What do you think of this passage?

[( R )evolution]

Hello guys, I am not a religious person at all but my teacher who I constantly debate with (in a academic way not in a hatred way) he is a die hard chrisitan but is very opinion to leftist thought. I discussed with him my ideas on a violent communist revolution and after I told him that I believe in a violent revolution that will spawn a eventual society that is run by a love for the community and oneself not by exploitation and oppression. And to this he told me to look up a passage from the Christian New Testament (Matthew 7:15-20)

A Tree and Its Fruit
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

My opinion of this (in correlation to violent communist revolution) Is that my teacher is trying to tell me that a violent revolution will only spawn bad because the originator of the revolution is through violence which he sees as bad. I disagree with this to a great extent because I see violence as a means to get to the society I seek not as the originator of that society. Violence is not the message of the revolution but rather a means to have a successful revolution. And how can you pre-judge something based off of a religious passage in a book filled with fairy tales? My teacher thinks that history has shown that violent revolution has only led to a more oppressive society after the violent revolution. My teacher thinks that killing and war cant not lead to a society based off brotherly love. But what my teacher is forgetting is that we wont be killing our comrades but rather the enemy.

What are your guys opinions on the passage? And please don't flame me for posting a religious passage, we all know it is a bunch of a lies but we must deal with those religious people. Thanks!

[Raúl Duke]

Umm.....The American Revolution was violent.....so was the French one....

Revolutions that involve major upheaval are almost always violent. The bourgeoisie is not going silently through the night and dissapear. They will try their best to stop us. Also, even if the act of overthrowing a social order was not that violent (Russian Revolution), the counter revolution (or reaction) and the infighting that accompanies (Russian Civil War) that seems to accompany a revolution in the 20th century (and I would suppose also the 21st) will always be bloody.

I could translate the passage differently: Says to watch out for false propehets, this could be power hungry leaders. The parts about sheep's clothing, ferecious wolves, and the fruit can be interpreted as this: The say one thing (example: "oh, the workers are in control now") but do something else (His party represses worker's councils and also takes control of much of society, etc). This way you can tell by their fruit (the before mentioned action's consequences in corelation to what he said was going to happen or he was going to do; if they aren't the same, than the person is a "false prophet").

The shortest way to sum up the passage would be: "Actions speak louder than words"

Your teacher has to remember that everything is open to one's own view. I find my view to be the most common view compared to his (I was once an ex-christian :( ) also realize that a revolution is not incited by one or a group or leaders (i.e. "prophets" or "false prophets", in historical context they were somewhat like religious community leaders) but by almost an entire class.

However, if you want to have a society run by love, the teacher brings an interesting point; you would have to practice that love even during the revolution. So, you would have to begin "practicing what you preach" in the liberated areas during the revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Working class revolutions do not necessarily need violence (or very much; the insurrection in 1917 was almost totally peaceful); any violence that does result will be a consequence of a counter-revolution (if one occurs -- as in the civil war in the former USSR), or a series of invasions, etc.

The ruling class has to kill many of us to intimidate our side. We do not have to do this to them.

The passage itself is a load of rubbish.

Human beings are not trees.

[Janus]

What are your guys opinions on the passage?
Like much of the Bible, it's hypocritical and crap particularly when you take into account the history of the Christian religious movement itself. Such universalisms don't exist in morality.

[dannthraxxx]

like Janus said, most of the bible is very hypocritical.


just look at the Christian crusades, nothing but bloodshed. the entire "Christian" revolution is basically based on violence and the death of Jesus H.

I don't think the revolution most seek or the world most seek can be achieved without violence.

[Eleutherios]

I don't think you can really reject violence as a means of doing good using the Bible. Well, you can, but only if you pick and choose which passages to read. If you completely reject violence as only something that bad people do or as something that can only bring about evil, then you have to reject Jehovah too. The whole Old Testament is basically the story of the Jews following Jehovah's orders to invade their Lebensraum and then kill and rape the Untermenschen. How can you justify worship of this deity if you reject violence as something which can only produce negative results? This is a deity who directly commands people to commit atrocious acts of violence.

Originally posted by Numbers 31:17-18+--> (Numbers 31:17-18)Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.[/b]

Originally posted by 1 Samuel 15:2-[email protected]
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Not to mention that according to the Bible, Jehovah personally committed the most violent act ever.

Genesis 7:21-23
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Unlike Jehovah, who used violence so that there would be more people to worship him, we communists wish to use violence as a means towards improving the material conditions of society. And unlike Jehovah, we do not condone the slaughter of innocents. We recognize that violence is necessary to achieve our freedom and that our freedom is important enough that violence is justified.

Pacifism will get us nowhere. The bourgeoisie is not going to let go of power voluntarily. Their policemen and soldiers are going to protect their "right" to keep their private property if the proletariat attempts to seize it.

It is possible to use violence to improve the material conditions of society. Haiti abolished slavery in 1791, almost seventy years before the United States did. You know why? Because half a million slaves revolted. They fought and died for their freedom, and they got what they wanted. Did their violent insurrection solve all of their society's problems? No. Did it ruin some lives and families? Yes. But overall, was the increased freedom enjoyed by their society worth a couple years of violent insurrection? Most definitely, and that's why it was justified.

[ichneumon]

uh, that passage is about people who make false prophecy - ie, prophets who made bad predictions. what's the problem?

[freakazoid]

That text has nothing to do with what the preacher is saying. It is talking about how if you can tell if the person really is a prophet by there actions. If what they do is in accordance with what they say. Basically what JohnnyDarko said.



Human beings are not trees.

Then you have failed to understand its meaning.


like Janus said, most of the bible is very hypocritical.

Not really.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

What the teacher was trying to convey, through the use of scripture, is that ®evolution is in with bad company. Through parable what is said that the message (in the teacher's viewpoint) is false and those who carry these messages don't speak the truth and their actions would prove it. Nothing good would come of revolution but a dictatorship which leaves everyone in a worse state than before the revolution. Instead of a wage slave the workers become the slave of the state.