Christian Communism

[LittleMao]

Disscus and learn about what the Bible says about Communism. And understand that we are still loyal revolutionaries. Even though we have religion. Please point out your views on this topic.

[LittleMao]

- 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. (Act.2:44-45).

[LittleMao]

- 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet. (Act.4:32-36)

[LSD]

Disscus and learn about what the Bible says about Communism.

First of all, the Bible doesn't say anything about Communism because Communism wasn't invented until 1700 years after the Bible was written.

And secondly, all of this crap about "Jesus" being a "revolutionary" is just that. "Jesus" (if he even existed at all) was certainly interested in reforming Judaism, but his political beliefs were anything but radical.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." - Matthew 22:21

Christianity, from the begining, tried to ingratiate itself with the temporal authorites. Ultimately that effort would pay off with Constantine's "miraculous" conversion. But even while they were being discriminated against by the Roman authorities, the early Christians did their best not to rock the political boat.

Slavery? Oppression? Sexism? Racism? It was all acceptable to "Jesus" and his followers. So long as "God" was worshiped and "Jesus" was obeyed, it didn't matter what disgusting prejeduces and oppressions were tolerated.

But communism is not about putting some "holy man" in charge, it's about liberating the oppressed masses, something which the Bible knows nothing about.

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." - 1 Corinthians 6:22
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." - 1 peter 2:18

Honestly, does that really sound like liberation to you?


For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

That's not communism, it's theocracy.

Why should "apostles" control all economic transactions? Why should the people submit themselves to the rule of any man?

Besides, for anyone who's bought into this "communalistic Christianity" myth, I refer you to the book of John, chapter 12, verse 13:

"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples...why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? ...then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."

What a great guy... <_<

[Comrade J]

Now this is the bit where LittleMao tells us the Bible is misquoted, or not to be taken literally or whatever (apart from the bits he likes of course), and then we go on to talking about Liberation Theology...
I am in favour of Liberation Theology, whilst it&#39;s not an ideal movement, it&#39;s at least extracting something reasonably positive from something negative. How anyone can support Hezb&#39;allah and be against "revolutionary" Christians is beyond absurd.

[LSD]

Now this is the bit where LittleMao tells us the Bible is misquoted, or not to be taken literally or whatever

That would be the pattern, yes.

But who knows, one day we may actually get an honest Christian&#33; :o


How [can] anyone support Hezb&#39;allah and be against "revolutionary" Christians?

Because politics are always contextual.

It&#39;s liberal idealist nonsense to say that one&#39;s "principles" need be "universal".

Nobody on this site supports Hezbollah&#39;s domestic policy, we just recognize that resisting Israeli imperialism is more important than "ideological purity".

Accordingly, if there were any current examples of liberation theologists fighting against imperial agression, we would, of course, support them in that effort. But that does not mean that we will ever support their internal aims which generaly consist of promoting one of the worst and most murderous ideologies in human history -- Christianity.

The comparison with Hezbollah is, actually, pretty spot-on. Both are ostensibly "progressive", both oppose the present socioeconomic order, but both are also thoroughly reactionary.

That means that when they are fighting more reactionary elements, we must support them, but otherwise they deserve nothing but our scorn and critisism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Accordingly, if there were any current examples of liberation theologists fighting against imperial agression, we would, of course, support them in that effort.

So you support the ELN then?

[LSD]

So you support the ELN then?

Insofar as their struggle against the Colombian government, absolutely.

[ichneumon]

Nevertheless, there have been Christian communist societies that worked fairly well, until swallowed by capitalism. The Jains have a saying "Ahimsa Parma Dharma", meaning that nonviolence is the ultimate teaching. Perhaps Marxists should realize something similar - whatever it is that you believe in, if it gets you to live in a truly socialist society, well and good. If you want to worship cabbage on your own time, so long as you function in a collectivist community, I could care less.

[Comrade J]

Yes but it&#39;s when the cabbage tells you "hey, don&#39;t worry about this life, just keep worshiping me and you&#39;ll go to the great cabbage field in the sky after you die" that it becomes worrying, as then people feel less obliged to rise up against their oppressors.

The main pro-religious argument you hear is "it provides hope," which is all well and good, but WHY do they need hope?
It&#39;s because they lead exhausting, terrible lives, and need to think that surely this is not all there is. If they did not have their beliefs in a sky wizard, they&#39;d be more inclined to do something about the life they have now, rather than coping with it whilst waiting for the chance to meet Jesus or Muhammad or whoever.

[ichneumon]

don&#39;t know about you, but my cabbage is the quiet type....

[SocialJustice19]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:11 AM

Now this is the bit where LittleMao tells us the Bible is misquoted, or not to be taken literally or whatever

That would be the pattern, yes.

But who knows, one day we may actually get an honest Christian&#33; :o


How [can] anyone support Hezb&#39;allah and be against "revolutionary" Christians?

Because politics are always contextual.

It&#39;s liberal idealist nonsense to say that one&#39;s "principles" need be "universal".

Nobody on this site supports Hezbollah&#39;s domestic policy, we just recognize that resisting Israeli imperialism is more important than "ideological purity".

Accordingly, if there were any current examples of liberation theologists fighting against imperial agression, we would, of course, support them in that effort. But that does not mean that we will ever support their internal aims which generaly consist of promoting one of the worst and most murderous ideologies in human history -- Christianity.

The comparison with Hezbollah is, actually, pretty spot-on. Both are ostensibly "progressive", both oppose the present socioeconomic order, but both are also thoroughly reactionary.

That means that when they are fighting more reactionary elements, we must support them, but otherwise they deserve nothing but our scorn and critisism.
[/QUOTE]Accordingly, if there were any current examples of liberation theologists fighting against imperial agression, we would, of course, support them in that effort. But that does not mean that we will ever support their internal aims which generaly consist of promoting one of the worst and most murderous ideologies in human history -- Christianity

That is absurd.
Look into the ideology of Islam.
To say Christianity is the worst and most murderous? I find that very hard to believe. Granted the past is quite ill towards the formation of Christianity, however, I don&#39;t recall Christians blowing themselve up in the name of God. Hijacking planes and killing thousands of people.
Beheading Infidels
Stoning Women
Hanging Homosexuals
Strapping explosives to themselves and killing Jews
Bombing trains (Madrid Spain) (London England)
Plotting attacks on innocent civilians while on planes
(UK)
Islam is probably the most injustice religion known today. The Theocratic Dictatorships pose the gravest human injustices in the world. Yet you leftists continue to support them in the name of "resistence to imperalism". I am a true leftist who isn&#39;t afraid to be branded that which I am not because I have the balls to say what I believe. Freedom of speech is such a grand right.
I bet one of you will probably call me a Fascist. Because I&#39;m against a religion that in it&#39;s current course will dominate all religions. Even the religion you most hate, Christianity. And you&#39;ll most certainly have things to say about Islam once it&#39;s in your back yard.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Hijacking planes and killing thousands of people.
Beheading Infidels
Stoning Women
Hanging Homosexuals
Strapping explosives to themselves and killing Jews
Bombing trains (Madrid Spain) (London England)
Plotting attacks on innocent civilians while on planes

Because there were no planes when the Christian-Church-State was the ruling class, the people were smart enough to overthrow them before they could.

Of course, they did it in other ways - all heretics and infidels must be hanged by their intestines in front of a public crowd (Europe), Witches must be stoned or drowned (Everywhere), Homosexuals must be killed (Everywhere), you must fight crusades in the name of God, and slaughter all those who resist (Crusades, repressions, etc.)

I would say Christianity has caused a lot more havoc and death than Islam has ever caused - including its history in Africa and Arabia during those times as well.

If you didn&#39;t notice - it was the Christians who kept coming back for more with their 15 or so Great Crusades of God - not the Arabs. They were just defending their homes like anyone would do, the Christians were fighting to spread their religion everywhere and only for themselves.


Yet of course Islam is bad as well - just it cannot be called the &#39;worst&#39;. Either another one is the worst, or they all simply are tyrannical (As true Communists Believe)

Hinduism is a pretty nasty slavery too

[SocialJustice19]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:33 AM

Hijacking planes and killing thousands of people.
Beheading Infidels
Stoning Women
Hanging Homosexuals
Strapping explosives to themselves and killing Jews
Bombing trains (Madrid Spain) (London England)
Plotting attacks on innocent civilians while on planes

Because there were no planes when the Christian-Church-State was the ruling class, the people were smart enough to overthrow them before they could.

Of course, they did it in other ways - all heretics and infidels must be hanged by their intestines in front of a public crowd (Europe), Witches must be stoned or drowned (Everywhere), Homosexuals must be killed (Everywhere), you must fight crusades in the name of God, and slaughter all those who resist (Crusades, repressions, etc.)

I would say Christianity has caused a lot more havoc and death than Islam has ever caused - including its history in Africa and Arabia during those times as well.

If you didn&#39;t notice - it was the Christians who kept coming back for more with their 15 or so Great Crusades of God - not the Arabs. They were just defending their homes like anyone would do, the Christians were fighting to spread their religion everywhere and only for themselves.


Yet of course Islam is bad as well - just it cannot be called the &#39;worst&#39;. Either another one is the worst, or they all simply are tyrannical (As true Communists Believe)

Hinduism is a pretty nasty slavery too
[QUOTE]If you didn&#39;t notice - it was the Christians who kept coming back for more with their 15 or so Great Crusades of God - not the Arabs. They were just defending their homes like anyone would do, the Christians were fighting to spread their religion everywhere and only for themselves

Just as the Muslims are doing today. We need to be aware of all theorcratic movements. And not defend those Theocratic Dictatorships that harbor a host of human injustices. There is no resistence of imperalism by these countries, groups, organizations. They do what they do because we don&#39;t fall into their doctrine...plain and simple.

[QUOTE]Yet of course Islam is bad as well - just it cannot be called the &#39;worst&#39;. Either another one is the worst, or they all simply are tyrannical (As true Communists Believe)


I&#39;m not a communist though.
But thanks for the comment. Thorough and not rude.
^_^
~Zachary

[LSD]

To say Christianity is the worst and most murderous? I find that very hard to believe.

I didn&#39;t say that Christianity was "the worst", I said that it was one of the worst.

Obviously Islam is up there too. But if you would actually like to compare, I&#39;d say that Christianity still has the lead in terms of body count, although Islam is obviously catching up.

Between the Crusades and the Inquisitions and endless intercecine wars and genocides ...Islam may not be pretty, but it still can&#39;t compare to the holocaust that is the Christian legacy on the world.


I don&#39;t recall Christians blowing themselve up in the name of God.

No, they usually got other people to do it for them. "Martyrism" is at the heart of Christian theology. Hell even the supposed "founder" ("Jesus") was a "martyr".

If anything, Christianity has the far deeper sacrifice fetish.


Hijacking planes and killing thousands of people.

That&#39;s because the planes are generally owned by Christians. But if you want examples of Christian controlled planes killing thousands of people, all you have to do is look back to, oh, every major war of the past 100 years.


Beheading Infidels

You&#39;re joking right? Beheading infidels was practically invented by Christians. Although, in fairness, under early post-Constantinian law, pouring molten silver down infidels&#39; throats was the common practice.


Stoning Women

Again, you&#39;re joking, right?


Hanging Homosexuals

No, they used to burn them.


Strapping explosives to themselves and killing Jews

Historically, Christians haven&#39;t been big on "strapping explosives", but in terms of killing Jews, no one can compare to Christendom.

Antisemitism was invented by Christians. There&#39;s a reason that a large part of current Arab antisemitic literature traces back to works originally published in German.

Antisemitism as an ideology can be directly traced to the rise of German liberal Lutheranism. The pogroms, the ghetos, the holocaust, it all lies at the freet of Christianity.

No one can deny the antisemitism that currently infects the Muslim world, but it does not even compare to the horrors that the Christian world inflicted on the Jews for nearly two thousand years.


Bombing trains (Madrid Spain) (London England)

Again, Christians don&#39;t have to bomb trains, they can blow up entire cities.


Plotting attacks on innocent civilians while on planes

What&#39;s with this plane fetish? Does the fact that Christians used swords and cannons make them any less culpable for the deaths they caused?

Does the fact that today they use cruise missals and remote bombs make their crimes any less real?


I&#39;m not a communist

How you characterize yourself then?

[SocialJustice19]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:21 AM

To say Christianity is the worst and most murderous? I find that very hard to believe.

I didn&#39;t say that Christianity was "the worst", I said that it was one of the worst.

Obviously Islam is up there too. But if you would actually like to compare, I&#39;d say that Christianity still has the lead in terms of body count, although Islam is obviously catching up.

Between the Crusades and the Inquisitions and endless intercecine wars and genocides ...Islam may not be pretty, but it still can&#39;t compare to the holocaust that is the Christian legacy on the world.


I don&#39;t recall Christians blowing themselve up in the name of God.

No, they usually got other people to do it for them. "Martyrism" is at the heart of Christian theology. Hell even the supposed "founder" ("Jesus") was a "martyr".

If anything, Christianity has the far deeper sacrifice fetish.


Hijacking planes and killing thousands of people.

That&#39;s because the planes are generally owned by Christians. But if you want examples of Christian controlled planes killing thousands of people, all you have to do is look back to, oh, every major war of the past 100 years.


Beheading Infidels

You&#39;re joking right? Beheading infidels was practically invented by Christians. Although, in fairness, under early post-Constantinian law, pouring molten silver down infidels&#39; throats was the common practice.


Stoning Women

Again, you&#39;re joking, right?


Hanging Homosexuals

No, they used to burn them.


Strapping explosives to themselves and killing Jews

Historically, Christians haven&#39;t been big on "strapping explosives", but in terms of killing Jews, no one can compare to Christendom.

Antisemitism was invented by Christians. There&#39;s a reason that a large part of current Arab antisemitic literature traces back to works originally published in German.

Antisemitism as an ideology can be directly traced to the rise of German liberal Lutheranism. The pogroms, the ghetos, the holocaust, it all lies at the freet of Christianity.

No one can deny the antisemitism that currently infects the Muslim world, but it does not even compare to the horrors that the Christian world inflicted on the Jews for nearly two thousand years.


Bombing trains (Madrid Spain) (London England)

Again, Christians don&#39;t have to bomb trains, they can blow up entire cities.


Plotting attacks on innocent civilians while on planes

What&#39;s with this plane fetish? Does the fact that Christians used swords and cannons make them any less culpable for the deaths they caused?

Does the fact that today they use cruise missals and remote bombs make their crimes any less real?


I&#39;m not a communist

How you characterize yourself then?
I don&#39;t have a plane fetish....Islamofascists do. I was mentioning cases in which planes were or were going to be used.
In this present day they hang gays (Iran).
Stoning women and so forth.
I&#39;m talking about present day Islam not the past of Christianity.

I never denied the Christian past.
I was only putting forth the fact that Islam is indeed a very murderous religion in this day and age.

You didn&#39;t have to respond in the manner in which you did. I&#39;m not an idiot.

And to answer your question.
I&#39;m kind of confused politically.
Libertarian Socialist I believe is what I got on the political compass quiz. I&#39;ve believed in Socialist values for a while however. I was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America for a year and wish to become more active in the cause.
I&#39;m a convert from Conservatism.
It&#39;s still slowly evolving I suppose.

[LSD]

In this present day they hang gays (Iran).
Stoning women and so forth.
I&#39;m talking about present day Islam not the past of Christianity.

Actually, we&#39;re talking about both.

I contended that Christianity has a bloodier record than Islam, you disagreed. So I cited examples of Christian barbarism that far exceed anything that can be laid at Islam&#39;s feet. I also demonstrated that every entry on your list of "Muslim crimes" has a Christian counterpart.


I was only putting forth the fact that Islam is indeed a very murderous religion in this day and age.

A fact which no one denies (except maybe the SWP :rolleyes:). But to claim that Islam is especially murderous or uniquely murderous is objectively false.

All religions are oppressive by nature. It&#39;s not "Islamofascism" that&#39;s the problem, it&#39;s irrational superstition.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

All religions are oppressive by nature. It&#39;s not "Islamofascism" that&#39;s the problem, it&#39;s irrational superstition.

Yep, but generally thats dying down now.

There are 1,100,000,000 Self-Proclaimed Atheists in the world, and of those 2.1 billion Christians and 1.1 billion Islamists and 1 Billion Hindus etc, They are mostly people too lazy to check atheist on their census card or who don&#39;t get a census card to check their religion, so they just don&#39;t bother.

and most don&#39;t care about their religion in truth anyway (Some Radical Christians see this as a "Sign of the Times" that the Rapture is coming, and that only 144,000 &#39;true&#39; Christians will be left to go to heaven.)

Under the Census, I would be classified as a Christian, along with a lot of other atheists/agnostics I know

The Radicalness in the Middle East is not directly linked to Islam - its linked directly to standard human nature to defend oneself and the ones they love.

Hezbollah (Party of God in Arabic) uses Islam but as a rallying point - the true motives are barely laid in Jihad, but in fighting for their homeland and etc, or for Iran depending on what view you have.

Very few groups advocate radical religion now - and those that do are SEVERALY Condemend: I only have to cite the idiotic History of the "Lords Resistance Army" in Uganda.

[LSD]

Yep, but generally thats dying down now.

Yes it is.

As with all other precapitalist superstitions, capitalism is gradually and inexorably grinding "belief" into dust. There is no room in bourgeois production for any "allegiences" or "moralities". In the end, there can only be worker and boss, anything else is an "impediment to efficiency".

That doesn&#39;t mean, however, that the bosses of right now are not more than willing to exploit religion to serve their own personal class interests.


The Radicalness in the Middle East is not directly linked to Islam - its linked directly to standard human nature to defend oneself and the ones they love.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "radicalness".

Obviously the prevalence of antiamericanism and the rise of "terrorism" are direct reactions to imperialism, but the dominance of theocratic and theocratically-influenced regimes in the Arab would has far more to do with Islam than it does with "human nature".

The "Muslim world" today is the probably the worst appartheid regime since the fall of South Africa. And while centuries of imperialist occupation certainly didn&#39;t help, the sexist and homophobic aspects of modern Muslim society is entirely due to the influence of "Muslim values".

Most of the world at this point has been occupied by "the West" at one time or another, and yet the misogeny of the Arab theocracies is unparalleled in the world.

It&#39;s a tragic accident of history that so much of the Arab world turned to superstition in their time of need. It&#39;s not their "fault" per se, but individuals are responsible for their actions and the people of the middle east do have a choice.

And while it may not be "politically correct" to say, their choice of Islam is unconscienably despicable.

I have no business telling someone what they can or cannot "think" or "believe", but you&#39;d better believe that we all have the right to condemn oppression wherever we see it.

And right now, when it comes to inspiring oppression, Islam is one of the worst "ideologies" there is.


Very few groups advocate radical religion now

Except of course for officially theocratic nations... :rolleyes:

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Very true

Everytime the west tried to infiltrate Arabia, the Arabians defeated them militarily everytime (Except in Israel)

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:43 PM
- 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. (Act.2:44-45).
Matthew 5:43-44:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Jesus&#39; teachings are incompatible with revolutionary ideals. You cannot be a loyal Christian and a loyal revolutionary at the same time; you either have to reject Jesus&#39; condemnation of insurrectionary violence against those who hate, persecute and despitefully use the proletariat, or you have to reject the use of revolution to overthrow them. Case closed.

[The Rover]

Jesus&#39; teachings are incompatible with revolutionary ideals. You cannot be a loyal Christian and a loyal revolutionary at the same time; you either have to reject Jesus&#39; condemnation of insurrectionary violence against those who hate, persecute and despitefully use the proletariat, or you have to reject the use of revolution to overthrow them. Case closed.

I disagree with that. Revolution is necessary, but I don&#39;t believe it needs to be carried out through violence. If there&#39;s one good good thing about Christianity, it&#39;s the peace and love teachings.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24 2006, 03:17 PM

I disagree with that. Revolution is necessary, but I don&#39;t believe it needs to be carried out through violence. If there&#39;s one good good thing about Christianity, it&#39;s the peace and love teachings.
Revolution by definition is authoritarian and violent.

Christianity may have that good stuff, but its completely inpratical and useless in our modern day - pacifists can&#39;t win against such a repressive system, either the system gives minor gains (only to take them away later) or just arrests/kills them all.

Social Democracy vs Socialist Revolution

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24 2006, 03:17 PM
I disagree with that. Revolution is necessary, but I don&#39;t believe it needs to be carried out through violence. If there&#39;s one good good thing about Christianity, it&#39;s the peace and love teachings.
Good luck taking down the US Army with non-violent protest. I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll all just put down their guns and destroy their stealth bombers once they see what fantastic ideals you have. And all the wealthy landowners will be more than happy to voluntarily donate their land to you and your comrades once you stage a peaceful protest outside. And of course, any policemen will not hesitate to instantly stop protecting "property rights" once you carefully explain to them how private property creates exploitative social conditions.

Face it; they&#39;re not going to give up without a fight. Blood will have to be shed, people will have to die, and it is pure reality-denying idealism to assert otherwise. You have to be severely deluded to think the bourgeoisie and the state will not try to use their immense military power to crush any serious threat to their authority, especially if the people making the threats are completely unarmed. Loving the bourgeoisie, blessing them, doing good to them, and praying for them is no way to carry out a proletarian revolution. We have to fight them, and defeat them; the powerful like being powerful, and are willing to use violence to keep things that way.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 24 2006, 05:47 PM--> (sennomulo @ Aug 24 2006, 05:47 PM)
The [email protected] 24 2006, 03:17 PM
I disagree with that. Revolution is necessary, but I don&#39;t believe it needs to be carried out through violence. If there&#39;s one good good thing about Christianity, it&#39;s the peace and love teachings.
Good luck taking down the US Army with non-violent protest. I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll all just put down their guns and destroy their stealth bombers once they see what fantastic ideals you have. And all the wealthy landowners will be more than happy to voluntarily donate their land to you and your comrades once you stage a peaceful protest outside. And of course, any policemen will not hesitate to instantly stop protecting "property rights" once you carefully explain to them how private property creates exploitative social conditions.

Face it; they&#39;re not going to give up without a fight. Blood will have to be shed, people will have to die, and it is pure reality-denying idealism to assert otherwise. You have to be severely deluded to think the bourgeoisie and the state will not try to use their immense military power to crush any serious threat to their authority, especially if the people making the threats are completely unarmed. Loving the bourgeoisie, blessing them, doing good to them, and praying for them is no way to carry out a proletarian revolution. We have to fight them, and defeat them; the powerful like being powerful, and are willing to use violence to keep things that way. [/b]
All History has only shown us how that is so true.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 24 2006, 05:47 PM--> (sennomulo @ Aug 24 2006, 05:47 PM)
The [email protected] 24 2006, 03:17 PM
I disagree with that. Revolution is necessary, but I don&#39;t believe it needs to be carried out through violence. If there&#39;s one good good thing about Christianity, it&#39;s the peace and love teachings.
Good luck taking down the US Army with non-violent protest. I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll all just put down their guns and destroy their stealth bombers once they see what fantastic ideals you have. And all the wealthy landowners will be more than happy to voluntarily donate their land to you and your comrades once you stage a peaceful protest outside. And of course, any policemen will not hesitate to instantly stop protecting "property rights" once you carefully explain to them how private property creates exploitative social conditions.

Face it; they&#39;re not going to give up without a fight. Blood will have to be shed, people will have to die, and it is pure reality-denying idealism to assert otherwise. You have to be severely deluded to think the bourgeoisie and the state will not try to use their immense military power to crush any serious threat to their authority, especially if the people making the threats are completely unarmed. Loving the bourgeoisie, blessing them, doing good to them, and praying for them is no way to carry out a proletarian revolution. We have to fight them, and defeat them; the powerful like being powerful, and are willing to use violence to keep things that way. [/b]
I&#39;m not saying one should pray for or bless your enemies, because they are your enemies. One should, however treat them with respect, no matter how little they deserve it.

Saying that non-violent revolution does not work is not true. It has happened in the past, and I believe it can happen again. The problem I have noticed that many people have with non-violence is the fact that it takes much longer than armed revolution. But, if no blood is shed, I, personally, am willing to wait for it. In my opinion, victory will be much sweeter when it has been gained through peace.

I understand that a revolution without bloodshed is nearly impossible. However, I would prefer that we are not the ones spilling the blood. I have noticed that in many debates in the opposing ideaologies forum the rightists will often use statistics showing how previous "socialist" nations have killed so many people, compared to other regimes. I would like to be able to give them statistics and say, " These are all of our non-violent protestors you massacred during our revolution. Here are the your people that we didn&#39;t kill during our revolution.

I encourage you to fight, but fighting does not require violence.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Of course it would be absolutely wonderful if a revolution could be achieved by peaceful means, both on historical record and generally.

Yet there are several problems I see with a peaceful revolution (not just with capitalism but in general).

Marx had said that people, rising from low-class-consciousness during Capitalism, would finally gain class consciousness and the motivation to go out and do more stuff from the emotional and violent revolution where all their boiled up feelings and lusts are released in one great outpour.

If not, we just continue with the problem we have now - people don&#39;t care about politics or other societies, they just live their life, no ambition or interests, all the while becoming poorer and suffering more. (Ex: USA)

Many peaceful protests have suceeded in the past - but these were not fundamentally changing revolutions, as with India and Gandhi only the name of the exploiter changed - the old Indian wealthy class still remained, just the Brit&#39;s didn&#39;t mantain political domination anymore.

Politics < Economics

But of course it would still be nice :blush:

[The Rover]

I understand what you are saying. However, I believe that if socialists used the same methods used by Gandhi and the Indians, or by the protestors of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (although this unfortunately attained the exact opposite of what we want, I still admire the way they did it), we could attain similar results.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Ghandi&#39;s peaceful revolution was truly violent. Doesn&#39;t anybody remember the ethnic strife that arised during the 1930s between Ghandi&#39;s Hindus and the future Pakistani Muslims? All revolutions are inherently violent, though I highly endorse peaceful tactics. Direct action in the form of a general strike, with the aims of peacefully destroying capitalism should be the general direction. Therefore, the capitalists would chiefly decide if the revolution will gain a violent character or not.

[Umoja]

But violent revolution is preferable.

What about a country like Ghana? I know their early government was left leaning, and they were able to detach themselves from England with virtually no violence. Maybe someone who knows more about Ghanian history could elaborate.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:12 PM
Ghandi&#39;s peaceful revolution was truly violent. Doesn&#39;t anybody remember the ethnic strife that arised during the 1930s between Ghandi&#39;s Hindus and the future Pakistani Muslims? All revolutions are inherently violent, though I highly endorse peaceful tactics. Direct action in the form of a general strike, with the aims of peacefully destroying capitalism should be the general direction. Therefore, the capitalists would chiefly decide if the revolution will gain a violent character or not.
True, but Gandhi did not want it that way. You can blame that on sectarianism, not because it is impossible to have a non-violent revolution. That was after they had broken from England anyway. And, it&#39;s true, there were other examples of violence, but for the most part it was peaceful. I&#39;m not asking for it to be perfect, but the less blood we shed, the better.


But violent revolution is preferable.

What the hell would make you think that?


What about a country like Ghana? I know their early government was left leaning, and they were able to detach themselves from England with virtually no violence. Maybe someone who knows more about Ghanian history could elaborate.

I am interested in this. If anyone knows more about it, I&#39;d like to know.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Saying that non-violent revolution does not work is not true. It has happened in the past, and I believe it can happen again.

Where have the means of production been peacefully siezed by from one class by another?


In my opinion, victory will be much sweeter when it has been gained through peace.

The point of revolution is not to make you feel self righteous, its to sieze the means of production. This needs to happen as soon and as efficient as possible. If you aren&#39;t willing to defend your class then stay the fuck out of it&#39;s business.


These are all of our non-violent protestors you massacred during our revolution. Here are the your people that we didn&#39;t kill during our revolution.

Why the fuck do you even care what they think? If we have the masses on our side, fuck them and their propaganda. You are willing to have people be slaughtered so you can feel better about yourself.

[Rage Against Right]

[QUOTE]Religion is the opium of the people

It says it all so i dont know how a catholic can support communsim could someone help me out? Do we have an honest christian on our hands?????????
i may be new to this forum so this may sound nieve but hwo does religion and commusism go together

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Rage Against Right+Aug 29 2006, 09:13 AM--> (Rage Against Right &#064; Aug 29 2006, 09:13 AM)Religion is the opium of the people

It says it all so i dont know how a catholic can support communsim could someone help me out? Do we have an honest christian on our hands?????????
i may be new to this forum so this may sound nieve but hwo does religion and commusism go together[/b]
The common response to that objection is that Marxism can be divided into three categories: Marxist economics, Marxists sociology, and Marxist philosophy. The economics and sociology of Marx have nothing to do with atheism or theism. Marxist philosophy is where the atheism comes from. So, one can agree with Marx&#39;s sociology and economics, but not agree with Marx&#39;s philosophy. So, Christian communists agree with Marx&#39;s economic and sociological theories, but not his philosophy.

I may as well go ahead and respond to other objections to Christian communism as well...

Another common objection is this quote from the Communist Manifesto: "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality..." If put out of context, this looks completely incompatible with Christianity. But, it is often taken out of context.


Originally posted by The Communist Manifesto+--> (The Communist Manifesto)"When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs."
[/b]

If you read that whole thing, it is saying that people accuse communists of doing that.

Of course, there are way more critics from other Christians than there are from other communists...

Criticism from other Christians:

When the second coming is here, Revelations speaks of the new government created by god on Earth, communists want to abolish the government, what about this government?

The government that will be created by God will make any political institution we&#39;ve created on Earth obsolete. And the government created by God will be much different than any government we&#39;ve created on Earth.

The Communalism of the early church was completely voluntary. Why don&#39;t you just go live in a commune somewhere, and stop forcing it on me?

See Acts 5:1-10. Here is a transcript from the New Revised Standard Version:


Originally posted by Acts 5:1&#045;10
1 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife&#39;s knowledge, he kept back some of thep roceeds, and brought only a part and laid it as the apostles&#39; feet. 3 "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the poroceed of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your sispoal? How i it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God&#33;" 5 Now hen Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And a great fear seized all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." 9 Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." 10 Immediately she fell down at hisf eet and died. When the young me came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

From that I got that Christians probably should at least be in favor of communism. However, I&#39;m not trying to use this passage as a way of condoning of killing everyone who isn&#39;t a communist. The two dying just shows that communalism was essential to early Christianity. Christian communism could be described as trying to bring Christianity to its communalist roots.

And as far as living in a commune, it&#39;s not a viable way of life for many people. True, many anti-capitalists could just go and live in a commune, and try stay away from capitalism as much as possible. Communists are trying to make a better life for the entire world, not just for themselves. We&#39;re fighting capitalism rather than avoiding it.

Mathew 25:14-30, seems to be in favor of capitalism, what is your response?


Mathew 25:14&#045;[email protected]
14 "For it is as if a man, goingo n aj ourney, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 The one who had received five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. 17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. 18 But the one who had receieved the five talents, saying, &#39;Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.&#39; 21 His master said to him, &#39;Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things; enter into the joy of your master.&#39; 22 And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, &#39;Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.&#39; 23 His master said to him, &#39;Well done, good and trustworthy slave, you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.&#39; 24 Then the one who had received the the one talent also came for-ward, saying, &#39;Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, areaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25 so I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.&#39; 26 But his master replied, &#39;You wicked and lazy slave&#33; You knew, did you, that I reap where I did no sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. 29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&#39;

This passage cannot be taken at face value. It is written in a parable. It can&#39;t be taken at face value, and the Bible itself says this.


Luke Chapter 8 Verses 9&#045;10
9 Thin his disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables so that &#39;looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand.&#39;

John Cort explains it best. The master represents God, the talent (another word for money) is his grace. It essentially means the christians should try to get more of God&#39;s grace. This doesn&#39;t mean that our goal should be to make as much money on Earth as possible.

And there is a passage in the Bible which states against loans-at-an-interest. See Deuteronomy 23:19-20.


19 You shall not chrage interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. 20 On loans to a foreigner you may charge itnerest, but on loans to another Israelite, you may not charge interst, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and posess.


Israelite is often translated to "countrymen". Thus, it makes it sound that banks that loan at an interest are being directly in contradiction of this passage.

So there you go, a list of objections and there responses. And I find it saddening that most of the critics are other Christians who try to use the Bible to justify capitalism.... (Also, sorry if it sounded like I was preaching, which I did not intend. I was just responding to the objections from both the right-wing and the left-wing)

(Note: Information comes from an article I wrote in a currently in progress web-site)

[Rage Against Right]

Thnx for that response it was good to see an unbiased opinion. I will try and remain less synical on these issues, though i still have my preferances.
Well done comrade