from Marxist to Christian, how?

[R_P_A_S]

I have a question that I hope someone here can answer for me, or perhaps help me understand Daniel Ortega's new stance and new views. because I don't really get it. Perhaps its just my opinion and im looking too hard into this.

I'm pretty convinced the Marxism is a solid social theory. I mean the amount of historical evidence is just over-whelming. clearly the philosophy of the people. So I completely understood why I because so attracted to it over say religion or any other type of bull shit. Like I said marxism offers facts and evidence that are hard to ignore and it has made me see religion that illusionary happiness as obsolete.

If Mr. Daniel Ortega former and NOW president of Nicaragua said he was a Marxist during his initial years with the FSLN how can he know say he is a 'new-born christian'????????

how does that work? how do you renounce, how do you all the sudden change your mind and your way of believing and go back to thinking that the problems of man can be solved be religious faith or having hope in god??? how do you move backwards from marxism to christianity???

[Genosse Kotze]

I don't really see much of a conflict other than the Christian part becoming a larger part of his identity than socialism. I see religion as being a neutral institution, that can be used to serve different ends, which have unfortunately been reactionary for the most part. Just like technology; you can use it to feed the world or it could be embodied in a nuclear weapon. Hugo Chavez is a Christian too, he just doesn’t use it as a tool.You never thought Jesus was, in a way, the Che of his day? He was an anti-consumerist, an advocate of communal living, and basically said all rich people are going to hell--more contemporary people have been assassinated by the US for a lot less. Frankly I'm shocked that the reactionary Church retained some of these subversive elements when they compiled the Bible. I don't want to give the impression that I'm a Christian, I'm not, I just don't see what's inherently wrong with religion--'inherently' is important here. I'm not denying in the least religion's destructive role in human history, but nevertheless, I feel that there is some potential for good there. Of course, there is the hierarchical structure of the whole thing, and whether there is something inherently violent and destructive in that kind of organization...

[Module]

Kkm, please explain to me what potential for good religion has.

[Ander]

Considering that Nicaragua was never a shining model of socialism, I seriously doubt the existence of Ortega's Marxism at all.

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:16 am
Considering that Nicaragua was never a shining model of socialism, I seriously doubt the existence of Ortega's Marxism at all.
More along the lines of missing conditions for socialist development, and if there were any they would be destroyed by the USA

[Budapestkick]

I'm not, I just don't see what's inherently wrong with religion

Well what's wrong with religion is faith, which is the absurd idea that to believe in something without evidence is not only acceptable but a virtue. Once you can have people believe in the kind of absurdities that the bible and qu'ran are chock full then you can get them to commit attrocities. Also religion is inherently divisive. For example culturally, language-wise etc. there were no great differences between the protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland but their religions are an identifying factor which keeps them segregated and sectarian.

Besides if someone believed in a flying spaghetti monster you'd have them institutionalised, why be different with people who believe in a magic man who is simultaneously reading the thoughts of 6 billion people and judging them accordingly? Religion is destructive, poisonous bullshit. Like Douglas Adams said Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

[Vargha Poralli]

If Mr. Daniel Ortega former and NOW president of Nicaragua said he was a Marxist during his initial years with the FSLN how can he know say he is a 'new-born christian'????????

During his initial years he needed aid from Soviet Union so he claimed to be a Marxist. Now he want some security and aid from USA so he claims to be a born again christian ???

IMO he was never a Marxist or a Christian just a clever politician using anything at disposal to capture and cling to power.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Yup, it's populist posturing and nothing more. Now that Marxism has fallen out of favour, he takes the religious line.

[rouchambeau]

"how do you all the sudden change your mind and your way of believing and go back to thinking that the problems of man can be solved be religious faith or having hope in god???"

You're essentiallizing Christians in an irrational manner. Christians do not believe that every problem a person deals with requires God. You also talk about marxism and christianity as if they were mutually exclusive (P.S. They're not).

[Ander]

Originally posted by Bolshevist+March 04, 2007 09:13 am--> (Bolshevist @ March 04, 2007 09:13 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 06:16 am
Considering that Nicaragua was never a shining model of socialism, I seriously doubt the existence of Ortega's Marxism at all.
More along the lines of missing conditions for socialist development, and if there were any they would be destroyed by the USA [/b]
Either way the USA virtually did destroy the Sandinistas and the progressive government that they had set up.

[SmashCapitalism]

Liberation theology, anyone?

Living in Latin America, trust me, if a philosophy didn't have the support of the religious masses, it would have little or no support at all. And worldwide, when at least 75% of the world has some faith, it would be impossible to have a world revolution without all those people's support.

There's a difference between having faith in the existence of a higher power and believing that God will save you from social and class conflict.

[Janus]

Well, some people undergo changes in their ideology especially if they become disillusioned with their previos paradigms. Ortega is now a liberation theologist which combines certain socialist principles with Christianity under the presumption that Christ is the leader of the oppressed.

[SmashCapitalism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:05 am
Kkm, please explain to me what potential for good religion has.
I don't know if you notice this living in Australia, but religious organizations are vital in third world countries, such as the Dominican Republic, where I live. Even though I may not be too fond of the Catholic Church, no one can deny that they are helping with poverty relief in the country, educating thousands of poor children, setting up orphanages, and providing medical care. Protestant organizations also have various orphanages for children with AIDS, homeless shelters, cooperative farms growing food in poor areas, housing projects, and medical workshops, just to name a few. Maybe you don't like the fact that religious groups are doing this, but hey, I don't see any atheistic or free-thinking fraternities doing anything to help these people, and without a helping hand, they could be homeless, hungry, or even dead.

However, I can see how someone advocating aiding the needy around the world would see these vital social assistances as just being another negative effect of religion.

Of course, religion has done many bad things over time. But if you pick up a Bible and read the teachings of Jesus, you'll see that his teachings were being abused, rather than followed. Should I say communism is evil because of Stalin, or some of the brutal East European communist dictatorships? No, because these people abused the theory rather than followed it, and we recognize that. Likewise, so-called Christians who did terrible things don't in any way disprove the morality of religion.

And although religion has caused many problems, think of all it has stood up against. The first opposers of Native American maltreatment, at least here in the Islands, were none other than Jesuit priests (Bartolome de Las Casas, a friar, is a national hero for standing up against oppression in the Dominican Republic). Likewise, the push for social services, abolition of slavery, and better conditions and help for the poor has been led by religious people, at least in the USA. I'm guessing you are pro-immigrant, and know about the pro-immigrant rallies. Did you notice how many churches were involved in the marches?

So please, although religion has made many mistakes, and extremists do many bad things in its name, let's not say it's all evil.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:08 am
"how do you all the sudden change your mind and your way of believing and go back to thinking that the problems of man can be solved be religious faith or having hope in god???"

You're essentiallizing Christians in an irrational manner. Christians do not believe that every problem a person deals with requires God. You also talk about marxism and christianity as if they were mutually exclusive (P.S. They're not).
Marxism rejects God and religion as an obstacle to be overcome if the Communist vision is to be effected in society. Atheism is essential for Marx to remove the metaphysical illusion that all is well in society. Marx labels religion as human creation, a problem which needs to be removed.
He believed an “otherworldly focus” would distract believers from changing things in the world and thus rendering them so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly use. The belief in an Ultimate Being in religion (God) impinged on human autonomy and made them subject to something higher than themselves.

Personally, I think he's full of shit. He's no true Marxist, and never was, so now he's playing the religion card to gain favor.

[Guerrilla22]

Ortega has definitely become more moderate over the years, but as someone said, he never really was a great Marxist to begin with. It seems now he is even more self absorbed than before. We can expect nothing but reformist measures from Ortega along the same lines as Evo Morales. The left shouldn't look to the supposed "leftist" leaders to bring about any significant change. That is going to have to come from the people.