot see that is either in denial, brainwashed, or a complete moron. Religions of all types are oppressive and will always align themselves with hierarchical structures. When those structures cease to exist, religion will disappear.

For someone to be a communist, in the truest sense, they must reject hierarchical and oppresive institutions as well as the philosophies that they follow. Certainly, however, a person may work (though less effectively) for class equality while being religious. However, true communism can never be achieved or last as long as religion remains to exist. If religion exists, communism does not.

[violencia.Proletariat]

ellul is loved by primitivists, true, but that book has nothing to do with the topic. bakunin hated jews, but that doesn't mean i can't derive some value from his God and the State.

Primitivism is not a negative social stereotype, its a specific idealogy that one would research before believing, therefore your comparison is irrelevant.


"anarchists need understand that much of their criticism of Christianity applies only to the form of religion that developed, not to biblical faith.

Whats that quote, "even if god existed he would have to be suppressed" :lol: Fuck the "biblical faith" faith is NOT something that belongs in materialist communism! The concept of god is one of the most authoritarian figures there is, every sensible anarchist would oppose him if he existed.


Christians, on the other hand, need to look at the biblical texts and not reject anarchy as a political option, for it seems closest to biblical thinking."

Since when is anarchism being a countryside jewish preacher conning people about the upcoming "end of the world." You are fucking insulting anarchism.

Biblical thinking is about living in shit because you'll get your "pie in the sky." FUCK THAT SHIT! We must make material changes here on earth, RIGHT NOW! Anarchists also don't stone people to death ;)


but there is nothing within actual biblical faith that is inherently antagonistic to communism

Except for the part about god, worship, ohhh and we obviously can't collectivize the foot cream industry according to the bible :lol:


you may dislike pink unicorns, but the autonomy of the individual is sacred

It's not "sacred" that doesnt mean anything. Is it important yes? Any random idiot can believe in god for all we care, he must not infringe on others Individual Rights by building a church!


anything short is unnecessarily authoritative.

Kind of like God eh, dumbass.

[Fistful of Steel]

I'm going to fight against anyone who tells me what to think and believe, whether they be Christian Dogmatists, Islamic Fundamentalists, or Scientific Objectivists.

[CrazyModerate]

RedStar is an anti-religion bigot. He can't accept the fact that many religous people, although definately not most, are accepting of all types of peoples.

How does it affect you if someone accepts "superstition?" Why do you have to be so hateful? You worship something intangible- an ideal which is quite subjective. Why am I even trying to argue with a proto-fascist that has tricked himself into thinking he is a leftist.

[chimx]

Primitivism is not a negative social stereotype, its a specific idealogy that one would research before believing, therefore your comparison is irrelevant.

i know what primitivism is. the book mentioned has nothing to do with the subject and there was no reason that the issue should have been brought up in the first place. just cause so-and-so believed x and y, doesn't mean i can't find value in x without somehow incorporating y.


Whats that quote, "even if god existed he would have to be suppressed" :lol: Fuck the "biblical faith" faith is NOT something that belongs in materialist communism! The concept of god is one of the most authoritarian figures there is, every sensible anarchist would oppose him if he existed.

why, because you say so? people can believe whatever the fuck they want. if you suppress the autonomy of the individual during any revolutionary period, than you and i will have problems.


Since when is anarchism being a countryside jewish preacher conning people about the upcoming "end of the world." You are fucking insulting anarchism.

Biblical thinking is about living in shit because you'll get your "pie in the sky." FUCK THAT SHIT! We must make material changes here on earth, RIGHT NOW! Anarchists also don't stone people to death ;)


if you actually READ the bible, you will see that it is fairly consistant in its attacks on the state. The Book of Revelation in particular, but I have also quoted passages from Luke which are along the same lines. There is more to biblical faith than the crazy predetermination of calvinist thought. most christians adhere to applying proper morals to the here-and-now, not for some abstract "pie in the sky" concept.

I used to have a great book by Bishop Desmond Tutu (you know, that bishop that worked to end apartheid and not wait for his "pie in the sky") that did a great job of attacking "pie in the sky" ideology. For him, and most christians, it is about making real change in this life.


Except for the part about god, worship, ohhh and we obviously can't collectivize the foot cream industry according to the bible :lol:

what part of god is antithetical to the abolition of the state and capital? please give me a concise explanation free from rhetoric.


It's not "sacred" that doesnt mean anything. Is it important yes? Any random idiot can believe in god for all we care, he must not infringe on others Individual Rights by building a church!

how is building a church an infringement of individual rights? its not.


Kind of like God eh, dumbass.
the very idea of christianity is founded on the principle that the individual has the freedom to choose to believe in god or not. there is no outside coersion! you people are so fucking dogmatic it is sickening.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)Ellul is loved by primitivists, true, but that book has nothing to do with the topic.[/b]

Except the obvious correspondence between the views of someone who wants to return to pre-technological society and one who wants to return to pre-scientific superstitions.

Almost by definition, a primitivist has to be superstitious simply in order to remain consistent.

In fact, to be really consistent, Ellul should favor human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism.

Not to mention rule by tribal chiefs.


Originally posted by Ellul+--> (Ellul)Anarchists need understand that much of their criticism of Christianity applies only to the form of religion that developed, not to biblical faith. Christians, on the other hand, need to look at the biblical texts and not reject anarchy as a political option, for it seems closest to biblical thinking.[/b]

What's the difference between the Christianity that "has developed" and "biblical faith"?

I cannot imagine the Christian "Bible" as a "pro-anarchist" document...with its explicit injunctions to "obey the rulers that God has placed over us".


Originally posted by chimx
...but there is nothing within actual biblical faith that is inherently antagonistic to communism.

Yeah...it's the "mind-set" that won't mix. Communism and anarchism both promote an attitude of refusal to accept "things as they are". Biblical faith promotes acceptance of "things as they are" and submission to the Will of God (whatever evil shit happens to happen).

When ether (C4H10O) was first introduced as an anesthetic to ease the pains of childbirth, guess who vehemently denounced this flagrant defiance of "God's will" that women "should suffer"?


Fistful of [email protected]
I'm going to fight against anyone who tells me what to think and believe, whether they be Christian Dogmatists, Islamic Fundamentalists, or Scientific Objectivists.

Then you will think about and believe nothing...as everyone with an opinion about something is going to attempt to convince you that they're right.

Since you are, if I'm not mistaken, an admitted solipsist, then you must perforce "fight" the entire world.

Good luck. :lol:


CrazyModerate
RedStar is an anti-religion bigot.

Guilty! And without remorse! :D


How does it affect you if someone accepts "superstition?" Why do you have to be so hateful?

The very sight of chains on other humans is something that I find both disgusting and threatening! :angry:

As a social democrat, I don't imagine that sort of thing bothers you at all. A planet in the chains of ignorance and superstition is just a place for guys like you to make a living.


Why am I even trying to argue with a proto-fascist that has tricked himself into thinking he is a leftist?

You tell me. :lol:

The record of social democracy ain't nothing to brag about...

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

[violencia.Proletariat]

there was no reason that the issue should have been brought up in the first place.

Of course there is, an opinion of a primitivist is in theory the opinion of a caveman :lol:


if you suppress the autonomy of the individual during any revolutionary period, than you and i will have problems.

Why are you saying this to me, save it for the religious people and their church groups


people can believe whatever the fuck they want.

Of course they can, but those ideas are subjected to suppression depending on what they are and how said individuals display their views.


There is more to biblical faith than the crazy predetermination of calvinist thought.

I have read portions of the bible. With all the bologna about peace and love there is plenty of wrath and destruction by and in the name of god against non believers.


most christians adhere to applying proper morals to the here-and-now

What christians would those be? :lol:


For him, and most christians, it is about making real change in this life.

For most christians I know they go to church occasionaly, wear crosses, and then live their lives like atheists.


what part of god is antithetical to the abolition of the state and capital?

The fact that god if he existed is just as much an oppressor as state and capital. His heaven is a "kingdom" (gotta love feudalism eh) for those who follow his every word. Those who oppose him and his power are sent to hell, WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF THOUGHT! :lol:


how is building a church an infringement of individual rights? its not.

But it is, it's the first step in creating a religious power structure that oppresses people. Also, do you think parents taking their children to church is not oppression?


the very idea of christianity is founded on the principle that the individual has the freedom to choose to believe in god or not.

Or not! AND GET STONED TO DEATH :lol:


Whats "sickening" is the fact that you guys will defend religious institutions down to the last man. I bet you would have been asking us to take it easy on the fascist priests in 36!

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 9 2006, 11:02 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 9 2006, 11:02 PM)
Fistful of Steel
I'm going to fight against anyone who tells me what to think and believe, whether they be Christian Dogmatists, Islamic Fundamentalists, or Scientific Objectivists.

Then you will think about and believe nothing...as everyone with an opinion about something is going to attempt to convince you that they're right.

Since you are, if I'm not mistaken, an admitted solipsist, then you must perforce "fight" the entire world.

Good luck. :lol: [/b]
Trying to convince me they're right is great and all, I can choose to listen or not. It's when people say "You have to think such and such to be part of society" that I'll actively oppose it.

[chimx]

I cannot imagine the Christian "Bible" as a "pro-anarchist" document...with its explicit injunctions to "obey the rulers that God has placed over us".

Well if you read Ellul's book (which has nothing to do with primitivism), you will see that all the the OT is quite critical of its kings.

Uzziah of Judah was a prosperous king who god struck down with leperesy for his pride--that is for holding himself higher than god.
Ahaz moved away from god and got himself killed
Solomon fell from grace because of his greed and adultry as a king

etc. etc. the pattern is fairly common in the OT: good folk become kings, the institutions corrupt them, and god fuck's 'em up.

the NT agrees with this. i have already quoted the passage, but perhaps i should explain it a bit better:

Luke 4:50-7:


5The devil led him [Jesus] up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus' reply to this is NOT, "this isn't true, you don't have authority over all the kingdoms (governments) in the world" but rather you shouldn't obey the authority of earthly governments anyway. this passage, which compliments the OT lessons quite well, states that all governments are evil, in that they are all controled by satan.

if you want another example look at the book of Revelation. This is one of my favorite passages:

Revelation 13:1-8:

1And the dragon[a] stood on the shore of the sea.

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"

5The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. 6He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

of course, "the beast" is meant to be the roman state, and i've always read "the dragon" to be satan, which would be inline with the luke passage. the state oppresses people and the devil is behind it. from this perspective, it isn't difficult to see why christians like ellul would be critical of the very institutions of the state!



i promised myself i wasn't going to interject this because i didn't feel like i should have to explain my own spiritual beliefs, but this is too much god talk for me to not explain that i have been a devout atheist for many years.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)...you will see that all the the OT is quite critical of its kings.[/b]

Not at all...though there is a pronounced bias against "kingship". Some of the kings are praised as "righteous". Considering that the OT was first compiled during the Babylonian exile, it's likely that what really pissed off the authors is that the Kingdom of Judah was a failure...and they needed someone to blame for that. The "sinfulness" of the kings was an appropriate choice. :lol:

Sort of like Trotskyists blame Stalin and Maoists blame Khrushchev.

The NT is explicit on the matter of obedience to authority...


Originally posted by 1 Peter+--> (1 Peter)2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.[/b]

Guess what the divine judgment on anarchists will be?


Originally posted by 2Peter
2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.


Originally posted by chimx
If you want another example look at the Book of Revelation.

Since the Aztec "holy books" did not survive the Spanish conquest, Revelation stands alone as the bloodiest and most self-righteously murderous "holy book" ever written. Nothing in Mein Kampf or any other Nazi literature comes even close! :o


Originally posted by Revelation2
2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

2:28 And I will give him the morning star.

2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


[email protected]
9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

9:19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:


Revelation19
19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

I respectfully submit that any "anarchist" that could accept this deserves shooting! :angry:

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

[Fistful of Steel]

The Bible is contradictory as dick. Chances are if there's one background message in it, there's another that runs totally against it. And if you don't take it as metaphorical, but rather literal, that throws any chance of being legible out the window. Even if there was a God, I'd see no reason to believe or put faith in a book that was written by humans and subject to all the errors of humanity. It's about as holy as toilet paper.

[chimx]

The 1st and 2nd Epistole of Peter wasn't written by St. Peter the jesus apostle but written most likely by an urbanite using peter as a pseudonym. The historical context is extremely important when reading Peter's Epistles. Here is what Dr. Greg Herrick says on the topic:


The situation presupposed by 2:11, 12; 2:13-17 and indeed 3:8-4:19 appears to be the general slander of non-Christians against Christians. The fact that Peter says that the non-Christians (cf. e[qnesin [2:12]; ajgnwsivan [2:15]) slander the Christians' good behavior, and that they are surprised (xenivzontai) that the Christians do not run with them any longer into their abominable lifestyles (4:4), demonstrates that what we have for background to 2:13-17 is not Christians rebelling against the authorities per se, but non-Christians inciting the authorities to action against the Christians on charges of being a threat to society. In 4:15 Peter refers to a list of crimes for which the Christians were probably accused, including murder, theft, doing evil (kakopoiov") and meddling in other's affairs. Those who commit such acts would be considered kakopoiw'n. Beare argues that Christians were also accused at this time of such things as cannibalism and incest,51 but, as Biggs points out, this is particularly a second century phenomena, not to be drawn out of the words of Peter.52 To be sure they were katalalei`n . . . wJ" kakopoiw`n but this seems to be a reference to the fact that they posed a threat to their own society by living in ways contrary to it. They were accused of such things as disloyalty to Caesar (John 19:12), disturbing those who made their living from certain trades which were connected to false religion (Acts 16:16; 19:23) as well as "hatred toward mankind" (Tacitus, Annales, 15.44; Col. 2:16) and following a "new and mischievous superstition" (Suetonius, Nero, 16).53 As Kelly says,

The language (cf. esp. vilify as wrongdoers) is strong, and shows up in an arresting way the perilous situation in which 1st cent. Christians were liable to find themselves. While their faith as such may not have been legally a crime, they were the object of blind suspicion and detestation, and so exposed to all sorts of victimization, possibly even police charges arising out of public disorders.54

This then is the situation in which Peter's readers would have found themselves and as such forms the background to his injunctions in 2:13-17.



As far as Revelation stuff goes, christians that read the book without knowing it is a metaphorical piece full of rich symbolism and impossible to take literally deserve being shot even more.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx
The 1st and 2nd Epistles of Peter weren't written by St. Peter.

Well, of course they weren't. :lol:

And Dr. Herrick's commentary is probably accurate enough. They were written to "polish the image" of Christianity...an exercise in public relations.

Like when Bill Gates gives some money away to a "good cause". :lol:

But the words nevertheless say what they say and mean what they mean.

Had "Peter" wished to say something "different", there were words enough in the Greek language to do that.


As far as [the] Revelation stuff goes, Christians that read the book without knowing it is a metaphorical piece full of rich symbolism and impossible to take literally deserve being shot even more.

Why are Christians "obligated" to read it "metaphorically" and not "literally"?

It's the "Word of God", isn't it?

It's a common contemporary defense of the absurdities and cruelties that permeate all "holy books" that they are "meant" to be read "symbolically" and "metaphorically"...as if they were anthologies of poems.

I think that's an extremely shabby evasion.

And so do the really serious Christians. As far as they're concerned, the people who read the "Bible" as symbols and metaphors are going to burn in Hell...and not metaphorically either. :lol:

Real flames! :o

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

[chimx]

the bible wasn't written as a history book, or a science book. it was written as a spiritual and moral compass for its followers. that is why the church is so good at evolving. if the bible were a science book, the church would have died with the geocentric universe.

and i don't know who these "really serious christians" are. my understanding comes from priests who studied at the vatican all the way down to local small town parish priests.

those who take a literal interpretation are always generally pretty shallow spiritually.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx
The Bible wasn't written as a history book or a science book.

More precisely, the authors of "holy books" were not historians or scientists in our sense of those words.

But they do claim to have written "a theory of everything". And their "theories" are all mutually exclusive...if one of them is "true" then all the rest of them must be false.

They all make claims that can be tested...and demonstrated to be false.


It was written as a spiritual and moral compass for its followers.

That's a claim...but given what "holy books" actually recommend as "moral behavior", I don't think that claim can withstand critical examination.

The Christians claim to be motivated by "love"...but the last chapter of their New Testament is the most murderous "holy book" ever written.

Have you ever heard of even one Christian denouncing the Book of Revelation, much less calling for its physical removal from the New Testament and its suppression as a "work of Satan"?

Hah!


And I don't know who these "really serious Christians" are. My understanding comes from priests who studied at the Vatican all the way down to local small town parish priests.

The really serious Christians believe that the Bible means what it says. It really is the "Word of God" and you are not allowed to "cherry-pick" just the stuff that you like.


Those who take a literal interpretation are always generally pretty shallow spiritually.

Since there's no such thing as "spirituality", there's no objective measurement of it and no way to tell whether it's "deep" or "shallow". Those who talk about it a lot seem to do so only in order to fleece the gullible. :o

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

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 29 2006, 11:24 PM
I believe in Christ myself, but I think organized religion is a major farce, Christ himself did not even believe in it.
Question - Isn't there somewhere in the Gospels where Jesus says something about not owning any property and simply living to "spread the word of God?" I think I remember reading that in the bible (There was a time when I was religious. Atheist now.).

If so, could you reference it for me?

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

A vast majority of dumbasses in "the real world" happen to "believe in God"...why should I give a rat's ass?

A superstitious reverence for authority is self-evidently counter-revolutionary and anti-communist.

Holy shit! maybe this is just my opinion but you cant be more wrong. Belief in God doesn't make a person a counter-revolutionary. Yeah the world isn’t great but if it was where would be the choice for men to make decisions between right and wrong. Am I sure for a fact 100% that there is a God, no I'm 99.9% sure and if she/he isn't all the belief has done for me is pushed me to believe in communism even more as I consider it the ultimate goal for man to create heaven on earth which I believe communism is the closest to achieving that. Accusing people with a reverence of God of being counter-revolutionary will only divide the already small believers. Communism is freedom and equality including freedom of religion and if people should choose to believe they should not be considered counter revolutionary but rather adding to the mixing pot which makes us more diverse and will include different ideas, philosophy and knowledge. Religion undoubtedly has at times been a crutch on mans ability to improve upon itself however it also can be considered as a catalyst in some minds to better life and the world. After all I don’t believe Karl Marx was atheist, in fact I believe he was Jewish and did believe in God. Many brilliant men did, men such as Albert Einstein. Even revolutionaries such as Fidel Castro. So please for future reference don’t call believers counter-revolutionaries but rather people who help diversify and add to the greatness of who we are and who we wish to become.

[cenv]

Belief in God doesn't make a person a counter-revolutionary.
I personally agree, although I'm an atheist, but many people here would disagree.


After all I don’t believe Karl Marx was atheist
What you believe is irrelevant. He was an atheist.


Even revolutionaries such as Fidel Castro.
He's an atheist too.


such as Albert Einstein.
He was a communist? O.o

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:14 PM
those who take a literal interpretation are always generally pretty shallow spiritually.
So isn't it God's fault for not writing a text that can be readily understood by all? Why do I have to first translate the gospels from ancient Greek, then wade through a bunch of weird metaphors and symbolic language to get at the divine word? If he wanted me to understand it perfectly, he would write it in modern English and clearly explain what all those verses mean. I'm tired of this "you're interpreting it wrong" and "it means something besides what it says" crap. If God is perfect, he should be able to write a perfect document with no flaws that everybody can immediately understand, no interpretation necessary. It would say what it means and mean what it says, for anybody regardless of what language they speak or what culture they grew up in. There would be no room for somebody to interpret it wrong and use it to justify massacres and prejudice. I think a perfect intelligence would write with much more clarity (and maybe some respect for women too, or is that asking too much?).

If the Bible is indeed the word of God, I should be struck by the depth and insight of the document to the point that I conclude no human or group of humans could have ever come up with anything so brilliant. It would be completely flawless and would have lots of information that simply could not have been known otherwise at the time it was written. Instead I see a bunch of superstitious, prejudiced hogwash full of witches, demons, angels, talking snakes, worldwide floods, virgin births, a whole bunch of pointless "begats", and other crap that does nothing to increase my understanding of this world.

It would have been so simple for God to write something that proves to me the Bible is the real deal. He could have written down the theory of relativity, predicted the time and location of the 1054 supernova, described the structure of a human cell, among a million other things. It's fairly clear why the Bible isn't a science book: it was written before science was invented, by superstitious humans with a very finite knowledge of the universe.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:23 AM

such as Albert Einstein.
He was a communist? O.o
No, but he was a socialist.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

[cenv]

Originally posted by sennomulo+May 11 2006, 12:25 AM--> (sennomulo @ May 11 2006, 12:25 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 12:23 AM

such as Albert Einstein.
He was a communist? O.o
No, but he was a socialist.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm [/b]
Interesting, I never knew that. Thanks for the link. :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by theCruzanCheGuevara
Belief in God doesn't make a person a counter-revolutionary.

Pretty close. It strongly inclines them in a counter-revolutionary direction...towards obedience to authority as the "primary human virtue".

That's anti-communist!


Yeah, the world isn’t great but if it was, where would be the choice for men to make decisions between right and wrong?

If you are suggesting here that religion is a "useful guide" for making "choices between right and wrong", then that suggests that you are unfamiliar with both the history of the major religions and their basic "moral" doctrines...as explicitly revealed in their own "holy books".

Whenever a "holy book" offers "moral advice", every decent human being will "do the opposite".


Am I sure for a fact 100% that there is a God, no I'm 99.9%

You have no rational basis for that statement. It's exactly like saying that "you're not 100% sure but you're 99.9% sure that all unicorns are pink".


I consider it the ultimate goal for man to create heaven on earth...

The "holy books" (and common sense) say that's impossible.


Accusing people with a reverence of God of being counter-revolutionary will only divide the already small believers.

It is necessary for revolutionaries to be "divided" from their enemies.


Communism is freedom and equality including freedom of religion...

It does not include the "freedom" to lie to people.


...and if people should choose to believe they should not be considered counter-revolutionary but rather adding to the mixing pot which makes us more diverse and will include different ideas, philosophy and knowledge.

We're not making a stew here...and even if we were, the recipe does not include turds.


After all I don’t believe Karl Marx was atheist...

He was.


Many brilliant men did, men such as Albert Einstein.

He was also an atheist.

"Brilliant men" can be wrong.


Even revolutionaries such as Fidel Castro.

Not when he still had his wits about him.

Castro Pays Homage to a Dead Pope (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114436908&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


So please for future reference don’t call believers counter-revolutionaries but rather people who help diversify and add to the greatness of who we are and who we wish to become.

We do not wish to be the slaves of cruel and ignorant superstitions.

Is that clear?

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

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 11 2006, 12:37 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 11 2006, 12:37 AM)
theCruzanCheGuevara
Belief in God doesn't make a person a counter-revolutionary.

Pretty close. It strongly inclines them in a counter-revolutionary direction...towards obedience to authority as the "primary human virtue".

That's anti-communist! [/b]
Belief in God does not state anywhere that you must obey any authority, even God's. Perhaps God doesn't care if it's followed or not? And being theist doesn't make obedience the primary human virtue. You're confusing most major religions as the definitive view on all theists.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 11 2006, 12:48 AM
Belief in God does not state anywhere that you must obey any authority, even God's. Perhaps God doesn't care if it's followed or not? And being theist doesn't make obedience the primary human virtue. You're confusing most major religions as the definitive view on all theists.
Well, the vast majority of theists do belong to one of the major religions. Confusing the views of the vast majority of theists with the views of all theists is a minor oversight if you ask me. There are so many thousands of definitions of God that it would be impossible to make a definitive statement about God belief that applies to all of them. For example, some people just think God is the universe itself. Others think God is the Sun. But such views are in the extreme minority and are hardly worth addressing.

Back to your point...How can God not care whether or not we follow him? Shouldn't he know everything, including things like whether or not it is beneficial for us to follow him, and whether thinking for yourself is better than blindly following the thoughts of someone else? A perfect knowledge would have to have an opinion on this stuff. A perfect opinion actually. So perfect that it's not even an opinion but a fact.

Besides, if God didn't want us to follow him, and he had at least a little respect for humanity, and he saw all these people telling others to bow down to their "perfect divine moral codes", wouldn't he speak out against them? Wouldn't he just come out and tell us "Hey guys, ignore all those religions! I'm really an anti-authoritarian God and I want you guys to think for yourselves from now on!" Or would he just sit completely silent, completely invisible, and completely undetectable, as injustice and oppression plagued the earth in his name? Such a creature would not deserve a name with such positive connotations as "God". Maybe "Biggest Asshole Ever" or "the Universe's Deadbeat Dad".

I can't think of a single reason why God would allow tyranny and inequality to persist as long as they have. Unless, of course, he is either an authoritarian or an enemy of humanity, in which case we ought to do everything in our power to abolish him. Or maybe he just doesn't exist? Nah, too logical.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Belief in God does not state anywhere that you must obey any authority, even God's.

But what happens to your sorry ass if you disobey?

See any "holy book" for the consequences. :o


And being theist doesn't make obedience the primary human virtue. You're confusing most major religions as the definitive view on all theists.

The "major religions" are the "gold standard" of how religion operates in the real world.

Defenders of superstition on this board have, from time to to time, suggested "hypothetical religions" that didn't fuck people over like all the "biggies"...but no real world examples have ever been produced.

I think that's pretty significant. If there were anything "progressive" buried somewhere in that pile of shit, you'd think it would show up somewhere along the line.

But it never has. Old religions or new ones...it's just the same old crap!

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

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

He's an atheist too.

I don't know about your source on that one in regard to Fidel Castro but I'm almost 98% sure that he has quoted himself as being a devout Catholic.

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

If you are suggesting here that religion is a "useful guide" for making "choices between right and wrong", then that suggests that you are unfamiliar with both the history of the major religions and their basic "moral" doctrines...as explicitly revealed in their own "holy books".

I'm very familiar with religion in history however the some of the morals/principles taught none the less do encourage people to be better human beings. Not that that is the idea you would be able to take after reading up on the past and conflicts involving and encrouraged by religious identities.

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

my appologies to everyone I didn't mean to bring up religion but rather belief in god. I myself subscribe to any religion but i do choose to believe in god and no matter the opinions of anyone in this forum i hope rather then making me a counter-revolutionary it makes me work to be a better one.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:28 AM


He's an atheist too.

I don't know about your source on that one in regard to Fidel Castro but I'm almost 98% sure that he has quoted himself as being a devout Catholic.
He was born and raised Catholic. He is most definately not one now... he is a devout atheist.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Marx was atheist and proud of it. He was only a Jew under the construction we refer to as race. Furthermore, Einstein was a Spinzoa-like Pantheist. He did not believe in God any more than the average atheist. He personified the Earth and gave it the name God to reflect how beautiful it was. He only denied being atheist because he thought it implied nihilism and indifference towards the beauty of the universe and the laws of science and mathematics.

Newton was theist if you are looking for an accurate example.

[cenv]

I don't know about your source on that one in regard to Fidel Castro but I'm almost 98% sure that he has quoted himself as being a devout Catholic.

Wikipedia - Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro)

Castro is an atheist and has not been a practicing Roman Catholic since his childhood. Pope John XXIII excommunicated Castro on January 3, 1962 on the basis of a 1949 decree by Pope Pius XII forbidding Catholics from supporting communist governments. For Castro, who had previously renounced his Catholic faith, this was an event of very little consequence, nor was it expected to be otherwise. It was primarily aimed at undermining support for Castro among Catholics.

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

well in that case ive learned something new today. none the less I shall keep up my belief and still hopefully be accepted as a revolutionary.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by sennomulo+May 11 2006, 01:30 AM--> (sennomulo @ May 11 2006, 01:30 AM) Back to your point...How can God not care whether or not we follow him? Shouldn't he know everything, including things like whether or not it is beneficial for us to follow him, and whether thinking for yourself is better than blindly following the thoughts of someone else? A perfect knowledge would have to have an opinion on this stuff. A perfect opinion actually. So perfect that it's not even an opinion but a fact.

Besides, if God didn't want us to follow him, and he had at least a little respect for humanity, and he saw all these people telling others to bow down to their "perfect divine moral codes", wouldn't he speak out against them? Wouldn't he just come out and tell us "Hey guys, ignore all those religions! I'm really an anti-authoritarian God and I want you guys to think for yourselves from now on!" Or would he just sit completely silent, completely invisible, and completely undetectable, as injustice and oppression plagued the earth in his name? Such a creature would not deserve a name with such positive connotations as "God". Maybe "Biggest Asshole Ever" or "the Universe's Deadbeat Dad".

I can't think of a single reason why God would allow tyranny and inequality to persist as long as they have. Unless, of course, he is either an authoritarian or an enemy of humanity, in which case we ought to do everything in our power to abolish him. Or maybe he just doesn't exist? Nah, too logical. [/b]
Perhaps God didn't create the Universe to impose his/her will on it, but rather made it like a game of dominos he planned to sit back and watch without interference. That would explain his non-action, and condense God not caring if God was followed or not.


Originally posted by [email protected] May 11 2006, 07:37 AM

But what happens to your sorry ass if you disobey?

See any "holy book" for the consequences.
Again, perhaps if there is a God he doesn't care whether he's followed or not. In which case the question of authority doesn't come into the understanding of God at all as that's certainly one interpretation.


[email protected] May 11 2006, 07:37 AM

The "major religions" are the "gold standard" of how religion operates in the real world.

Defenders of superstition on this board have, from time to to time, suggested "hypothetical religions" that didn't fuck people over like all the "biggies"...but no real world examples have ever been produced.

I think that's pretty significant. If there were anything "progressive" buried somewhere in that pile of shit, you'd think it would show up somewhere along the line.

But it never has. Old religions or new ones...it's just the same old crap!
I'm not sure what you mean by major world religions being the gold standard... But I know my personal belief is incompatible with most of them. I'm not proposing any hypothetical religion as I'm fine with whatever people want to think, I just have my own beliefs towards existence and things, and I believe it's entirely possible that there is a God, and thinking there may be does not necessarily make me opposed to revolution or anti-authoritarianism.

[chimx]

redstar: it does not require obedience to authority. to sum up everything we have been talking about, aside from Peter's Epistles which hold historic significance, the bible talks about NOT obeying earthly authority. it is the bible's opinion that one SHOULD follow the authority of god, but there is no EARTHLY coersion if you don't. Rather, the bible argues that one should have free will to choose god and place your faith in him/her. The only coersion that could possibly exist is that of hell, which is a) only vaguely referenced in the bible, and b) not a material reality, so i don't see why you're concerned about it anyway.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:57 AM
redstar: it does not require obedience to authority. to sum up everything we have been talking about, aside from Peter's Epistles which hold historic significance, the bible talks about NOT obeying earthly authority. it is the bible's opinion that one SHOULD follow the authority of god, but there is no EARTHLY coersion if you don't. Rather, the bible argues that one should have free will to choose god and place your faith in him/her. The only coersion that could possibly exist is that of hell, which is a) only vaguely referenced in the bible, and b) not a material reality, so i don't see why you're concerned about it anyway.
Your "summary" is grossly inaccurate.

The Bible makes it perfectly clear that GOD MUST BE OBEYED and whenever something bad happens to the Israelites, it's earthly punishment for the SIN of disobedience.

As to "Hell", it is repeatedly and explicitly mentioned by "Jesus" as a "real place" of "real torment" that "lasts forever".

"Free will" my ass!

Where do you think the expression "God fearing" came from?

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

[chimx]

OT god and NT god are totally different.

[Eleutherios]

Perhaps God didn't create the Universe to impose his/her will on it, but rather made it like a game of dominos he planned to sit back and watch without interference. That would explain his non-action, and condense God not caring if God was followed or not.
How are you defining God? I was under the impression that God is supposed to be some kind of all-knowing creature. The kind of guy who would know exactly what would happen for any given starting conditions he might create. Not the kind of guy who would be on the edge of his seat in suspense and curiosity because he has no idea what will happen next. If God created all the contents of the universe and the laws by which they operate, and if he has always been omniscient, then he is personally responsible for every single event that ever occurs in the universe, since he both forsaw the event and brought about the starting conditions that led up to it.

But I'm sure you've got another nonsensical rationalization for this big gaping logical hole. Theists always do.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:32 PM
OT god and NT god are totally different.
You mean it's not the same God? Did he change himself for the better by somehow improving on his infinite wisdom?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Despite what I or anybody thinks I honestly think that it is impossible to ban religion. many people are so attached to it that they will tolerate nothing that intends to stop it. I am an atheist but I do not think that in a communist society that religion should be banned. It would be totalitarian censorship that could be the first step to a stalinist society

BTW Castro was raised by jesuit monks. just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Eleutherios]

Who said anything about banning religion? I don't think anybody here is supporting institutionalized restrictions on what you're allowed to think. Obviously God belief won't go away with guns and clubs; a little logic or reason does the job nicely. The object is to demonstrate to people the fundamental incompatibility between faith and critical thought, not to stamp out faith by force.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
Despite what I or anybody thinks I honestly think that it is impossible to ban religion.

Expecting a big turn-out at your neighborhood Temple of Zeus this Sunday?

What? You don't have one?

Golly, neither do I.

How do you suppose that happened?

Pretty simple. When the Roman Empire became officially Christian, guess what the Christian officials did?

They banned the public expression of all the old "pagan" religions. They shut down and demolished all their temples or just seized them and remodeled them into new Christian churches. All the pagan religious festivals were banned. All the pagan "holy books" were burned or otherwise destroyed. If you were a "known pagan", you couldn't get a job as a public official. Even the famous academies in Greece were shut down and the philosophers fled to Persia. The great library at Alexandria was burnt; and the last librarian was murdered by the Christians.

That's why there's no Temple of Zeus or Isis or Demeter or dozens of other gods and goddesses where you live.

It is possible to stamp out religious belief.

You just have to be really determined to do it! :D

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

[chimx]

Originally posted by sennomulo+May 12 2006, 05:52 PM--> (sennomulo @ May 12 2006, 05:52 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 05:32 PM
OT god and NT god are totally different.
You mean it's not the same God? Did he change himself for the better by somehow improving on his infinite wisdom? [/b]
god didn't change, rather people's faith changed, as did their understanding of god. religion and spirituality are not static. that's why i don't see too many christians killing librarians these days, or denouncing copernicus.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by chimx+May 13 2006, 04:39 PM--> (chimx @ May 13 2006, 04:39 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:52 PM

[email protected] 12 2006, 05:32 PM
OT god and NT god are totally different.
You mean it's not the same God? Did he change himself for the better by somehow improving on his infinite wisdom?
god didn't change, rather people's faith changed, as did their understanding of god. religion and spirituality are not static. that's why i don't see too many christians killing librarians these days, or denouncing copernicus. [/b]
What does that have to do with the differences between God in the Old and New Testaments? "Oops they must have just misunderstood God's infinite loving wisdom when he told them to commit genocide against the Amalekites, then stone all the gays and Sabbath-workers. Those silly Old Testament Jews." No loving God would allow people to "misunderstand" him like that, since he is supposed to have a code of morals that he expects us to live up to, and it must therefore be his job to inform us clearly what those morals are, or else it's his fault for not making us all familiar with the rules of the game. I sure wouldn't let anybody else murder in my name and claim I said it was okay!

The reason you don't see Christians denouncing Copernicus is not that they "changed their faith" or "changed their understanding of God". The Church was just plain proven wrong and had to admit it. If they tried that now they'd be ridiculed and would lose all credibility, because the evidence is so overwhelming that Copernicus was right, even Christians realize the Bible is full of shit when it talks about the Sun going around the Earth. It's just a simple matter of logic and observation demolishing an old misconception. Some day the rest of the Bible will go with it. Already very few people actually believe in all that crap about the 6-day creation and the worldwide flood and the parting of the Red Sea. Not because their faith is changing, but because it is withering away.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx
Religion and spirituality are not static.That's why I don't see too many Christians killing librarians these days, or denouncing Copernicus.

If the Christians began killing librarians again, they'd go to prison. That's mostly why "religion and spirituality" are "not static"...the secular authorities prohibit their more enthusiastic practices in the interest of public decorum.

If they have decided, for the moment, to let Copernicus "rest in peace" (or "burn in Hell"), they are by no means reconciled to Darwin...much less Marx! :lol: Both are vigorously condemned as "Satanic agents" directly responsible for the "rise of EVIL" in today's world.

It does not require much imagination to see what they would do if they thought they could get away with it...we need only look at what they have done. :o

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

[chimx]

BZZZZT.

The Vatican has been down with evolution for a long time. from the vatican's website:


Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

and here is a clipping from some news article:


Associated Press, October 23rd, 1996

VENICE, ITALY--In keeping with his modern image, Pope John Paul issued a statement on 23 October calling evolution "more than a hypothesis"--strengthening the Roman Catholic Church's acceptance of the 137-year-old theory. While Catholic schools have long taught that religion and evolution need not conflict, many observers regard the Pope's statement as a boost for those battling the forces of creationism in U.S. public schools.

The church first officially cast a favorable eye on evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Umani Generis, by Pope Pius XII. John Paul, in a speech before a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican this week, said that while the encyclical ``considered the doctrine of `evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis … new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. … The convergence … of results of work done independently one from the other constitute in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.''

The Pope made it clear that while Darwin has the body, God still has the soul: ``If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.''

"By this very clever move of the Pope," says Giulio Giorello, philosopher at the University of Milan, "it will allow Darwinism to be studied not as a hypothesis but as a real scientific truth, which will allow discussions on crucial issues such as bioethics."

Italians made much of the statement. ``Pope says we may descend from monkeys,'' hooted the conservative newspaper Il Giornale, according to a Reuters dispatch. Astrophysicist Margherita Hack of the Astronomical Observatory of Trieste considers the Pope's move new and important. ``It is the first time that the church formally accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as proven theory,'' she says. The statement, adds molecular biologist Giorgio Tecce of Rome University, is part of ``a process of rethinking of the relationship between the church and scientific developments'' ongoing since the Pope's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo. This is good news for science, Tecce says, because the anti-Darwinian view ``has been used as an excuse by some in the scientific environment to put a brake on genetics and molecular biology.''

U.S. Catholics, however, regard the Pope's statement as simply confirming a longtime position. ``I don't think it's any great deal myself,'' says physician and theologian John Harvey of Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics.

The Catholic Church has also denounced "intelligent design".

As far as Marx goes, Liberation Theology is an interesting break from catholicism. Though it has butted heads with the vatican and is certainly a controversal issue for the papacy (especially with the new pope), it is a great example of Marxists and Theologians coming together.

[Eleutherios]

So they denounce "intelligent design" while preaching that all life (in fact, the entire universe) was designed by an intelligence they call God, as it clearly states in their holy book? What is God but the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER of the universe? I thought that was one of the defining properties of God. They don't truly believe that life came about on its own, without God's intelligence intervening somehow. Even if they think evolution happened, they think God is the intelligent designer mastermind behind it. Well, that shows the incredible logical feats that the religious are capable of, I guess.

EDIT: Redstar never said the Vatican was against evolution. He just said that Darwin and Marx "are vigorously condemned as 'Satanic agents' directly responsible for the 'rise of EVIL' in today's world", which is an accurate statement for a not insignificant number of Christians, especially here in the States.

[chimx]

intelligent design is a specific idea made up my right-wing christian loonies. you are confusing the idea by using it out of context.

redstar said, "they" in reference to christians. since the vatican is the head of the largest christian denomination, i thought it would be an acceptable group to quote--thought it certainly doesn't speak for all of christiandom. still, it is relativey "rightist" for christiandom. Talk to some Lutherans or Episcopalians on the subject of evolution and they will often denounce 'creationists' more vehemently than redstar.

[Martyr]

I find it interesting that you preach world revolution and attack a person's spirituality and individuality for the sole purpose because it was written in some book.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 3 2006, 06:13 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 3 2006, 06:13 PM)
Red Polak
Personally, I think it would be stupid not to accept religious comrades because quite often they've been told about this religion from the day they were born. They may have been dragged to church every sunday for the first 16 years of their life and told all about going to hell or whatnot. To assume people can just then totally turn their back on this because someone else tells them to is ridiculous, imo. If we didn't accept people because they were Christian or whatnot, we would be losing out on massive numbers of people.

"Massive numbers" of zombies! :o

What kind of "communists" would they be?

You know the answer to that as well as I do. Out of habit, they'd flop on their bellies to the first "Great Leader" to come down the road.

Who needs that shit! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif[/b]
I have done a bit more reading and thinking - you're completely right. Religious "comrades" cannot be accepted because they wouldn't be able to function right in a Communist society and would probably end up resurrecting their religion or something.

If someone is not prepared to renounce their religion then it demonstrates a lack of commitment to the Communist cause.

[greymatter]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2006, 03:12 PM
If someone is not prepared to renounce their religion then it demonstrates a lack of commitment to the Communist cause.
I'm not sure if we should start condemning people for lack of "commitment" to the "cause". I do think that we should be wary of religious people, as they have demonstrated a habit of irrationality, and are more likely to behave in an irrational manner; e.g. violently.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:29 PM
I'm not sure if we should start condemning people for lack of "commitment" to the "cause". I do think that we should be wary of religious people, as they have demonstrated a habit of irrationality, and are more likely to behave in an irrational manner; e.g. violently.
Possibly, but I think if someone is not willing to give up what they've been indoctrinated with for their whole life (ie. religion) then how can we expect they will be able to embrace the other aspects of Communism?

[greymatter]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2006, 03:46 PM
Possibly, but I think if someone is not willing to give up what they've been indoctrinated with for their whole life (ie. religion) then how can we expect they will be able to embrace the other aspects of Communism?
Maybe i'm nitpicking here, but I just take issue with why you think communists should abandon religion - right idea for the wrong reasons kind of thing. You say that religious people are unable to "embrace" communism, I think that religious people have demonstrated a (larger?) capacity to think and behave irrationally. Flowery language won't ge us anywhere, to spread our ideas we need to make people see that communism is reasonable.

[Goatse]

I think that religious people have demonstrated a (larger?) capacity to think

LMFAO

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:15 PM

I think that religious people have demonstrated a (larger?) capacity to think

LMFAO
very funny ;)

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:08 PM
Maybe i'm nitpicking here, but I just take issue with why you think communists should abandon religion - right idea for the wrong reasons kind of thing. You say that religious people are unable to "embrace" communism, I think that religious people have demonstrated a (larger?) capacity to think and behave irrationally. Flowery language won't ge us anywhere, to spread our ideas we need to make people see that communism is reasonable.
You think I'm using "flowery language"??! :blink:


Ok basically they need to abandon it because, as redstar2000 did point out earlier, otherwise they may be likely to bow down before the first leader who comes along as religion is focussed upon some form of higher being. Then what do we end up with? Stalinism.

Religious types lack the understanding that is needed; clearly they can't see what their religion actually is, and if they cannot follow that part of Marx then how can we expect them to follow the other parts? Religion is a symptom of disease, it is not the disease itself. It makes people forget their actual problems (capitalism) and instead makes them focus elsewhere. Any religious comrades would still carry this lack of understanding and lack of focus with them.

I consider religion to be antithetical to communism, due to its promotion of higher beings and opiate effect and hold over the masses.

In order to make people see communism as "reasonable" we need to first dispel the myths of religion and expose what is really responsible for their problems and unhappiness - capitalism.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 29 2006, 04:06 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 29 2006, 04:06 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 29 2006, 10:00 AM
Yeh, it's ridiculous. When the revolution comes are we gonna tell the masses that we won't fight with the huge majoraty of them that are religious?
Why have you and some others chosen to interject superstitious babble into this thread?

Tolerate this...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Tolerate this...

[URL=http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357]http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357[/URL

That puts alot of faith in BS to think you are going to discourage people from their faiths with some crap like that.

The way people accept the bourgeoisies interpretations of their own faiths is a symptom of bourgeois class dictatorship. it is a counter revolutionary liberal thought to put more effort in fighting religion then the system because the system is the mother of the problems.
Slaves, illiterates and poor people had the majority of religious revelations becuase people inherantly know that class society is not natural for the human species.
They were ahead of their time.

Most religions if read without regard to popular knowlege just for what they are tell us we are meant to inherit the earth, they spell it out. Karl Marx had to ice the cake by being the atheist of modern times to have the same revelation that has been had by millions of intelligent people of the past because it is a mathematically clearly natural thought to have that the people will over come and rule a rule of the people in the peoples interests.

God is math.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:30 AM

Tolerate this...

[URL=http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357]http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49357[/URL

That puts alot of faith in BS to think you are going to discourage people from their faiths with some crap like that.

The way people accept the bourgeoisies interpretations of their own faiths is a symptom of bourgeois class dictatorship. it is a counter revolutionary liberal thought to put more effort in fighting religion then the system because the system is the mother of the problems.
Slaves, illiterates and poor people had the majority of religious revelations becuase people inherantly know that class society is not natural for the human species.
They were ahead of their time.

Most religions if read without regard to popular knowlege just for what they are tell us we are meant to inherit the earth, they spell it out. Karl Marx had to ice the cake by being the atheist of modern times to have the same revelation that has been had by millions of intelligent people of the past because it is a mathematically clearly natural thought to have that the people will over come and rule a rule of the people in the peoples interests.

God is math.
I think I was too "stupid" to understand this rant...

*waits for a revelation* :rolleyes:

[violencia.Proletariat]

it is a counter revolutionary liberal thought to put more effort in fighting religion then the system because the system is the mother of the problems.

Since when are we putting more effort into this? Do you understand that this isn't just a "communist" problem? Many here are students in science, communist thought aside, they can not let the theist problem go.


The way people accept the bourgeoisies interpretations of their own faiths is a symptom of bourgeois class dictatorship.

Ok let's think this one out.

your supposed "proletarian interpretation"- If you don't really believe you'll be stoned to death

"bourgeois interpretation"- If you don't really believe just give the church some money and you'll be respected

Neither option is looking to good :(


That puts alot of faith in BS to think you are going to discourage people from their faiths with some crap like that.

We aren't necessary. They are already doing that themselves as the years go by. We can just speed the process up.


Slaves, illiterates and poor people had the majority of religious revelations becuase people inherantly know that class society is not natural for the human species.

Or maybe they were poor and helpless because they were shunned from society for their un-diagnosed mental illness ;)

Being poor doesn't make you "holy" in any sense to communists. Their are still poor people who want to con and fuck people over to get ahead (those people who had religious revelations)


Most religions if read without regard to popular knowlege just for what they are tell us we are meant to inherit the earth

Yes, where we get to oppress women, stone people, and kill homosexuals. FUCK YEAH! :rolleyes:


Karl Marx had to ice the cake by being the atheist of modern times to have the same revelation that has been had by millions of intelligent people of the past because it is a mathematically clearly natural thought to have that the people will over come and rule a rule of the people in the peoples interests.

Don't ever compare Marx to some con artist. Your religious idols don't want people to overcome rule, they want them to submit to the ultimate authority, god. If you do not find this inherently anti-marxist then I don't know what to say.

And it is laughable that you think religious con men are helping people rule in their own interest. Tell me, how is it in peoples interests to devote their time, resources, and sometimes their lives for a deity which DOES NOT EXIST?


God is math.

Really, I'd like you to prove that IDIOTIC assertion. If god is math then why did humans discover and develope math? Why isn't there some scripture thats one big math equation proving his existence?

And why on earth do you call yourself a Marxist when spouting these DAFT and OFFENSIVE ideas.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:55 PM
Don't ever compare Marx to some con artist. Your religious idols don't want people to overcome rule, they want them to submit to the ultimate authority, god. If you do not find this inherently anti-marxist then I don't know what to say.

And it is laughable that you think religious con men are helping people rule in their own interest. Tell me, how is it in peoples interests to devote their time, resources, and sometimes their lives for a deity which DOES NOT EXIST?
There's nothing that says believing in God means submitting to any authority. And their deity of choice DOES NOT EXIST? Come on now, prove it. Oh what, you can't? Then your belief (yes belief) that God does not exist is as much faith that theists have that God does exist.

[RevMARKSman]

Theists brought up this positive assumption first. Therefore they have to prove it. If they can't, we assume it's false. You can't prove there isn't an elephant in the trunk of my car (He was just hiding before...What about now?...My definition of "elephant" includes a spare tire...) and I can't prove there is. We assume my positive proposition is false until I can prove that it is true.

[MysticArcher]

And their deity of choice DOES NOT EXIST? Come on now, prove it. Oh what, you can't? Then your belief (yes belief) that God does not exist is as much faith that theists have that God does exist.

:lol:
That's the oldest gambit in the book.
Who has the burden of proof? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457)

It's not faith, it's simple logic that until a positive conjecture is proven it must be assumed false. That's how science operates.


There's nothing that says believing in God means submitting to any authority.

how about the bible?


Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters
Ephesians 6:5


Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 14:34


Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2 Corinthians 10:5

it seems to say a lot of things

[violencia.Proletariat]

There's nothing that says believing in God means submitting to any authority.

You can go that route, if you want burn for enternity. :lol:

God as defined by the Little Oxford Dictionary


superhuman being worshipped as possessing superhuman power over nature, human fortunes, etc.


creator and ruler of the universe; idol; adored person


prove it

Read MonicaTTmed's post, she covers it well.

[Raisa]

i posted my shit two times. Its great enough to get a third but less is more.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:55 PM

it is a counter revolutionary liberal thought to put more effort in fighting religion then the system because the system is the mother of the problems.

Do you understand that this isn't just a "communist" problem? Many here are students in science, communist thought aside, they can not let the theist problem go.


The way people accept the bourgeoisies interpretations of their own faiths is a symptom of bourgeois class dictatorship.

Ok let's think this one out.



"bourgeois interpretation"- If you don't really believe just give the church some money and you'll be respected

Neither option is looking to good :(


That puts alot of faith in BS to think you are going to discourage people from their faiths with some crap like that.

We aren't necessary. They are already doing that themselves as the years go by. We can just speed the process up.


Slaves, illiterates and poor people had the majority of religious revelations becuase people inherantly know that class society is not natural for the human species.



Their are still poor people who want to con and fuck people over to get ahead (those people who had religious revelations)


Most religions if read without regard to popular knowlege just for what they are tell us we are meant to inherit the earth

Yes, where we get to oppress women, stone people, and kill homosexuals. FUCK YEAH! :rolleyes:


Karl Marx had to ice the cake by being the atheist of modern times to have the same revelation that has been had by millions of intelligent people of the past because it is a mathematically clearly natural thought to have that the people will over come and rule a rule of the people in the peoples interests.

Don't ever compare Marx to some con artist. Your religious idols don't want people to overcome rule, they want them to submit to the ultimate authority, god. If you do not find this inherently anti-marxist then I don't know what to say.

Tell me, how is it in peoples interests to devote their time, resources, and sometimes their lives for a deity which DOES NOT EXIST?


God is math.

Really, I'd like you to prove that IDIOTIC assertion. Why isn't there some scripture thats one big math equation proving his existence?


"Since when are we putting more effort into this?"

"We,we,we,we,we,we,we,we,we.

Being poor doesn't make you "holy" in any sense to communists."

Thank you for telling me all about the communists...... :blink:

I just like to know who the hell you assume I am,
do you think I got lost and came here to learn about communism?
I been a scholar in communism and a communist since I was 12 years old.
I dont worship karl marx though. I got my own thoughts, and the fact that some people are too simple to let their minds wander makes you just as bad as religious people.
OKAY so there is science, physics, and by physical logic everything has a cuase.
I never insisted that whatever began life knowingly created it, but what was before life, how did it happen? I think some of you would rather just think its always been there, just out of sheer lazyness so you could focus on liberating the working man.
Well I am the working man adn for the past year, I had 18 hour days of doing things I needed to do to make a living income ( as old rev lefters know I havent been around), and I was still able to think about liberating my class, steal delcious food to eat, and think outside the box about physics science and spirituality. What is wrong with spirituality? I dont think it is exclusive to communism at all, because communism is a mathematically proportionate phrophecy, probably the most mathematically proportionate of all in regards to the human kind.

All I be saying is that what makes you think this isnt what prophets of the past were trying to say. Do you honestly think Karl Marx could be the only one to think of it? USe your symbolic minds, open your mind, I promise if you just try other perspectives when youre taking a shit by yourself your whole mentality isnt going to be deleted. Yall some scary folks and you hate on people for thinking shit.

And when I say yall, you know exactly who the hell I mean. People who come here tryna tell me about communism......hbhebfiwbfiwebf child please! I could make the childrens illustrated picture book on the communist struggle. I dont need self aggrandizing converts from last week educating me like im ignorant. I got no problem thinking on two lines at once and still believing what I did yesterday. I am the SCIENTIST, yall may as well just be disciples.

Let me adress your replies now:

your supposed "proletarian interpretation"- If you don't really believe you'll be stoned to death"

Okay, the only one capable of stoning a person to death in a class society where there is a proliteriat and not having it be illegal is the ruling class......
The proliterian interpretation is that the people are divinely meant to over come their opressors, and in our Peoples Rule bring the state and mind of man and his planet back to its right form. and if you find divinity in math and physics this isnt too hard. It isnt some bearded white man in the clouds saying "you will over come" Its nature.

Yall like to hold holy books up to todays literary standards, but everything from the past is just art. True or not. It is an expression. ANd you have to get from it what you can. Look at historic words as if they are historic even if people today use them to rule our current world and justify our current state. Dust them off and see what you can get from them, like translating hieroglyphics. You instead take the upperclasses interpretation as fact and say "NO THATS WRONG, AND THAT WHOLE STATEMENT IT COMES FROM IS NOTHING"
But if someone pisses on the newspaper and its all yellow and soggy with urine, that doesnt still mean the news isnt in there, even if its pissed on and now you dont want to read it.

THe bourgeoisies interpretation is the one that says you will be stoned to death. And you will pay a tithe to the church so they can go to other places and stone those people to death. See, youre missing the point now.

"Or maybe they were poor and helpless because they were shunned from society for their un-diagnosed mental illness ;)"

Mental illness is most usually magnified to a level that ruins lives because of the class system. ALot of people have it , but living in the conditions of poverty will make it grow a damn lot.
Dont doubt that many of the proliteriat you want to liberate dont have mental illness. JUst cause their not EMO Kids writing journals and and may be shooting up or beating their kids instead, and end up in jail instead of an institution because the system is against us, doesnt change mental illness. We all handle it differently.
Maybe much of the upperclass isnt capable of having a revelation of how the world SHOULD be because they are too happy with the way it IS>

"And it is laughable that you think religious con men are helping people rule in their own interest. "


And why on earth do you call yourself a Marxist when spouting these DAFT and OFFENSIVE ideas.

I never called myself a Marxist. I am a communist. I dont have to call myself shit.

If god is math then why did humans discover and develope math?

We discovered it , like you said. We didnt invent it.
Math was always there. Why are you so opposed to the idea that we have to submit to math physics and nature. Everything submits to cause and effect. That is dialectics itself. Materialism is submission too. It all is what it is.

A prophet is just someome who is more intouch with those things alltogether then the average person. That way they can put it together and tell you some other shit. But math is there whether you are or not. We are just beginning to get there, but we can still have mathematical thoguths without knowing how to do math,

prophets of anceint times did the problem and never showed the work ,thats all.

So it looks crazy, but prophets of today got more mathematical knowlege behind them that we are more advanced in language logic and thought ( we got more things to think about them they do, more thoughts in our heads more to deal with for our minds ) to show their work better.

Just cause people couldnt tell you how doesnt mean its not a possibility. Cause they laughed at the man who said the world was round and they later found out that bastard was right.

Everyhting you think is a math equation.

Keep it real now, and write back.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:36 PM
Theists brought up this positive assumption first. Therefore they have to prove it. If they can't, we assume it's false. You can't prove there isn't an elephant in the trunk of my car (He was just hiding before...What about now?...My definition of "elephant" includes a spare tire...) and I can't prove there is. We assume my positive proposition is false until I can prove that it is true.
Hell nah, that rule is stupid, thats why the person who made that theory is anonymous.

Of course you can prove something isnt there all you got to know is what to look for.


But you dont know what to look for, so how can you even say its not there.

every holy book could be wrong and it still doesnt prove there is no god,

becuase who said GOD is regulated to whats written in a book?!

Thats mediocre ignorance.

[RevMARKSman]

YOU don't know what to look for either, so you can't prove that God exists. Therefore we assume your proposition is false until you CAN prove it.
Plus, God is LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with reality. I can give you a bunch of examples if you'd like.


Hell nah, that rule is stupid

Real nice with the ad hominem. We appreciate it. <_<

[Fistful of Steel]

God isn&#39;t by all definitions necessarily worshipped, I&#39;m sure that&#39;s a main point to a lot of theists but recognizing the possibility of a supernatural being does not mean following it, or that it&#39;s worth following, or that it wants to be followed.

And the burden of proof applies to the person making the assertion, not only the positive conjecture. Therefore the burden of proof would go to the person making the claim does not exist, which they can&#39;t prove. If the person claimed God does not exist it would fall to them to prove that assertion.

If their was a God what&#39;s saying it would logically coincide with reality? I&#39;m assuming that a supernatural all-powerful entity could break the rules as it sees fit.

Funny to see that you&#39;re parroting the rhetoric of the majority of the forum now MonicaTTmed.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I just like to know who the hell you assume I am,
do you think I got lost and came here to learn about communism?
I been a scholar in communism and a communist since I was 12 years old.
I dont worship karl marx though. I got my own thoughts, and the fact that some people are too simple to let their minds wander makes you just as bad as religious people.

You just sat here and told me "god is math." And then you tell me you are a scholar in communism? :lol: That statment has been one of the most un-marxist things I&#39;ve read on this board.


OKAY so there is science, physics, and by physical logic everything has a cuase.
I never insisted that whatever began life knowingly created it, but what was before life, how did it happen?

There are many scientific theories on this. Over time we can actually prove one to be right. The same cannot be said for god.


I think some of you would rather just think its always been there, just out of sheer lazyness so you could focus on liberating the working man.

:lol: I think we focus so muich on the liberation of the working person because thats material reality for us. We don&#39;t waste our time thinking about some god that doesn&#39;t exist because it&#39;s just that A WASTE OF TIME. We want to change the phsyical things here and now.


Well I am the working man adn for the past year, I had 18 hour days of doing things I needed to do to make a living income ( as old rev lefters know I havent been around), and I was still able to think about liberating my class, steal delcious food to eat, and think outside the box about physics science and spirituality. What is wrong with spirituality? I dont think it is exclusive to communism at all, because communism is a mathematically proportionate phrophecy, probably the most mathematically proportionate of all in regards to the human kind.

There is nothing "devine" about the idea of communism. It&#39;s entirely a human idea. It&#39;s nice to here you are able to make a living, but what relevance does that have to this discussion? I never said you weren&#39;t a prole or worked hard, but saying god is math is just plain ridiciulous.


All I be saying is that what makes you think this isnt what prophets of the past were trying to say. Do you honestly think Karl Marx could be the only one to think of it?

Would Karl Marx be the only one to think of it? Of course not. Had he not been around someone else would have eventually had the same ideas. However someone living in a different economic system, such as fuedalism or ancient despotism could have in no way predicted the functioning of class society hundreds/thousands of years later. Therefore, no they could not predict "communism" as we know it today.


I am the SCIENTIST, yall may as well just be disciples.

:lol: Liberation of the working people just ooozes from that statement.


The proliterian interpretation is that the people are divinely meant to over come their opressors, and in our Peoples Rule bring the state and mind of man and his planet back to its right form. and if you find divinity in math and physics this isnt too hard. It isnt some bearded white man in the clouds saying "you will over come" Its nature.

Hmmm, whos proletarian interpretation is that? A godsuckers maybe. If it is divine that we are ment to rise above, then why haven&#39;t we done it yet? Why is it left up to average humans if it is divine?


Dust them off and see what you can get from them, like translating hieroglyphics. You instead take the upperclasses interpretation as fact and say "NO THATS WRONG, AND THAT WHOLE STATEMENT IT COMES FROM IS NOTHING"
But if someone pisses on the newspaper and its all yellow and soggy with urine, that doesnt still mean the news isnt in there, even if its pissed on and now you dont want to read it.

I&#39;ve read parts of the major holy books. I can&#39;t get anything of value from them. They are not, if they ever were, progressive. They offer nothing of use to a materialist thinker.


THe bourgeoisies interpretation is the one that says you will be stoned to death. And you will pay a tithe to the church so they can go to other places and stone those people to death. See, youre missing the point now.

Missing what point. It it says in the holy book you should be stoned to death. As a believer should you not believe the whole holy book? If your nit picking why don&#39;t you just drop the whole religion.


I never called myself a Marxist. I am a communist. I dont have to call myself shit.

Good luck in obtaining your divine inspired communism then.


We discovered it , like you said. We didnt invent it.
Math was always there. Why are you so opposed to the idea that we have to submit to math physics and nature. Everything submits to cause and effect. That is dialectics itself. Materialism is submission too. It all is what it is.

I am not a dialectician. Saying math was "always there" isn&#39;t really accurate. Because you could say the same for all science before it was discovered. Which then would prove there to be no god even before Jesus existed :lol:


A prophet is just someome who is more intouch with those things alltogether then the average person. That way they can put it together and tell you some other shit. But math is there whether you are or not. We are just beginning to get there, but we can still have mathematical thoguths without knowing how to do math,

So tell me, what have these prophets done? Other than make popular reactionary, sexist, homophobic, moronic garbage.

Where is god? Where are those true predictions. The one thing I hope is that when materialists actually achieve communism you won&#39;t be taking credit for it as a "prophet" :lol:


So it looks crazy, but prophets of today got more mathematical knowlege behind them that we are more advanced in language logic and thought ( we got more things to think about them they do, more thoughts in our heads more to deal with for our minds ) to show their work better. Just cause people couldnt tell you how doesnt mean its not a possibility. Cause they laughed at the man who said the world was round and they later found out that bastard was right.

What prophets are you referring to? I hope you aren&#39;t referring to scientists as prophets.

[Raisa]

"If your nit picking why don&#39;t you just drop the whole religion. "

I never really claimed a religion here did I?

I dont nit pick, I form syntheses. Religous books are free territory to be nit picked.
Rulign class leaders nit picked them and/or the meanings of the words inside before you ever got to read them. You put too much into these books even if you disagree. My personal religious views arent the issue, im tellign you these books were expressions of thoughts people had in ancient times when that is how they had to write. You can learn alot if you view these things artistically and historically.

We don&#39;t waste our time thinking about some god that doesn&#39;t exist because it&#39;s just that A WASTE OF TIME."

With all due respect, I aint never wasted my time. I got long days and still manage to think of all kinds of shit sometimes at once.

"owever someone living in a different economic system, such as fuedalism or ancient despotism could have in no way predicted the functioning of class society hundreds/thousands of years later. "

Why not, it is mathematically feasible, but its one of those mathematic thoughts people couldnt pin point because of these semantics.
People speculated all kind of machines before we had electricity and then we found it. they knew their mechanical devices couldnt work as good as they were theorizing, they thought about some kind of energy and there is was.

Human beings are "divine" we use 10 percent of our brain only. whats the wrest and even all the ten percent on?
We got a whole subcontious.

All I be saying to you is what if words like divine, god, nature and so forth are real concepts but got entirely different meanings then the ones they been assigned.

Words are the thoughts, thats the real issue.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:54 AM


Real nice with the ad hominem. We appreciate it. <_<

Im gonna pretend I didnt hear that, being that my school never taught me what an ad hominem was.....

"U don&#39;t know what to look for either, so you can&#39;t prove that God exists. Therefore we assume your proposition is false until you CAN prove it."

Most people dont have proof, they got faith. Crazy shit, isnt it&#33;
I never said I knew what god was, but you dont either so Im saying that there is no answer no matter how much anyone wants there to be one.
We got to leave it alone.

By common logic if you were hell bent on having an opnion youd just have to be agnostic, every other opinion is based on faith primarily.

"Plus, God is LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with reality. I can give you a bunch of examples if you&#39;d like."

Id like that.

[RevMARKSman]

Most people dont have proof, they got faith. Crazy shit, isnt it&#33;

I have faith in invisible unicorns. Does that count?

See, once you enter the realm of "faith", you can get anything. That means you&#39;re going to get absurd beliefs as well as "divine" ones.


Id like that.

Here.


THE PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT
1.) If God exists, then he is perfect..
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4.) If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6.) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). - Theodore M. Drange




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD&#39;S JUSTICE AND MERCY
1.) If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2.) If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3.) An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4.) An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5.) It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6.) Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6). - A construct of one of Dan Barker&#39;s arguments. Rewritten by Theodore M. Drange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD&#39;S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Theodore M. Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: &#39;The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...&#39; - Webster&#39;s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
Comments: You see, this is the problem, God cannot be jealous. Be he is. Yahweh cannot possibly exist if he has both the attributes of love and jealousy.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God’s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Jesus, God&#39;s Flesh, died at the cross.
2.) Flesh & Blood cannot enter into Heaven per (1 Cor. 15:50-56)
3.) Jesus was Flesh.
4.) Jesus no longer exists. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem. However, if Jesus “is” God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead. - IG
And for those that don&#39;t believe Paul was talking about Flesh & Blood literally (Fallen Man) please refer to the Greek meaning of Flesh.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVIL IS GOOD?
1.) God is good all of the time.
2.) Everything that God creates is good. Amen?
3.) God created evil according to Isaiah 45:7. (look it up)
4.) Evil is good. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
1.) If God exists, he is omnipresent (occupying all space).
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and future, there is nothing that is NOT God.
3.) God therefore, cannot have a sense of the independent self.
4.) Since God has no sense of the self or non-self, he cannot have a consciousness.
5.) In conclusion, God cannot have a mind and would resemble nothing more than the non-conscious Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: Of course P3 could be denied if one believes the human mind is somehow not part of Gods. This argument is more designed for those that believe that God is ALL things.(Which is the typical theist I encounter).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (This is explained and discussed more HERE.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON LOVE & HELL
1.) God&#39;s love is superlative.
2.) God&#39;s love of man exceeds man&#39;s love of self.
3.) Man&#39;s love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God&#39;s greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical. - Hank & Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER ATEMPORAL ARGUMENT
1.) God is an atemporal being.
2.) God is all aware.
3.) God then would be aware of the passage of time.
4.) The passage of anything is change from one instance to another.
5.) God is not an a temporal being. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ON MAN&#39;S FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past, present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future will be part of God&#39;s unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God&#39;s unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn&#39;t exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. - a syllogistic view of Dan Barker&#39;s F.A.N.G


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INFALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE / FREEWILL ARGUMENT
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PRAYER
1.) Prayer is sometimes used to ask God to change a situation in one&#39;s life or anothers.
2.) God has a divine plan that cannot be changed.
3.) Prayer cannot be used to change any situation. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MORAL-KNOWLEGDE ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM
1.) If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
2.) If God exists, it would be in God&#39;s interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3.) All human beings do not know God&#39;s ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
4.) Probably, God does not exist. - Niclas Berggren
(If one disagrees with P2, why would God NOT realize this option? "We could imagine two scenarios. First, a God which shows favoritism in the sense that he reveals his ethics only to some, or in the sense that he reveals it to a higher extent to some than to others. But this would be inconsistent with our assumption of benevolence, since such favoritism would imply that God cares more about some than about others (where knowledge of God&#39;s ethics must be considered a good, from the point of view of a benevolent God). (And in the Christian case, it is explicitly stated in Acts 10:34: "Then Peter began to speak: &#39;I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism&#39;." (NIV)) Second, we could imagine God spreading a limited knowledge of his ethics in equal proportions to all of humanity. But (i) what could possibly be the point in such a self-imposed limitation of spreading something which, from the point of view of the benevolent God, must be considered a good? and (ii) this can hardly be the case, since not all people agree normatively on any issue of ethics (and if my point (ii) is disputed, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is such agreement - and this has not been shown)." - Niclas Berggren


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL IGNORANCE
1.) If God exists, it is probably the case that all sentient beings whose behavior God considers morally significant have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
2.) If God exists, he considers humans&#39; behavior morally significant.
3.) Humans are sentient beings.
4.) If God exists, it is probably the case that humans have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
5.) Humans do not have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
6.) Probably, God does not exist.- Cole Mitchell: Adapted from Niclas Berggren&#39;s "On the Nature of Morality".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL PARITY
1.) If God exists, rational theists are probably noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
2.) Rational theists are not noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
3.) Probably, God does not exist. - Paul Draper


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR NON-BELIEF ASSUMING THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS
1.) The Christian God wants all men to know he exists so that they can be saved and go to Heaven.
2.) The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent.
3.) The Christian God knows what sufficient evidences he can provide to convince all men of his existence.
4.) Not all men are convinced of God&#39;s existence.
5.) The Christian God chooses to not provide sufficient evidence to convince all men that he exists.
6.) Therefore, The Christian God wants non-believers to exist.
NOTE: Atheists are non-Christians so this argument can be used to argue for atheism as well. [1] can be argued against on the outset, however, if one argues against this position, this would mean that God creates people just to go to hell. Doesn&#39;t sound like an all-good God to me. Most Calvinists will not have a problem with this or JW&#39;s, however, many Christians will find this disturbing. A typical rebuttle would be that God wishes for you to choose him freely. So he wants you to believe, but providing incontrovertible evidence would negate faith. Which God requires. The problem with this argument of course is that all religions have faith. So faith alone cannot lead people to the "right" God. Surely a God would know this. If so, he wants atheists to exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM ASSUMING GOD EXISTS
1.) If the Christian God exists, everything that exists is part of his perfect, divine plan.
2.) Atheists exist.
3.) So, atheists are a part of God&#39;s perfect plan.
4.) Therefore, God wants atheists to exist. - Moloth



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM JUDGEMENT
1.) If the Christian God exists, he will judge all men one day.
2.) At judgement, atheists will learn the truth, that there is a God.
3.) It follows then that God has the power to reveal himself to atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence.
4.) It follows from that, that God hasn&#39;t revealed himself to current atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence, yet.
5.) Atheism is a tenable position. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(A counter argument is to state that God requires that we have faith. One would think that surely God would be intelligent enough to know that faith would not be a viable option to the atheist or even the non-christian to believe in him (Yahweh). He would therefore have to provide evidence if he wants us to accept him as a reality. If he doesn&#39;t, then it&#39;s on God, right?)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SATAN FOOLING US - Evidence of Evolution
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing).
2.) God knew that before Creating Satan, that Satan would trick people with fossils and other evidence for evolution.
3.) God created Satan anyway.
4.) God wants, at least some, people to be tricked into believing in the evidences for evolution.
5.) It&#39;s logical to not believe in "divine creation". - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(This is a response to those that seriously believe Satan created fossils and that all of the sciences that support evolution are twisted by Satan. In regards to Divine Creation I am responding to the story of Adam and Eve.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMNISCIENCE-HUMAN EXPERIENCE INCOMPATIBILITY ARGUMENT
1.) Fear is a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger. (The American Heritage® Dictionary: 2000)
2.) If God exists, God cannot feel agitated, anxious or feel endangered.
3.) Since God cannot experience fear, he cannot know what it&#39;s like to fear, therefore not all-knowing. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Some would claim that it is against God&#39;s nature to be afraid. Exactly, then he cannot be omniscient. There are at least some things for which he is completely ignorant of. Stating that it&#39;s against his nature is a cop-out and a concession simultaneously.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr
(Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, &#39;Through faith one can know God.&#39;)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------