Religous Principles

[The Grey Blur]

At the moment I am reading a book on James Connolly and it expounds on Connolly's view that religious principles of mutual respect, self-discipline and solidarity were concilable with a Marxist world-view.

This was one of the reasons Connolly's relationship with the DeLeonists was severed (DeLeon openly celebrated anti-religosity and printed some crazily anti-Catholic articles by Belgian Communists in his paper)

I find myself beginning to agree with Connolly on this - Ireland has a history of revolutionary Catholicism ( :lol: incomprehensible to those outside Ireland) that Connolly identified with and nowadays I think with the lack of this that there is a large problem of reactionaries within the working-class - hoods who wish to take advantage of their own class instead of working constructively

I still absolutely refute the existence of an omnipotent deity or a heaven (as did Connolly - he was never a practicing Catholic) and resist any attempts by Church heirarchy to control working-class people or people's right on issues like abortion

I know there are constant attacks on puritanism on this site and any anti-religious activity is lauded, no matter the consequences for working class people so maybe I will just get the usual guff about religions always being eeevil :(

Oh wells...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution
At the moment I am reading a book on James Connolly and it expounds on Connolly's view that religious principles of mutual respect, self-discipline and solidarity were concilable with a Marxist world-view.

Where's the "mutual respect" in flopping on your belly before the Pope? Where's the "self-discipline" in refraining from common human pleasures because you'll "go to Hell" if you enjoy yourself? Where's the "solidarity" of gathering together to massace the heathens?

Connolly was full of crap on this issue...and if you agree with him, so are you!


This was one of the reasons Connolly's relationship with the DeLeonists was severed (DeLeon openly celebrated anti-religiosity and printed some crazily anti-Catholic articles by Belgian Communists in his paper)

Good for Dan! :D

Puts him ahead of a lot of "leftists" around these days!


I know there are constant attacks on puritanism on this site and any anti-religious activity is lauded, no matter the consequences for working class people so maybe I will just get the usual guff about religions always being eeevil.

Well, you asked for it. :lol:

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

[The Grey Blur]

I meant religious principals, not their institutons


Where's the "mutual respect" in flopping on your belly before the Pope?
It's frustrating to see working-class people self-destructing through squabbles and stupidity which would never come about if people respected each other


Where's the "self-discipline" in refraining from common human pleasures because you'll "go to Hell" if you enjoy yourself?
Self-discipline as to what effects your actions will have on other people and whether they are negative


Where's the "solidarity" of gathering together to massace the heathens?
Again, these are just the principles not the actual actions of religions and thus your critiscisms are irrelevant


Connolly was full of crap on this issue...and if you agree with him, so are you!
Thanks :lol:


Good for Dan! :D
The Belgian communist (I forget his name) said something to the effect that Communim's main battle was not with Capitalism but with the Roman Catholic Church - it is a hilarious article if you can get a hold of it


Well, you asked for it. :lol:
I'm sorry but I can't take into account unconstructive critiscism such as yours - I want to challenge myself, not stay true to some linear orthodoxy...almost like a religion! :P

[Eleutherios]

Revolutionary Catholicism? Are you serious? How can you be a revolutionary and follow the openly pro-capitalist Catholic Church at the same time? Whatever revolution these guys are planning, count me out!

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 6 2006, 11:30 PM
I know there are constant attacks on puritanism on this site and any anti-religious activity is lauded, no matter the consequences for working class people

Consequences for the working class people? Yea, let's endorse catholicism, the same church that would deem farmer's or their wives as witches and warlocks, so they can take their land and all they own. The same church that would accuse the dead of being witches by finding "evidence," that proved that they were, then seizing their families land, and then exhuming the body from it's grave, and bury it off "holy ground."

The same church that exploits the working class, by convincing them, the more money they "donate," to the church, the more "humble and holy," they are, so then you see the working class get poorer, while you see some flabby, aristocratic pope, walking around, in prada shoes, a solid gold staff, and wearing robes tailored by top designers.

The same church, that says you can't have birth control, which would lead the way for disease, no matter how pious they claim to be.

Truth is, the catholic church, has exploited the people for far to long, it was only in power, by the blood of our heathen ancestors, and through plague and famine they manipulated, the people, into an even tighter grasp.

The whole catholic system, boils down to fascists in robes, preaching about some imaginary phantom, so the masses can do their bidding, all "in the service of god."

A revolutionary catholic is an oxymoron.

[The Grey Blur]

:( I thought I'd get this

Unless you're from Ireland I don't think you would understand what I mean by 'Revolutionary Catholicism'. I'll try to explain it anyway...

Since the Britsih invaded Ireland they constantly attempted to destroy the Catholic religion, harrassing and murdering it's followers. Still, the Catholic Irish continued practicing their their religon and several rebellions were attempted by priests and others

Yes, I know in America and Europe the Catholic religion is seen as extremely dogmatic and beurgeois but in Ireland it's connection has always been with the poorer classes as a force for revolutionary change - there was and is still a large amount of Church hierarchy that would critiscise and attack all revolutionary thought but many poorer Catholic priests embraced revolutionary ideals

Please, try not to be so ignorant in future - keep an open mind as to what someone is posting about - don't just start ranting about how terrible the Catholic Church was a thousand years ago - you look like an idiot

So anyway - the principles of religion or ethics - should we embrace them? Or are all morals tools of the beurgeois?


A revolutionary catholic is an oxymoron
You're the oxymoron

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution
So anyway - the principles of religion or ethics - should we embrace them?

Of course not!

What could we possibly gain from the stupid and cruel "principles of religion"?

All of that crap needs to be flushed down "the Toilet of History"! :lol:

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

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Yes, I know in America and Europe the Catholic religion is seen as extremely dogmatic and beurgeois but in Ireland it's connection has always been with the poorer classes

No, geographically speaking, Ireland is still apart of the continent of Europe, and furthermore, all catholics churches submit to the vatican, regardless of region, and even though it is in Ireland does not change the stupidity of it's doctrine, or the history of said doctrine.


Since the Britsih invaded Ireland they constantly attempted to destroy the Catholic religion, harrassing and murdering it's followers.

The war between catholics and protestants, is in a word, stupid. There fighting over little things, and the people are the one's paying for it.

The people, are killed because the defend an imaginary phantom, for differences like archaic rituals, and different codes, held between the protestants, and catholics, I mean can they unite, and practice the evangelism, that they preach? No, "we have to get those heathen protestant," and "we have to stop those evil catholics."


Please, try not to be so ignorant in future - keep an open mind as to what someone is posting about - don't just start ranting about how terrible the Catholic Church was a thousand years ago - you look like an idiot

No, I wasn't talking about it "a thousand years ago," I was talking about it, then and now. There a dozen's of poor catholics, around the vatican, yet the pope, still lives in luxury, with his fancy robes, staffs, cars, and shoes, while the working class around him lives in rags, and poverty.

Catholicism is stupid, dogmatic, and archaic, in all it's forms, past and present, I mean they determine the pope, by bits, of paper, that burn different colors, sounds real revolutionary oriented, :rolleyes: .


You're the oxymoron

You didn't even use that word in the right way, oxymoron means to have to contradictory terms put together, like a revolutionary catholic, or national socialist jew, you just called me that, with no adjectives, thus you didn't even use it right.

“The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.”-Mikhail Bakunin.

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

[Leo]

I still absolutely refute the existence of an omnipotent deity or a heaven (as did Connolly - he was never a practicing Catholic) and resist any attempts by Church heirarchy to control working-class people or people's right on issues like abortion

Altough James Connolly is a revolutionary whose enthusiasim is really admirable, he did believe in god. Read his final letter, you'll see, he personally thanks god. He might be personally against attemps by Church heirarchy to control workers, but he wasn't at leasy publicly against the church heirarchy.


Connolly was full of crap on this issue...and if you agree with him, so are you!

That's not really constructive is it? Maybe saying that Connolly wasn't objective on this issue would be better and actually more specific than saying that he was 'full of crap on this issue', and there is no need to get into personal polemics.


Unless you're from Ireland I don't think you would understand what I mean by 'Revolutionary Catholicism'. I'll try to explain it anyway...

Since the Britsih invaded Ireland they constantly attempted to destroy the Catholic religion, harrassing and murdering it's followers. Still, the Catholic Irish continued practicing their their religon and several rebellions were attempted by priests and others

This is indeed very true, the practice of catholicism did become a form of rebellion in Ireland. The idea of 'Revolutionary Catholicism' is actually quite similar to the idea of 'Revolutionary Nationalism', which was also the case in Ireland. This synthesis is quite interesting, Ireland is a good example of a country which managed to combine Socialism with ideas such as Catholicism and Nationalism because Irish Catholicism and Irisih Nationalism were suppressed, but this doesn't make Nationalism or Catholism right by any means.


QUOTE (Permanent Revolution)
So anyway - the principles of religion or ethics - should we embrace them?


Of course not!

What could we possibly gain from the stupid and cruel "principles of religion"?

All of that crap needs to be flushed down "the Toilet of History"!

I agree with this too, but alas, this won't happen in a second, it will take time. Nevertheless, while throwing religios and ethic principles, we need to keep ethics and religion but we need to have them only in the individual basis.
First of all, I do not mean we should keep religios organizations and their dogmas or the faith in god or the belief in heaven and hell etc. Religion, from an objective and philosophical perspective, is the way a society expressed their explaination for the events going around them. Someone's religion, in the communist society, should be something they, as individual beings, developed. Their own way of explaining things around them. Of course, the individual religions will be scientific, because the superstitions will be gone with the religios dogmas. Ethics, the same, an individual's own definition of right and wrong.


The war between catholics and protestants, is in a word, stupid. There fighting over little things, and the people are the one's paying for it.

The war between catholics and protestants is not different from the war between English and Irish. English poor are fighting against Irish poor.

As an organization, what kind of shit the catholic church is pretty obvious.

The only revolutionary side and relevance of catholism and nationalism etc. is the rebellion it triggers in people who are oppressed from other religions/sects and nations. But they must be aware that they will unite with every English or Protestant for the international revolution, if not they won't be different from their oppressors and they won't be revolutionary, they will only be nationalist catholics.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
That's not really constructive is it? Maybe saying that Connolly wasn't objective on this issue would be better and actually more specific than saying that he was 'full of crap on this issue', and there is no need to get into personal polemics.

Well, I'm not criticizing Connolly's "scholarship"...I'm criticizing the whole project of trying to incorporate "religious values" into the communist project.

I think that really is a "load of crap" and I see no reason not to call it that.

This is a more or less "constant struggle" in this forum...and I'll gtant that I occasionally become impatient with those who keep "trying it on".

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

[Leo]

Well, I'm not criticizing Connolly's "scholarship"...I'm criticizing the whole project of trying to incorporate "religious values" into the communist project.

I think that really is a "load of crap" and I see no reason not to call it that.

This is a more or less "constant struggle" in this forum...and I'll gtant that I occasionally become impatient with those who keep "trying it on".

No, you misunderstood me, I don’t care if you criticize or hate Connolly himself, and I would agree that the whole project of trying to incorporate "religious values" into the communist project really is a "load of crap", even though I wouldn’t express it that way. What I found “not constructive” was calling the member who posted this forum “full of crap” through his opinions on Connolly. I think If someone wrote their opinions with good intentions, they shouldn’t be called “full of crap”, in this case it would be pretty easy to convince him why incorporate "religious values" into the communist project really is a "load of crap." I know that you read reply to most of the stuff written here, and there are all kinds of opinions, so I would understand you to get impatient, especially on topics like this one that are constantly repeated, but one should always remember, members of this site, or in fact any site you can find in the internet are more than nicknames, signatures and avatars, there are actual human beings behind them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
I think If someone wrote their opinions with good intentions, they shouldn’t be called “full of crap”...

Even if they are?

Doesn't everyone think they have "good intentions"?

Does that belief mean that their intentions actually are "good"???

The guy who started this thread makes it clear that he knew in advance that his proposition was going to be severely attacked. Invoking a "famous name" was intended to "deflect" or at least "soften" the attack.

It's been done before. :angry:


...but one should always remember, members of this site, or in fact any site you can find in the internet are more than nicknames, signatures and avatars, there are actual human beings behind them.

Actual human beings who are, on occasion, full of crap.

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

[Leo]

Actual human beings who are, on occasion, full of crap.

Would you call if you were having a discussion, face to face, with someone you don't know 'full of crap'?


Even if they are?

Doesn't everyone think they have "good intentions"?

Does that belief mean that their intentions actually are "good"???

The guy who started this thread makes it clear that he knew in advance that his proposition was going to be severely attacked. Invoking a "famous name" was intended to "deflect" or at least "soften" the attack.

It's been done before.

No, everyone doesn't think they have "good intentions", most doesn't even care anymore. If someone cares enough to try to have good intentions, they do have, at least subjectively, good intentions.

If you call anyone full of crap, you lost them at that second (unless they are really extraordinary individuals). They won't listen to you, you won't be able to convince them.

Religion is a very hard dilemma for people who grew up in religious environments. For those people religion can be the only dock they can take refuge in under a storm because it is very close to them, inside. Trying to incorporate "religious values" into the communist project might be full of crap, but only having a "religious values" project is a lot worse. If someone came that close, trying to convince them into the 'real' communist project by itself would be much more constructive than calling them "full of crap."

I don't know, I am new after all, maybe you tried another aproach before and it didn't work.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
Would you call if you were having a discussion, face to face, with someone you don't know 'full of crap'?

It is the "glory" of the internet that we are free to say what we actually think...without having to concern ourselves about going to "fist city" with some no-necked neanderthal.

The individual in question here is from Ireland...where people who publicly dissent from "the proper faith" get shot! :o


No, everyone doesn't think they have "good intentions", most doesn't even care anymore. If someone cares enough to try to have good intentions, they do have, at least subjectively, good intentions.

Well, then, how do you decide who has "good intentions" and who is "faking it"?

Doesn't George W. Bush "really believe" that "God" made him the president to "save the world from Islamic evil"? I see no reason not to take his word for it.

After all, "God" talks to people like Bush and Bin Laden...not me or you. :lol:


If you call anyone full of crap, you've lost them at that second (unless they are really extraordinary individuals). They won't listen to you, you won't be able to convince them.

I think people mostly convince themselves...all that we do is make revolutionary ideas available. What people really need to understand is that there is a real world alternative to all forms of superstition.

They can ignore it if they wish...but they need to know it exists.


Religion is a very hard dilemma for people who grew up in religious environments. For those people religion can be the only dock they can take refuge in under a storm because it is very close to them, inside.

Yes...it's worse than heroin...no question about it. But they have to "kick the habit" if they're ever going to get out from under the heel of the oppressor.

Superstition is a form of self-degradation...much worse than drug addiction. Being suckered by that crap is something to be ashamed of.

And that's why I am so harsh on the subject; I want to make them feel ashamed of being taken advantage of by con-men.

So they'll stop doing that.


I don't know, I am new after all, maybe you tried another aproach before and it didn't work.

Some people here do have "another approach"...they sort of "look the other way" and think that someone can be a "perfectly good" revolutionary and still be religious.

They're even comfortable with outright lying to the religious...pretending that communism is "tolerant" of religious beliefs and even going so far as to suggest that Christians were "the first communists".

By now, you've read enough of my posts to anticipate my reactions to that "approach".

It's a load of crap! :lol:

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

[Gaius]

Why are commies so anti-theist?

If you actually studied Jesus Christ you would realise how amazing some of the things he said and did where. You're confusing 'Christianity' with the religion which developed out of human self-interest and greed. All of you are.

[encephalon]

Why are commies so anti-theist?

If you actually studied Jesus Christ you would realise how amazing some of the things he said and did where. You're confusing 'Christianity' with the religion which developed out of human self-interest and greed. All of you are.


I was raised catholic as a kid, so don't give me that bullshit about "you don't like christianity because you just don't know about it, but if you knew it you'd accept it." I've read the bible countless times.. in fact, it's amusing as hell to read it when you consider that people actually believe it who are over the age of ten.

[Gaius]

I was raised an Irish catholic too you prat. If you really want to know I'm agnostic when it comes to God, but believe the teachings of Christ (I have read (some) of the gnostic gospels as well) to be inherently good and his philosophy exhillerating. I vehemently dislike organised religion.

[The Grey Blur]

I just wanted to see if other comrades had any constructive thoughts on ethics but the thread has been hi-jacked into another athiesm vs religion topic

By the way Redstar2000, the Belgian Socialist's name was Vandervelde in case you want to try and find that article

Connolly;

"Though I have usually posed as a Catholic, I have not gone to my duty for fifteen years, and I have not the slightest tincture of faith left. I only assumed the Catholic pose to quiz the raw freethinkers whose ridiculous dogmatism did and does annoy me as much as the dogmatism of the orthodox"

I wasn't talking about the sectarian feuds in the North of Ireland from the 60s on, I was talking about the pre-partition Ireland where Catholics were routinely massacred and opressed and this of course engendered a revolutionary spirit in Catholics. As Connolly said;

"Well, it is like this. In Ireland all the Protestants are Orangemen and howling jingoes. If the children go to the Protestant schools they get taught to wave the Union Jack and worship the English King. If they go to the Catholic Church they become rebels. Which would you sooner have?"

So I'll leave this thread open again - what do you think of those religious principles that encourage understanding and other positive things and can we concile them to a secular viewpoint?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Connolly+--> (Connolly)Though I have usually posed as a Catholic, I have not gone to my duty for fifteen years, and I have not the slightest tincture of faith left. I only assumed the Catholic pose to quiz the raw freethinkers whose ridiculous dogmatism did and does annoy me as much as the dogmatism of the orthodox.[/b]

Curious, is it not, that he should find the "dogmatism" of the freethinkers "just as annoying" as the dogmatism of the orthodox.

Catholic dogma is so outrageously cruel and idiotic on its face that one would think he would find it far "more annoying" than freethinking.

For anyone to "pose" as a Catholic strikes me as extraordinarily stupid.

Shall we "pose as Nazis" to "win over" the anti-semites to "socialism"? :o


Originally posted by [email protected]
Well, it is like this. In Ireland all the Protestants are Orangemen and howling jingoes. If the children go to the Protestant schools they get taught to wave the Union Jack and worship the English King. If they go to the Catholic Church they become rebels. Which would you sooner have?

Neither, thank you.


permanent revolution
So I'll leave this thread open again - what do you think of those religious principles that encourage understanding and other positive things?

Religious principles do not "encourage understanding" or "other positive things". They encourage superstitious ignorance and submission to authority.

Always have. Always will! :angry:

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

[Leo]

It is the "glory" of the internet that we are free to say what we actually think...without having to concern ourselves about going to "fist city" with some no-necked neanderthal.

The individual in question here is from Ireland...where people who publicly dissent from "the proper faith" get shot!

Well, I didn't actually think about that 'fist city' side of my question... The situation I imagined was more like a conversation in a park or something with a civil person, not some no-necked neanderthal.

The fact that people shoot each other in Ireland because they publicly dissent from "the proper faith" doesn't make that individual a no-necked neanderthal either.

But I see your point, I already agree that what you think is right and you could have expressed in in a better, in a not offensive way maybe.


Well, then, how do you decide who has "good intentions" and who is "faking it"?

Doesn't George W. Bush "really believe" that "God" made him the president to "save the world from Islamic evil"? I see no reason not to take his word for it.

After all, "God" talks to people like Bush and Bin Laden...not me or you.

The fact that someone subjectively has 'good intentions' doesn't mean they objectively have them. If someone is faking their good intentions, they don't even subjectively have good intentions.

As for George W. Bush, to really believe what he says, he must be a lot more stupid than he looks, which is a very hard situation in his case. Religion is foolish, to be really powerful in the capitalist system, one must never have any foolishness. So I would say if any religious figure or nationalist leader has any power, they can't afford to believe what they say, at least deep inside. If they believe, they are manipulated pawns planted in important positions.


I think people mostly convince themselves...all that we do is make revolutionary ideas available. What people really need to understand is that there is a real world alternative to all forms of superstition.

They can ignore it if they wish...but they need to know it exists.

I agree but if we offend them, they will be at least less likely to undertand that real world alternative to all forms of superstition. They will be more likely to ignore.


Yes...it's worse than heroin...no question about it. But they have to "kick the habit" if they're ever going to get out from under the heel of the oppressor.

Superstition is a form of self-degradation...much worse than drug addiction. Being suckered by that crap is something to be ashamed of.

And that's why I am so harsh on the subject; I want to make them feel ashamed of being taken advantage of by con-men.

So they'll stop doing that.

I think the only threat to the position 'opium of the masses' of superstitious religion comes from television which is a different kind of addiction. Marx ( :marx: ) would have been pretty surprised to see something became almost as dominant as superstitious religion.

I understand what you are trying to do. I would say that someone can be ashamed without being offended. Being ashamed is caused by realization. I don't know if it works but hopefully it will!


Some people here do have "another approach"...they sort of "look the other way" and think that someone can be a "perfectly good" revolutionary and still be religious.

They're even comfortable with outright lying to the religious...pretending that communism is "tolerant" of religious beliefs and even going so far as to suggest that Christians were "the first communists".

By now, you've read enough of my posts to anticipate my reactions to that "approach".

It's a load of crap!

That wasn't the 'another approach' I meant. I think the context of what you say is what needs to be said and understood about religion and your reactions to the approach you describe are just, but I think people might miss the context because of the way you express it. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps it is counter-counterproductive, perhaps hearing that it's a load of crap would push some people into really questioning their beliefs while a more polite way won't be effective. Honestly I don't know but for myself, I would choose the second way, explaining everything in a long and polite way because as long as someone isn't literally 'full of crap', I wouldn't like to call them that.


QUOTE (Connolly)
Though I have usually posed as a Catholic, I have not gone to my duty for fifteen years, and I have not the slightest tincture of faith left. I only assumed the Catholic pose to quiz the raw freethinkers whose ridiculous dogmatism did and does annoy me as much as the dogmatism of the orthodox.

Curious, is it not, that he should find the "dogmatism" of the freethinkers "just as annoying" as the dogmatism of the orthodox.

Catholic dogma is so outrageously cruel and idiotic on its face that one would think he would find it far "more annoying" than freethinking.

For anyone to "pose" as a Catholic strikes me as extraordinarily stupid.

Connolly is not objective on Catholicism, the very movement he leads is a catholic movement, militants he lead did not become militants because they were interested in a new system or abolishing capitalism, they became militants because they were oppressed as Catholics. Catholicism is a form of rebellion in Ireland, and Connolly, no matter what he says about his position regarding Catholicism; he is the leader of this movement. He sees the anti-religious ideas of the European socialists as a rebellion against the rebellion he leads, he accuses them of not understanding his rebellion but objectively it is him who is rebelling against the rebellion against the outrageously cruel and idiotic Catholic dogma.
I don't doubt Connolly poses as a 'Catholic', but he has to if he wants to lead the revolution in Ireland and therefore he doesn't act extraordinarily stupid but actually extraordinarily politic.



Shall we "pose as Nazis" to "win over" the anti-semites to "socialism"?

It is irrelevant but... (Sigh) Actually I know some groups that actually try this. It is pretty fucking shameful. :angry:


QUOTE (permanent revolution)
So I'll leave this thread open again - what do you think of those religious principles that encourage understanding and other positive things?


Religious principles do not "encourage understanding" or "other positive things". They encourage superstitious ignorance and submission to authority.

Always have. Always will!

Religious principles are dogmas. Someone can read and even admire or like Christ, just as someone can read and admire Socrates or Plato or other historical figures that lived thousands of years ago. But when what a historical figure said becomes religious principles, they have already become dogmas that encourage superstitious ignorance and submission to authority. They have lost whatever positive thing they could have had because they have became 'unchallengeable.'

[encephalon]

I was raised an Irish catholic too you prat. If you really want to know I'm agnostic when it comes to God, but believe the teachings of Christ (I have read (some) of the gnostic gospels as well) to be inherently good and his philosophy exhillerating. I vehemently dislike organised religion.

If you honestly believe christ's teachings are in the bible or any gnostic text, you're a fool.

And if you honestly believe in the teaching of said texts and yet somehow manage to hate organized religion, you're equally the fool.

[Gaius]

Where did I say I agree with their teachings? I'm saying, regardless of the historical context, some of the writings in all of the gospels are inherently good. Thinks like, "Love you enemies" and "Let he who is sinless cast the first stone" are awesome. I'm sorry if I would rather live in a society of love than hate...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gaius
I'm sorry if I would rather live in a society of love than hate...

If it's "love" you're looking for, try Match.com -- the Christians specialize in hate. They're a good 17 centuries out in front of everybody else!

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

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Gaius+May 10 2006, 02:00 PM--> (Gaius @ May 10 2006, 02:00 PM) Where did I say I agree with their teachings? I'm saying, regardless of the historical context, some of the writings in all of the gospels are inherently good. Thinks like, "Love you enemies" and "Let he who is sinless cast the first stone" are awesome. I'm sorry if I would rather live in a society of love than hate... [/b]
Like any politician, he threw some sweet words in there to woo people (no religion can succeed unless its followers perceive it as fundamentally good), but that doesn't mean anything. I mean, loving your enemies? What kind of crap is that? If I truly love somebody, why would I call them my enemy? And if they're attacking me, what good does it do to try loving them? I can't see why any revolutionary would want to follow Jesus' teachings, since he preached that we should not fight against our oppressors, but rather have faith that we will be rewarded in the afterlife for our earthly suffering.

Here are some gems pulled right out of the New Testament which show the true kindness of Jesus' teachings:

• Slaves should unquestioningly obey their masters:

Originally posted by Ephesians 6:5+--> (Ephesians 6:5)Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God[/b]
• Even if they are evil:

Originally posted by 1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
• Women should submit unquestioningly to their husbands:

Ephesians 5:22-[email protected]
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
• Anybody who doesn't believe Jesus' message of forgiveness is going to be tortured in hell forever (with no chance of forgiveness of course):

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power
If you ask me, there are tons of philosophers who have done a much better job than Jesus of forming a coherent philosophy of love and respect, and none of them expect me to believe they're the son of God. I'll take the teachings of Bertrand Russell or John Lennon over Jesus' any day of the week.

[The Grey Blur]

Congratulations, you figured out how to copy and paste from skeptics annotated bible, please come back when you have a relevant contribution on religious principles

It's annoying that I have to contsantly clarify what I meant

Regardless of religious dogmas and athiest beliefs do any of you, as Communists, think a code of ethics is useful?

Or are we hampering ourselves with supersticions?

Personally, I think that some key moral principles should be upheld by everyone and most especially Communists

I don't think these morals need to conflict with our revolutionary ideas

[Goatse]

Religion is NEVER revolutionary, certainly not the Catholic flavour of Christianity.

[Eleutherios]

Congratulations, you figured out how to copy and paste from skeptics annotated bible, please come back when you have a relevant contribution on religious principles
I wasn't responding to your comment about religious principles. I was responding to somebody who said Jesus' teachings were admirable. But if you insist...

Religion teaches people to accept things without evidence, and to blindly follow moral principles invented by people who are long dead. How is that in any way desirable? Why would we want people to accept a desirable principle on superstition? Would it not be far better for people to accept principles that can be shown to be beneficial, rather than just accepting them because their religion says so? When people accept principles just because their gods/priests/holy books tell them to, they just take them all at face value instead of thinking which ones actually work to man's benefit and which ones don't.

Who would you trust more, a man who chooses not to murder because he genuinely feels it is wrong and detrimental to mankind, or a man who chooses not to murder because he thinks the invisible dictator of the universe wrote down a prohibition against murder in an ancient text? The former is being righteous and acting out of respect for his fellow man, while the latter is acting out of a selfish desire not to get God pissed off at him. Revolutionaries need to derive their principles from logic and respect for their fellow man, not a selfish drive to appease some fairy tale creature.

It's annoying that I have to contsantly clatify (sic) what I meant

Regardless of dogmas and athiesm (sic) do any of you, as Communists, think a code of ethics is useful or neccessary (sic)? Or are we hampering ourselves with superstiscions (sic)?
Of course a "code of ethics" isn't necessary. People should be able to decide for themselves what is acceptable behavior. We don't need religions and their absolute moral codes to dictate to us what is acceptable behavior. Especially multiple religions with contradictory moral codes, whose followers cannot use logic to back up their faith-based beliefs and often resort to violence instead. We should be encouraging people to find out on their own whether a given principle is a good idea or not, instead of putting absolute faith in the thoughts of some dead guy, be it Jesus, Mohammed, or Marx.

Personally, I think that some key moral principles should be upheld by everyone and most especially Communists
Whose moral principles? Yours? If some principles are desirable for communists, we'll be able to find out what those principles are through logic and observation. That way we can accept those principles which actually help us and reject those which don't, no matter what the gods/priests/holy books say. And we can actually back them up with sound arguments, so they'll make sense to anybody who can follow logic.

But also, I don't think these morals should hamper any revolutionary actions
Any belief system which refuses to analyze its own beliefs critically (i.e. a faith) will hamper revolutionary actions. How can you expect a successful revolution unless people think for themselves? And how can you expect people to think for themselves when they are constantly bowing down to a "higher power" to determine what should and should not be done?

“It is safe to say that no other superstition is so detrimental to growth, so enervating and paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people, as the superstition of Morality.” —Emma Goldman

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by permanent revolution
Personally, I think that some key moral principles should be upheld by everyone and most especially Communists.

Which ones?

Thou shalt not commit adultery?

Thou shalt stone your disobedient children to death?

Thou shalt not permit a witch to live?

Thou shalt kill all the inhabitants of thine enemy's city, old men, women, even children and babies. And thou shalt kill all the animals too!

That you suggest that we "should" borrow "moral principles" from one of the most absolutely despicable traditions in human history is completely incomprehensible!

If you like the "Bible's" moral code, what could you possibly have against Nazism? Too humane for your tastes? :angry:

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