Religion Among Revolutionists, Communists, etc. - Does it ex

[Revolutionist Eskimo]

I'm kinda new to the world of Revolution & Comunism and I was wondering, did Che ever have a religion? and Does religion have any place in the world Revolution &Communism?

[CubanFox]

Che was an atheist, but Fidel's a devout Christian. Many Jews lived in the USSR. Marx said it was the opiate of the masses (mind you, that was in the 19th century) but never said it was the root of all evil. Nowadays, TV is more like the opiate of the masses.

[GCusack]

Marx him self was a Lutherine, convert from Judaism. Cuba has a strong sense of religion as all Spanish speaking countries do! Parts of the USSR were religious, however, other parts were just as bad for the Jews as Nazi Germany was!

[CubanFox]

I play video games, watch alot of TV and so on but I still think the mass media is the crack of today's society.

[immortal211]

Religion to me has nothing to do with Communism. IF it was up to me i would abolish the churches power over the State (people).


"Unite Workingmen"

[booga]

Unfortunately, it is a marriage made in hell! Religion and the state and communism are not unseperatable. There is no seperation. We must create! We have all of history and the potential of the future to create an economic system that is beneficial to the continued existance of mankind.

Apostacy Now? Yes!

[booga]

Revolutionist Eskimo,

It's not that communism and Che's life is complicated, its that we are working with economic and religious theories which go very far back in the history of man.

If we study a little on...let's say King Henry the seventh or the religions wars of 1550-1650 we can learn about the nature of man and his quest for utopia.

I still don't know why the Kings were so into gold because as religious people we are taught that obedience is to seek out wisdom. The only other thing I can think of is man's pride and his preference over his own laws instead of God's law. (What are God's laws???) First, does man clearly understand himself and his existance???

Many say Che was an atheist and it doesn't bother me one bit to hear this because the bible already addresses this issue. The bible states that those who do not believe in God are better off than those who do because those who believe in God yet do not do his will are condemned. How? I don't know.

In one part of the bible the people are asking Jesus this question: They said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"

Jesus answered them saying "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

All through time, it can be said by the theologians of religion that no one has really had a clear knowledge of who Jesus was or what he was about. Men who ruled went crazy trying to figure out what he stood for and wars were fought to defend ideologies which has their basis on the bible.

It is my perception at this time, that Che was under no obligation to confess a belief in a God because he was already living many things that Jesus has taught yet very few understood, then there are the elect, which I am sure have been mentioned and have been around since the begining as well.

Che to me, seemed very specific about an end result and that result had everything to do with the abolishment of imperialism. Jesus, too was adamant in his stand against imperialism as it went against God's will for man.

Although, it may seem that there is too much knowledge to acquire we must not become discouraged. We will bear the burdens of one another and come together by organizing and sharing of knowledge. Just be careful who you organize with and if you find yourself alone in your endeavors that is okay too, for now...

[redstar2000]

Revolutionist Eskimo, I'm sorry to inform you that there appears to be a substantial number of people on this board who still take religion seriously.

See the sticky thread at the top of the Theory forum, follow some of the links, and you'll see what I mean.

I personally find it utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people--assuming lefties are intelligent--can still speak as if these superstitions had any validity whatsoever or are any more deserving of "tolerance" than cannibalism.

I've argued the subject until my fingers were about to fall off...without much success (that I know of). I'm convinced that even after the revolution, the struggle to emancipate the human mind from superstition of all kinds will be lengthy and arduous.

I have no doubt that eventually religion will only be of interest to a few dour and crabbed historians...but I couldn't even begin to guess how long that will take.

Perhaps just two or three centuries...if we're lucky.

:cool:

[Subcomandante Marcos]

I myself am a string believer on Christianism (lets not mistake it with catholics). I dont believe on the catholics at all, they are phony and extreme right most of them.

But i believe the State must be atheist but allowe religion since it is our freedom and we must learn to respect others.

What I believe is in universal love and kindness, Im not going to go kill all the atheist just because they dont agree with me, that is fundamentalism, and im not going to go persuade others with stupid scams just so they turn christians.

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Subcomandante Marcos on 3:33 am on May 11, 2003
I myself am a string believer on Christianism (lets not mistake it with catholics). I dont believe on the catholics at all, they are phony and extreme right most of them.

But i believe the State must be atheist but allowe religion since it is our freedom and we must learn to respect others.

What I believe is in universal love and kindness, Im not going to go kill all the atheist just because they dont agree with me, that is fundamentalism, and im not going to go persuade others with stupid scams just so they turn christians.

Totally with you on that one, Marcos. Atheists, remember this: when you hear bullshit coming from the Church, it's probably Catholic.

[atlanticche]

if a communist country is to allow religion itself must be either athiest
or a certain religion though not allowing others which would then turn to a dictatorship which wouldn't work so to be religous it cant be very hardline
atheist then

[GCusack]

Unfortunately I am Baptised a Catholic, however, I don't believe the shit they spout for their mouths! Its completely stuck in the past! But then so too are most religions! Very few can have a healthy relationship with the way the world works now! I do not think that religion should be abolished I still feel the people deserve the right to choose! If it was up to me I would renounce the faith!

[redstar2000]

"If it was up to me I would renounce the faith!" -- GCusack

But it is up to you.

JUST DO IT!

:cool:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I personally find it utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people--assuming lefties are intelligent--can still speak as if these superstitions had any validity whatsoever or are any more deserving of "tolerance" than cannibalism.
news flash: People's intelligence is not measured by how much they agree with you.

Now please explain to me exactly why you wish to abolish religions that preach love, peace and compassion.

And then explain why you're trying to make everyone think the same way you do. I thought leftists weren't supposed to be elitist snobs...

[booga]

I too, am a baptized Catholic of the Roman church yet I am not committed to the church. I only chose to seek out the great Jesus of the bible and I find that only the bible offers true freedom and liberty and guess what? It (bible) doesn't mind if it does not get to come along, it's power is only there to free us. Much that is required is the law of love in our hearts (oh joy???) :smile:

[redstar2000]

"People's intelligence is not measured by how much they agree with you."

Did I suggest that? There are people who disagree with me about many things but agree with me that religion is superstition in theory and barbaric in practice. Indeed, I suspect this is the consensus among people who've given the matter any real thought.

"Now please explain to me exactly why you wish to abolish religions that preach love, peace and compassion."

Because I look at what social institutions actually do...not simply what they claim to do.

With a few trivial exceptions, all religions have been resolutely opposed to the emancipation of the working class since the ink on the Communist Manifesto was still damp.

In addition to which, despite all the yapping about "love, peace, and compassion", all religions without hesitation support their local ruling class" against ordinary people at home and abroad.

"And then explain why you're trying to make everyone think the same way you do."

Because I'm right.

"I thought leftists weren't supposed to be elitist snobs..."

Well, they're not. If you find one on this board, let me know, and I'll criticize his attitude.

On the other hand, if you propose that "it doesn't matter what people think," that's not "anti-elitism", that's hyper-elitism.

What that would be saying, in effect, is that one should simply dismiss out of hand the possibility that anyone on this board will "matter", will play any kind of significant role in times to come. Only those who are "significant" now, really "count". The rabble can believe any nonsense they wish...as long as they obey their "proper" masters, who cares what they think?

Me.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:35 pm on May 14, 2003)

[Beccie]

I have no doubt that Christianity, today, supports the ruling class. but I do think that the founders of Christianity would be extremely disappointed with what it has become. Liberation Theology is the only Christian movement (that I know of) that is truly Christian.

Those people who are "religious" may have given this issue more thought then you think, Redstar.

[redstar2000]

"Those people who are 'religious" may have given the matter more thought then you think, Redstar."

Perhaps they have, Commie01, but then why don't they show it?

I've long since completely lost track of how many times this stuff has come up, how many posts I've made on the subject, etc.?

Do you know that not once have I seen anyone produce any credible evidence on the subject?

Not once has anyone actually produced a single example of a real communist who also is "deeply and sincerely religious"? (You can't just "say" it's true, you have to actually show that Fidel, for example, goes to mass and confession, takes the host, etc.)

It's all this nebulous crap and flabby "leave me alone to believe whatever horseshit I wanna believe" stuff.

Not to mention "you're a cynical old meanie for not allowing me to pass off dog turds as pearls of divine wisdom."

Ok, have it your way. I'm a "cranky, stiff-necked, arrogant old bastard" who will not let you pass off "liberation theology" as anything but a transparent fake. That goes for any other kind of theology as well!

No pasaran!

And I mean it.

:cool:

[Beccie]

Not once has anyone actually produced a single example of a real communist who also is "deeply and sincerely religious"?

I have never argued that. I have no evidence and to be perfectly honest I do not care weather real communists are religious or not.

I would like you too give me some evidence that Liberation Theology is "fake"

[redstar2000]

When I say that "liberation" theology is fake, Commie01, I'm not talking about the personal sincereity of the proponents. I mean that it's fake by virtue of its central premise.

Some decades ago, a few of the more intelligent catholics observed that their church was losing influence among the ordinary people of Central and South America.

At the same time, they noticed that their rivals, protestant evangelicals and various strands of "marxism", were gaining influence.

Clearly a "re-branding", a new "image" was required to make the church "relevant" again.

They actually used the word "relevant", by the way. One would imagine that a really sincere follower of "the one true god & his holy path" would not give a crap about "relevance"...there would seem to be in principle a rather wide gulf between "real" spirituality and "today's paid attendance".

Be that as it may, the catholics involved in this stuff began to suggest that the church should actively and publicly concern itself with the fate of the peasantry...should suggest in forceful terms that the old landowning aristocracy should be compelled to disgorge at least some of their lands in order that the peasantry might rise up at least a little from absolute misery.

This would make Catholicism "relevant" again, not to mention discouraging defections to protestantism or, worse, "Marxism" (it was really Leninism-Maoism that was giving them nightmares...they didn't know Marxism from rheumatism).

Thus, the central premise is a fake: their "concern" for the "poor" of Central and South America does not have any independent foundation (much less a communist theoretical basis); it's simply a maneuver to preserve their dominant role in the rural social life of those unhappy lands.

Here's how it works. To really support the landless peasantry in Central and South America, you would need a movement prepared to attack and dispossess the rural ruling class, the landowning aristocracy.

But that's not allowed. A good Catholic is not permitted to harm "his brother in Christ".

The Vatican likes to remind the "liberation" theologians of this every so often; it does not matter what the peasantry wants...what matters is what they are permitted to acquire without harming other catholics, namely, the rich ones.

Thus it can only be a fake; sincere or not, but still a fake.

Either you are genuinely concerned with the fate of the poor...in which case, you have no problem with the complete liquidation of the old aristocracy--hang all those bastards!--or you're worried that your religious institution is in "trouble" with its "customers" and must change its "image" to hold on to its "market share".

That there are people on this board who are fooled by this is a good sign of how well this maneuver works. It's quite likely that many rural people in Central and South America, lacking the sophistication of westerners, are fooled even more.

But to quote that perceptive old bourgeois radical, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time".

For one, you can't fool me!

:cool:

[Sabocat]

Religion is divisive. It promotes intolerance.

Too many people have been killed in "God's" name.

Religions were created to keep the "huddled masses" in line. It's bullshit propaganda, brainwashing.

Free your minds.

[redstar2000]

By the way, I just wanted to add that it's not just a case of "backward peasants" that fall for this crap.

Go to this site and see what sort of perfumed shit "sophisticated westerners" are eating these days:

http://secure.agoramedia.com/index_leftbehind.html

Get out there and get that money.

Thus sayeth the Lord! :cheesy:

:cool:

[Sabocat]

From the website Redstar posted above...

Holy shit...(no pun intended). If anyone doesn't think this stuff is shit, take a look at this posting on the message board. Wow.

"I have been very into the left behind series books and the Bible itself for information regarding the end times. I had a question that I wondered if any one else could put some thought into. After the Christians are raptured including all children under the age of accountabilty, and those individuals with mentally challenged minds. If during the 7 years of tribulation will children recieve the mark of the beast even though are not old enough to understand . For example two non believers have a child in year one of the trib. Both parents recieve the mark of the beast. Will the child be held accountable if his parents force him to have the mark also? Or what about children born during this time to post rapture believers and the child is kidnapped and recieves the mark. How do you think this will all work out? "

just wondering,

Sarah

Hard to believe in this day and age, that someone could actually sit and seriously write this shit down.

[Beccie]

You, Redstar2000, are one of the most persuasive writers che-lives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Redstar, do you oppose freedom of religion?

Furthermore, you say that religion has been historically opposed to the liberation of the working classes. Wrong. Religious leaders are always opposed to it, because more often than not they don't really give a damn for the religion they're supposed to represent, and use it as nothing more than a money-making scheme. You have often shown this yourself (for example with that website you just found). But these corrupt exploiters who use religion for making a profit are exactly the kind of people that Jesus preached against.

Jesus and his followers played an unmistakably revolutionary role for over 300 years. That is what we Christians must return to.

Redstar, I share you contempt for the religious right. But you make the mistake of confusing Christianity's corrupt leadership with Christianity itself, and that is where you are wrong.

Communists should not fight against religion, they should fight to liberate it from the selfish capitalists that have corrupted it.

[GCusack]

I think that people must choose for themselves, internally, whether religion is rite or wrong. That is freedom, telling them that its wrong or telling them its right is not! Religion is internal and once found internally then becomes a communal thing that people who have found it can share! I don't think there is an answer to the original question because it is like argueing against someones opinion and that, at the end of it all, is pointless. An opinion can be neither right nor wrong because everyones opinions are different! Therefore religion is neither rite nor wrong! It depends on the person.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Exactly, GCusack. I completely agree.

[redstar2000]

"Jesus and his followers played an unmistakably revolutionary role for over 300 years. That is what we Christians must return to. "

You could have fooled me. What government did they overthrow? In what fashion did the Roman Empire function in a "revolutionary" way after the first Christian Emperor took power?

Arguing that the social role of religion is due to "corrupt leaders" is un-Marxist and resembles those "communists" who blame this or that Soviet leader for the fall of the USSR.

If you believe that the Christian followers are somehow better than their leaders, then you have to ask yourself why do they submit to these bad leaders? How is it that Christianity doesn't ever seem to produce anything but bad leaders?

You appear to think that it is the job of communists to "liberate Christianity" from the control of the capitalist class. The evidence suggests that they don't want to be liberated...that they like capitalism just fine! That some of them are capitalists.

Indeed, I suspect that clerical fascism would really be a wet-dream-come-true for the vast bulk of "Christendom"...repressive, puritanical, obscurantist, etc. Certainly this has been the behavior characteristic of Christians in power...and with a great deal of popular support from the pious rank-and-file.

"Redstar, do you oppose freedom of religion?"

As you would define it, the answer is probably yes. If I could, I would make it nearly impossible for you to win fresh converts (suckers) to your faith. You could personally believe, but almost every activity that religions now engage in to recruit fresh suckers would be against the law. No churches (all demolished); no place names with religious implications (San Francisco would go back to its old name, Yerba Buena); no public demonstrations of the faithful; no street preaching; no theology or divinity schools; no taking money from people to perform religious rituals or ceremonies; no production of religious pamphlets; no indoctrination of children; etc.

It wouldn't happen all at once...but it would happen. You Christians would find yourselves in the situation that you put the pagans in between 300 and 600CE. You wiped them out; there's no reason why we can't wipe you out. There'd even be a kind of justice to the whole process.

That pleases me.

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

actually many of the christian fundies believe in clerical fascism in a system called "reconstructionism" or Kingdom of Dominion. In which they dont believe Jesus will come back until a worldwide theocratic dictatorship ,like the kind in Iran,based on Old Testament law is in force.
This would mean executions for such high crimes as
Witchery
Blasphemy
Abortion
being Gay
and some want to execute unruly kids

here is a link to one of the oldest groups in support of "recontructionism" or more apporpriatly Christian Fascism
http://www.natreformassn.org/purpose.htmlsm"

[GCusack]

Discustapated- too many people have been killed in the name of communism too.

Thank you Edric O

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"You could have fooled me. What government did they overthrow? In what fashion did the Roman Empire function in a "revolutionary" way after the first Christian Emperor took power?"

None. Their revolution failed. Then again, so did many communist revolutions. Does that make them any less revolutionary?

"Arguing that the social role of religion is due to "corrupt leaders" is un-Marxist and resembles those "communists" who blame this or that Soviet leader for the fall of the USSR."

Oh, so you mean that the Soviet leadership is NOT to blame for the fall of the USSR? Then please enlighten me: who's fault was it, exactly?

"If you believe that the Christian followers are somehow better than their leaders, then you have to ask yourself why do they submit to these bad leaders? How is it that Christianity doesn't ever seem to produce anything but bad leaders?

You appear to think that it is the job of communists to "liberate Christianity" from the control of the capitalist class. The evidence suggests that they don't want to be liberated...that they like capitalism just fine! That some of them are capitalists."

A lot of communist leaders have been selfish traitors as well. Does that somehow make communism bad?

Oh, and by the way, last time I checked our job was supposed to be the liberation of the working class. But guess what? Most of the workers like capitalism just fine too! In fact, some of them are capitalists!

Can you say "victims of propaganda"?

"If I could, I would make it nearly impossible for you to win fresh converts (suckers) to your faith. You could personally believe, but almost every activity that religions now engage in to recruit fresh suckers would be against the law. No churches (all demolished); no place names with religious implications (San Francisco would go back to its old name, Yerba Buena); no public demonstrations of the faithful; no street preaching; no theology or divinity schools; no taking money from people to perform religious rituals or ceremonies; no production of religious pamphlets; no indoctrination of children; etc.

It wouldn't happen all at once...but it would happen. You Christians would find yourselves in the situation that you put the pagans in between 300 and 600CE. You wiped them out; there's no reason why we can't wipe you out. There'd even be a kind of justice to the whole process."

You make Stalin proud.

And you make me sick. You are so insecure in your atheism that you actually fear us so much as to want to drown religion in blood. Yes, the big bad Christians might actually tell people to be kind to each other, and not put Comrade Redstar's photo on every wall, like the good party sheep... err, members do.

Communism is about freedom, about liberation. YOU want to make it about repression and slavery. You, sir, are a fascist.

(Edited by Edric O at 11:55 pm on May 18, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Their revolution failed.

Wait a minute here. Are you now going to argue that the Christian emperors were not really Christian after all?

If so, why not?

Could it have something to do with the fact that when Christians get into power, they act worse, much worse, than pagans?

Oh, so you mean that the Soviet leadership is NOT to blame for the fall of the USSR? Then please enlighten me: who's fault was it, exactly?

There's no "short" answer to that one, Edric. But Marxists understand that when social systems fail, material conditions are always at the root of the explanation. The role of human personalities is usually marginal...and even when it appears to loom somewhat larger than customary, the real economic causes reassert their power in a historically brief period of time.

A lot of communist leaders have been selfish traitors as well. Does that somehow make communism bad?

Well, it suggests that, at the very least, there was something seriously wrong in their understanding of Marxism.

But as I noted above, material conditions prevail.

Oh, and by the way, last time I checked our job was supposed to be the liberation of the working class.

Wrong again, Edric. As communists, our job is to furnish the tools (an understanding of Marxism and how to use it) for the working class to liberate itself. The Leninist concept of "great leaders" as secular versions of Moses "leading" the working class into "the promised land" is discredited among serious Marxists. It didn't work.

You make Stalin proud.

And you make me sick. You are so insecure in your atheism that you actually fear us so much as to want to drown religion in blood. Yes, the big bad Christians might actually tell people to be kind to each other, and not put Comrade Redstar's photo on every wall, like the good party sheep... err, members do.

Communism is about freedom, about liberation. YOU want to make it about repression and slavery. You, sir, are a fascist

I thought my remarks would "get to you" and I was right. Though I said nothing of "blood" and likewise nothing of "having my picture on people's walls", you are ready at one and the same time to call me a "Stalinist" and a "fascist".

Has anyone noticed besides me that Christians always assume that their enemies, if in power, will behave just like they do? None of the proposals I made are necessarily connected to violence in any way unless Christians take up the sword in defense of their "Lord" (really in defence of their right to prey on the gullible, especially children).

A sincere Christian would not need a cathedral, a public procession, a tax break or subsidy, or any "worldly crap" to worship his/her "Lord"...but we're not talking about sincereity here, are we?

Not one little bit. We're talking about people who think they "deserve" a special "place", a special "status" in human society as the authorized and official "representatives of GOD on earth"...with a very generous slice of life's goodies as is only "right and proper" for such "exalted" men.

You'd think the promise of "eternal salvation" would be more than enough for you guys...ha! What you're really concerned with is perpetuating your dirty little scam on the human species.

No!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:30 pm on May 18, 2003)

[Beccie]

there's no reason why we can't wipe you out

Really? You’re beginning to sound like a fucking Nazi!

Are you familiar with the works of Gustavo Gutiérrez? Do you know much about Oscar Romero? Oscar Romero lost his life for fighting for a better life for the oppressed of Latin America, he has a real Christian. These guys were not bad Christian leaders.

Communists should not fight against religion, they should fight to liberate it from the selfish capitalists that have corrupted it

Wonderfully said. I completely agree.

[Beccie]

I have been reading Gustavo Gutierrez Essential writings (Edited by James B. Nickoloff). He points out two opposing views of religion;

Firstly that of Karl Marx-

The social principles of Christianity preach the need of a dominating class and an oppressed class. And to the latter class they offer only the benevolence of the ruling class. The social principles of Christianity point to heaven as the compensation for all the crimes that are committed on earth. The social principles of Christianity explain all the viciousness of oppressors as a just punishment either for original sin or other sins, or as trials that the Lord, in infinite wisdom, inflicts on those the Lord has redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-hatred, servility, submission, humility- in a word, all the characteristics of scoundrel

The other view he presents is that that can be found in Isaiah-

For behold I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered and come into mind. [We will have changed reality in such a way that no one shall remember the past. The result is a global change of structures.] But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem rejoicing, and her people are a joy. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress or an old man who does not fill out his days... They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. [65:17-22]

He concludes by saying that-

This very concrete reality is the kingdom of God. In it children will not die in a few days. The people will not work for others but for theme selves, the city will be called a "rejoicing" and her people a "joy".

How could this have been transformed into what was described in the text of Marx? Unfortunately, both images are true, from different perspectives. Although the messianic promises refer to concrete material things, Marx's vision of over a century ago continues to be repeated by human beings today.

The issue, then, is whether we are capable of realizing the prophecy of Isaiah and of understanding the Kingdom of God in its integral reality, or whether we are going to give the counter-testimony that is reflected in the statements of Marx. This is precisely what is at stake in our epoch.

I feel that Gutierrez makes an interesting point. There are two competing views of what Christianity actually is. That is apparent in this thread.

I would argue that the second view is the "correct" one and that the founders of Christianity were revolutionary and they presented Jesus as a revolutionary. He stood against the religious elite and their corrupted views of Judaism.

I would also argue that the leaders of Christianity today and in history have completely misunderstood or chosen to ignore what the religion is actually about. They are not Christian at all. Marx’s view of Christianity is based on them. If Jesus came back today would he still continue to struggle against the religious elite? I think that he would.

[GCusack]

This arguements is a bit too heated! since religion is about opinion and ur opinion is ur own making it not right nor wrong just yours!!

[redstar2000]

This arguements is a bit too heated! since religion is about opinion and ur opinion is ur own making it not right nor wrong just yours!!

No, GCusack, it's not "a matter of opinion."

The opinions expressed here or anywhere are reflections of the material conditions of the world we live in, a world of exploitation, hierarcy, oppression, war, etc.

It matters what people think. When you see that people are arguing vehemently over a serious subject, you should applaud...it means that at least one of the parties to the argument (and perhaps both) has set aside the trivial distractions that capitalism provides us on such a generous scale, in order to discuss reality and how it might be preserved or changed.

And, by the way, all "opinions" are not "created equal"; some are right and some are wrong.

Really? You’re beginning to sound like a fucking Nazi!

Were the Christians who wiped out the pagans "fucking Nazis"? It's stupid to use the word "Nazi" for anything we don't like; the word has a specific historical meaning.

When I used the phrase "wiped out", I obviously did not mean "put them all on a train to a death camp." I meant end for all time the significant social existence of Christianity (and all other religions), reducing it to a handful of harmless nutballs...just as Christianity wiped out all the pagan religions of classical Rome. They didn't do it by "killing all the pagans"...we will not need to "kill all the Christians".

I would argue that the second view is the "correct" one and that the founders of Christianity were revolutionary and they presented Jesus as a revolutionary. He stood against the religious elite and their corrupted views of Judaism.

I would also argue that the leaders of Christianity today and in history have completely misunderstood or chosen to ignore what the religion is actually about. They are not Christian at all. Marx’s view of Christianity is based on them. If Jesus came back today would he still continue to struggle against the religious elite? I think that he would.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, Commie01, that you were right. The obvious response is so what?

"Jesus" ain't coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought. I'm talking about the social role today of those religious institutions (and the ideas associated with them now) which "fly the flag" of Christianity.

They are reactionary bastards and enemies of communist revolution. Perhaps "Jesus" would agree with me. Perhaps Sr. Gustavo Gutierrez would agree with me. I can't see how that would make any difference, one way or the other.

Unless the "plan" is that when communists are "in power", we are supposed to "purge" the Church of all its bad leaders and their lackies and put you guys in charge.

Ha ha! Neat trick! The answer is no!

Here's my suggestion, in some respects not all that different from your Founder's: go find a private place and pray silently for whatever you perceive to be "good". Otherwise, leave people alone! And if you won't do it voluntarily, we'll make you.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

"Jesus" ain't coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought.

or from a capitalist point of view "Karl Marx aint coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought"

[Invader Zim]

RS2000 i agree religion is all bullshit which through out history has been a tool of the capitalist classes to oppress or repress the working class. Just look at the number of popes who have had more power than any one in europe and have caused wars and started rebellions.

However i think that is people want to waste there breath praying to the sky or the moon or whatever, then let them, as long as they dont try to forse others to follow there rediculous views.

[GCusack]

Im the one sounding like a Nazi? because I'm arguing that its for people to choose whether they are religious or not?! because I am trying to show that you should not oppress something that can give so many people strength?! No I'm not the Nazi!!!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hypothetical scenario in Redstar's vision of "communist utopia":

A group of Christians get together, find a stretch of unused barren land, and build a church themselves, with their own hands.

Then Redstar's political police comes along and tells them that they are forbidden by law to have a church, so they bring in a bulldozer and tear down the building that those people put their heart into building.

Oh yes, gotta love utopia...


Also, Redstar, the ancient Christian revolution failed in the EXACT SAME WAY that the Russian Bolshevik Revolution failed. When the revolutionaries finally came to power, reactionary elements among them took over and completely twisted everything that the revolution stood for.

[Moskitto]

Edric and Cusack are correct, By Redstars own logic he is a nazi sympathizer since Stalin and the soviet leadership, who allied themselves with nazi Germany and appointed nazis as post war leaders, were devout Marxists. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

I guess Redstar doesn't care what dead people think, I guess he is no really Marxist, Leninist, or anything else like that for that matter, Bennite maybe? but he doesn't follow the extreme atheist dogma of Marx. He doesn't care what Jesus would think of what became of Christianity, because he's dead, I think Marx wouldn't like the murder communism has caused much, since he's dead, There's no use in following him. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

some groups may argue that teaching evolution is wrong, they argue that teaching people to follow the Koran as the word of the lord and show non-believers as being "dillusional." Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

Some capitalists may argue that communist parents should be allowed to be parents, only if they store left wing literature away from their children, Nazis were excellent at making their people burn books they didn't like, These groups all think that the end to the spread of literature they don't like is an excellent policy. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

Capitalists imagine all communists to be stupid kiddies posting on forums who will grow up in a few years. Capitalists love to stereotype their enemies. Of course, this is horseshit, but the same theory is accepted as logical from the horses mouth itself, Redstar.

When a capitalist is ignorant with statements made by his left wing opposition, he is insulted into submission, when Redstar is ignorant as to the statements of his enemies, silence.

[redstar2000]

Im the one sounding like a Nazi? -- GCusack

Did I say that you sounded like a "nazi"? Dammit, learn to read.

A group of Christians get together, find a stretch of unused barren land, and build a church themselves, with their own hands.

Then Redstar's political police comes along and tells them that they are forbidden by law to have a church, so they bring in a bulldozer and tear down the building that those people put their heart into building. -- EdricO

Yes, I'm certainly a "heartless" bastard, ain't I?

Having settled that, let's look a little more closely into this dramatic scenario of "Stalinist tyranny"?

Buildings more elaborate than mud huts require materials...where did they come from? Were resources for this purpose actually allocated by some body representative of the working class? Were they stolen?

Then the materials had to be transported. Where did the truck(s) come from? Were public property and resources "diverted" for this purpose in the hopes that "no one would notice"?

Then, under what guise were the utilities connected?

I don't think that such a structure could be erected, even in a barren wilderness, without violating severe laws against public corruption (stealing of social property for private use). (I overlook possible violations of environmental regulations; "unused, barren land" might still be protected.)

I have no understanding why it is "necessary" to "worship" in company, of course...not to mention why the faithful cannot gather in each other's living rooms. But if, for some reason, a group of adult Christians wish to meet in numbers too large for a private dwelling, here's a legal way to do it: start a small business (like a restaurant) which would normally be open to the public (small businesses would enjoy considerable tolerance by communist authorities for an extended period of time). Every Sunday morning, cover the windows and put a sign on the door--"Private Party". Bring out all your "holy apparatus" and "worship" away...quietly, of course. Don't disturb your neighbors, if any. Afterwards, put the apparatus away, take down the sign, open the curtains, and go on about your business.

Surely the "Lord" doesn't "require" more than that, does "He"?

Moskitto, your lengthy "demonstration" of parallel "logic" has, I suppose, an academic interest...even if some "stretching" is required. But it completely misses the point of the dispute.

Capitalist: Communists are murderous slave-drivers.

Communist: Capitalists are murderous slave-drivers.

Same logic: the question is who is right?

In other words, there may be parallel arguments on many matters of controversy...that doesn't relieve you of the obligation to examine the evidence and decide which position more closely reflects reality.

But that only applies if you take the dispute seriously. If, in your eyes, it is trivial, then, by all means amuse yourself with posts like the one you just made.

Just don't expect that everyone will be equally amused.

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:24 pm on May 21, 2003)

[Camarade Eli]

Quote: from CubanFox on 6:14 am on May 11, 2003

Quote: from Subcomandante Marcos on 3:33 am on May 11, 2003
I myself am a string believer on Christianism (lets not mistake it with catholics). I dont believe on the catholics at all, they are phony and extreme right most of them.

But i believe the State must be atheist but allowe religion since it is our freedom and we must learn to respect others.

What I believe is in universal love and kindness, Im not going to go kill all the atheist just because they dont agree with me, that is fundamentalism, and im not going to go persuade others with stupid scams just so they turn christians.

Totally with you on that one, Marcos. Atheists, remember this: when you hear bullshit coming from the Church, it's probably Catholic.


I'm Catholic (but not practising anymore) and I fully agree with you. What the Church is doin', is not 2003, but somewhere around 1500!!! What is the Pope good for? Why do we need a Pope when all other religions on this planet can live without such a kind of "leader"? And why can't women become priests?

[GCusack]

Thank you!!! You see red! People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!

[GCusack]

The Catholic church is very out of date! agreed! But I dont think that because of that Christinaity is (not that ur saying that), just felt like making that point!

[redstar2000]

People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!

That might well be the case, GCusack, if people would leave it at that.

But they don't, do they?

No, whenever a given religion or even a coalition of religions has the chance to enact their superstitious prejudices into law and make you obey them or go to prison, they don't hesitate a New York minute.

Just ask yourself why Irish women who need an abortion have to go to England to get one?

You see I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Not me!

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:19 am on May 22, 2003
People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!

That might well be the case, GCusack, if people would leave it at that.

But they don't, do they?

No, whenever a given religion or even a coalition of religions has the chance to enact their superstitious prejudices into law and make you obey them or go to prison, they don't hesitate a New York minute.

Just ask yourself why Irish women who need an abortion have to go to England to get one?

You see I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Not me!

:cool:


Tell me redstar leaving behind other differances of opinion we may have, do you believe that all religion should be banned, made illegal etc?

[Invader Zim]

Ok Redstar what i wrong with belief? Your opinions on Marx are just a belief, no material evidance exists to suggest that his theorys will ever be successful, yet you believe that they would work.

Religious people, no material evgidance exists to suggest god exists, yet people believe. What is the differance between your beliefs and there beliefs?

[GCusack]

Redstar they dont any longer have to go to england! The law has changed it is now legal for private hospitals to go through with the proceedure!

[redstar2000]

do you believe that all religion should be banned, made illegal etc?

See my post on page 3 of this thread. Trying to make a belief "banned" or "illegal" is both impossible and counter-productive...the Romans tried to kill Christianity by killing Christians; it didn't work. (It did work for the medieval Japanese...but only because Japan was an island.)

What public authority does and can always do is restrict the public expression of beliefs. Religion without public validation usually withers and dies...which is how the Christians killed off all the competing religions of antiquity. Once the Temples of Isis are closed; once the public rituals of Jupiter or the private rituals of Mithras are prohibited...they just fade away. (I've read that the last sacrifice to Zeus took place in rural northern Greece around 900CE. Our word "pagan" comes from a Greek word that means, roughly, "ignorant country shitkicker"...because only in the countryside could the old religions be practiced after the Christians took power.)

Your opinions on Marx are just a belief, no material evidance exists to suggest that his theorys will ever be successful, yet you believe that they would work.

I think we have different standards for what constitutes acceptable "material evidence". There are certainly parts of Marxist theory that have yet to be fully validated, most notably the rise of revolutionary class consciousness in the western proletariat. You could then say that I "believe" that will happen, but I would argue that my "belief" is based on the success of the Marxist analysis of capitalism that has been demonstrated, not to mention the general validation of historical materialism.

If a gambler develops a betting system that keeps predicting winners successfully, you can call his next bet a "belief" if you want to...but to him it's a certainty, based on prior experience.

Still, it's well to keep in mind that Marx might have been wrong and the transition to a classless, egalitarian society may take a completely different path than the one he predicted. Time and evidence will tell.

The law has changed it is now legal for private hospitals to go through with the proceedure!

Well, that's a step in the right direction; one cheer for the Irish. I say one because I assume the Catholic Church was able to keep public hospitals from performing abortions and (I'm guessing here) public money from paying for them. So a poor or working class woman probably still has a pretty rough time of it, right?

Still, when I'm wrong in fact or theory, I don't mind at all being corrected.

One small order of crow, please.

:cool:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Arguing against counter-revolutionaries... such fun! Well, Redstar, let's see what are your latest authoritarian ideas:

"Buildings more elaborate than mud huts require materials ...where did they come from? Were resources for this purpose actually allocated by some body representative of the working class? Were they stolen?"

How about if they just made the bricks and/or the concrete themselves? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that, you know...

"Then the materials had to be transported. Where did the truck(s) come from? Were public property and resources "diverted" for this purpose in the hopes that "no one would notice"?"

Ah, so I see... the means of transportation don't really belong to the people, do they? No, they belong to the government, and you need official authorization to use them!

Yes, comrade Stalin, I understand.

"I have no understanding why it is "necessary" to "worship" in company, of course..."

Because Christianity is by its very nature a community religion. You see, when one of the central pillars of your faith is love thy neighbour, it really helps if you get to know that neighbour.

And also:

"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
- Matthew 18:20

---

"...not to mention why the faithful cannot gather in each other's living rooms. But if, for some reason, a group of adult Christians wish to meet in numbers too large for a private dwelling, here's a legal way to do it: start a small business (like a restaurant) which would normally be open to the public (small businesses would enjoy considerable tolerance by communist authorities for an extended period of time). Every Sunday morning, cover the windows and put a sign on the door--"Private Party". Bring out all your "holy apparatus" and "worship" away...quietly, of course. Don't disturb your neighbors, if any. Afterwards, put the apparatus away, take down the sign, open the curtains, and go on about your business.

Surely the "Lord" doesn't "require" more than that, does "He"? "

No, He doesn't.
However, we shall never bow to a tyrant that wants us to be ashamed of who we are. We will never hide our love for God in this humiliating manner. We would sooner die. When the Roman authorities captured one of us, he never denied his love for God. So shall it be with your secret police, Redstar.

We do not force anyone to do anything. But we will worship in public and tell people about Jesus Christ. They have the right to know. What they do with that knowledge, that's their own business.

And if you want to take away our right as free men and women to worship in public, you will have to kill us.

Is THAT what you're really after, comrade Stalin?

"You see I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth."

What a pathetic baseless insult... because that's all it is, really. Tell me, Redstar, do you have the gift of mind reading, by any chance? If not, then how the hell do you presume to know what goes on in my mind?

I can't speak for other Christians, but I can speak for myself. The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion. He wants human beings to live in freedom and equality. And those are the values that I believe in, and that I will defend until my dying day.

[redstar2000]

But we will worship in public and tell people about Jesus Christ.

Yeah, the usual superstitious horseshit. Well, the early years after a revolution tend to be rather tumultuous...and this will be just one more complication that we'll have to deal with.

Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance. Does that count as "glorious martyrdom"? Do you make "Heaven's A-List" for that?

The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion.

That the same "god" who invented eternal torment in the fires of "Hell"? :cheesy:

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

I can't speak for other Christians, but I can speak for myself. The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion. He wants human beings to live in freedom and equality. And those are the values that I believe in, and that I will defend until my dying day

HA! That is a bunch bull. I seriously dont believe that. Is that why "God" sent fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorra for thier "evil" ways. . The same "god" whos "laws" condone executions for "herecy"?

I agree with Redstar I surely dont want to hear any "witnesses" telling me about Jesus, Buddah or any other religous figure you believe you need in your life. It should remain at most in private practice only.


Once the Temples of Isis are closed; once the public rituals of Jupiter or the private rituals of Mithras are prohibited...they just fade away.

I bet we could expect the same with Christianity

[CubanFox]

Let's see. I'm Christian (protestant) and think:

a) Abortions should be legal.

B) The Pope is just an old man. He may be a good person, but nothing more. God didn't choose him to be his representative on Earth. That's Jesus' job.

c) Religion and government/laws do not mix.

d) You should be able to build any house of worship anywhere, and you should be able to worship anything you want.

e) The paedophile priests/ministers (as in church ministers) need to be harshly punished and removed from the church.

f) No religions are 'evil'.

And Redstar, I don't like Jehovah's Witnesses that try to spread their religion. I think they are misguided. But I'm not going to have them exterminated by my little Cheka organization as you would do evangelists. (excuse me if I misinterpreted your thoughts)

(Edited by CubanFox at 5:51 am on May 24, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CubanFox on 5:45 am on May 24, 2003


f) No religions are 'evil'.

(Edited by CubanFox at 5:51 am on May 24, 2003)


What about the Thugge cult? They worship some god of Murder and went around commiting human sacrifice and collected skulls and stuff.

[redstar2000]

But I'm not going to have them exterminated by my little Cheka organization as you would do evangelists. (excuse me if I misinterpreted your thoughts)

That's what you wrote, Cuban Fox. About 4 hours earlier, on this same page, this is what I wrote...

Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance.

I'd call that a pretty good "misinterpretation", wouldn't you?

No religions are 'evil'.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "evil". Perhaps you think there is nothing wrong with lying to small children about things that don't exist; I think it's child abuse.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:42 am on May 24, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:39 pm on May 24, 2003


No religions are 'evil'.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "evil". Perhaps you think there is nothing wrong with lying to small children about things that don't exist; I think it's child abuse.



Thats the whole floor with your argument, is that they do not think its a lie, you cannot prove that it is so that means that your argument is false.

[CubanFox]

Oh.

:(

Sorry, Redstar. Didn't see that. My apologies. :)

Say you set up socialism in...err, I dunno...Yemen. Resurrecting the People's Democratic Republic of South Yemen. Would you take a similar stance to Islam as you would to Christianity? Remember, the clerics hold alot of sway with the people round these parts, and there are people are more than willing to die to kill off anything or anyone who they see as impeding their religion. We aren't talking occaisonal church attenders here. We're talking large numbers of fundamentalists with bombs. (not to say that all Muslims are fundamentalists, the vast majority are not...it's just a small splinter group of whackos who have twisted the Koran to make it say what they want it to say who just soak up alot of media attention)

(Edited by CubanFox at 1:24 pm on May 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Without any detailed knowledge of the "People's Democratic Republic" of Yemen, I rather doubt that it was any of those things in its name.

From what I know, it was a tribal despotism...that being the more or less traditional social arrangement over there. Whatever scraps of Marxist rhetoric that they may have used were probably for foreign consumption, namely the old USSR.

Beyond that, there's a fundamental misunderstanding in your conception of communist revolution. It's not a matter of a small group "seizing power" and then imposing at gunpoint the most radical measures that they believe they can get away with. That's the old Leninist version and we've seen how poorly it actually works.

What we're looking for is a massive uprising of the working class itself--think February 1917 in Russia--during which millions of people deeply question everything from the old order of things, what Marx called "all the old shit."

In such a climate, the reaction against all the established religions (which had always supported the old regime as "God's Will"...) is such that I think it will be easy to win support for the kinds of proposals that I advocate. Indeed, I suspect that 80-90% of the working class will be atheist or indifferent to religion by that point...that a "believing" proletariat can't make a revolution or, if they do, they will piss it away. (Again, February 1917 might be a good illustration of this.)

In the "long sweep of history", I would imagine that Malaysia will be the first predominately Muslim country to have a communist revolution (a guess: 2125?)...but the same conditions apply that I outlined above.

As to "Muslim fundamentalist terrorism", naturally I agree with all the old communists on how to deal with counter-revolutionary violence...ruthlessly. Give them a trial as fair as circumstances permit; but don't fool around. They want to kill communists; we should kill them first.

On a slightly different note, we "can't prove" that the "gods" of the Aztecs or of Carthage "don't exist" either--but we can make the sacrifice of children to the gods a pretty serious crime.

And we will.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:56 pm on May 24, 2003)

[Pete]

This thread seems oddly familar, and I do not feel like repeating my arguement but in short I believe this.

Religion is the excess baggage of feudalism. By allowing it to continue to exist we are giving the old elite powers, and they do still hold sway around the world. By destroying this hierarchy the passage from socialism to communism will come faster, it has to go eventually.

"When law and order are combined in the name of religion one is always slightly less than an individual." Maud'bid (From the Dune Series)


I find it humours how you, Redstar, are seen as an authoritarian.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 6:46 pm on May 24, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

#Moderation Mode

Sorry guys, but this is so in the wrong forum! Please put topics where they should be in the first place!!! By the way, this is very interesting, these kinds of threads always are. I'm putting this is theory for the moment, if anyone can think of a better place then they can get another mod to move it.

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=850)

[apathy maybe]

HA! That is a bunch bull. I seriously dont believe that. Is that why "God" sent fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorra for thier "evil" ways. . The same "god" whos "laws" condone executions for "herecy"?
Nothing to say but wrong God.


Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance.
And if we refuse to clean the streets? If we instead do the jobs that we were doing before. If the government's authority is not recognised if an alternative is set up will you fight it?
It comes down to if you try and force a system of beliefs (of whatever kind) on someone or some-group and they ignore you what will you do?

[Blibblob]

Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance.
Don't forget. The Romans started killing the loud Christians because they were being fucking evangalists. They didn't have any respect for the Roman culture, therefore tried to force their god upon all others. The Romans started to kill them out of fear that their culture would become extinct, it did in the end anyways...

Why must it be atheist? Why must there be no god? It has been proven from the dawn of mankind that we need some kind of athority figure. When we hit pure communism(no government) there must be some kind of athority figure, humans have never been able to live without one. That athority figure should be some sort of a god. Not a chrisitan one(too fire and brimstone and at the same time benevolent and theres a doGdamn second one), not hindu(too many of them), not islam(requires too much time), and not jewish(same as christian, just no second one). Another god, one that doesn't want you to spend hours a day worshiping. One that doesn't want you to beg for forgiveness on your knees. One that doesn't tell you that you are going to hell. We need a new god. ;) Almost all of the world's religions are basically the same. Just take a bit from each, mash it together, and make it nicer, and you have a Commie god!

[Pete]

The Communist God: Human Spirit

[Urban Rubble]

"On a slightly different note, we "can't prove" that the "gods" of the Aztecs or of Carthage "don't exist" either--but we can make the sacrifice of children to the gods a pretty serious crime. "

What a stupid argument. I agree with most of what you said, I'm also non-religious but Christianity never advocates human sacrifice or anything of that sort.

Again, I agree with most of what you've said but that's a pretty stupid arguement.

[redstar2000]

Why must it be atheist? Why must there be no god? It has been proven from the dawn of mankind that we need some kind of authority figure. When we hit pure communism(no government) there must be some kind of authority figure, humans have never been able to live without one.

I can live without one just fine. So, I think, can others...once they stop listening to people like you who tell them that they "must" have someone to obey.

And if we refuse to clean the streets? If we instead do the jobs that we were doing before. If the government's authority is not recognised, if an alternative is set up, will you fight it?

Counter-revolutionary activity will be dealt with in whatever manner appears to be most effective. If you really want an open bloody struggle, you'll get one. But the onus of the first violent blow will be on you, not us.

I agree with most of what you said, I'm also non-religious but Christianity never advocates human sacrifice or anything of that sort.

You don't see the parallel? Just as children were bodily sacrificed to the gods of Carthage, children are today mentally, emotionally, and psychologically sacrificed to (primarily) the monotheistic "gods"...the next generation of suckers for a shabby con.

That should not be permitted.

:cool:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Alright, Redstar, then please tell me what happens in this scenario:

Judge: You are found guilty of praying in public, and are sentenced to community service (cleaning the streets) for 30 days.

Christian: I won't do it.

Well? What is your wonderful government going to do then? FORCE the Christian to work? Hmmm... forced labour... now what does this remind me of?


"You don't see the parallel? Just as children were bodily sacrificed to the gods of Carthage, children are today mentally, emotionally, and psychologically sacrificed to (primarily) the monotheistic "gods"...the next generation of suckers for a shabby con.

That should not be permitted. "

LOL. An utterly stupid argument if I ever heard one.

Do you really think that belief in a God causes harm to people? And I suppose you have scientific proof of this? Or do you just accept it on faith?

(oh, the irony!)

[Pete]

FORCE the Christian to work?

Yes

now what does this remind me of?

You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society.

Do you really think that belief in a God causes harm to people?

Yes

And I suppose you have scientific proof of this?

No, but history is on our side. Let me cite some examples. The Christain Crusades, The Thirty Year's War, Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Indian Mutiny, The 'Holy League' against the Ottoman Turks, Genocide against Jews in WWII, India/Pakistan/Bangledesh split, Israel-Palestine (the same god promised them both the land), Soviet Intervention in Afganistan (the US trained warriors), the KKK, Quaker/Puritan conflicts in Colonial America, the treatment of American First Nations, the Containment Policy ('godless empire'), jihad (in violent ones, not the peaceful ones. I know there is a difference), Protestism in General vs the Catholics, the Inquistion (against Pagans and women mostly), do you want me to continue?

(Edited by CrazyPete at 4:20 pm on May 27, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Judge: You are found guilty of praying in public, and are sentenced to community service (cleaning the streets) for 30 days.

Christian: I won't do it.

Well? What is your wonderful government going to do then? FORCE the Christian to work? Hmmm... forced labour... now what does this remind me of?

A sneaky blow, Edric, but not ineffective. You know, of course, that modern communists have a strong bias against forced labor, due to the experiences of the USSR.

So how would we handle this obstinate con-artist?

1. We could stick him in an unlighted cell with only water (no food) for 30 days or until he agreed to perform his community service...

2. We could bring back that fine Puritan institution, the stocks (this was a device for restraining people in a public place where they could be subjected to public ridicule)...

3. We could revive the Athenian practice of banishment...if there are still places where superstition enjoys governmental tolerance...

4. Or, and I kind of like this one if the logistics can be worked out, we could create a "reservation" for the really pestiferous believers...a large area entirely separated from the outside world where they could live a primitive Christian existence until they died off. They couldn't take their kids, of course, and they'd be sterilized (the males) so that they couldn't make any babies in the midst of their barbarism. But otherwise, we wouldn't interfere with them at all...even when the "true Christians" decided to slaughter the "false Christians"...it would be all the same to us.

Or perhaps we'd think of other ways...hopefully more humane that those used by the Christians, but whatever we did would have to work.

Do you really think that belief in a God causes harm to people?

Yes, I think it can be argued from a simple axiom: an erroneous view of reality is always harmful. Since there are no gods (lack of evidence), "belief" in a god or gods will lead to mistaken conclusions about other matters...matters that can and have had catastrophic consequences for humanity.

The notion that torturing a "heretic" to save her "soul" is a "moral act", for example.

:cool:

[Pete]

The notion that torturing a "heretic" to save her "soul" is a "moral act", for example.

For interests sake a Jesuit Priest in charge of 'confessions of heretics' during the inquisition was exiled to a leper community for saying that even the pope would admit to being a witch if he was tortured as those being tried where.

[apathy maybe]

1. We could stick him in an unlighted cell with only water (no food) for 30 days or until he agreed to perform his community service...
It doesn't work. Remember India.
2. We could bring back that fine Puritan institution, the stocks (this was a device for restraining people in a public place where they could be subjected to public ridicule)...

What a wonderful idea! Then we can throw tomatos at them and laugh at them. But I don't think that a bit of public humiliation would work either.
3. We could revive the Athenian practice of banishment...if there are still places where superstition enjoys governmental tolerance...
I would have assumed we were talking about a world wide society so there would be no where to banish people to but ...
4. Or, and I kind of like this one if the logistics can be worked out, we could create a "reservation" for the really pestiferous believers...a large area entirely separated from the outside world where they could live a primitive Christian existence until they died off. They couldn't take their kids, of course, and they'd be sterilized (the males) so that they couldn't make any babies in the midst of their barbarism. But otherwise, we wouldn't interfere with them at all...even when the "true Christians" decided to slaughter the "false Christians"...it would be all the same to us.
This is a much better idea except you would still have a segment of the population who sympathised with those 'banished' and I am sure (I know) there are ways around the idea of sterilising people. Even if you steilise both men and women, I am sure that some how someone could create a clone or someother form of non natural human life. You would have to go and wipe out the population of the area every few years to make sure that nothing of that sort was going on.

[redstar2000]

I am sure that some how someone could create a clone or some other form of non natural human life.

No, they will have no sophisticated technology...so they won't be doing cloning or anything of that sort. Nor would they be able to reverse sterilization without sophisticated medical technology. Of course, there's always a "virgin birth"...:biggrin:

You would have to go and wipe out the population of the area every few years to make sure that nothing of that sort was going on.

Nonsense. Have you forgotten who Christians like to kill when there are no heathen available? Each other!

:cool:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society."

Ah, so a person who is completely dedicated to Communism, and also happens to believe in God, is a counter-revolutionary?

You know who I would call a counter-revolutionary? A person who wishes to impose his/her beliefs (or lack thereof) on other people. This is the seed from which domination of man over man arises, and soon class distinction comes along.

By dividing people into "theists" and "atheists", and giving more rights to atheists, you have just created two social classes, one of which oppresses the other.

And if that's not counter-revolutionary, I don't know what is.

"No, but history is on our side. Let me cite some examples. The Christain Crusades, The Thirty Year's War, Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Indian Mutiny, The 'Holy League' against the Ottoman Turks, Genocide against Jews in WWII, India/Pakistan/Bangledesh split, Israel-Palestine (the same god promised them both the land), Soviet Intervention in Afganistan (the US trained warriors), the KKK, Quaker/Puritan conflicts in Colonial America, the treatment of American First Nations, the Containment Policy ('godless empire'), jihad (in violent ones, not the peaceful ones. I know there is a difference), Protestism in General vs the Catholics, the Inquistion (against Pagans and women mostly), do you want me to continue?"

By the same logic, I could argue that Communism causes harm to people. Gulags, purges, Cambodian killing fields... Our good friends Stalin and Pol Pot killed a good 50 million people between them. So why don't you take the same measures against Communists that you take against Christians?

So you see, what people did in the past in the name of an idea is not a good indication of that idea's actual value.

--------------------------------------------

"So how would we handle this obstinate con-artist?

1. We could stick him in an unlighted cell with only water (no food) for 30 days or until he agreed to perform his community service...

2. We could bring back that fine Puritan institution, the stocks (this was a device for restraining people in a public place where they could be subjected to public ridicule)...

3. We could revive the Athenian practice of banishment...if there are still places where superstition enjoys governmental tolerance...

4. Or, and I kind of like this one if the logistics can be worked out, we could create a "reservation" for the really pestiferous believers...a large area entirely separated from the outside world where they could live a primitive Christian existence until they died off. They couldn't take their kids, of course, and they'd be sterilized (the males) so that they couldn't make any babies in the midst of their barbarism. But otherwise, we wouldn't interfere with them at all...even when the "true Christians" decided to slaughter the "false Christians"...it would be all the same to us.

Or perhaps we'd think of other ways...hopefully more humane that those used by the Christians, but whatever we did would have to work."

Under what authority do you give these sentences? As you can plainly see, the majority (of the world population) is currently against you on this.

Ah, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of Redstar and his following of stalinists bent on genocide, aren't they?

"Since there are no gods (lack of evidence), [...]"

The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim.

Saying "I do not believe God exists" is not an affirmative claim and does not require any proof.

However, saying "God does not exist" with absolute certainty, like you do, means affirming that there is no such thing as God.

Now prove it.

[Pete]

Edric. Religion proposes that there is an ultimate leader to which all are subservant. That is its flaw. Some religions, such as many Native Canadian cultures, worship the land and respect it. That is a religion without a 'guiding leader' and not harmful. Christianity also has an alternate power structure, which would stand against progress.

Polpot was not a communist, you should know that. And the killing perscribed to Stalin (where somepeople like to tag 20mill)...there is no proof. Comrades Cassius Clay and Thursday Night have argued that so many times I will not waste my describing it to you.

Israel-Palestine is contemporary, as is the results of the India-Pakistan split, the KKK, and many Muslim clerics are calling for a Jihad against Western values.

Religion, because of its homage-like powerstructure among other things, is the excess baggage of fuedalism. Isn't it time we dropped the last vestages of complete bondage?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 9:18 pm on May 27, 2003
[b]

You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society.



That is one of the dumbest statments i have seen. Not all counter revolutionarys are Nazi's. How the hell do you work that out?

You know they could just be capitalists, pacafists, apoliticals, liberals they dont have to be fascist unless you are calling all of those groups fascist, which is just dumb.

[Umoja]

To say "an absolute leader" who isn't human, and probubly doesn't give direct orders, is a harmful being then you may need to look at how people operate. We don't exist in total freedom, and never will. If I wanted to kill Bob Libertarian, I wouldn't, it's morally wrong. Those morals are something preventing me from acting. The same thing can be said about "the absolute ruler"(Aka God(s)), except it's just a collective of morals and ideals that people want to stick to. If that's harmful, maybe we should just cut out the part of the brain that governs morals.

Also, don't take this as not having an "absolute ruler" makes one amoral, far from it. I'm only saying that some people have an "absolute ruler" as there combined moral system.

[redstar2000]

As you can plainly see, the majority (of the world population) is currently against you on this.

Ah, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of Redstar and his following of stalinists bent on genocide, aren't they?

I wasn't aware that I had any "followers", Edric. If you're speaking of people who agree with me, the word I generally use is "comrade".

Of course "the world is currently against me"...and not just about religion but damn near everything. So what?

Are you suggesting that I have diabolical powers of such magnitude that I can impose atheism by command? Am I the anti-christ? :biggrin:

As a communist, Edric, I attempt to speak for the future of the movement in the present (as Marx put it). I attempt to convey as best I can what understanding is needed now in order to make forward progress. I expect to be in the minority for decades and perhaps even centuries after my death.

If immediate and cheap popularity was my objective in life, I'd take up preaching the gospel for a living...perhaps even invent my own new religion. There's still a lot of money to be made in that racket, as I don't need to remind you but will anyway.

I have a much more difficult task...to teach people how to be free, how to free themselves from "all the old shit" (yes, Marx again). And I've discovered that, in many cases, they don't like that. Slavery is what they're used to...and they wish I'd shut the fuck up about this freedom crap.

I may never be "popular", but I won't shut up.

:cool:

PS: The logic would work like this: There are no "unicorns." Why? Because no verifiable evidence for the existence of "unicorns" has ever been discovered. Just cut and paste the word "gods" to replace the word "unicorns" in those sentences. Isn't that easy?

PPS: "Genocide" doesn't mean just killing a lot of people; it has a specific meaning. Look it up and use the word correctly.

[canikickit]

That is a religion without a 'guiding leader' and not harmful.


To say "an absolute leader" who isn't human, and probubly doesn't give direct orders, is a harmful being then you may need to look at how people operate. We don't exist in total freedom, and never will. If I wanted to kill Bob Libertarian, I wouldn't, it's morally wrong.


There is still another negative aspect to Religious beliefs. People who consider themselves "chosen ones" or any such nonsense, and therefore consider themselves to be better than others (like someone said above they would "teach others about Jesus") are detrimental to socialism.

Umoja, why do you need an image of "some guy" to give you a guiding moral principle?

I implore of all the religious people: why do you care about Jesus? I do not understand it.
Forget about any aspirsions cast on the actual character of Jesus, let's imagine that he was a person who did a lot of that stuff in the Bible.

Even if that is all true, so what? I can't even think of an imaginary, outlandish reason for "worshipping" him and I'm trying! It's insane.

Was it because he was "good"? The majority of the stuff in the Bible I'm familiar with is so simplistic, I've never understood why people need Christ to guide them. Just make up your own minds.

If you found out Jesus had done things a little differently, would you do the same? Think about that.


By dividing people into "theists" and "atheists", and giving more rights to atheists, you have just created two social classes, one of which oppresses the other.

And if that's not counter-revolutionary, I don't know what is.

The idea of revolution, is that people will not feel it necessary to put themselves below anyone, mortal or otherwise.


Saying "I do not believe God exists" is not an affirmative claim and does not require any proof.

However, saying "God does not exist" with absolute certainty, like you do, means affirming that there is no such thing as God.

Now prove it.


What are you doing? There is much chance of me prooving that God doesn't exist as there is of you prooving that he does exist. An explanation isn't necessary. How about this:

"The world was created. No one knows why and no one cares. People just worry about starvation and try and get all others onto the same footing they're on. We do what we want, as long as we don't stop another from doing what he wants. Life is good. God? No thanks, go sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here.

What do we need God for? It's ridiculous.

(Edited by canikickit at 3:46 am on May 29, 2003)

[apathy maybe]

It is not just Christianity that you have to contend with. It is also Buddhism & Hinduism as well as the other major monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism. But you also have the various tribal religions like that of the Australian Aboriginals.
Most religions are created over hundred if not thousands of years and are constantly evolving. Many had reached equilibrium with the environment. Until Europeans came, Australian Aboriginals had various tabos and complex social structures that enabled a diverse people to live in harmony with the environment. There were places call "story places" where it was forbidden to hunt and other examples like this. Now you may well say stupid superstitious people, but think again. Sure, they may have been superstitious. But for a reason. When the white person came they hunted in the story places they (after converting the people to Christianity) expelled the demons from them. And hundreds of species of animals went extinct. These areas had been put aside of thousands of years. There were no 'logical' reasons as logic has been shown not to work with people, of whatever kind. The reason they had been put aside was to protect the animals that came out of the areas to repopulate the surrounding after it had been hunted out. Perhaps we need story places to protect the animals that are being hunted and also the flora that is being destroyed, because logical arguments don't work. But what about Islam and those others. Pig meat is forbidden in Islam and Judaism, most likely because in the desert where both of these came about there isn't much water and pigs uses a lot of water. Hence, pigs are forbidden. People don't listen to logical reasons as much as we may want them to, so don't dismiss religion it has a place.

As to are we mature enough as a species to think that we are not somehow special, well I don't think we are special but I do think that life is. And that is what the important part is. Jesus may not have been divine, there may not be an afterlife but it doesn't matter so long as people act towards each other as most religions call for. Love and kindness. If you can get all people to be able to love one, another with out religion or with, I will applaud. In a communist society, however, I feel that there will be no need to suppress a religion so long as it goes along with the ideals of communism. Under true communism most of the reasons (I would hope) for religion would melt away there would be no need for charity or church run hospitals as the state (or the people) will look after one another.

Now if you read all that good job, if you can understand it even better.

[canikickit]

Most religions are created over hundred if not thousands of years and are constantly evolving ..... But for a reason. When the white person came they hunted in the story places ..... .... But what about Islam and those others. Pig meat is forbidden in Islam and Judaism, most likely because in the desert where both of these came about there isn't much water and pigs uses a lot of water. Hence, pigs are forbidden. ...


Yes, that's a pretty good summing up of how Religious beliefs came about. People attach greater significance to something because it is important to their lives - over the long process of "evolution" and what not, different forms of expressing significance have emerged.

I feel that we are at a juncture, where we can forget "all the old shit" (Marx, why not?), and move on. Now that we know Pigs take a lot of water, we can not bring them where water is short. Other than that, we can eat it wherever we want, regardless of Religion (unless you're particularily health conscious, pork is not advised).


I feel that there will be no need to suppress a religion so long as it goes along with the ideals of communism.

Some people would feel that Religion doesn't go along with the ideals of communism. Like water and oil. Or like me;
People who consider themselves to be better than others are detrimental to socialism.

Jesus may not have been divine, there may not be an afterlife but it doesn't matter so long as people act towards each other as most religions call for.

Do unto others as ye would have done onto yourselves.

I agree 100%. But just because God, Jesus, or Jerry Falwell said that first, doesn't mean I credit them with the invention of the idea.

Now if you read all that good job, if you can understand it even better.


I can understand it even better than I can read it, which is easily.

(Edited by canikickit at 5:22 am on May 29, 2003)

[Pete]

Just to take a quote from Sadat before he was assinated for making peace with the Jewish State of Israel by a Muslim Extremist (catchthe religion there?), he said something like:

Islamic states have no problem with Islamic fundamentalists, it is the nonMuslims which it has a probelm with

Problem is refering to the ones who do not conform to society or those who commit the most crimes against this society.

THe state ideology is Islam, like in the Western World the State Ideology is some breed of Christianity, even if it is not officaly recognized. In god we trust...right? In a communist state communism would be the recongized ideology and those of a different would feel out of place and act in ways that call attention to wards them. They become the problem with in this society, as they are acting in ways that run contrary to the way the society operates. They will be the ones worshipping a name and submitting themselves to some higher power, instead of working together with their comrades to make the world a better place, they will be living so that they can enter heaven.

Do you follow that?

AM I found your post easily understandable, and the hardest part was reading it on the internet, as I am sure mine is a pain in the ass too.

[redstar2000]

A short break for comic relief...

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/index.php :biggrin:

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

are those people serious?

[Umoja]

There is still another negative aspect to Religious beliefs. People who consider themselves "chosen ones" or any such nonsense, and therefore consider themselves to be better than others (like someone said above they would "teach others about Jesus") are detrimental to socialism.

Umoja, why do you need an image of "some guy" to give you a guiding moral principle?

I implore of all the religious people: why do you care about Jesus? I do not understand it.
Forget about any aspirsions cast on the actual character of Jesus, let's imagine that he was a person who did a lot of that stuff in the Bible.


You seemed to miss my central point. I'm saying God is an image that we use for morals, not everyone needs to use God for morals though, because some of us have realized that their are morals behind God, and it makes more sense just to "worship" the morals.

Also this idea of Chosen one's isn't exactly far fetched. People want to teach people about Jesus, and people want to teach people about Communism/Socialism. Both groups of people think they've found The Way but they've simply found a way.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

CrazyPete:

If you're saying that we should do away with the heirarchal power structure in Christianity (as well as many other religions), then I completely agree. Religious heirarchies are purely political power structures, and they harm both human progress and the very religion that they're supposed to represent.

My vision is that these power structures will dissapear once Communism is established, and Christianity will once again be a community of equals.

Also, of course Pol Pot was no communist - but he said he was. Atheists generally argue that anyone who says he's a Christian must really be a Christian, and that Christians who argue otherwise are just trying to find lame excuses for the murders of Christianity.

But then why don't they also use the same standard on everyone else? We're not allowed to say that X person was not a "true" Christian, but they are allowed to say that X person was not a "true" Communist?

As for Stalin, you shouldn't be so quick to defend him. I live in Romania. I have lived under a stalinist dictatorship before, and I know from personal experience what it's like. You do NOT want to live in a system of that sort - it's basically fascism painted red.


canikickit:

We love Jesus because he was a great man, whose ideas were far ahead of his time, and who was not afraid to die for what He stood for.

In this respect, He is very much like many other people in history. And we think the same about those, as well. (I, for one, have a particulary high regard for the Buddha)

What sets Jesus apart is that He was God. That is why we worship Him, as opposed to only showing Him great respect as a man. (well, in fact, the term "worship" is misused: we're supposed to love God, not "worship" Him... I think the whole worship business started when spiritual leaders were corrupted by political power)

"What are you doing? There is much chance of me prooving that God doesn't exist as there is of you prooving that he does exist."

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell Redstar...


Redstar:

"I wasn't aware that I had any "followers", Edric. If you're speaking of people who agree with me, the word I generally use is "comrade".

PPS: "Genocide" doesn't mean just killing a lot of people; it has a specific meaning. Look it up and use the word correctly."

Oh, please excuse me - my mistake. Allow me to correct myself:

Ah, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of Redstar and his stalinist comrades bent on mass slaughter, aren't they?

Is that better?

"Of course "the world is currently against me"...and not just about religion but damn near everything. So what?"

As long as you're not trying to impose your views by force, nothing.

And yes, I'm very much aware that you never said anything about imposing your views by force yourself. You only talked about other people imposing those views by force, at some point in the future. Now please excuse me, but I don't really see the difference.

"Are you suggesting that I have diabolical powers of such magnitude that I can impose atheism by command? Am I the anti-christ? :D "

You don't need "diabolical powers". Just an efficient political police.

"As a communist, Edric, I attempt to speak for the future of the movement in the present (as Marx put it). I attempt to convey as best I can what understanding is needed now in order to make forward progress. I expect to be in the minority for decades and perhaps even centuries after my death."

Interesting. So do I. I suppose we have something in common after all...

"I have a much more difficult task...to teach people how to be free, how to free themselves from "all the old shit" (yes, Marx again). And I've discovered that, in many cases, they don't like that. Slavery is what they're used to...and they wish I'd shut the fuck up about this freedom crap."

I completely agree.

But in my book, teaching people to restrict the freedoms of others does not count as "teaching them to be free".

"PS: The logic would work like this: There are no "unicorns." Why? Because no verifiable evidence for the existence of "unicorns" has ever been discovered. Just cut and paste the word "gods" to replace the word "unicorns" in those sentences. Isn't that easy?"

Wrong. By that logic, we could neither prove nor disprove the existence of unicorns.

The reason why we know that unicorns don't exist is a different one: We've looked everywhere on Earth, and haven't found any. In other words, we have positive evidence that they are not there.

However, there's no reason to believe that unicorns cannot exist in places where we haven't looked - such as other Earth-like planets, for example.

[Pete]

Quote: from AK47 on 6:32 pm on May 28, 2003

Quote: from CrazyPete on 9:18 pm on May 27, 2003


You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society.



That is one of the dumbest statments i have seen. Not all counter revolutionarys are Nazi's. How the hell do you work that out?

You know they could just be capitalists, pacafists, apoliticals, liberals they dont have to be fascist unless you are calling all of those groups fascist, which is just dumb.


You are an idiot. How did you get what you did from what I said? Need I explain to you how the english langauge operates?

Okay let me use my TWO statements as an example.

You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society.

The first sentence, as you can see, is compound. It was in response to one of Edric's questions. As you can see I answered it by guessing what he was going to say and then I inserted a period, get this, to end that line of though. Amazing isn't it?

The next statement is also compound, and independant from the first one. I said Counter-revolutionaries are just that. That statement is self fullfilling. Counter revolutionairies are counter revolutionaries. You can not argue against that point. It is impossible. That is the nature of the English langauge. Then I post on that religion is the dregs of feudalism. Wow. Such imagery. This is overwhelming. I tack on that religion is feudal in nature, and that makes it counter revolutionary does it not? And then a period to clse off the thought.

I ask you AK, what the fuck where you on when you read that sentence?


(Edited by CrazyPete at 10:49 am on May 30, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Ah, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of Redstar and his stalinist comrades bent on mass slaughter, aren't they?

You really are obsessed with this "mass slaughter" thing, aren't you? No matter how many times I suggest otherwise, you seem to think my plan is to drown Christianity in its own blood.

I don't see any effective reply to that, even if I've never personally killed anything larger than a cockroach...or "ordered" anyone else to do so, either.

Perhaps it is necessary to portray me as a would-be mass murderer to shore up your own case; it would be kind of disappointing if only a handful of Christians chose glorious martyrdom and all the rest just said "screw it."

I think that's how things will play out, myself.

The reason why we know that unicorns don't exist is a different one: We've looked everywhere on Earth, and haven't found any. In other words, we have positive evidence that they are not there.

However, there's no reason to believe that unicorns cannot exist in places where we haven't looked - such as other Earth-like planets, for example.

We've looked everywhere on earth for positive evidence of the existence of "gods"...and found nothing. Are you suggesting that the Christian "God" resides elsewhere in the Solar System...or perhaps orbiting a near-by star? I don't think I've ever heard that one before...but I remain sceptical. It would raise some thorny theological problems should that ever turn out to actually be the case...:biggrin:

But in my book, teaching people to restrict the freedoms of others does not count as "teaching them to be free".

Then you need to add some pages to your book. There are obviously "freedoms" that are mutually exclusive.

When I say "free", I mean "free from all forms of superstition." When you say "free", you mean "free to perpetuate superstition". There is no way to combine those two concepts and have anything but a hopeless muddle.

Just as, by the way, there is no way to reconcile the capitalist "freedom to exploit labor" and the communist "freedom from wage slavery".

You see, what I have been trying to get across to you all along, Edric, is that you have attempted to combine two "world-views" that are irreconcilable.

In the end, you must choose between Christianity and communism...although I dare say that you can put off the decision for years or even decades. But choice is ultimately inescapable.

Choose wisely.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:40 am on May 30, 2003)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"You really are obsessed with this "mass slaughter" thing, aren't you? No matter how many times I suggest otherwise, you seem to think my plan is to drown Christianity in its own blood."

A bloodbath is the inevitable result of your policy: If Christians refuse to co-operate with your government, you will force them to obey. You said this yourself.


"We've looked everywhere on earth for positive evidence of the existence of "gods"...and found nothing. Are you suggesting that the Christian "God" resides elsewhere in the Solar System...or perhaps orbiting a near-by star? I don't think I've ever heard that one before...but I remain sceptical. It would raise some thorny theological problems should that ever turn out to actually be the case..."

Ah, finally you're beginning to understand! God is omnipresent and atemporal, therefore the concepts of "time" and "space" don't apply to Him like they apply to us.

"Looking for God" makes as much sense as using a telescope to look for neutrinos.

On the other hand, a unicorn is supposed to be a tangible physical life form. So if it's there, we should see it (or "detect it", if you're talking about invisible unicorns).


"Then you need to add some pages to your book. There are obviously "freedoms" that are mutually exclusive.

When I say "free", I mean "free from all forms of superstition." When you say "free", you mean "free to perpetuate superstition". There is no way to combine those two concepts and have anything but a hopeless muddle.

Just as, by the way, there is no way to reconcile the capitalist "freedom to exploit labor" and the communist "freedom from wage slavery".

You see, what I have been trying to get across to you all along, Edric, is that you have attempted to combine two "world-views" that are irreconcilable."

Thank you for pointing out that Christianity and atheism are irreconcilable, and likewise communism and capitalism are just as irreconcilable.

But I think we all knew that, and I never heard of an atheist Christian or a capitalist communist.

I am a Christian Communist, and these are two world-views that go together perfectly. It may not seem that way to you, but I have noticed that the reason for that is because the two of us have widely different opinions on what "Christianity" is.

(Edited by Edric O at 6:31 pm on May 30, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Ah, finally you're beginning to understand! God is omnipresent and atemporal, therefore the concepts of "time" and "space" don't apply to Him like they apply to us.

"Looking for God" makes as much sense as using a telescope to look for neutrinos.

This is why discussion of the particulars of superstition quickly degenerate into a carnival of foolishness. If "God" can't be detected with our available instruments, that doesn't mean "He" doesn't exist; it means "He" is "omnipresent" and "atemporal". Why? Well, "He" must be or else we'd detect "Him."

Jesus H. Fucking Christ!...to coin a phrase.

I am a Christian Communist...and, to quote Dorothy Parker, "I am the Queen of Roumania". :biggrin:

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:24 pm on May 30, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 6:32 pm on May 28, 2003

Quote: from CrazyPete on 9:18 pm on May 27, 2003


You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society.



That is one of the dumbest statments i have seen. Not all counter revolutionarys are Nazi's. How the hell do you work that out?

You know they could just be capitalists, pacafists, apoliticals, liberals they dont have to be fascist unless you are calling all of those groups fascist, which is just dumb.


You are an idiot. How did you get what you did from what I said? Need I explain to you how the english langauge operates?

Okay let me use my TWO statements as an example.

You will probaly say Nazi, and be that if you will. Counter-revolutionaries are just that,a nd religion is the dregs of feudalism in our society.

The first sentence, as you can see, is compound. It was in response to one of Edric's questions. As you can see I answered it by guessing what he was going to say and then I inserted a period, get this, to end that line of though. Amazing isn't it?

The next statement is also compound, and independant from the first one. I said Counter-revolutionaries are just that. That statement is self fullfilling. Counter revolutionairies are counter revolutionaries. You can not argue against that point. It is impossible. That is the nature of the English langauge. Then I post on that religion is the dregs of feudalism. Wow. Such imagery. This is overwhelming. I tack on that religion is feudal in nature, and that makes it counter revolutionary does it not? And then a period to clse off the thought.

I ask you AK, what the fuck where you on when you read that sentence?


(Edited by CrazyPete at 10:49 am on May 30, 2003)


Sorry i misunderstood the post, it seamed that you were saying all counter revolutionarys were Nazi. I misinterprited your comment and for that i am sorry.

[Moskitto]

This is why discussion of the particulars of superstition quickly degenerate into a carnival of foolishness. If "God" can't be detected with our available instruments, that doesn't mean "He" doesn't exist;

By the same logic Electrons, The Phospholipid Bilayer, Hydrogen Bonds, Infact, all molecular biology, chemistry and quantum physics don't exist being as we can't actually see it with any of the instruments we have today.

[Blibblob]

There are seven different planes(dimensions) in this universe. We only know of 4 concretely. Those below us, ours, and the forth for time. We cannot interact with any plane above ours, therefore we cant do shit with planes 4 through 7. A lot of things could be occuring in those planes. Those planes can interact with the ones under it, for example, we are affected by time, the fourth plane. In every single religion God interacts with the people in it. Not exactly directly though. There was the burning bush that spoke to Moses. We cannot touch god, we cannot speak directly to it. People have had epiphanies due to this god. Could this god possibly exist on the planes higher than us?

Another thing to think about. Maybe we exist on the higher planes. Our souls could be on those planes higher. Lets see, we could be on plane 6, god on 7. That leaves him the ability to interact with everything. Number 5, I don't know. This third plane that our bodies exist on could be completely dead. Our souls could come from the higher plane and take control of our bodies, and leave when we die. God could be like a giant judge. We have to live on earth to see if we can be entered into "heaven". That would mean all other animals have souls too. Maybe the plants also. Possibly everything, from rocks to fire. A giant mesh of basically every religion on earth. Even suitable to those who believe god is an alien. He is, to our plane.

Just a little bit to think about. Don't throw god into a trash can that fast redstar.

[Pete]

7 eh? Where did that number come from?

[Blibblob]

Einstein. His Theory of Relativity. 99% of which has been proven correct. Go with me here, I spent a couple of months reseaching the topic, obsesively.

[Umoja]

Blib,

I'm with you in your theory in it's general concept. Some animals don't see in color yet we know for a fact that color exist in a scientific manner. So maybe stuff can exist that we don't realize, who knows?

[redstar2000]

Blibblob, there is not a word in Einstein's theories about "7 dimensions" or any such nonsense.

What Einstein did was to demonstrate mathematically that the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time were really "unified" and that properly we should speak of "space-time".

In the realm of "superstring theory", it has been shown that in order for one of those theories to "work", 11 or 18 separate dimensions must exist...but all of them except the ones we perceive are "folded" into subatomic measurements far too small to detect. These are all speculative theories that are far from acquiring support in real evidence.

But in any event, the assertion that "God" exists in "another dimension" is just as absurd as the assertion that "He" lives on another planet. It's an effort by believers to escape their absymal failure to provide any verifiable evidence for their ridiculous claims.

Moskitto, the word we've been using here is detect, not see. All of the phenomena you cited can be detected if not yet seen.

Pay attention.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:30 pm on May 31, 2003)

[Blibblob]

Blibblob, there is not a word in Einstein's theories about "7 dimensions" or any such nonsense.
If you take it straight out of his theories, of course not. His theories don't work at all. His math was off, the G=piT formula which was supposed to explain curvature of space is too short, nothing works with it. His 10 seperate equations are too long and complicated, and we have not been able to test them until now, with our super computers. There were errors in them, they had to be fixed. Einstein died beleiving black holes didn't exist. They do make sense, now don't they? We've seen evidence. You can't trust Einstein, you have to trust those who studied him and came up with seperate theories. One of which is that our four dimensions can't exist without at least 3 more. I have never seen your 11 or 18 tiny dimensions. Never come across it at all. I have, however, come across the 7 dimension theory many times. I did read up on the supestring theory, and that also makes sense. Although it appears to throw off the structure of space-time far too much.

Take an embeding diagram. It is two dimensional plus time. It appears to curve. In your mind, try and throw in a third dimension. It would be a sphere, within a sphere, within a sphere forever. Does that not throw off far too many things around it? Add a fith dimension. It would ovalize it, would it not(basically)? Add a sixth, is it still curved? Add a seventh, it is curved no longer. Space-time is now straight again. That is what is needed. Space-time is not supposed to be curved. The end result is to try and make it straight again, therefore you need at least 7 dimensions. Einstein said that with the fourth dimension added into the embeding diagram, it would make space-time flat or straight, but it really doesn't, does it?


But in any event, the assertion that "God" exists in "another dimension" is just as absurd as the assertion that "He" lives on another planet. It's an effort by believers to escape their absymal failure to provide any verifiable evidence for their ridiculous claims.
You don't beleive in a god at all, that I know. But you also appear to be in doubt of science also. No, moskitto is right, by that logic none of that existed. Back in the stone age, by your logic, electrons, atoms, light in waves. None of that existed, it could not, it was impossible. Come later in time, we invent machines that detect them. They are there now. Who said that possibly we could create another machine that will detect the dimensions for us. But that is in the future, right now we cannot detect them. We trust that they are there, but you say they don't exist. Go back to the stone age, I think you will like it there. Nothing that "doesn't exist" will be there to bother you.

[Conghaileach]

from Blibblob:
There are seven different planes(dimensions) in this universe.

Wait a minute, you forgot the eighth dimension - the Twilight Zone.

[Conghaileach]

from Blibblob:
Back in the stone age, by your logic, electrons, atoms, light in waves. None of that existed, it could not, it was impossible. Come later in time, we invent machines that detect them. They are there now. Who said that possibly we could create another machine that will detect the dimensions for us. But that is in the future, right now we cannot detect them. We trust that they are there, but you say they don't exist.

In the dark ages, there was no weather or seasons. Only "God" being benign or malevolent, based on how many goats the people sacrificed to "him".

The belief in God has always been around as an excuse for people's ignorance and inability to explain certain things (like the weather, once upon a time). Hopefully with the further advancement of science this notion of God can finally be put to rest once and for all.

[Blibblob]

lol. There could be eight. Two sets of three space dimensions and one time. OR it could go on and on, and there be an infinite number, muahahahahaha!

Or this could all be something out of... the twilight zone DO do DO do DO do DO do DO!

[Conghaileach]

Heh. Seriously though, I think that God (whether or not it does exist) shouldn't play a part in the socialist struggle.

Does it really matter whether or not people believe in God? Is an atheist more of a communist than a Catholic, simply because he rejects the idea of a God, or Gods?

[redstar2000]

Well, blibblob, perhaps you have read someone whose work was an attempt to "expand" or "improve" Einstein...and that is where your "7 dimension" figure comes from. But you did say you got it from Einstein...how was I to know that that wasn't really the case?

The need for more than three dimensions in "super-string" theory is laid out in many popular works on the subject...but remember that at this time these are mathematical constructs---there is no evidence at all that super-string theory (any of them) is "true" in the sense that general relativity is true.

No, moskitto is right, by that logic none of that existed. Back in the stone age, by your logic, electrons, atoms, light in waves. None of that existed, it could not, it was impossible. Come later in time, we invent machines that detect them. They are there now. Who said that possibly we could create another machine that will detect the dimensions for us. But that is in the future, right now we cannot detect them. We trust that they are there, but you say they don't exist. Go back to the stone age, I think you will like it there. Nothing that "doesn't exist" will be there to bother you. (emphasis added)

You can trust (the operative word here) all you damn well please, but that don't make it so until you have evidence.

Go ahead and invent your "machine" to detect that which is not now known to exist...and then show me the measurements. But don't try to pass off "trust" as "science" and scepticism as "stone age".

What do you think this is, blibblob, an intellectual version of three-card-monte?

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:50 am on June 1, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Does it really matter whether or not people believe in God? Is an atheist more of a communist than a Catholic, simply because he rejects the idea of a God, or Gods?

I suppose that's the central question in this whole thread. Does it really matter?

What I've argued (in a huge number of posts) is that, yes, it matters.

But I think there is obviously a long way to go on this subject.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

Moskitto, the word we've been using here is detect, not see. All of the phenomena you cited can be detected if not yet seen.

Pay attention.

Actually, I think you'll discover that all the phenomena only fit the current data, not even be detected, the only reason why they are hailed as the truth is because there are no other models to explain the phenomena.

And like scientific theories, I will continue to believe in god until someone comes up with a better explaination as to how the universe aparantly set all the right conditions for the big bang, the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe, make all the chemicals which just so happened to manage to interact to form life and even spawn intelligent life, all just by chance.

(Edited by Moskitto at 6:23 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Pete]

As you said in another forum Redstar this is one of the open topics in communism.

Catholicism rests upon the hierarchy of the Pope. Of course that goes directly against communism. You swear featly to a greater being. That is feudalism.

From awhlie back: Also, of course Pol Pot was no communist - but he said he was. Atheists generally argue that anyone who says he's a Christian must really be a Christian, and that Christians who argue otherwise are just trying to find lame excuses for the murders of Christianity.

To be a Christian is their not two things that you must believe? 1) In the God of Abraham and 2) That Jesus was this God's son? If you believe both of those "pillars," per sae, you are a Christian. They may not be in your sect, but you cannot deny their Christianity.

Communism on the other hand has had people who claimed to belong to it that obviously have not. They may have thought they where but there are no 'pillars' that can be used to defend all of the atrocities that someone commits. Pol Pot can be used as an example again, since we already discussed him and I don't have bring up the evidence again :)

[Blibblob]

"When no one had answers they created God. Now we have most of them, and ne day we will have all of them, rendering God useless."
-???

"Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."
-Thomas Jefferson


But don't try to pass off "trust" as "science" and scepticism as "stone age".
You doubt that there is a god, but do you doubt that there isn't one? It goes both ways, I(and it seems a few others here) doubt religion, but we also doubt atheism. I have seen no proof that there is a god other than yourself standing there. But atheists have given even less proof. If this is a criminal trial, you are the prosecuters with the burden of proof, you obviously don't really like that. Then this is a civil trial, a trial on god, on his existance. The burden of proof goes both ways. Your petty "proof" that "there is no fucking god, you have yet to show us proof of his existance". You, give me proof of his non-existance. I don't want "you can't detect him" bullshit either. You can't detect a lot of things. Do you beleive in aliens? In black holes? How about your own existance. The way you perseive reality may be different than somebody else. Keep yourself open on everything, not just on some and closed on a lot.

Here is my proof on god's existance: We created him.

Back to the dimensions that you are complaining about so. I researched the super-string theory. You were off, its not 11 or 18, where the hell did you get those numbers? It is nine other dimensions, making 13 total. That could be another case, it makes some sense. Ok about the seven not coming directly from Einstein, I appologize for the misunderstanding.


You can trust (the operative word here) all you damn well please, but that don't make it so until you have evidence.
You have to trust in something to study and understand it fully. You get nowhere studying christianity as an atheist. And you get nowhere studying atheism as a christian. For a time become what you study, but don't give in fully, keep the doubt, you'll need it later. You beleive in Einstein's theory of relativity, do you not? When it came out, it was an outrageous concept, was it not? If it wasn't outrageous, why study it? But it also made some sense, continue to dig deeper. My theory looked very stupid the first time you looked at it, right? Did you read it again? Do you see my point? The possibilities behind it? Does it make a shred of sense at all? If it does, try looking into it, don't pass it off as ignorance straight out, for then I will see you as a very closed person, one stuck in his old beliefs, one of the "old dogs".

CrazyPete:
"It bemuses me that the more outspokenly 'Christian' somebody is, the more that person emphasizes the pre-Christian books of the Bible rather than the books that quote Jesus."
-MECowan (on the web)

There are those who say they are christians, and do follow your two pillars. But aren't those pillars a little weak? Is that all a christian is? What about the teachings of Jesus? Don't those play a part? Every single atrocity the catholic church has done, was not in the name of their god or Jesus' teachings. He taught love, the catholic church taught fear. He taught understanding, the catholic church taught to kill non-beleivers. How christian is that?

Another thing. Why do topics like this always fall into the "christianity vs atheism" bullshit? It's really annoying.

[redstar2000]

And like scientific theories, I will continue to believe in god until someone comes up with a better explaination as to how the universe aparantly set all the right conditions for the big bang, the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe, make all the chemicals which just so happened to manage to interact to form life and even spawn intelligent life, all just by chance.

In other words, you wish to believe in a "god" as "first cause" but otherwise irrelevant. In your "model", there was a "god" that designed the universe, created it, and then stepped back and let it run. This is a "model" that's been around since the days of Isaac Newton, of course...and, I suppose, is the "least harmful variant" of religion if carried out consistently.

The entity that "created" such a universe many billions of years ago would hardly be in any position to be aware of our particular existence at all...though it might assume that intelligent life would be quite common because it arranged matters to turn out that way.

There would be no point in "worshiping" such an entity; just as there would be no point in bacteria under a microscope "worshiping" the graduate student who is looking at them. The "purposes" of such an entity would be undiscoverable, for the same reason.

Thus with neither priesthood nor prayer and without any "moral" implications whatsoever...the Newtonian "god" may or may not exist but would be forever beyond any human knowledge at all.

As Christians were quick to point out in the 17th and 18th centuries, such a "religion" is the practical equivalent of atheism.

Under the principle of the least complex hypothesis (called "Occam's razor" after William of Ockham), it would be logical to rid ourselves of the "divine hypothesis" until such time as it is actually required to explain that which is otherwise inexplicable. Perhaps, after five or ten centuries of scientific research prove fruitless, we could readmit the possibility of the Newtonian "god".

Now, it seems pointless and unneeded. We are making progress understanding the universe without it.

:cool:

[Pete]

There are those who say they are christians, and do follow your two pillars. But aren't those pillars a little weak? Is that all a christian is? What about the teachings of Jesus? Don't those play a part? Every single atrocity the catholic church has done, was not in the name of their god or Jesus' teachings. He taught love, the catholic church taught fear. He taught understanding, the catholic church taught to kill non-beleivers. How christian is that?

But the Catholic Church is one of the oldest Christian bodies. As I said their are many many sects of Christianity and I am sure a good Anglican would try to do anything to prove that the evil Catholic is not a Christian and vice versa. That did happen, and it was called the Counter-Reform Catholic Movement.

By the way, starting off your arguements with some one else's words does not make you seem any smarter, it just says "hey I will leach this from someone else." No offense, that is just the impression that it gives. For future reference I say this of course.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 6:32 pm on June 1, 2003)

[redstar2000]

You, give me proof of his non-existance.

Why should I bother? You can postulate anything and defy me to prove it's "not true". Should I offer any evidence, you can simply change an assumption or two, and then defy me again...it becomes what is called an infinite regression. You can "tailor" the "attributes" of "god" in such a way that no matter how many times I disprove a particular version of your nonsense, you have a fresh version all lined up and ready to go.

You call that "science"? I call it bullshit!

Try an approach like that in a court of law and even the baliffs will be laughing at you.

Keep yourself open on everything, not just on some and closed on a lot.

That's actually a philosophical speculation--what you are really asserting with that statement is that reality is inherently unknowable.

Only if we are inherently unable to "know" anything with reasonable certainty would your statement make sense.

These are deep and murky waters, but outside of philosophy texts, we behave "as if" we knew a great many "true" things about the real world which, in turn, behaves "as if" our knowledge was actually "true".

That's good enough for me.

You beleive in Einstein's theory of relativity, do you not?

No, I don't "believe" in it...it has been demonstrated to be true through verifiable evidence. "Belief" does not enter into the matter.

My theory looked very stupid the first time you looked at it, right? Did you read it again? Do you see my point? The possibilities behind it? Does it make a shred of sense at all?

No.

...for then I will see you as a very closed person, one stuck in his old beliefs, one of the "old dogs".

Arf! :biggrin:

:cool:

[Blibblob]

Yes, I am a deist, a beleiver of the "Newtonian god".

"Now, it seems pointless and unneeded. We are making progress understanding the universe without it."

No, not really. Big Bang, not proven, hardly even a strand of proof. Atoms, how the hell do they fly together to create something living so perfectly? The millions of years of evolution, Darwin's missing link is still missing. We don't even understand how our own bodies work. How are we supposed to understand the infinite universe?

"But the Catholic Church is one of the oldest Christian bodies. As I said their are many many sects of Christianity and I am sure a good Anglican would try to do anything to prove that the evil Catholic is not a Christian and vice versa. That did happen, and it was called the Counter-Reform Catholic Movement."

I know, I gave you an example of a very non-christian movement. Those who claim to be christians, but really aren't.

"By the way, starting off your arguements with some one else's words does not make you seem any smarter, it just says "hey I will leach this from someone else." No offense, that is just the impression that it gives. For future reference I say this of course."

I wasn't really trying to sound "smarter". I'm sorry if it gave that impression. I just tend to give credit to those who had my opinions before me. That's all I see a quote as, knowing that somebody else had the same opinion as you, before you. I guess other people don't see it the same way...

(Edited by Blibblob at 5:32 pm on June 2, 2003)

[Pete]

The missing link...do you know how hard it is for something to actually be fossilized? Just for clarification are you seeing this as a step between man and ape or a step from a common ancestor?

The universe is chaos, it is not perfect.

What are you then if you believe in the God of Abraham and that Jesus is his son?

And the quote thing, don't worry about it.

[Blibblob]

"Why should I bother? You can postulate anything and defy me to prove it's "not true". Should I offer any evidence, you can simply change an assumption or two, and then defy me again...it becomes what is called an infinite regression. You can "tailor" the "attributes" of "god" in such a way that no matter how many times I disprove a particular version of your nonsense, you have a fresh version all lined up and ready to go."

And you can tailor everything in the opposite direction. So, I don't want that bullshit.

"That's actually a philosophical speculation--what you are really asserting with that statement is that reality is inherently unknowable."

Of course reality is unknowable.

"That's good enough for me."

::sigh:: Nothing should just be "good enough".

"No, I don't "believe" in it...it has been demonstrated to be true through verifiable evidence. "Belief" does not enter into the matter."

That "verifiable evidence" is no more than opinions of scientists, mathematical formulas, and the occasional Einstein cross. None of it is concrete evidence. Space-time is curved, what the hell are you talking about?! It doesn't make perfect sense, and requires a little bit of faith in the insanity of the genius who created that theory. You may not think you are asserting faith, but you are.

"No."

It doesn't? Umoja obviously thought it did. The youth minister at my church(yes, I go to a Catholic church to further my education in the subject of religion, I think it gives me an upper hand) thinks it makes sense. Even my over religious grandmother thinks it makes sense! So, I'm not alone, HA! :-P

[Blibblob]

"The missing link...do you know how hard it is for something to actually be fossilized? Just for clarification are you seeing this as a step between man and ape or a step from a common ancestor?"

I know, but Redstar obviously wants his "verifiable evidence". And somebody's opinions aren't good enough for him.

"The universe is chaos, it is not perfect."

Animals and plants are perfect in the places that they need to be.

"What are you then if you believe in the God of Abraham and that Jesus is his son?"

A beleiver that Jesus is the son of god. A christian is one who beleives in the teachings of Jesus. I know, I go to church, they say it every mass. Damn little hypocrits.

"And the quote thing, don't worry about it."

Um, ok...

[Pete]

That is Redstar.

You didn't answer the second part of my question.

"What are you then if you believe in the God of Abraham and that Jesus is his son?"

A beleiver that Jesus is the son of god. A christian is one who beleives in the teachings of Jesus. I know, I go to church, they say it every mass. Damn little hypocrits.

You didn't answer my question again.

The universe is a chaotic order, my correction, but hardly perfect.

[Blibblob]

"You didn't answer the second part of my question."

I appologize. Generally the "missing link" is associated with the change from ape to man. From ape to austropoliphicus(however the hell you spell it, and I think that is the one). The ape is bent over and it's pelvic bones do not allow it to stand straight as we do. The ancient man stood quite straight and his pelvis had changed to suit that. We have yet to find one that is in between standing up, and hunched over. There are theories that explain how and why the humanoids learned to stand, but no evidence showing that they evolved from ape.

"You didn't answer my question again."

I thought I did. If you beleive in the God of Abraham, you are either Islam, Jewish, or some form of Jesus worshiper. If you beleive that Jesus is his son, then you have to be a form of Jesus worshiper. But Christians are more than just one who beleives that Jesus is the sone of the God of Abraham. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of him. There are some Devil worshipers(there actually are those, athough they are not "Satanists" ) that beleive that Jesus is the son of the god of Abraham. But are they Christians?

The universe itself is not perfect, but in the ways the living beings on this planet need to be perfect they are. Psychology does not fit into the area of needing to be perfect ;).

(Edited by Blibblob at 8:33 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Pete]

There are theories that explain how and why the humanoids learned to stand, but no evidence showing that they evolved from ape.

Then there is your flaw. Homo Sapiens Sapiens did not evolve from apes, but we share a common ancestor and austro-- evolved from this common ancestor, where as the contemporary ape ancestor did the same. Well this arguement is out of place, so why don't we drop it:)

Satanists are very different from devil worshippers. If only more people knew that.

I think we have basically run aground here Blibblob, except you must recongize that those people are still theists who do not follow Jesus's teaching, and religion is still to blame if they act ou tin its name.

[Blibblob]

"Then there is your flaw. Homo Sapiens Sapiens did not evolve from apes, but we share a common ancestor and austro-- evolved from this common ancestor, where as the contemporary ape ancestor did the same. Well this arguement is out of place, so why don't we drop it"

Hmm, I guess I've been around some half truths, always heard that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from apes. Drop it... ok.

"Satanists are very different from devil worshippers. If only more people knew that."

I know. Satanists don't beleive in heaven or hell, it's just the label the Catholic church gave them. I tried to put it in Dr. Evil quotes for a kind of point...

"I think we have basically run aground here Blibblob, except you must recongize that those people are still theists who do not follow Jesus's teaching, and religion is still to blame if they act ou tin its name."

I still think that with that logic, Communism killed millions, and Capitalism has killed none. I don't ever remember any Capitalists putting any of those deaths to their ideology, or those who did it claiming to be Capitalists.

[Pete]

Pinochet, Batista, Churchill, Hitler, Mussolini, the Argentinan dictator, ect ect

[redstar2000]

Of course reality is unknowable.

To you it certainly is and will remain so until you cease playing silly word games.

You may not think you are asserting faith, but you are.

And you may believe that you are speaking plain English, but you're not.

It doesn't? Umoja obviously thought it did. The youth minister at my church(yes, I go to a Catholic church to further my education in the subject of religion, I think it gives me an upper hand) thinks it makes sense. Even my over religious grandmother thinks it makes sense! So, I'm not alone, HA!

Yes, I daresay that folly has many followers and, who can say, we might someday be required to bow to Holy Blibblob the Redeemer...on pain of death if we refuse.

Meanwhile, I think you're a nutball!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:03 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Blibblob]

"To you it certainly is and will remain so until you cease playing silly word games."

And until you stop pretending to be a genius.

"And you may believe that you are speaking plain English, but you're not."

I don't ever remember the English language as being one that is easily understandable.

"Yes, I daresay that folly has many followers and, who can say, we might someday be required to bow to Holy Blibblob the Redeemer...on pain of death if we refuse.

Meanwhile, I think you're a nutball!"

I don't remember myself supporting a god that wants worship. And I seriously hope I sound like a nutball. The dull ones never get anybody to listen to them. Insanity makes people do a double check. :biggrin:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, this religion topic certainly has more new posts than the other one... and it seems that Redstar has found a wonderful new way of dealing with my arguments: ignoring them. (see page 9)

Well, I don't mind, seeing how our replies are already getting long enough on the other topic. But I just wanted to reply to what Redstar DID post:

' This is why discussion of the particulars of superstition quickly degenerate into a carnival of foolishness. If "God" can't be detected with our available instruments, that doesn't mean "He" doesn't exist; it means "He" is "omnipresent" and "atemporal". Why? Well, "He" must be or else we'd detect "Him." '

Oh, really? And where exactly in the Bible does it say that God lives on Earth (so that we could detect Him like you're suggesting)? Nowhere. In fact, the Bible makes it quite clear that God has no physical presence on Earth.

Therefore, even if you refuse to accept the omnipresence of the God of the Bible (which is a bit hard to deny, seeing how He IS supposed to "see everything" ), the fact remains that this God is clearly not one that you would expect to find on Earth. We've been saying this for some 3000 years now...

' I am a Christian Communist...and, to quote Dorothy Parker, "I am the Queen of Roumania". '

And to quote the English dictionnary, it's Romania.


CrazyPete (from a while back):

"To be a Christian is their not two things that you must believe? 1) In the God of Abraham and 2) That Jesus was this God's son? If you believe both of those "pillars," per sae, you are a Christian. They may not be in your sect, but you cannot deny their Christianity.

Communism on the other hand has had people who claimed to belong to it that obviously have not. They may have thought they where but there are no 'pillars' that can be used to defend all of the atrocities that someone commits. Pol Pot can be used as an example again, since we already discussed him and I don't have bring up the evidence again."

There is a flaw in that argument: Both of the "pillars of Christianity", as you call them, are strictly personal matters, and there is no way to tell from the outside if a person really believes in either of them. All we can do is judge that person's actions, to see if he acts according to what the God he claims to worship actually said.

So if a person claims to be a Christian, but does the direct opposite of what Jesus taught, can that person be called a Christian?
What do you think?

(Edited by Edric O at 2:59 am on June 3, 2003)

[Pete]

Well you tell me that. They still follow a religion and if they do what they do in the name of this religion it is still an example of the corruptablity of religion and your god.

[Blibblob]

"Well you tell me that. They still follow a religion and if they do what they do in the name of this religion it is still an example of the corruptablity of religion and your god."

Yes the religion is corrupted. All religions tend to be corrupted, that's why I'm against organized religion. And for that reason... the youth minister at my church told me to become a priest...

Edric:
I've been trying to say that! Redstar wont open his mind to new ideas long enough for me to shove it in through his ear to get him to think about it! How's my theory on god on a seperate plane? :biggrin: Bullshit? Worth looking into? Remember, I'm a nutball!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course religion is corruptible, CrazyPete! Just like everything that involves human beings. Just like communism, in fact... You see, both of them have suffered because of traitors who used the name of religion or the name of communism as a smokescreen for acts of pure selfishness and greed. That's what I keep trying to tell you...

Blibblob, I don't have the time to read your idea right now (I must go in a few minutes). But I'll tell you my opinion once I get around to reading it.

[Pete]

But religion, then, is full of traitors. YOu know those door to door salesmen of fate, or the people that scream 'blasphemy' at gays? The religious right, and religion period, preaches intolerance regardless of what you believe. Eventually you will have to pick. A figment of your imagination or people. The longer you wait the harder it will be. Religion only casts its shadow on the world so that people can kill each other with justification. Missionaries do more harm than good.

[redstar2000]

And to quote the English dictionnary, it's Romania.

Actually, in Ms. Parker's era, I believe the name of your country was transliterated as "Roumania"...but the modern usage is indeed Romania.

Sometimes, even a Christian can get one right.

:cool:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If I were you, Redstar, I'd start getting used to it.


CrazyPete: There are nearly 2 billion Christians in the world. How many of those are door-to-door faith salesmen, or rabid homophobes, or just plain intolerant idiots? A few million, perhaps? Tens of millions, maybe?

That still leaves out the vast majority. Christianity isn't full of traitors - it's just that the traitors are particulary loud and tend to stand out in a crowd. And that they tend to be the leaders.

[Pete]

People who claim to have religion do have religion. You cannot deny that. It may not be your religion but it is still religion.

I think we should get away fromt his Christianity and go broader because at the moment we are thinking that your religion is the only one.

[Felicia]

hmmm, religion among communists........ to be quite honest, I find myself attracted to wicca..... dunno why, but I've read a lot on it but I haven't "practiced" any. The communist part of me says "felicia you idiot, there's no god or goddess, what are you? Foolosh?"
Dunno, maybe I am, but I've also given christianity a try and buddhism aswell. The buddhism I love, but I would never be one again because I couldn't bring myself to kill another, not without being a discrease to the religion. But anyway, dunno, I feel silly saying this though because I'll advocate athiesm over christianity anyday... but check my sig...... my karma will bite your dogma in the arse :biggrin: ..... but I don't have the heart to tell my nana that I have to belief in "god" or "jesus".... she was looking at some books I have on guerrilla warfare the other day and she came accross a bible that the church had given me...... she emidiatly picked it up and began telling me about stories in it...... but I kept my lips shut about the "non believing" thing :)

[Pete]

Wiccan is more nature worshipping is it not?

[Felicia]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:55 pm on June 3, 2003
Wiccan is more nature worshipping is it not?
more or less, yes. and the manipulation of outcomes by focus and concentration. But it's always more complicated than that, it's an ancient religion, so there are an unbelievable number of sects to follow, I'm in one I like to call "felician" j/k :-P
I should've figured that wicca was sometihng for me a long time ago..... I've always named my plants, but never my stuffed animals (I even have a plant named pete, he's almost a year old now) and when I was a kid, I'd make concoctions that I'd call "potions" from dandelion pettals and other various herbs in my yard...... so it's kinda natural that I came to it eventually :)


(Edited by felicia at 4:14 pm on June 3, 2003)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

CrazyPete, you're right, we should consider ALL religions.

The reason why I only talked about Christianity is that this is the one particular religion that I'm trying to defend, obviously.

Felicia: Phew! Finally someone who doesn't hate me for being a Christian around here!

And you have a thing for plants! LOL, the funny thing is that so do I... :) (that's why I never liked the really active animals, like dogs - they have nothing better to do than play with my plants!)

[Blibblob]

Stop flirting and get back to the topic.

"People who claim to have religion do have religion. You cannot deny that. It may not be your religion but it is still religion."

Have we entirely defined religion? There is faith without an organized religion. Religions are corruptable, but a singular faith isn't.

"I'm in one I like to call "felician" j/k :-P"

No, that makes a lot of sense. Why throw yourself into an existing sect? Most likely there will be something in there that you disagree with, and that can throw it all off. Religions are corrupted by those who disagree. There are "religions" that aren't corruptable though, the ones that don't follow a specific doctrine. Taoism is one of those. While Confucism was being exploited and moraly destroyed in China, Taoism grew stronger. It's sister religion, Buddism, grew stronger along with it.

The Koran was a history of Muhammed's life, with some of his oral teachings. Quite often it looks to be a millitary strategy handbook, because he was in the middle of a war. Every punishment in there states "until the war ends" after it. The religion was corrupted when it was taken into the hands of those ignorant of history.

Christianity was corrupted from the start. They misinterpruted Jesus' teachings. Jesus was against creating an organized religion around his life. He just wanted people to take his morality into their own and make their's, and others around them, lives better. God, however, wanted a religion that was semi-organized. As he stated, "and upon this rock, you shall build my church"(don't remember exactly where it is).

The ancient multi-god religions where created to be corrupted. A lot of money went to the state from those religions. They were created to keep the people under check. The Catholic church was also created to keep people under check, and during the dark ages they made money off of the poor.

So, what exactly is corruption?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Actually, Blibblob, I was being completely serious... No flirting involved whatsoever.

Your ideas are interesting... But what's that "theory of God on a separate plane" that you told me to look into? I can't seem to find it in your posts in this topic... Or are you talking about Deism?

[Blibblob]

"And you have a thing for plants! LOL, the funny thing is that so do I... (that's why I never liked the really active animals, like dogs - they have nothing better to do than play with my plants!)"
"Actually, Blibblob, I was being completely serious... No flirting involved whatsoever."

I don't see how anybody can call that serious...

"Your ideas are interesting... But what's that "theory of God on a separate plane" that you told me to look into? I can't seem to find it in your posts in this topic... Or are you talking about Deism?"

Starts at page 10.

[Pete]

I don't hate you because you are a Christian. Stop thinking that!

[Blibblob]

Pete isn't predjudice. He doesn't hate you because you are Christian, he hates you for who you are. :biggrin: ;)

Redstar... now I'm not to sure about that.

(Edited by Blibblob at 7:45 pm on June 3, 2003)

[Beccie]

Finally someone who doesn't hate me for being a Christian around here!

What about me, comrade?!? I know how you feel though I often feel the same way....

[IHP]

Bec, I didn't know you were a Christian.

--IHP

[Blibblob]

Woah, another christian? What, have you just been keeping silent? I thought the count for christian communists was like -20! Speak up, don't let the predjudice redstar keep you down. Who else is christian? Who else has a religion actually?

[Beccie]

Linden,

I am hesitant to call myself "a Christian" mainly because I don't really have anything in common with the large majority of Christians that don't have a clue. I would hate to be viewed as one of those Christians. I like what I read in the New Testament. Last year I was fortunate enough to have a democratic socialist as my RE teacher, he is responsible for my views on religion and my political awareness

Bilbblob,

I have not been keeping silent. I have posted in just about every religious thread since I joined che-lives. I remember arguing with you a number of times. Are you still anti-Christian?

[Felicia]

Quote: from Edric O on 4:43 pm on June 3, 2003


Felicia: Phew! Finally someone who doesn't hate me for being a Christian around here!

And you have a thing for plants! LOL, the funny thing is that so do I... :) (that's why I never liked the really active animals, like dogs - they have nothing better to do than play with my plants!)

Yeah, I have a thing for plants, but I have a dog too, his 7th birthday was yesterday ... but I find that it's usually cats that chew on plants..... my nana has lots of plants and a cat too :)
here are some of my plant names, lol :

-alfred
-fernando
-pete (almost died but is kicking now.... I'm the only one who can kill a spider plant I swear :biggrin: )
-matt (I think he's dead, but I'm not sure, I'll have to go look and see)
-joe
-bob
-bill (died)
-nicole (died)
-thorn
-pokey (died)
-nosferatu (from my favorite silent flick :) I think he's dead too)
and my sister named some....
-brutal
-killer


blibblob

"I'm in one I like to call "felician" j/k :-P"

No, that makes a lot of sense. Why throw yourself into an existing sect? Most likely there will be something in there that you disagree with, and that can throw it all off. Religions are corrupted by those who disagree. There are "religions" that aren't corruptable though, the ones that don't follow a specific doctrine. Taoism is one of those. While Confucism was being exploited and moraly destroyed in China, Taoism grew stronger. It's sister religion, Buddism, grew stronger along with it.
why thank you :)

[Blibblob]

I have not been keeping silent. I have posted in just about every religious thread since I joined che-lives. I remember arguing with you a number of times. Are you still anti-Christian?
Oh, thats right... I forgot. No, I'm not ant-Christian anymore. I left that little stage of stupid ignorance :biggrin:. No, I sat down and talked with the youth minister from my church. We debated religion and the corruption of the Catholic church. He agreed with me on most points, and told me to become more active in the church to try and fix it, lol. I studied more about the religion, and it isn't that bad. It is just the morons like the pope that screw it up.

[redstar2000]

I studied more about the religion, and it isn't that bad.

compared to what???

:cool:

[Blibblob]

compared to what???
Compared to the morality that the world attaches itself to. Read the New Testament lately? Don't read the bullshit that the apostiles wrote about his life, just the monolouge of Jesus and his stories. I like those morals. I also don't remember him saying straight out "I am the son of god". I may be wrong there, correct me if I am. The religion has been corrupted, but it is getting better.

[Beccie]

I like those morals. I also don't remember him saying straight out "I am the son of god".

Whoa you really have changed your opinion on this issue.

go to this thread;

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...pic=570&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=570&start=0)

On the second page I tell you that Jesus never claimed to be the "son of God". You did not listen to me…

And in this thread;

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=572&start=10 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=572&start=10)

Your old views of Christianity lead me to call you intolerant and ignorant.

[Blibblob]

Whoa you really have changed your opinion on this issue.
Your old views of Christianity lead me to call you intolerant and ignorant.

Wow, I guess I was intolerant and ignorant... That was January... I bothered to teach myself a lot from that time when I knew nothing. I tend to change my early ignorant opinions when I learn more. I guess that is a good thing.

[Beccie]

I bothered to teach myself a lot from that time when I knew nothing

I'm glad to hear that.....You use to infuriate me but now you are ok :)

[Blibblob]

I bothered to teach myself a lot from that time when I knew nothing

I'm glad to hear that.....You use to infuriate me but now you are ok
:biggrin: That's somewhat of a relief... I think. I'm ok, yay... now I am a nutball, and I'm ok, hehe.

[Pete]

It is irrelevant whether or not Jesus said he was the son of God. The people today say he is, and many of them act in his name. Other people say he was the second last prophet and a teacher, but act more off of Mohammed's teachings. Both these groups hate each other (the religious elite, although I read that the Pope has been meeting with a few Mufti's, but it could have been the Pope of some orthodox sect of Egyptian Christianity or something exotic like that.).

The current understanding is what is to be judged by. "God bless America"

[redstar2000]

The religion has been corrupted, but it is getting better.

You mean because they don't torture and burn heretics any more, stuff like that?

Pay attention, blibblob, they'd do it again if they had the chance!

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

why are people defending religion singling out Christainity? there are tons of religions out there, I think we would be better off without a single one

[Umoja]

Because Christianity is more or less the religion that most people follow.

On Redstar's note, what's to say that another Communist revolution wouldn't have the people who led the revolution from stepping down? Like what has happened all to often.

[Blibblob]

"Both these groups hate each other"

No, they don't. It is not the religions that hate each other, it is the governments. Islam hates the west not because of their religion, but because of their actions. Islam hates the Jews because a very long time ago, the Jews betrayed Mohammed to his nemisis kingdom, sparking the start of the Crusades. Mohammed was attacked by Jews and that kingdom(I don't remember the name), they fought them back and retaliated by taking Mecca and the "holy land". The Pope took that as a time to increase loyalty to himself by allying himself with the Jews and telling the people that the Muslims were evil people that needed to be ousted from Jesus' homeland. Thus began the Crusades and the Islamic hatred of the Jews and the Christians, and vice versa.

"The current understanding is what is to be judged by. 'God bless America'"

It shouldn't, if the current understanding is cruel and wrong.

"You mean because they don't torture and burn heretics any more, stuff like that?

Pay attention, blibblob, they'd do it again if they had the chance!"

No, they wouldn't. Evangelists have no backing by the people within the church. That is what counts isn't it? The peoples opinion, not the ruling class'? The people have become to lazy to try and convert others, only the Jehova Witnesses bother to try. I'm a "heretic" according to the church, and they know that. I have seen no pressure to try and have myself converted fully, oh, and I am aware of such things. They don't have the chance, and never will again.

"why are people defending religion singling out Christainity? there are tons of religions out there, I think we would be better off without a single one"

I try, but people keep falling back to Christianity... or is it me?
We would all be better off dead.

[redstar2000]

Islam hates the Jews because a very long time ago, the Jews betrayed Mohammed to his nemisis kingdom, sparking the start of the Crusades. Mohammed was attacked by Jews and that kingdom(I don't remember the name), they fought them back and retaliated by taking Mecca and the "holy land". The Pope took that as a time to increase loyalty to himself by allying himself with the Jews and telling the people that the Muslims were evil people that needed to be ousted from Jesus' homeland. Thus began the Crusades and the Islamic hatred of the Jews and the Christians, and vice versa.

Hopelessly garbled.

Try this brief summary of the background to the First Crusade...

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_crusade

I dub thee St. Blibblob the Incomprehensible.

:cool:

[Blibblob]

All that summary tells is what happened during the crusade. It skips everything before it.

[IHP]

OK, side note, on all this talk of religion. I have always been very anti-religious, but of late I have been looking into Zen Buddhism. I have been drinking green tea instead of coffee, and I'm doing yoga once a week. To be honest, I've never felt healthier, happier or more at ease ever in my life. I am finally seeing the goodness in some religion.

--IHP

[Blibblob]

:biggrin:

Buddhism and Taoism... the two safest religions(taoism being safer). Zen Buddhism is just a way of thought, correct? You don't have to beleive in their gods?

[apathy maybe]

I didn't think there were gods in Buddhism.

[CubanFox]

Wasn't Mohammed around like half a milennium before the Crusades?

[Umoja]

Zen Buddhism is non-Theistic. But it's still a religion. It's more of a religion that doesn't explain "How?" but just lets a person decide "Why?".

Isn't Yoga a Hindu practice? You sound pretty New Age to me IHP.

[truthaddict11]

I am finally seeing the goodness in some religion.
what is that? its seems to me you could achieve the exact same affects with eating right and excercise. I see no good in any religion

[Umoja]

Personally, I think Jung based thinking should be considered a religion. Although Atheism has it's securities of being able to counteract any argument people put forth on a rational level, it has no redeeming values. It doesn't make most people feel happy to be an Atheist, so I can see the value of actually meditating. Be it theistically or non-theistically.

[IHP]

Umoja, I suppose I might be a little new age. :)

Sorry, I'm not sure about yoga except that it is Sanskrit. Apart from that, I meant more that after reading about Zen (meditation) I felt the need to go out and get in touch a bit more with life and well...myself. Yoga was a part of that, as well as green tea etc.

Truthaddict, I wasn't saying that religion is good because of such and such, I was saying that religion had inspired me to do so. This from a guy who drank at least 5 cups of coffee a day, and didn't do any excercise.

--IHP

[Pete]

I just wrote what would equate to be a small essay on this topic. Really I don't feel like copying it here. But it may go up on the ISF mainpage, so look there for it.