Was Jesus a commie? - I have some evidence

[Castroid]

here is the evidence I have found, it is quoted from the New Testament, Mark 10:17-31:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. No-one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honour your father and mother'
"Teacher" he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "one thing you lack" he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the mans face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
Peter said to him "We have left everything to follow you!"
"I'll tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "No-one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to recieve a hundred times as much in this present age and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

Would anyone like to comment? and does anyone else have any left-wing passages from other religions? if there are, then this could prove that Marx was wrong about Religions being an opiate given to the people.

[canikickit]

Of course it doesn't show Marx to be wrong. Regardless of what Jesus may or may not have said, religion is still used (as it was in Marx's time) to control and subjugate people. I don't think you fully understand whta Mardx was saying, with respect.

I do not understand why anyone gives a crap what it says in the bible.

[Castroid]

I didn't mean to offend anyone, i just wanted to make a point that there is some left-wing stuff in religion.

[canikickit]

Who did you offend? Not me.

There is some left wing stuff in religion, for definite. There's also a lot of meaningless rubbish and destrucion and repression and fairy tales.

I didn't mean my reply to sound harsh.

[RedPirate]

Indeed man good observation... I totally agree... And don't worry man it wasn't harsh

[Umoja]

Yeah, this has been brought up before, but who says "fairy tales" don't have morals?

[RED RAGE]

Im not a religious person, but i believe that in commuism religion or ANY kind should be allowed, otherwise communsim isnt giving TRUE COMPLETE freedom is it? Everyone is entitled to do, preach, wear, belive and be whoever they want within communism.

[Blibblob]

Communism is economical.

[redstar2000]

If "all things are possible with God", then the rich can enter the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the rest of what "Jesus" says is just rhetorical. At worst, the rich can keep their wealth on earth but must use the "servant's entrance" in "Heaven". :cheesy:

There seems little doubt that the first century appeal of "Christianity" was concentrated among people who, for the most part, were the "losers" in the Roman Empire...slaves, poor freedman, and women. As a consequence, some of their aspirations "made it" into the early "gospels"...including the possibility of a "Heaven" that would exclude the arrogant rich bastards who had made life on earth pure hell.

By the time the Christian Church became really well-organized (c.200-300CE), all of that sort of thing was pretty much over. A few scraps of rhetoric "made it" into the "New Testament"...but no one took it seriously then or now.

The over-riding message of Christianity (like all religions): 1. Obey the Will of God; 2. Obey God's (self-appointed) earthly representatives; and 3. Obey the secular authorities that have been endorsed as sufficiently "godly" by God's earthly representatives.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing even remotely "left-wing" about this outlook; it has been and remains entirely reactionary.

Red Rage, it is good that you have an expansive idea of communist freedom...but let's be reasonable. There will be things under communism that will not be permitted. One of those things is the exploitation of wage-labor. Another of those things will be the public celebration of religion...of any kind. Another of those things will be public racism or sexism or anti-semitism, etc.

Only "gods" can do anything they want...which is why we are fortunate that they don't exist.

:cool:

[canikickit]

Yeah, this has been brought up before, but who says "fairy tales" don't have morals?

They do (or they can). But so what? Not to sound harsh again, but what's your point?


Im not a religious person, but i believe that in commuism religion or ANY kind should be allowed, otherwise communsim isnt giving TRUE COMPLETE freedom is it? Everyone is entitled to do, preach, wear, belive and be whoever they want within communism.

Preach....

Yeah, I agree but they shouldn't be given public forums or state funding. As they are.

[Iepilei]

the question that rests is the same as it's been for ages. was Jesus a political figure, whom for his time was so highly regarded that he was labeled a prophet, or for the Christians, a savior?

I think the man was just someone who read up alot and sought to make the world a better place. A leftist for his time, no doubt, some of his words today may (at times) come off as sounding conservative.

[Larissa]

I agree with you, Iepilei. Depending who and how the catholic religion is taught, it can be either extremely conservative or leftist-progressive. For instance, if you think about the "Franciscans", they were very progressist and acted more accoding to what Jesus preached. But, on the other hand you have rigid conservative rightists, like the Opus Dei order, who are the outcome of the Spanish inquisition.

If Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't have believed catholicism carried out such a outrageous thing like the Inquisition.

Just like Marx wouldn't believe his eyes if he saw what Stalin did in the name of communism.

[Invader Zim]

Religion should be a sin. :cool:

[Beccie]

Little is known about the “Jesus of history” so it is impossible to tell weather or not he was a communist. In the eyes of evangelists Jesus defiantly had beliefs that held things in common with communism. Some of my favorite quotes include:

“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles feet and it was distributed as any had need” (Acts 4:34-35)

“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had needs” (Acts 2:44)

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matt 6:24)

“For where your treasure is your heart will be also” (Matt 6:20)

“He has bought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52-53)

“Blessed are you who are poor for yours is the kingdom of God…….But woe to you who are rich for you have received your consolidation” (Luke 6: 20)

Jesus changed the understanding of what it meant to be a Jew. He broke Jewish laws so he could stand with the poor, crippled and unclean making him in the eyes of the elite an “ungodly” person. He was at a constant struggle with the religious elite who were threatened by him. They eventually convinced the Romans that Jesus must be put to death. Jesus did not commit any of the crimes he was convicted for.

Canikickit,

Religion may be used to control people but what does that have to do with Jesus? He may not be the son of God, that is only a latter interpretation. The truth is no one knows weather or not Jesus thought of himself to have been the Son of God. Jesus was a revolutionary, he must have been for so many people to write about him the way they did. It is humans that have used religion as a means to control, not Jesus. The philosophies of the Jesus of history have nothing to do with how religion is used today.

[canikickit]

I agree. I also think that "Jesus" was a mythical figure. A lot of the stuff he is said to have done was probably by other people. That is the reason why I feel putting Jesus on a pedestal is really stupid. He's a fictional character. Just like his dad.

[Moskitto]

there is a theory that Jesus was a Jewish political figure executed by the Romans against the will of the Jewish priests but a group of Jesus's followers decided to make a religion and change the story to make the Romans be a bit more lenient on it than they were.

[MJM]

Who is this?

He is the Father seen in the son . . .
He is the truth, the light, and the way . . .
He was baptized by water . . .
He was the lamb . . .
He was the lion . . .
He was the "son of the most high God" . . .
He was born of a virgin . . .
He was considered the bringer of peace . . .
He had twelve followers . . .
He died and rose again ...































. . . and his name was Horus.

[MJM]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/5236/jesus.html


". . . if Jesus had actually lived in the flesh in the first century, and if he had been able to read the documents of old Egypt, he would have been amazed to find his own biography already substantially written some four or five thousand years previously."
-- Gerald Massey







And there are many more parallels between Horus and Christ -- the most poignant being the raising of a dead man. From Christians, it was Lazarus . . . For the Egyptians, it was El-Azar-us.








But the most damning evidence of all against the historicity of Christ is history itself. For someone who supposedly raised a man from the dead, and who rose from the dead himself . . . For someone who, at his crucifixion the dead rose from their graves . . . Why is it none of this is mentioned in the recrods of the time? Is is not to say there were not any valid historians during the time of Jesus, for we have a whole list of them:



Seneca
Pliny the Elder
Philo
Justus of Tiberius
Plutarch
Livy
Dion Pruseus
Apollonius
Quintius Curtius
Epictetus
Ptolemy


-- just to name a few



Now why didn't any of these men make mention of this miracle worker?

[canikickit]

Interesting stuff MJM. I never heard any of that before.

[Larissa]

Right Cani, very interesting, thanks MJM.

[pastradamus]

I think christianity & communism are extremely alike.
but somewhere along the lines the pigs got their way,as george orwell would put it.

Jesus believed in equality,and equality is essientily the aim of communism.

In my opinion,when marx said christianity wants to keep people poor,eg "blessed are the poor".
I think marx was taking this too literally.It wasnt written by jesus after all,& when he said "blessed are the poor" I believe all he ment was,that the bourgeoisie are no better than the poor.Which wasnt the collective belief at the time.Like The masters and the slaves situations,in my opinion.

[canikickit]

I think marx was taking this too literally.It wasnt written by jesus after all,& when he said "blessed are the poor" I believe all he ment was,that the bourgeoisie are no better than the poor.Which wasnt the collective belief at the time.Like The masters and the slaves situations,in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree with what yoiu're saying Pa, but I don't think that Marx was referring to the actual theoretical yada yada yada behind the religion. Just the fact that people were scared that if they weren't "good christians" they'd go to hell. etc., etc., etc.

[Blibblob]

I agree!

[redstar2000]

The (pardon the expression) damning quote from "Jesus" is "the poor ye shall always have with thee". (my emphasis)

Of course, no one really knows if "Jesus" said this or anything else.

But the suggestions that "Jesus" was some kind of "closet commie" are unsupported by the evidence of "Scripture".

It is just as absurd as if someone suggested that "Santa Claus" is really a "parable" of future communist society.

Damn, I hope I didn't give someone an idea!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:43 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)

[Iepilei]

I'm breaking ground for a new form of Marxism, to be known as "Clausism".

Everyday the proletariat must stop all work and offer gifts to those they acknowledge as doing good deeds. All who are not recognized, shall recieve coal.

The hammer and sickle is to be replaced with a candy cane. And we will effectively establish the Santa 'cult of personality'.

[Umoja]

Christianity's message was corrupted by some weird sect that developed. They basically destroyed gnostic thought, and until recently (when numerous gnostic writtings were found in egypt, such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Mary Magdelene) some of the message was lost.... I need to read more into the subject though.

[TheDerminator]

I am not religious, but socialism has a spirit as well as theoretical legacy. It seems to me that the Christ of the New Testament is ethically in the spirit of socialism to at least some extent.

derminated

[pastradamus]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 3:24 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
I am not religious, but socialism has a spirit as well as theoretical legacy. It seems to me that the Christ of the New Testament is ethically in the spirit of socialism to at least some extent.

derminated

Agreed

[Umoja]

I was reading through the Gospel of Thomas, recently, and found a perfect example of Jesus' teachings in a completely different light.

1) And He said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these
sayings will not experience death."

(The Gospel of Thomas)

This basically says that Faith isn't shit and that only knowledge is important. Most of the other quotes are very abstract, but seem to shed a completely different view on most of his teachings.

The Horus parrallel is interesting, I've seen a picture of the 'Virgin Mary' nursing baby Jesus, and a similar picture of I think Isis nursing Osiris. Personally, I think that most of this was meshed by the church into Christian philosophy, considering the contact early Christian groups had with Egypt (but hadn't heiroglyphics stopped being used? So I wonder)

Infact, I'm begganing to wonder why I posted.

[KRAZYKILLA]

In modern day times he would be a very near communist.

[CruelVerdad]

Religion teaches us to fight for equality, fighting for equality is socialism, fighting for equality is communism!

[redstar2000]

"Religion teaches us to fight for equality..."

No, no, no! It does no such thing.

Where is the "equality" between the saved and the damned? Where is the "equality" between the saint and the sinner? Where is the "equality" between the true faith and the heretics, infidels, and unbelievers?

Religion teaches us to fight for supremacy, not equality. Only if "our version" of the "Will of God" prevails in this world can we be sure of "salvation" in the next world.

Come on, folks, you should know this stuff!

:cool:

[Umoja]

Where is the equality in killing the upper class? By being upper class does that make them any less human then the "damned"?

[October]

First let me begin by saying YES I am a Christian. (nondenominational)

Christianity doesn't teach us to fight for supremacy over our fellow man. What causes us to fight to rise above others is our inherent sin nature.

What keeps capitalism going? The will of the flesh. Capitalism is a theory based on man's greed and selfishness. A capitalist society flourishes due to the jealousy and individualism it insights. It works because we live in a world that delights in sin.

This is the same reason that communism has experienced troubles in the past. In an ideal society it would work great but since it is man's nature to work towards his own glorification, people like Stalin appear.

As far as the comment made by Redstar2000 saying "where is the equality between the saved and the damned?" goes, Ro 3:23 states "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ." and Ro 6:23 goes on to say "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. " Basically everybody has sinned and the price of all sin is the same (death), whether you are guilty of a single sin or of many. However, all are given equal chance to accept Christ who died in atonement for their sins and through His infinite grace, He freely gives the gift of eternal life. We all exercise freewill in the choice of salvation or damnation, just as we all make our own choices as to which theory of government to support. (no disrespect meant towards Redstar2000 or others who share his opinions)

October

[canikickit]

However, all are given equal chance to accept Christ who died in atonement for their sins and through His infinite grace, He freely gives the gift of eternal life.

I actually find this type of crap offensive. I really do. I don't care about Jesus. Jesus was just a scapegoat, if it hadn't been him, the powers that be would have some other "guy" to worship and praise, and talk complete speculative bullshit about.

What exactly does it mean, "Jesus died for our sins"? Did god need someone to sacrafice in the name of peace and justice?

I don't think Redstar is arguing that Christianity itself (i.e. the grass roots, positive interpretations of the bible) is the terrible thing to be avoided (I'm sure he'll let me know if I'm wrong), but more so it's uses and abuses and the fact that it is used as an license to kill. Like how Bush mentions god in a lot of his speeches (all the ones I've heard). I find his use of god to be quite patronising. Patronising towards muslims, particularily.

[Hate Your State]

"Im not a religious person, but i believe that in commuism religion or ANY kind should be allowed, otherwise communsim isnt giving TRUE COMPLETE freedom is it?"

Since when has communism been about "true complete freedom"? I think you've got your ideals mixed up. Communism is about absolute conformity, with enormous consequences.

redstar2000, you said it perfectly. Religion is a struggle for supremacy, and that's why it's the leading cause of war in history.

[October]

First off, I agree that Christianity and God are too often "used and abused" for the benefit of poloticians, but where we differ in opinion is when the idea that Jesus is nothing more than a mere scapegoat arises, or the concept that there is no God at all.

Alow me to bring the "no God" theory into perspective for those of you who appear to be ignorant to the scientific facts of the possibility of there being no God.

At the very root of all religions, and yes the belief that there is no God is a religion, is faith. What is faith? Webster says it is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." I have faith that everything was created by a divine entity known as Christ, and that for that faith I will be rewarded with eternal life. Some are Athiests and have faith in a disbelief in the existence of a deity, and rely on theories such as evolution (proclaiming that there is no God and that we were created through a a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena) to account for our existence. Since Canikickit is anti-diety I have to draw the conclusion that he shares these beliefs. How did I come to the descision that there is a God? I dissected evolution and drew my own conclusion based on logic. Here's what helped me grasp the impossability of there being no God. It's pretty long, but I beg you to at least take the time to read it if you plan on posting an opposing opinion. I will show the same respect for all of your posts.

This came from page 32 of "The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible" by Duane T. Gish, PH.D. (great book by the way)

"To believe that life created itself requires not only blind faith, but also, it demands poor science, or what is called psuedo, or false science. It can be shown, using scientific methos, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to have created itself, even if given 4.6 billion years (the age of the earth claimed by many evolutionists).
In truth, the origin of life would require hundreds of different kinds of protein molecules, and hundreds-most likely thousands-of different kinds of DNA molecules and RNA molecules. Furthermore, because there are 350 million cubic miles of water on earth, and presumably all life-building chemicals would be dissolved in the water, one would have to have many billions of tons, each, of every protein, DNA, and RNA molecule, in order to produce the simplest form of life.
Each protein, each DNA, and each RNA molecule is very large and complex. Let us consider the probability of the production of ONE SINGLE PROTEIN MOLECULE, BY CHANCE. Proteins are long chains, and the links in the chains are called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids in proteins. In order to make a particular protein, (for instance, growth hormone), or hemoglobin (the red blood protein that helps red blood cells carry oxygen), the amino acids in each protein have to be arranged in precise order. The average protein has 400 amino acids (actually 20 DIFFERENT kinds) in it, although some have over 2,000 amino acids, and a few have less than 100, but never less than 50.
In order to make it easier to calculate, instead of a protein with 400 amino acids in it, let us calculate the probability of producing (by chance) a protein with only 100 amino acids in it. In order to help you understand the laws of probability, let us think for a moment about another problem: If 17 people were asked to line up in a certain order, then rearrange themselves in a different order, then do it again, and again, and... How many times could they line up without lining up twince in the same order? Perhaps 1,000 times? Maybe a million times? The truth is, these 17 people could line up over 355 TRILLION TIMES without lining up twice in the same order! (That answer is obtained by multiplying 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x.... x17 times each other). If I wrote down the names of 17 people on a piece of paper, and they didn't know what the order was, they would have only one chance out of 355 trillion of lining up in the right order-and if only one more person is added, for a total of 18 people, they would have only one chance out of SIX QUADRILLION, 390 TRILLION (18x355 trillion) of lining up in the right order!

In the above example, we are talking about the chances of lining up only 17 or 18 things in a certain order by chance, but in a protein, with 100 amino acids, you have to line up 100 things in precise order! In this case, however, since there are only 20 different kinds of amino acids, the answer is obtained by multiplying 1/20 times itself 100 times. The answer turns out to be ONE chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
Or, ONE CHANCE out of the NUMBER ONE followed by 130 ZEROES or, flatly, ZERO! But if, by some miracle, the amino acids lined up, what would this produce? One single molecule of one single protein! However, to have even the remotest chance of getting life started, BILLIONS OF TONS each of HUNDREDS of different kinds of proteins, and BILLIONS OF TONS each of HUNDREDS of DNA and RNA molecules must be produced and , of coarse, the probability of that happening by chance, through evolution, is absolutely zero!"


This really opened my eyes to what the possibility of there being no God is. I hope it has helped you all as much as it has helped me, and even if it hasn't changed your opinion at all, I greatly appreciate you showing me the respect of reading it.



(Edited by October at 4:44 am on Mar. 9, 2003)

[Umoja]

Christianity would be fine if the early church hadn't moved away from the concept of gnosis, and moved towards Faith. Gnosis encourages a person to keep learning, faith makes a person look at something and say "Oh shit, that's how it is!". Unfortunately many people, not even all of them religious, live in this state of "faith". Using the Greek concept of gnosis again (which means "to know") we could basically call these people who aren't pursuing knowledge "agnositic" or "not knowing". That's the problem Redstar, and other oppenents of religion, and I agree that anything that gives this type of attitude needs to be removed, but the more I look at situations the more I think that the majority of people live like this. I'm assuming the human material nature of staying in a cycle, like most animals, still exist, with bits of the "conscience" or "soul" emerging momentarily. For certain people, their human side, which is more of a mental/spiritual thing comes out more strongly....... I really need to observe that theory more.

[October]

Umoja, I agree with what your saying about how too many people are residing in an infant-like state of faith without continuing a pursuit of further knowledge in order to develop a more mature, and intimate relationship with God. Of coarse I am a firm believer that Christians are saved by God's grace through faith alone, which is supported by the Bible in Ro 11:6 "Now if by grace, then it is not by works; otherwise grace ceases to be grace." But let us not forget that the Bible also says in Jas 2:26 that "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." Is this a contradiction? Most definitely not. If a person has TRUE faith then that person will pursue the Lord and open their heart to the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit dwells inside a person, then that person cannot help but show it through his actions. Actions don't necessarily mean helping an elderly woman cross a busy intersection, but rather the pursuit of a deeper relationship with God.

[redstar2000]

Umoja, we communists are not trying to achieve "equality" with the "upper class". We want to abolish class society altogether. As to who will be killed and under what circumstances, that simply remains to be seen. The Cuban example is interesting, though. They shot a few hundred of the worst bastards and then moved on. We could learn from that.

Yes, October, all humans are "equally sinners" but, to coin a phrase, some are more equal than others. Consider all the billions of people who lived before Yeshuah ben-Yosif deigned to put in an appearance on Earth...presumably they're still roasting on a slow fire in the nether regions.

Or all those who've lived since but never happened to be in the right place at the right time to hear the "gospel"...it suggests the trains to "Hell" must resemble Manhattan or Tokyo subways during commute hours...packed.

But that's all just foolishness; the practical behavior of religion demonstrates that the struggle of one for supremacy over all the others is unrelenting...and no weapon is too foul to use.

October, the text you cite is a classic example of the mis-use of probability theory, based on totally erroneous assumptions.

The origin of life did not "require hundreds of different kinds of protein molecules" to spring into existence more or less instantly. Only one fairly simple protein was required, one capable of making copies of itself and able to incorporate random changes such as to make it better at copying itself over time. Natural selection takes care of the rest.

We've already found samples of amino acids in interstellar matter...these "building blocks" of protein molecules seem to form easily under appropriate circumstances.

Of course, the odds against the chain of circumstances that led to us are indeed enormous. There is nothing like us in all the "billions and billions" (as the late Carl Sagen would have said) galaxies in the universe.

But the probability of some kind of life may turn out to be quite high. If the discovery of "micro-fossils" on Mars is confirmed or if we find alien life-forms in the ocean thought to lie beneath the surface of the Jovian satellite Europa, then the matter will be clinched...life is a universal phenomenon.

What is the probability that you exist, October? Here are the numbers, as I understand them:

Your parents had unprotected sex: 1 chance in 80 that a child would be conceived.

Possible genetic combinations that your parents would offer a potential child: 80,000,000,000

Chance of miscarriage: 1 chance in 2.

So the probability that you exist is:

1/80 x 1/80,000,000,000 x 1/2 = 1/12,800,000,000,000

But the chance of some child being conceived and born is only 1/160. If your parents were sexually active with one another, in six months or less, your mother would probably have been pregnant and in 15 months or less, a child would have been born.

So it is with life itself. The chances are quite good that trillions of life forms exist throughout the universe (most of them bacteria); the odds against any particular form of life existing are, indeed, enormous. The universe confirms the gambler's hunch: even the longest shot sometimes wins the race.

Canikickit, people sort of "assume" that there must be something positive down at the "grass roots" of Christianity. What that something is remains to be discovered...and people have looked hard for it.

Yeshuah ben-Yosif was a "reforming rabbi" in the tradition of guys like Hillel (father and son). He put together a "package" of beliefs borrowed from the rather larger collection of Jewish beliefs, legends, and superstitions of the time. His disciples added more stuff. When the Church started organizing itself, they borrowed heavily from pagan traditions. And so on...just part of history, like everything else.

Where's the "good part"?

:cool:

[October]

Before I begin, thanks Redstar2000, and others who took time out to read the post.

In reference to Redstar2000's post saying "Consider all the billions of people who lived before Yeshuah ben-Yosif deigned to put in an appearance on Earth...presumably they're still roasting on a slow fire in the nether regions." The difference in the people's lives before Christ came to earth and after is how they payed for their sin. In Discovery Series' work on Why Did Christ Have To Die, the author writes "There can be no forgiveness without a sacrificial death (Heb. 9:22). Through His death on the cross, Jesus Christ presented to God a sacrifice sufficient to pay for the sins of all mankind. The animal deaths of Old Testament days fell far short of that, for they did not actually take away sin. Also the Old Testamant sacrifices had to be offered every day. Animal after animal was brought to the altar and slain. Each new day brought a new round of sacrificial slayings. The writer of Hebrews, commenting on this face, said, "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). Furthermore, those sacrifices were only for sins committed involuntarily, in ignorance, or through human weekness (Lev. 4:2-7). A sacrifice could not be given for a premeditated, deliberate sin in Old Testament days. That is why David, when he repented of his double sin of adultery withe Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, did not even present a sacrifice. Rather, he came before God with "a broken and contrite heart" to find forgiveness (Ps. 51:16-17)"

I'll discuss more on proteins, DNA, and RNA later down the page but for those sharing Redstar2000's views of evolution, let's start at the beginning, with a little help from Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.

"Evolutionists believe that about five billion years ago the Solar System was just a cloud of dust and gas, which they call the solar nebula. Where did the solar nebula come from? NO ONE KNOWS. What caused its rotation? NO ONE KNOWS THAT EITHER.
Evolutionists believe the cloud of gas and dust was spread out-maybe several trillion miles across-and it was very, very cold. Then, all those molecules of gas and dust began to pull in on themselves by gravity, and finally the sun became a star.
If gravity was great enough to pull in the sun, how could anything be left behind to make the planets? The sun weighs 1,000 times as much as all the planets COMBINED-thus 99.9 percent of all the matter of the Solar System is in the sun.
Some think that maybe dust and gas were left outside the cloud that formed the sun. This hypothetical cloud of dust and gas was orbiting the sun, and somehow, the dust particles and the gas got close enough to stick together and make planets. However, when one takes these ideas and compares them with the cold, hard facts of science, it can be proven that none of these imagined models could possibly work. Sir Herman Bondi, a noted British astronomer, admitted in an article published in the British Science Journal "New Scientist", August 21, p.611 (1980) that all such theories have been proven wrong by scientific facts. Sir Harold Jeffreys, another well-known British astronomer, in a book published in 1970, said that since all of our theories about how the Solar System formed have been shown to be wrong, we can say it doesn't exist! Well, the Solar System DOES exist, and since science proves that it couldn't have created itself naturally, by some evolutionary process, there is only one possibility left! It had to be produced SUPERNATURALLY."

"Sir Fred Hoyle is one of the world's most famous astronomers. For most of his life, he did not believe in God or creation. During the 1980's he, along with Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, also a well-known astronomer, and an evolutionist who was also an atheist, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Assuming that the earth was five billion years old, they calculated the probability of life evolving on the earth sometime during that five billion years. The probability turned out to be ONE CHANCE out of the number ONE followed by 40,000 zeroes. Of coarse, that meant that there was no possibility at all, so they turned to outer space, and conjectured that there are possibly 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and perhaps 100 billion stars in each galaxy. They made the assumption that every star in the universe had a planet like the earth, and that the universe is 20 billion years old, and THEN calculated the probability that life evolved somewhere.
For evolutionists, the answer was grim. The chances were so low that, for all practical purposes, there was no probability that life had evolved anywhere in the entire universe. Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of evolution is equal to the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junk yard, would assemble a Boeing 747! Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe ARE NO LONGER ATHEISTS. They say that wherever life exists in the universe, it had to be created!"

As far as proteins, DNA, and RNA go, "Inside a cell-even the simplest cell imaginable-there is very complex machinery. Machinery must exist to synthesize (that is, to manufacture) proteins, DNA, and RNA (and the machinery that does this consists of proteins, DNA, and RNA!). There must be machinery in every single cell (like photosynthesis, for example) to generate the energy that the cell must have. Every cell must have the ability to reproduce itself, exactly. To reproduce itself, the "simplest" cell has to have hundreds of different kinds of proteins, and hundreds-and perhaps even thousands-of different kinds of DNA and RNA molecules. Furthermore, all of these things must be arranged in precise fashion for life to exist, just as everything in an automobile factory must be arranged in assembly lines for these factories to produce automobiles, and everything in a watch must be in precise order for the watch to run."

In short, Evolution is flawed right from the very beginning, and all the way through. Think about it, before we can debate over the possibilities of proteins forming, we have to figure out where this cloud of dust and gas came from in the first place.

------------------------------------------------
The wise man enjoys admitting when he is wrong, for it is the same as admitting he knows more today than he did yesterday.


(Edited by October at 12:06 am on Mar. 10, 2003)

[redstar2000]

If I understand your opening paragraph, October, you seem to be saying that everyone born before Yeshuah as well as those who never heard of him after his death get "a free pass into Heaven." But Yeshuah says specifically that you must, at least, "believe in Him" to enjoy life everlasting. There doesn't seem to be any logical way to square these views.

The fact that present scientific theories of planetary systems are in some difficulty does not demonstrate supernatural origins.

You can't legitimately proceed from the assumption that "anything we don't understand, or understand correctly, or understand fully" "must" be the work of "God". Science doesn't "work" like that.

To prove the case for "supernatural origins", you have to provide positive evidence for that hypothesis. You have to show "the hand of God" in action.

And, given the wild improbability of such a hypothesis, the evidence would have to be overwhelming and incontestable by any rational person.

I've thought of some possible tests of this hypothesis; perhaps you can think of others.

Suppose we discovered phenomena that "made no sense" in scientific terms but occurred over and over again under particular circumstances.

A grove of flourishing palm trees at the south pole would be an example.

But suppose "God" is only really interested in humans while leaving the natural world to evolve by chance.

Then we would look for sharp differences in the fates of the pious and the fates of the heathens.

For example, we would look for the pious to enjoy a greater measure of "good fortune" in life...but, as far as we can tell, "luck" is distributed more or less randomly.

A real test: if the pious were resurrected within three days of their deaths and people could actually watch them ascend into "Heaven"...that would convert the most hard-core atheist (me).

Even a very limited test: do the pious behave conspiciously "better" than the unbelievers? In fact, the evidence clearly indicates they behave worse. It was "Christian America" that dropped nuclear bombs on the heathen Japanese, not the other way around.

So I have no problem admitting that science is always tentatively truthful; our theories can always be modified or even rejected in favor of new theories if the evidence demands it. A "final" explanation of everything would be nice...and maybe in a million years or less, we will have it. In the meantime, I'm willing to proceed on what has been demonstrated to be "true" in the light of what we have so far uncovered.

What I am unwilling to do is to accept assertion as a [/b]substitute[/b] for evidence.

And none of this even scratches the surface of what theologians call "the problem of evil". That is, even if a supernatural "God" could be proven to exist, on what grounds should the creator and ruler of such a horribly unjust world be "worshipped"?

I'll tell you up front, October, that in the highly unlikely event that I should ever be convinced that the Judeo-Christian "explanation" of the universe were really "true", I would sign on with "Satan" immediately. If ever a diety deserved to be thrown down from its throne, the Judeo-Christian "God" has it coming!

:cool:

[Umoja]

Another one coming in so innocent, not yet callous to Redstars religious arguments. You may be able to make him an atheist if you strike quick enough.

[October]

I'm glad that we are able to have a friendly, rational debate on the matter of Christianity and atheism.

You misunderstood my opening paragraph. In no way am I saying that those born before Christ have "a free pass into Heaven". They had to worship the one true God. What I was commenting on was one of the drastic differences in a believers life that Christ brought. And if this misunderstanding was derived from the statement "Through His death on the cross, Jesus Christ presented to God a sacrifice sufficient to pay for the sins of all mankind" It was referring to all mankind after Christ who believe in Him, not those before Him. Now as for those who never get the chance to hear of Him after His death, although I am uncertain as to what God will do with them, Ro 2:12-14 says "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves"

But what if God does send those who never get to hear the gospel to hell? Is He unfair? Because all are sinners, God would have been just to send all people to hell. He was gracious to provide salvation through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-9). God desires that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). God seeks for those who acknowledge their spiritual need and seek Him (Ezekiel 34:11; Luke 19:10). And when people are seeking the true God two things happen, God brings the message to them by prompting a Christian to go to them (Acts 16:6-10), and the person hearing the message will respond in faith (Acts 16:13,14).

Still, I am only a man and although I will search for answers to the best of my ability, I will not be able to answer EVERYTHING about God for I can only comprehend so much. Take a dog for example. A dog can know that a gun brings harm to the things it points at, however a dog can never understand how a gun works, simply because their brain cannot comprehend it. The same principal works with man and God. We can only know what He has allowed us to know.

Redstar2000, in your comment "It was "Christian America" that dropped nuclear bombs on the heathen Japanese, not the other way around." you seem to have forgotten 2 very important facts. The first being that America was not only attacked first, but attacked without warning. Second, the atomic bombs that were dispatched by America brought an end to the war, thus saving the countless number of lives that would have been ended if the war were permitted to continue. Before blaming America for their actions ask yourself "Did America not have the right to defend themselves?" and "Would Japan not have used the same technology if they possessed it at that time?" The answers are obvious. Yes, countries have the right to defend themselves, and it is made crystal clear by countries around the world today, such as North Korea, that if the technology for such a weapon is possessed, then it will be used.

The idea that the "pious" will "enjoy a greater measure of good fortune in life" is quite wrong. Those who accept Christ will suffer great trials and tribulations as stated in Mat. 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me".

To say that TRUE believers as a whole or individual behave worse than unbelievers is completely false. Although it is true that wicked individuals have committed heinous crimes against humanity in the past, and will in the future under a false veil of Christianity, but classifying these individuals under the Christian name is as absurd as classifying a pig as a bird. Hence saying "when pigs fly", in other words it's ridiculous.

Redstar2000, I would suggest re-evaluating your statement "in the highly unlikely event that I should ever be convinced that the Judeo-Christian "explanation" of the universe were really "true", I would sign on with "Satan" immediately." after reviewing what we know about each. Remember Satan was cast down from heaven because he wished be revered as God. Evil entered the world through Adam and Eve's willing choice to rebel against God. The only reason they even had that option was because God wanted them to freely love Him, not because they were forced to love him (Gen. 3) so He gave them free will. After being tainted by sin, mankind's death was imminent but because God is a loving and merciful God, He provided a way out. In love He became our substitute and died in our place. He overcame our inability to save ourselves by paying the price for our sins. The Discovery Series work Why Did Christ Have To Die? illustrates this with a fictional story from American history.

"In a tribe of Indians, someone was stealing chickens. The chief declared that, if caught, the offender would receive 10 lashes. When the stealing continued, he raised it to 20 lashes. Still the chickens methodically disappeared. In anger the chief raised the sentence to 100 lashes - a sure sentence of death. The thief was finally caught. But the chief faced a terrible dilemma. The thief was his own mother! When the day of penalty came, the whole tribe gathered. Would the chief's love override his justice? The crowed gasped when he ordered his mother to be tied to the whipping post. The chief removed his shirt, revealing his powerful stature, and took the whip in hand. But instead of raising it to strike the first blow, he handed it to a strong, young brave at his side. Slowly the chief walked over to his mother and wrapped his massive arms around her in an engulfing embrace. Then he ordered the brave to give him the 100 lashes."

With this in mind, I fail to see where your statement "If ever a deity deserved to be thrown down from its throne, the Judeo-Christian "God" has it coming!" comes from.

Redstar2000, when you say "What I am unwilling to do is to accept assertion as a substitute for evidence." is that not what you are doing when you accept atheism over Christianity? As far as factual evidence goes, the only reason atheism stays afloat at all is because after it is disproved time and again, the theory is simply changed minorly in desperate attempt to keep it going until the next evidence of it's falsity arises.

You may ask "How can we test the reliability of the Bible?". After all, if the Bible is not reliable, then how do we know what to believe about what Christ said or did? The Discovery Series did a work on Why Does It Make Sense To Believe In Christ? and asked the same question. "The Science of archaeology can give us a lot of valuable evidence, which will either confirm or contradict the biblical record. One hundred years ago, many Bible critics were trying to dismiss much of its history as the work of creative story tellers. But in this century, archaeological finds have overwhelmingly supported the biblical data. One case of archaeological evidence is a recent study of ancient Jericho, which concluded that the walls did tumble down as the Bible indicates. Archaeologist Bryant G. Wood of the University of Toronto said, "When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho with the biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction of Jericho, we find remarkable agreement" (Biblical Archaeological Review, March/April 1990). Sir William Ramsay, a noted archaeologist, was once skeptical of the New Testament book of Acts. He set out to prove the inaccuracy of the book but instead came away as an ardent believer in its great historical value. Ramsay concluded, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense....In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (The Bearing Of Recent Discovery On The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament, p.222)"

"The fact that present scientific theories of planetary systems are in some difficulty does not demonstrate supernatural origins." These are your words Redstar2000, but I believe the problem with evolution goes a lot farther than this. Lets look at life in general, according to evolution. What is the point of your life Redstar2000? You live, reproduce, and die. You become oblivion and few remember you. The minute things you may have accomplished in the insignificant space in time you occupied are soon forgotten as the few who do remember you are reduced to oblivion as well. Being the great guy you are, you may think "The point of my life is to aid in the advancement of the human race". How noble. But don't you know that through evolution all these efforts will be in vain? If science has taught us anything at all, it is that the extinction of the human race is inevitable. Look at what we know about the Sun. Like every star, the Sun goes through different stages. When the Sun becomes a red giant, Mercury and Venus will be swallowed up by the Sun and perhaps the Earth will too. Even if the Earth is not swallowed up, conditions on its surface will become impossible for life to exist. For your sake let's say that we've advanced enough by then to hop our entire race to a farther off planet in our solar system. The star stage after that is what is known as a white dwarf. In this stage the star contracts and becomes very dense. Because the Sun would be so small, and distant from our new planet, it would cause it to freeze and be very dark at all times. But let's pretend for your sake that the very resourceful human race manages to once again prevail through these seemingly impossible obstacles and through their advancement in technology, they live on. The next step of star development for our sun is what is known as a black dwarf, or deadstar. It basically stops working and we die. Since the human race would be in desperate need of a new host planet with a source of heat an light near by, lets pretend that we by then have the technology to transport our poor people to another solar system and find a planet there. Sounds good right? In time this star will end up doing the same thing or perhaps even worse, it could be what is known as a massive star. When these stars die, they leave with a bang. A super nova to be scientifically correct. They leave nothing behind but a black hole. A black hole is basically a vacuum that breaks down all matter into its finest form. We don't know much about them, all we know is that they destroy everything. Through time space will be plagued by blackholes. Eventually there will be nothing left BUT blackholes. Then, assuming that the human race lives that long, that will be the end of the rode. All life, human, alien, animal, and plant, will be obliterated. Sent into nothingness. Then what good will all of the progress we have made be? Well, it won't be your problem and you really won't care will you Redstar2000 because according to your beliefs there is no God and shortly your insignificant life will cease to exist as well.

[October]

Hey Redstar2000, would you mind if we moved this conversation to the "Religeon is shit" thread under ideologies? I know we'd probably have to end up going through alot of the same conversations that you and I have already been through before any progress in our debate can be made, but hey, what are copy and past for anyway? Once we get the old stuff outta the way we can press on and probably have more comments on the matter than our own. Sound good?

[October]

Hey Redstar2000, would you mind if we moved this conversation to the "Religeon is shit" thread under ideologies? I know we'd probably have to end up going through alot of the same conversations that you and I have already been through before any progress in our debate can be made, but hey, what are copy and past for anyway? Once we get the old stuff outta the way we can press on and probably have more comments on the matter than our own. Sound good?

[DEFMARX]

First off, I must say that such talk of "sins" and Christ needing to be sacrificed is hurting my brain. This is all wrong. I believe in god. I believe that god created the universe and that god is an infinite being. However, I believe that the word nature can be substituted for the word god. The reason I say this, is because it gives a better feeling as to the interaction between god and man. God has no will for us. There is no direct interaction. In fact I belive the best way to describe it is by summarizing the theories of Baruch Spinoza. Here is a part of an essay I have previously written:
In his Ethics Demonstrated in Geometrical Order, Spinoza claims that there is in fact only one substance and that substance is God. This is contradictory to both Aristotle and Descartes who both believed that there are numerous substances. Spinoza also believed that thinking things and extended things are different attributes of the same substance. There was no differentiation between those two seemingly incompatible natures. Although Spinoza’s theory seems to be fundamentally opposed to Descartes’ and Aristotle’s there are in fact some congruencies.

In the beginning of the Ethics, Spinoza does not immediately claim there to be only one substance, but arrives at that conclusion from logical deductions made from a set of definitions and axioms. In his third definition Spinoza states, “By substance I mean that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; that is, that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be formed,” (31). This seems to be a repetition of what both Aristotle and Descartes said in their own words. In order for something to be a candidate for substance, it must be that which is not said of anything else. A neck tie, for example, may be red. The red is said of the tie, and not vice versa. In Spinozian terms, the red cannot be conceived without the tie, yet the tie can be conceived without the red. Therefore, the tie is a candidate for substance for Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza. The differences between them lie in their exact requirements for something to actually be substance.

One major consistency in both Descartes and Spinoza is their idea that substance is not perceivable. For the two of them, it is the attributes of substance that reveal themselves to us, and not the substance itself. The mind can only conceive of two attributes, thought and extension. Now whereas Descartes believes that these two are the differentiating attributes between two different finite substances, Spinoza believes them to be two different attributes of the same infinite substance. Also, Descartes would say that thought is the primary attribute of a mind. Person X’s mind, which is a substance, has the same attribute of person Y’s mind, which is also a substance. Spinoza would say that thought is an attribute of substance, but there would be no way to attribute it to two different substances like Descartes does. This is made clear in Spinoza’s notorious Proposition 5 which states, “In the universe there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute,” (33). The reason for this is that the only way to distinguish substance is by its attributes, and if two or more shared the same attributes then they would in fact be indistinguishable. Therefore, to speak of two substances having the same nature is ridiculous, because one would be referring to the same thing.

There is another idea that Descartes and Spinoza share in relation to their ideas of substance. This idea is that God is perfect and necessarily exists. Of course there are major differences in this idea’s application between the two philosophers, but first one should consider the similarities. Descartes arrived at the notion of God being infinite and perfect in Meditation 3 by knowing that he himself was finite and imperfect:
For how could I understand that I doubted or desired- that is, lacked something- and that I was not wholly perfect, unless there were in me some idea of a more perfect being which enabled me to recognize my own defects by comparison. (31)

Spinoza agreed with Descartes insomuch as God necessarily exits, as he states in Proposition 11, “God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists,” (37). One of his proofs for this is in some ways similar to Descartes’. Anything that is finite, or does not necessarily exist, expresses a weakness. The opposite, or infinite Entity, expresses power and perfection. To claim that God is not infinite is to claim that finite, weaker entities have more power than an infinite one, which is an obvious contradiction. Therefore, Spinoza’s logical deduction is that, “…either nothing exists, or an absolute infinite Entity necessarily exists, too,” (38). Because Spinoza knows that he himself exists, it becomes easy for him to narrow reality down to one infinite Entity, or God. For him this is any easy conclusion to arrive at and he believes it should be “quite clear to all who give a modicum of attention to the matter,” (38).

After close examination, it appears that Spinoza and Descartes share more similarities in their ideas of substance than not. Spinoza simply takes Descartes’ ideas to their logical conclusions. Descartes doesn’t quite commit to what he believes. What Spinoza does most importantly is not make any claims that he has any knowledge of finite substance. Anything that Descartes says is a finite substance, Spinoza says is an attribute of infinite substance. In the second corollary of Proposition 14, he states, “the thing extended and the thing thinking (finite substances for Descartes) are either attributes of God or affections of the attributes of God,” (40). It is unclear why Descartes would make the assumption that things existing outside his body are substances when even he admits that such things are truly unknown to him. As mentioned earlier, both philosophers believe that it is only the attributes of substance that the intellect perceives. Therefore, to claim to have knowledge of numerous substances is bold leap of faith that Spinoza, unlike Descartes, is not willing to make. The reason for this is because Spinoza views God as having infinite attributes.

In other words, every attribute or affection that the intellect perceives is contained within God. To assume that there are finite substances is to claim that there are substances that have only one attribute such as thinking or extension. If this substance exists, that would mean that it shares the same attribute as the infinite substance and Spinoza already made it clear in Proposition 5 that no two substances can share the same attribute, for they would be indistinguishable. Spinoza continues his idea of substance by claiming that, “whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God,” (40). This statement in Proposition 15 also seems very reminiscent of Descartes who also believes that there is God, which necessarily exists, and everything else exists with God’s concurrence. The major dispute between these two is that Descartes views two substances like the mind and body as having no necessary connection and only having to rely on God for existence. Spinoza, on the other hand, believes that, “matter is everywhere the same, and there are no distinct parts in it except in so far as we conceive matter as modified in various ways,” (42). For him, everything is infinite and the same. Our minds are what perceive these modes in finite and diverse ways.

[redstar2000]

Yes, I think this thread definitely belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

October, in cosmic terms my life is insignificant. So is yours. Whatever the fate of the universe some 100 to 300 billion years from now, no one is going to remember us. That doesn't bother me...why should it bother you?

As to your "three-in-one" deity, ask yourself this. What would you think of a man who acted as your "God" has acted? To create a sentient being capable of suffering and then proceed to put it into an environment where suffering was, in fact, inevitable...what terms would you use to describe such a man?

Whatever the shortcomings of the human species, and they are many, where can you find a match for the barbarisms of the gods themselves?

Eternal torture in "Hell"? Your "loving Jesus" towers infinitely above mere human monsters like Hitler, Nero, Caligula, etc.

From what you have said, it appears that your version of Christianity, in an act of human mercy, consigns those who never heard of "Jesus" to extinction (not all that different from my version of everyone's fate). But those who've heard the "gospel" and reject it..."it's the fiery pit for you, boy!"

(If I'm not mistaken, Islam has the same fate in store for the bulk of humanity...though I'm fuzzy on the details.)

"God would have been just to send all [human souls] to hell." What a sweetheart!

Because all humans are "sinners"? And how is "sin" defined? The refusal to obey the commands of an arbitrary, capricious tyrant! Under circumstances when obedience is impossible.

What did your "Jesus" say? "He who looks at a woman with lust in his heart is guilty of adultery." What normal man does not look at an attractive woman with "lust in his heart"? Your "Creator" made us that way.

If I broke a man's leg and then decreed that walking with a limp was a capital crime...I would have emulated your morality with perfect fidelity except for the fact that inflicting eternal torture is beyond human capabilities.

Still, as I have said on a number of occasions, the real test of religion is its social role...how has the idea worked out in the real world?

Your pathetic apology for the United States use of nuclear weapons is a perfect example.

1. The United States did not drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities out of "self-defense"...by that time (1945) the Japenese were militarily incapable of mounting any threat to the U.S.--sort of like Iraq now.

2. Yes, the U.S. was the victim of aggression by Japanese imperialism...but the Japanese did not anihilate Honolulu. The Japanese attacked a military target...the navel base at Pearl Harbor. In fact, to my knowledge, there were no civilian casualties in the city of Honolulu. Compare this to "Christian America's" nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, even worse than those two, the fire-bombing of Tokyo.

3. The rationale that nuclear weapons "shortened the war" has been exposed as nonsense for decades. The Japanese were already trying to work out the details of surrender before the bombs were dropped. In fact, some have suggested that the real psychological target of the bombs was the USSR!

But you illustrate my point: religion often talks "mild and meek" but, whenever possible, is found on the right-hand of the tyrant. German Christians prayed for Hitler's success; Italian Christians prayed for Mussolini; English Christians prayed for Churchell; American Christians prayed for Truman.

"Oh, ye hypocrits", indeed!

Just as you will pray for George Bush and Tony Blair while the "wrath of God" descends on Baghdad..."the heathens have it coming to them, don't they?"

According to the Gallup Organization, 46% of Americans over the age of 18 now identify themselves as "born-again Christians." Welcome to DARK AGES II--The Sequel.

So your aggressive proselytizing at this site is no surprise..."carrying the struggle into the devil's den" you'd probably call it. You'd have a lot of "fun" at the Infidels Forum; they eat guys like you for breakfast.

Here things are a bit different; personal salvation in the face of global injustice is, to us, indefensible.

:cool:

[Umoja]

"What did your "Jesus" say? "He who looks at a woman with lust in his heart is guilty of adultery." What normal man does not look at an attractive woman with "lust in his heart"? Your "Creator" made us that way."

I've always liked this quote. It basically says we aren't perfect, and can unintentionally do wrong, just was we can intentionally. Although, I'm pretty callous to all the stuff Redstar is saying by now.

[October]

Let's begin with Redstar2000's statement

"What did your "Jesus" say? "He who looks at a woman with lust in his heart is guilty of adultery." What normal man does not look at an attractive woman with "lust in his heart"? Your "Creator" made us that way."

since that seems to be the current topic of discussion.

Actually any person who has even touched a bible should know that God did not create us this way. Sin, and suffering never entered the earth until the "fall of man" took place. That is, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The one and only thing that God specifically forbade them to do.

Redstar2000 you also said "And how is "sin" defined? The refusal to obey the commands of an arbitrary, capricious tyrant! Under circumstances when obedience is impossible" I fail to see where the impossible circumstances that were handed to us by the "capricious tyrant" arise. When given paradise, food, a companion, and anything else a being could ever desire (along with the gift of life itself!!) is the mere command to not eat from one specific tree a situation where "obedience is impossible"? Surely not!

Redstar2000 your statement "If I broke a man's leg and then decreed that walking with a limp was a capital crime...I would have emulated your morality with perfect fidelity except for the fact that inflicting eternal torture is beyond human capabilities." is quite incorrect. If you had said "If I built a man a house and told him he could happily live his life there as long as he didn't jump off of the roof." You would have painted a more accurate portrait to what God did for man.

Still Redstar2000, your quote "As to your "three-in-one" deity, ask yourself this. What would you think of a man who acted as your "God" has acted? To create a sentient being capable of suffering and then proceed to put it into an environment where suffering was, in fact, inevitable...what terms would you use to describe such a man? " shows me that you need further example of what God did for man and the position He was in.

This is, according to the best of my understanding, a story that should parallel God and His situation.

Imagine a man, we'll call him Red. Red is all alone, and desires other beings to interact with so he creates AI robots to serve, and love him. Red cleverly crafts beautiful beings and adds a "free will" chip in them because Red wants them to freely love him. Although they are all exceptional robots, Red created one who's presence and ability greatly exceeded that of the others. We'll call this bot Lucas. For a while things go well and Red is very pleased with his creations. After some time had passed, Lucas sees that he is far superior to those of his kind and decides that he too should be served by the others. Lucas becomes jealous of Red and mounts a rebellion against him. Some of the other robots side with him, and some side with Red. Lucas fails in overthrowing Red, but Red decides that it would be to his benefit not to destroy Lucas and the other robots that betrayed him just yet. Red takes Lucas and the robots that followed him and upload their units into a computer, thus casting them out of Red's world. Red knows that he has lost a substantial amount of robots that he had rather enjoyed being around and wishes to replace them. Red also decides that he still likes the principal of the free will chip that he had created. Not all of the robots had betrayed him because some truly loved him. Red decided that the problem was he failed to test the robots before giving them life in his world. Red decides that this time he will test the robots in an artificial world before allowing them to be downloaded into his. Red creates a program on his computer... look at it as a video game. Red creates an entire virtual environment with animals, and plants, and Adam sim, and Eve sim. Red also creates a virtual tree that when eaten from, allows a virus to infect the program and initiates a sequence to the deletion of the program. He gives Adam sim and Eve sim free will and makes only one limitation. Do not eat from this tree. "Why give the limitation at all?" you might ask. Remember this is a TEST and Red wishes for them to show that they are obedient enough to at least follow one simple rule. Lucas currently believes one of two things. Either he still exists because Red was unable to destroy him, or he still exists because Red wishes to delete all of the failures in his current experiment with the failure robots of the past. According to what he believes, Lucas has 1 of 2 goals. Either he wishes to recruit to the best of his ability so that he can make another attempt to over throw Red, or he wishes to cause Red as much grief as possible by bringing as many of the subjects in Reds new experiment down with him. Red knows Lucas wants to turn his new creations against him so Red uses Lucas to aid in his experiment. Lucas is allowed to access this program and tempt Adam sim and Eve sim. Red does not allow Adam sim and Eve sim to be tempted beyond what they can bare, and also provides a way out (1 Cor 10:13). Both of the sims deliberately disobeyed Red and ate from the tree. Because of this, a virus plagued the program and brought with it pain, suffering, disease, and death.

As I said, this is parallels Gods situation up until the fall of man, the the best of MY understanding

Even after man's direct disobedience God wishes to save him. That is why God sent Christ to suffer through what man has brought upon himself, and die as a sacrifice for man.

Redstar2000, I hope this has shed some light on the shady areas that have given you such trouble with God.

[redstar2000]

October, the "thought experiment" has a long tradition in science...but the premises must be correct for it to work.

I have made nearly 1,500 posts at this and other message boards in a little over six months; at no time have I ever expressed the desire to have anyone serve me. I would find the idea disgusting!

It is good of you, however, to admit that obedience is at the core of religious belief; this is something I have tried to get across to people here for some time without success. To be religious is to embrace servility!

Oh yes, the other incorrect premise in your experiment: you left out the pain circuits. Your "Red" neglected to install pain circuits in his robots so he could torture them for "disobedience" or, as you call it, "sin".

As a human, of course I would not do such a disgusting thing; the rules for gods are different.

As a Nazi speechmaker put it: "God is lonely. Hitler is lonely. Hitler is like God." That wasn't the only similarity.

:cool:

[October]

Redstar2000, when you say "I have made nearly 1,500 posts at this and other message boards in a little over six months; at no time have I ever expressed the desire to have anyone serve me. I would find the idea disgusting!" you lead me to believe that you have taken the story as somewhat of a personal attack. Make no mistake, it is not. Red was just the first substitute to come to mind.

You also say "It is good of you, however, to admit that obedience is at the core of religious belief;". God is basically reviewing our potential for entering His society (heaven). Your a very intelligent person so I am sure that you understand that for any society to function, "obedience is at the core". For a society to work it's government has to work, and all governments rely on people following the rules that have been set for them. If they don't, revolution happens and that system is overthrown. God is just preselecting his next group of citizens so that the possibility of revolution in heaven is slim.

The Discovery Series makes another illustration of God's position in Why Did Christ Have To Die? "All parents can understand the dilemma of not wanting to correct a disobedient child with painful discipline, while at the same time realizing that you can't just blink or yawn at his bad behavior. What do you do? You love that little one. But he has clearly disobeyed you, and right now he is lying to you in an attempt to cover it up. Sure, you love him. But you also know that you can't just brush off the problem. He has to be punished-and you've got to do it. The situation caused by our sin was infinitely more complex than that. But there are some parallels. Because God is a holy God, He cannot just ignore our sin. Yet because He is a loving God, He is not merely willing to let us get what we deserve."

So I ask you, in your opinion, is the parental practice of correcting a child through "spanking" inhuman? Surely you are opposed to this method of correction since when on the subject of "torture" for "disobedience" you state "As a human, of course I would not do such a disgusting thing;"


Redstar2000, you quote a nazi speechmaker as saying "God is lonely. Hitler is lonely. Hitler is like God." but then isn't it just as easy to say "Redstar2000 is a man. Hitler is a man. Redstar2000 is like Hitler." even though we all know your not? And I'm sure that's not the only difference there too.

[redstar2000]

October, I have the impression that you are starting to "get it"...that is, beginning to realize the vast gulf that lies between the communist and the believer.

The idea that "Almighty God" has to protect himself against the possibility of revolution in "Heaven" makes me smile...if there were such a place, and I were there, I'd still be a revolutionary. There's just something about kings that calls for the headman's ax. :cheesy:

"for society to function, obedience is at the core"...yes, that is quite true for class society. What we communists seek is a society without masters.

No! Impossible! It can't work! It's against human nature! God forbids it!

Just thought I'd throw those in and save you the trouble. I'm sure you'll recognize them...they are the classic responses of all masters and elites when faced with the possibility of the end of their power, wealth, prestige, etc.

"in your opinion, is the parental practice of correcting a child through 'spanking' inhuman?"

Got it in one, October! The more civilized countries in the European Union have actually made "spanking" a child a criminal offense and rightfully so! Violence against children is inexcusable!

Of course, the "Bible" explicitly says otherwise...but what is that to me?

See how really different our views are, October? If you are right, you will enjoy eternal bliss and I will suffer eternal torment. If I am right, we will both be wormfood...but the human species will someday be free.

As they say down at my neighborhood casino: place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.

:cool:

[October]

Redstar2000, when you say "for society to function, obedience is at the core"...yes, that is quite true for class society. What we communists seek is a society without masters." I believe you are starting to confuse communism with anarchy. I am not completely condemning the statement of communists seeking a society without masters as false, but when attempting to bring up a communist society, it is imperative that everyone follows their purpose and stays obedient to the cause. Allowing everyone to go their own way in order to stay free from any master other than themselves is far from communism.

As far as your views on forms of punishment, how far do they extend Redstar2000? What of corporal punishment.. or even the death penalty? Do you feel that a stern chat with a thief, or a murderer will cause them to change their ways? What ferments the minds of youth into believing such things are acceptable? A lenient society that allows them to get away with it. Do you really believe that in a communist society, the anti-conformity brought by individualists would not only be allowed but also be tolerated? I highly doubt that.

I agree Redstar2000, we both have very different views on a lot of things, but I'm glad that we are able to discuss our opinions and present our facts in a pleasant manner. If I am correct, I will enjoy eternal bliss and you will suffer eternal torment. If you are correct, we will both be wormfood...but the human species will someday be... extinct. But tell me, who has more to lose on this wager, You or I? A person can afford to be incorrect on a lot of issues, this just isn't one of them.

I am curious as to how you came to the logical conclusion to believe in what you do Redstar2000. You appear to be an intelligent individual but I fail to see what facts you have come to base your atheistic beliefs on. I'm sure you must have done some studying on the matter, as have I, but it seems as though the more I come to know about science, the less it supports the idea of anything conceiving without supernatural origin.

[redstar2000]

"I believe you are confusing communism with anarchy."

The differences between communism and anarchism, October, have to do with methods and speed of transition, not with ultimate goals. In fact, the anarchists (some of them) may be winning the argument...certainly the kind of "discipline" characteristic of Stalin's Russia or Mao's China is "a thing of the past" among sensible communists.

The forms of justice in communist society would constitute a lengthy digression...it's controversial, even among communists. But "punishment" in the Biblical sense is not part of our outlook...we prefer to "save" those who can be saved by treating criminals in a humane and dignified way. I'm reasonably certain that we'll execute some people from time to time; the gulags that we see in America now will be torn down...most of their miserable captives have committed no crime more serious than possession of marijuana.

Yes, we will not simply allow or tolerate non-conformity...we will celebrate it. Communism is about freedom or it is about nothing!

But what about freedom for Nazis, racists, religious fundamentalists who think they have a God-given right to beat their kids?

LOL! Freedom is for civilized people, not barbarians. :cheesy:

I rather like that image of "youthful minds fermenting"...in a way, that's what happens at boards like this one. It takes some time for an instinctively rebellious kid to mature into a committed revolutionary...sort of like a good wine.

If I'm as "intelligent" as you keep saying I am, how come you're still arguing with me?

Atheism isn't a "belief"...it's an observation. There's simply no reliable evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities.

Even if all existing science were totally discredited, I'd go for new science...I wouldn't fall back on superstition. We've had 6,000 years for religion to show us what it has to offer...murder, slavery, torture, ignorance, etc., etc., etc. There's no way I will accept that!

I don't think any decent human being ought to accept it! If I find any that do, I will do my best to argue them out of it. Religion, like cannibalism, is unworthy of civilized human beings.

I wonder, though. Let's say you win "Pascal's wager" and do qualify for "eternal bliss". Will you really enjoy it knowing all the while that millions or billions of people are screaming in the agony of eternal torture?

How civilized are you, October?

:cool:

[Umoja]

Isn't Atheism the denial of God, and Agnosticism not knowing if God exist or not?

[October]

Redstar2000, I have become quite confused as to where you stand in some issues because to me there appears to be contradictions arising in your more recent posts.

In your last post, one can quote you saying "Communism is about freedom or it is about nothing!" but less than 2 weeks ago you can be quoted as saying "There will be things under communism that will not be permitted"

Also in your last post you can be quoted saying "Freedom is for civilized people, not barbarians." but still less that 2 weeks ago you were talking of "human monsters like Hitler" who led his campaign because he believed the EXACT same thing as you just stated.

Your main offense against the possibility of there being a God remains constant, but I very much disagree. You said "There's simply no reliable evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities." Actually there is no reliable evidence for the theory of evolution. Allow me to quote some reliable evidence by H. Morris on the subject of entropy, one of the many reasons why evolution remains scientifically impossible.

"The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy-also known as the second law of thermodynamics-stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems-in fact all systems, without exception.

"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found-not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law'), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles."

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists-that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

"Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent."

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all.

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism."

So I ask you Redstar2000, how much reliable scientific evidence do you really need? There is a GREAT abundance of it out there and you would know all this if you actually wanted to form a logical deduction rather than an opinion. Do you desire more proof? Just ask and I will be more than happy to bring you more scientific facts on why evolution is impossible. What proof have you based your current beliefs on, or is there any?


As to my reply to your quote "I wonder, though. Let's say you win "Pascal's wager" and do qualify for "eternal bliss". Will you really enjoy it knowing all the while that millions or billions of people are screaming in the agony of eternal torture?" Actually yes, I will enjoy myself very much. The memories of my life on earth will become as faint as a dream that began just before awaking from a short nap. But what about you Redstar2000. Let's say you get your perfect communist world. Will you really enjoy it knowing of all the people that had to die for it to be so? Then again, to you "freedom is for civilized people, not barbarians"

How civilized are you, Redstar2000?

[redstar2000]

Umoja, as Engels once said, "Agnostics are just shame-faced atheists."

October, even if you post the entire Creationist Encyclopaedia (presuming that there is such a thing and that the moderators permit it), it doesn't change anything. If our understanding of the details of evolution is faulty (and it almost certainly is), it remains infinitely superior to any theological speculation, regardless of the source.

Yes, there will be things that will not be permitted in communist society. Foremost among them will be the prohibition of the exploitation of the labor of one person for the financial gain of another. This "core freedom" according to capitalism will no longer exist. But it's not necessary to put people in prison to stop that...it's only necessary to place the means of production in the collective hands of the working class.

One thing that I certainly want to prohibit is the public exercise of religion. (That got you in a tender spot, didn't it?) No churches (all demolished), no religious processions, no religious schools, no street preaching, etc. Even place names and street names with religious connotations will be changed. (goodbye San Francisco; welcome Yerba Buena) Adult believers can gather in one another's homes and worship, quietly, in whatever way that pleases them...but indoctrinating pre-adolescents will be a serious crime.

Sends you right up the wall, right? :cheesy:

Hitler's idea of barbarism and mine have a few differences, don't you think? Hitler thought that "non-Aryans" were racial barbarians, genetically barbaric, that should be reduced to slavery or exterminated.

My definition is ideological...those who advocate the most monstrous forms of oppression and exploitation are barbarians. By my definition, Hitler was a barbarian and so are those who follow him today.

I have no personal objection to such vermin pissing and moaning to each other on the internet...but if they stick their ugly heads up in public, they should be immediately smashed! If that means summary execution, I can live with that.

As I can live with the deaths that may occur in the course of international communist revolution. I don't welcome it, of course. But I recognize that the longer imperialism endures, the more bloody adventures like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are going to occur...with ever greater slaughter and, of course, with Christian and Muslim clergymen cheerleading the whole ugly business--like they always do. Putting an end to it is worth whatever the cost in lives might be...and, in fact, I think it possible that the loss might be relatively small.

Were you aware that when the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd in October 1917, there was one wounded and zero killed? It really doesn't have to be a bloodbath.

And, of course, even if it were a bloodbath, it would not be an eternal one. At our very most barbaric worst, we human "sinners" can only imitate the Hell that your God created...we can't replicate it!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:41 am on Mar. 13, 2003)

[GoCommunism]

Ok...I don't usually support the "religion" side...but October is making a few good points and is slamming you left and right RedStar. Think you need to quit before it gets any worse. :shocked:

[redstar2000]

GoCommunism, if I am, as you say, getting "slammed"...how is it I feel untouched?

Perhaps you could summarize a few of October's arguments that you feel are "telling blows"...and I will certainly respond to them in more detail if necessary.

Meanwhile, here's a little link on George W. Bush's drive to destroy Babylon...oops, I mean Baghdad:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2.../we_326_01.html (http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/11/we_326_01.html)

This decussion continues in the "Religion is Shit" thread in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

:cool:

[Geddan]

To base communism on christianity sounds pretty bad to me. The bible contains as much communist ideas as it contains reactionary, racist, xenophobic bullshit... and we all know people saying "You can't just pick the best out of the Bible, you have to pick it all or not pick at all".

Sorry to disappoint all religious people, but when capitalism is gone, religion won't have long to live.

[Rage298]

There can never be complete freedom under any form of government--that includes communism, however, a system can be implemented that can satisfy to a degree where *complete* freedom is *not* necessary.
Communism, I believe, if given a chance to evolve, will provide that limited, yet great freedom.

[Rastafari]

Howabout the sanctity of poverty is an invention of the rich?

[KRAZYKILLA]

RAGE298 I love you.. Guyanese Communist? yay!!!! someone who is guyanese (im 50% guyanese) is here! yes! hahahahaah
emaile rage.... if your in chciago drop me a line. as i know; im the only guyanese guy in chicago...




anyways atheists rarely grasp any true concepts besides mathemaics. Im tired of fucking around with atheists and there lack of belief of the Creator. How the fuck were we created? (please dont say the universe or whatever.)

[KRAZYKILLA]

Geddan and Redstar2000. The bible is EXTREMELY COMMUNISTIC. Jesus? His teachings? Just because CAPITALISTS EXPLOIT religion does not mean theres anything wrong with religion.

[redstar2000]

"The Bible is EXTREMELY COMMUNISTIC!" :cheesy:

As in "the poor ye shall always have with thee"?

"How the fuck were we created"? Ever hear of sex, KK? Or do you really want a long detailed summary of current evolutionary thought?

No, I didn't think you did.

:cool:

[Umoja]

Which Gospel is that quote from Redstar? It would change what the agenda of what the person was.

Also, you can note how the message of the Bible seems to change at random points. Pauls later letters grow more and more anti-feminist over time.

[redstar2000]

Umoja, it's in what is thought to be the oldest "gospel"--Mark 14:7 and is repeated in Matthew 26:11.

Much as I'd love to pass myself off as a biblical scholar, I "confess" that I consulted

http://www.biblegateway.com

Next time someone tosses off a quotation, you can check up on them.

:cool:

[Umoja]

I kind of what to explain my take on that verse, since you say it's one of the many, can't argue there, damning points of Christianity. But you probubly wouldn't care much.

[redstar2000]

The problem as I see it is that many people find it difficult to resist the temptation to read their own views into a historical figure...regardless of what that figure actually stood for.

For example, it would be "nice" if we could really "prove" that Yeshuah was some kind of "proto-communist"...it would make communism far more "respectable" than it is.

Imagine what fun we could have confronting the pro-capitalist religious fundamentalists: "Thy wealth shall be taken from thee and thy power shall be laid waste. Thus sayeth the Lord!"

But is it really fair to lay such burdens on a 1st century small-town reforming Jewish rabbi who simply wanted Jews to repent from "sin"? It was bad enough that the con-men made him into a "god"...now some people want to turn him into a communist?

Still, such was the fate of many prominent people of that era...and our own. There's another thread on this board which suggests that Che had "a physical resemblence to Jesus" and that he "would have been a disciple", etc. This is a modern historical figure...a man that I actually met and shook hands with and spoke with...and they want to make him into some quasi-divine entity. Will he be canonized by the Catholic Pope sometime before the end of this century?

I wouldn't put it past the bastards!

:cool:

[Umoja]

Well the thing is, I don't even know if Jesus really existed, and I don't consider him God. He wasn't a small town guy though, the Jewish ruling class hated this guy.

The verse, in practical application, in my own life, means that a person will never truly be rich. They will always be poor in something, needn't it to be material. But I'm weird.

I understand you, saying people will change the meanings to fit their purpose, but to me that is the highest form of learning. Taking what you know, and then building on it, or even off to the side.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Umoja on 4:59 am on Mar. 22, 2003
Well the thing is, I don't even know if Jesus really existed, and I don't consider him God. He wasn't a small town guy though, the Jewish ruling class hated this guy.

The verse, in practical application, in my own life, means that a person will never truly be rich. They will always be poor in something, needn't it to be material. But I'm weird.

I understand you, saying people will change the meanings to fit their purpose, but to me that is the highest form of learning. Taking what you know, and then building on it, or even off to the side.


I agree someone

it's a high mark of a person's intellegence and cunning if they can make an arguement work from either side

[canikickit]

Redstar, why don't you regale us with the tale of the time you met Che. Go on, post it in chit chat.

[redstar2000]

"Jesus" the Capitalist

Take therefore the talent* from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 25:28-30.

*a unit of currency.

It sounds to me like "Jesus" would have made a terrific manager at Wal-Mart; he's got the right attitude!

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

Redstar, in an earlier post in this thread you say something about baning relegion ie destroying churches,ect. But then you say that Adults could practice in their own homes. Are you for the abolishment of organized relegion or relegion all together?

[Umoja]

Litterally taken that's a bastard saying. But since he speaks in parables, I think one must look beyond money. This is saying, that a person who understands what they have is far better to trust with something, then a person who doesn't understand something. It doesn't mean, give the rich the ability to manage money. It means, give those who are capable the ability to manage what they are capable of in my opinion. Ofcourse, this is just based on the first thing that came to my head.

Truthaddict, I think I can answer for Redstar by saying that adults are allowed to practice their own "superstitions" in their own homes if they want, but it has no place in public life. Redstar needs to take me as his apprentice.

[redstar2000]

truthaddict11, I'd like to see all superstition (religion) completely disappear from the minds of the human species.

<sighs>

Since that is not possible in the foreseeable future, the best thing I can think of is to remove it from public life.

We know from history that when a religion is deprived of public expression, it has a pronounced tendency to wither away. Even though there is (or used to be) a storefront "Temple of Apollo" on Jones Street in San Francisco, the worship of that particular diety has pretty much dwindled to zero.

It took Christianity a couple of centuries to wipe out, more or less, all of the classical religions. I hope we can do the same in less time.

But, we'll see how it goes.

:cool:

[Umoja]

Does that mean I can be your apprentice?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:53 am on Mar. 24, 2003
truthaddict11, I'd like to see all superstition (religion) completely disappear from the minds of the human species.

<sighs>

Since that is not possible in the foreseeable future, the best thing I can think of is to remove it from public life.

We know from history that when a religion is deprived of public expression, it has a pronounced tendency to wither away. Even though there is (or used to be) a storefront "Temple of Apollo" on Jones Street in San Francisco, the worship of that particular diety has pretty much dwindled to zero.

It took Christianity a couple of centuries to wipe out, more or less, all of the classical religions. I hope we can do the same in less time.

But, we'll see how it goes.

:cool:


The more power national govt. gained the more the power of the Pope dwindled


I think what you should strive for is the decrease of Religious power as opposed to forced athiesm.


Damn people what is it with everyone here and anti diversity?


Religion is part of people's culture, history, and damn it, it makes some people feel good.


Decrease the power of religion not religion it's self

[redstar2000]

LL95, what's the difference between "the power of religion" and "religion itself"?

It seems to me that once someone has decided that a particular religion is "true" (no matter what the reason), then the views of that religion will "guide" that person's conduct...occasionally for the better, usually for the worse.

Once you believe, then you take the "power" of that belief within yourself and start acting like that religion tells you to act.

I don't see how, in practice, you can separate the "power" of religion from "religion itself."

As to religion "making people happy," that doesn't mean much to me. Nothing, in fact. There's some pretty awful things that make some people "happy"...but I don't think we should allow them to be done anyway.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:56 am on Mar. 24, 2003
LL95, what's the difference between "the power of religion" and "religion itself"?

It seems to me that once someone has decided that a particular religion is "true" (no matter what the reason), then the views of that religion will "guide" that person's conduct...occasionally for the better, usually for the worse.

Once you believe, then you take the "power" of that belief within yourself and start acting like that religion tells you to act.

I don't see how, in practice, you can separate the "power" of religion from "religion itself."

As to religion "making people happy," that doesn't mean much to me. Nothing, in fact. There's some pretty awful things that make some people "happy"...but I don't think we should allow them to be done anyway.

:cool:

by happy I meant gets them through life, empowers them


There is a difference between religion's power and religion.


For instance 76th street baptist church isn't hurting you is it?

However politicaly the Pope has control of about 1 sixth of the population of the world

Now removing it's influence through out the world politicaly is needed but theres no reason they can't worshop God.


not to mention somethings the Pope has done has been good.


He has apologized on the behalf of the catholic church on it's treatment of muslims, jews, and it's actions in the slave trade and the holocaust.


John Paul teh second is a good guy and he really hasn't don't anything to make the catholic church appear bad, or anything bad at all.


Redstar...that whole dogma arguement is bullshit


I'm catholic, my family is catholic, we don't go to confession every two weeks, and pray the rosary everyday.

Religion doesn't dictate life the way you make it appear

[Umoja]

I read something by Elaine Pagels, Proffessor of Religion at Princeton, she made a good point. Many people can live their entire lives without going to the spiritual aspect of it for guidance, but for certain people, they are sort of forced towards that aspect of life style. Now, regardless, Redstar, you haven't said if I could train as your apprentice yet!

:biggrin:

(Edited by Umoja at 12:20 pm on Mar. 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"Certain people are sort of forced towards that [spiritual] lifestyle."

I don't see how anyone could know that at this point...though there's some evidence that people who suffer from temporal lobe epilespy as well as certain kinds of head injuries seem particularly vulnerable to "religious visions".

But it seems unlikely to me that people in normal mental health would ever be drawn to religion were they not indoctrinated as children with that nonsense. Children have no way to tell when their parents tell them stupid things...and by the time they are old enough to begin thinking for themselves, they find themselves in a cultural matrix that approves religious affiliation and attaches a stigma to disbelief; it's "easier" just to go along with the norm.

And, as LL95 says, some do find it "empowering"...just as racism is "empowering" to some poor white people or sexism is "empowering" to some weak men.

LL95, I think it is misleading to suggest that the Pope or the Vatican "politically controls" all the Catholics in the world. They'd like to, but they really don't.

Their power is more subtle than that (usually). For example, when Argentine archbishops tell their followers to take part in the bourgeois elections there but not to expect any real improvement in their living situation--what is really being said is that people on earth should expect to suffer until such time as "God" chooses to bless them. Clearly this is the exact opposite of revolutionary struggle...even though, cleverly, the alternative of revolutionary struggle isn't even mentioned.

The archbishops are relying on the power of faith...not on their ability to dictate political policy. They have a political objective--stop revolutionary change in Argentine--but their method is "non-political".

This is not to say they won't use political power when they can get their hands on it (Spain under Franco being a good example). Or that they wouldn't like very much to get some more political power now (Opus Dei being a good example). But they don't need political power in the sense that overtly political people need it. They have other ways.

The Russian Orthodox Church had zero political power in the USSR; nevertheless, it survived and is now quite strong...though not as much as it was under the Czars. I think this is because it was allowed a public presence that served to reinforce belief even though the government was "officially atheist".

I have not followed the career of John Paul II closely, so I cannot comment on what he has done in detail. His formal apologies for various and sundry outrages "cut no ice" with me; if a Klansman apoligized for the lynching of black people in the American South, would that make racism ok with you?

But it is clear that J2P2 is directly responsible for Catholic opposition to women having the right to choose abortion if they so wish...and that is foul and disgusting in my view.

Who does this mumbling, senile turd think he is? Oh, right, I forgot, the directly appointed representative of "Christ" on earth. Well, guess that makes it "ok".

Except it doesn't.

As to the behavior of you and your family, I concede readily that you know the details far better than I. Many American Catholics are "nominal" or even "lapsed" Catholics; little of their behavior is apparently influenced by the Church. Good for them.

But will they remain that way? As I said in an earlier thread on this subject, all it takes is one charismatic leader to turn a "ho-hum" religious faith into a fire-breathing monster...with readily predictable results.

It ain't a pretty picture.

:cool:

PS: Sure, Umoja, you can be my "apprentice" if you like...though I haven't the foggiest idea of what that would mean. :confused:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:38 am on Mar. 24, 2003)

[Umoja]

What I meant by people are attracted to the spiritual aspect of life, is not necessarily refering to NDE's or stuff of that nature. I'm more reffering to the fact, that maybe half your family dies all at once. That could pull you towards something far more abstract as an answer to a persons problems. This perhaps was the original purpose of most religions, and still holds relevance today.

Oh, boy, oh boy. I'm your apprentice!

Is the smoking smiley, your Signature, because you said PS after it?

[ravengod]

I don t get it
you are still argueing about religion
it is clear that on this topic one cannot change the other's opinion
those who think that communism is compatible with religion(with which i agree) will never submit to the opposants' arguments

[Umoja]

Actually, Redstar's superior debating skills have made me more religiously questing. I think that's good for me, because I was becoming to much of a Fundamentalist Christian.

[redstar2000]

ravengod, I am not looking for "submission" to my arguments.

I want people to think about this stuff instead of the kind of flabby, muddled "tolerance" that people usually bring to these arguments.

Do you remember when someone published that idiotic book I'm OK, You're OK? I thought it was perfect for the kind of mindless oatmeal-brained thinking that passes for discussion in America.

If I convince someone in these arguments, fine. If I don't, perhaps I've sparked skepticism in a reader...or reinforced some skepticism that was already emerging.

I understand that there will be, for a very long time to come, people who will try to "reconcile" communism and religion...even though it can't be done. I want to try to convince them to give up this hopeless project...and choose what they really want to be.

Or as the miners' song had it: Which side are you on?

:cool:

PS: yes, Umoja, the smoking.gif is a kind of sig for me...though others occasionally use it. I think its use should be restricted to people who actually smoke (something). But...it's not copyrighted. :cheesy:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:19 pm on Mar. 24, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

not to mention somethings the Pope has done has been good.


He has apologized on the behalf of the catholic church on it's treatment of muslims, jews, and it's actions in the slave trade and the holocaust.


John Paul teh second is a good guy and he really hasn't don't anything to make the catholic church appear bad, or anything bad at all


Except ban the use of condoms in the eyes of the church. Do you think that young catholics will stop having sex since it can't be protected? No, they'll continue having sex, unprotected, thanks Pope John Paul II!

[YerbaMateJ]

Redstar--- Thanx for including "Yerba Street" as being one of the Post-Communist Revolution. I'm flattered. ;)

And about your reference to me mentioning how Che "physically resembled Jesus" in another thread---I think you know that I didn't link that up to him being
God or something. I would've come up with something better than that---had I believed that---which I don't.

You thought that just because I thought Che was almost superhumanly exceptional in certain ways that most of us are not--- you thought I believed in "miracles" and "tears" falling from statues. Not.
Although--- if you shook hands with the Comandante--- I don't know Redstar--- I think maybe you are blessed.

Come oooooooon. Tell us when, where, how and why you met him. I wanna know I wanna know you lucky lucky person!!!!!! TELL us!!!!!!!!! :cheesy:

[truthaddict11]

didnt a priest create Jesus and the gospels? if someone can provide a link it would help

[Umoja]

I don't think a priest created Jesus, because the time frame would be all wrong, for him to have had any influence. He was probubly romantized to higher amount, then he's worthy of though. Also, considering the similarities between the frist three gospels, and the fact that many Gnostic Christians (heretics) wrote "Gospels" of their own (perhaps excluding the Gospel of Thomas), I'd think that Jesus was highly romantized, but it's extremely unlikely that one person made him up. Upon further analysis it was probubly Peter who blew Jesus out of proportion the most.

[truthaddict11]

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/josjes.html

[Umoja]

I read it and was confused with what I was reading. If this was supposed to say Jesus was made up, that would easily be a falacy according to his thinking because if Josephus wrote in 230 AD(CE), Or better yet Negative 1613 Baha'i Era, while Ireneaus wrote against Christian hersey in 180 AD(CE). Further more, the church heirarchy began to develop after the last of the apostles died, the apostles would logically have existed, which would explain why Paul had contact with them.... Despite how much easier life would be if Jesus were made up, I don't think it's that likely.