Christianity

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I feel that christianity is somewhat responsible for protecting alot of society. If keeps people, alot of people, on the right path. Christians for the most part are non-violent and usually practice charity. They are usually pretty nice people, so my question is this: If religion were abolished would it benefit society? Would it make it any more of a safer place?

My question strictly applies to christianity in Europe and the US, because I dont want to get into the whole holy war bullshit in the middle east.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 01, 2006 05:00 pm
I feel that christianity is somewhat responsible for protecting alot of society. If keeps people, alot of people, on the right path. Christians for the most part are non-violent and usually practice charity. They are usually pretty nice people, so my question is this: If religion were abolished would it benefit society? Would it make it any more of a safer place?

My question strictly applies to christianity in Europe and the US, because I dont want to get into the whole holy war bullshit in the middle east.
Good question.

I argued with a fundamentalist one time who said before he adopted Christianity, he did a lot of things in his personal life that were reprehensible. Regardless of our individual opinion as to whether what he did was immoral or not, these actions clearly made him feel bad.

Now me, I do not not need religion to keep from doing "bad" things. I generally live by the golden rule and that does the job for me.

But it begs the question, if someone does need a "crutch" to keep from doing things that make them feel bad, isn't it rational for them to rely on it?

What might happen if we force him to stop?

[MrDoom]

If keeps people, alot of people, on the right path.
And who determines what the 'right' path is?


Christians for the most part are non-violent and usually practice charity.
Until they stick a sword in you.


If religion were abolished would it benefit society?
Yes.


Would it make it any more of a safer place?
Vastly safer.

[Connolly]

I feel that christianity is somewhat responsible for protecting alot of society. If keeps people, alot of people, on the right path. Christians for the most part are non-violent and usually practice charity. They are usually pretty nice people, so my question is this: If religion were abolished would it benefit society? Would it make it any more of a safer place?

My question strictly applies to christianity in Europe and the US, because I dont want to get into the whole holy war bullshit in the middle east.

Well, do we get our morals from religious books like the bible?

If so, why arnt we stoning woman to death for adultery? Stoning prostitutes?

Why arnt woman the servents of men? Why dont people think twice about having sex outside marriage?

People dont follow these "moral codes".

So if not, where do we get them from?

The fact is, we dont get our morals from religious texts. We get our morals as a necessary behaviour which we evolved in order to work cooperativly.

Religion, if anything, makes us worse off morally.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 05:09 pm

If keeps people, alot of people, on the right path.
And who determines what the 'right' path is?


By right path I meant that they arent criminals. They arent frequent drug users, they dont practice violence. They are GOOD people. I didnt realize that needed to be spelled out.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 01, 2006 05:15 pm
By right path I meant that they arent criminals.
Within capitalist society, crime is a rational choice. I fully support acts of crime, such as, revolution.


They arent frequent drug users,

That's their loss.

I don't take hard drugs because, practically, it's a bad idea, I cant' afford it and I don't want to suffer the physical side effects. Some drugs however, like Alcohol and Marijuana, are safe, reasonably cheap and enjoyable.

There's no real reason not to take them. Christians just adhere to some silly superstition, and I can't see why you would glorify that.


they dont practice violence.

That's simply wrong, many active members of the military are christians, and vocal millitarists including george bush. Other famous Christians include Adolph Hitler and Mussolini. The Bible justifies and encourages stoning women and killing babies, amongst other things.

However, there are some pacifist christians out there. But as we advocate armed and violent uprising and resistance to the state, this inability to fight back, this preference to 'accept' this slave/master system, is ultimately a vice.

Fuck Pacifism. Up violence.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by Love Underground+December 01, 2006 05:26 pm--> (Love Underground @ December 01, 2006 05:26 pm)
The Crying [email protected] 01, 2006 05:15 pm
By right path I meant that they arent criminals.
Within capitalist society, crime is a rational choice. I fully support acts of crime, such as, revolution.



they dont practice violence.

That's simply wrong, many active members of the military are christians, and vocal millitarists including george bush. Other famous Christians include Adolph Hitler and Mussolini. The Bible justifies and encourages stoning women and killing babies, amongst other things.

However, there are some pacifist christians out there. But as we advocate armed and violent uprising and resistance to the state, this inability to fight back, this preference to 'accept' this slave/master system, is ultimately a vice.

Fuck Pacifism. Up violence. [/b]
You preach theoretical bullshit and you took what I said completely out of context. Just because you serve in the army in a time of war does not make you a truly violent person. It means you defended your country, it makes you a patriot. Christians just dont go around jumping people because they've got nothing better to do. They're religion keeps them in line.

All violence leads to is more violence, if you think you and a bunch of other so called revolutionaries are gonna overthrow any state with weapons and violence you are sadly mistaken. All practicing violence is gonna do is piss a bunch of people off...and lead to more violence, and that my friend, is truly going to make the world a better and more equal place right?

[LSD]

If religion were abolished would it benefit society? Would it make it any more of a safer place?

It depends on what would replace it.

The USSR attempted to replace traditional Russian orthdox Christianity with a Stalinist cult of personality. And although the latter was nominally secular, it had a markedly similar social function as religion.

More importantly, it was just as predicated on falsehoods and indoctrination.

You see the problem with religion isn't the specifics, it's the paradigm that underlies it. So changing the details (e.g., swaping "God" for "the party") doesn't do anything to address the real issue, that of "faith" and the suppression of social progress.

As revolutionaries our focus can't be what we're "abolishing", it must be what we're creating. And while that must be a secular and rational society, it must also be a free and equal one.

Ultimately, it's those last two that are the most important.

***

Besides, your premise isn't borne out by the facts. The US is one of the more religious first world countries and yet it has a much higher rate of violent crime; its murder rate is something like ten times higher per capita than almost any other industrialized nation.

So clearly religion does not make a country any safer and may, in fact, even make it more dangerous.

Certainly the more religious countries in the world are among the least safest and the more secular ones are among the most. Obviously it's not a 1:1 relationship, there have been some secular countries with sickening records, Cambodia comes to mind for instance.

But if there is a relationship between religion and safety, it definitely isn't a positive one.

Personally, I don't think society is so reductable as all that. Plus it's incredibly postmodern to declare that intangibles like "belief" or "religion" are the dominant force in shaping societal relations.

European countries aren't safer than African ones because of "religion", they're safer because of money and because of extensive histories of social welfare programs.

Religious apologists like to make a big deal about how much more "moral" they are than everyone else, but that's PR, nothing more. The reality is that religious people are capable of incredible kindness and horrible atrocity ...just like everybody else.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 01, 2006 05:40 pm
Just because you serve in the army in a time of war does not make you a truly violent person. It means you defended your country, it makes you a patriot.
Which is just as bad. As we cleave to a system that wants to abolish all nations, and destory the ruling order of each nation, undermining the very principal of a nations right to self determinism, Patriotism is a reactionary force.


All violence leads to is more violence, if you think you and a bunch of other so called revolutionaries are gonna overthrow any state with weapons and violence you are sadly mistaken.

Yea, because that hasn't worked before has it. :rolleyes: Are you basing this wild assertion on material reality, and an examination of history. Or your superfluous good will view of humanity?

On the contrary, if you believe you can overthrow society peacefully, you are sadly mistaken. The state will crack down on dissenters, it's within it's nature to do so. If a collective or union of workers goes on strike, and that strike damages the economy, the police will batter them into submission, it will kill or imprisson the ringleaders. It will utalise force, to coerce us into conformity. We either submit, or resist. Christianity tells us to take the blows, had we followed this 'guiding princiaple' we sould still be stuck in Feudalism, and worse yet, still have a slave industry!

There are situations in which violence should not be deployed. In many contexts the use of violence is counter productive. But we should keep all tactical option open.

To limit yourself to only peaceful action, is practically suicide. It would kept the Holocaust going, it would have left the Tzar on the throne, and would have let spain fall to the fascists without a fight, at the end of the day, pacifism, has violent consequences. Just because you don't use violence dosn't mean your opposition wont.

Pull your head out of happy-clappy dream land and join reality. I sympathise with your position, really, but having been involved in proletarian struggle for a couple of years, and a brief flick through the history book confines pacifism to the dustbin of history.

[uber-liberal]

Yea, because that hasn't worked before has it. rolleyes.gif Are you basing this wild assertion on material reality, and an examination of history. Or your superfluous good will view of humanity?

On the contrary, if you believe you can overthrow society peacefully, you are sadly mistaken. The state will crack down on dissenters, it's within it's nature to do so. If a collective or union of workers goes on strike, and that strike damages the economy, the police will batter them into submission, it will kill or imprisson the ringleaders. It will utalise force, to coerce us into conformity. We either submit, or resist. Christianity tells us to take the blows, had we followed this 'guiding princiaple' we sould still be stuck in Feudalism, and worse yet, still have a slave industry!

There are situations in which violence should not be deployed. In many contexts the use of violence is counter productive. But we should keep all tactical option open.

To limit yourself to only peaceful action, is practically suicide. It would kept the Holocaust going, it would have left the Tzar on the throne, and would have let spain fall to the fascists without a fight, at the end of the day, pacifism, has violent consequences. Just because you don't use violence dosn't mean your opposition wont.

Pull your head out of happy-clappy dream land and join reality. I sympathise with your position, really, but having been involved in proletarian struggle for a couple of years, and a brief flick through the history book confines pacifism to the dustbin of history.

Ghandi, Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, all good examples of passive resistance combined with persistance. True courage is standing by your covictions in the face of harm and even death.
"Revolution" is in the dustbin now, only it's the dustbin of marketing ploys. So what are you selling? Nothing no one hasn't sold before. And, if I read my history "correctly", the Soviets demanded their money back...

[RedCommieBear]

I don't take hard drugs because, practically, it's a bad idea, I cant' afford it and I don't want to suffer the physical side effects. Some drugs however, like Alcohol and Marijuana, are safe, reasonably cheap and enjoyable.

Agreed. If someone wants to smoke some pot or drink a beer or two every once in a while, good for them.


That's simply wrong, many active members of the military are christians, and vocal millitarists including george bush. Other famous Christians include Adolph Hitler and Mussolini.

That's just horrible reasoning. Trying to somehow bunch Adolf Hitler with over 1 billion other Christians is just plain stupid. You could do that with most any group. Pierre Joseph Proudhoun supported patriarchy and Bakunin supported a "invisible dictatorship" and was an anti-semite. It's irrational to make the claim that anarchists are closeted authortarians because of Bakunin, the same is true for the claim that every Christian is somehow a crypto-nazi.


The Bible justifies and encourages stoning women and killing babies, amongst other things.


I'll assume you're talking about Leviticus... Leviticus is an interesting subject. The book says a lot of things: stoning women, clean and unclean foods, etc.

Jews don't eat pork, as it is forbidden in the book of Leviticus. Christians do eat pork, even though Leviticus states it. Why is that? Christians do have the same Leviticus as the Jews, why do have we ignored this passage?

Christians believe that through Jesus there is a New Covenant that makes the old one obsolete.


Originally posted by Hebrews 8:13
In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete.

Hebrews has more to say on the New Covenant. The Old Covenant (Hebrews 9: 9-10) "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

Christians who try to use Leviticus to justify repression of homosexuals are wrong. This is why Christians have no problem eating bacon and shouldn't start websites like "God Hates Fags"...

Now, if Christians essentially reject Leviticus, why do they include it in their holy book? Christians take Leviticus as a showcase of how God's people lived differently than the others people. Many of the laws in Leviticus were written to be in direct opposition to paganism, such as the prohibition of drinking blood.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 02:14 pm
Ghandi, Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, all good examples of passive resistance combined with persistance. True courage is standing by your covictions in the face of harm and even death.
And what did they accomplish as a direct result of nonviolence? Please enlightenment me.