Castro endorses New Cuban church

[JKP]

And guess who's going to be footing the bill for this project... http://russiatoday.ru/features/news/19420

[R_P_A_S]

ok.. what does this tell you about people? after over 40 years of being with out religion for the most part.. they still want it? wtf?

[spartan]

I think it proves that Cuba has never had Socialism as the people wouldnt be wanting any religious buildings (What with the withering away of organized religion under Socialism arguement).

Anyway i love Russian Orthodox Christian architecture.

Catholic architecture is shit compared to Orthodox.

[Dimentio]

Socialism =/= Atheism.

I cannot understand the old marxist fixation with religion. The most of the opposition which the marxists has encountered from the ordinary people has historically been the result of marxist-leninist zeal and persecution against religion.

Christianity has always been a tool for the political group in power. I do not doubt the church could theoretically work together with a socialist order, if convinced that the order won't persecute them.

Remember, it was persecution that made christianity grow.

Christianity is not the disease, but a symptome.

[Faux Real]

Cuba was "declared atheist"? Isn't that just negative spin towards the reading base? Why can't journalists just say "established full separation of church and state"? Ugh. Anyways...

Cubans have always maintained a Catholic/Christian background, even today they still practice within the confines of their homes. It's not shocking at all, being that Latin American countries surrounding the island are also predominantly religious as well.

Last I heard, funds are being given to Cuba by KSA/UAE to build a Mosque on the Island for the tiny minority of Muslims there.

[RedAnarchist]

I hope that they don't teach religion to children in Cuban schools. Does that happen?

[Dimentio]

To have religion (with which I mean all religions) "without bias pro or against" and from a historical perspective as a school subject actually reduces the risks of fervent fanaticism to occur at the school.

[UndergroundConnexion]

No children are not taught religion in schools most probably. I can't see the fuss about this. Many communist party members in Cuba also attend church services, I do not see how this is a problem. In my view it has to do how religion is interpreted, por ejemplo : the way Chavez sees Jesus , or the way people like Dyab Abou Jahjah, Nasser or Tariq Ramadan see the Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad economic ideas were close to socialsim and he laid foundations for people's democracy.

People like Chavez have a greater understanding of the historical Jesus then all the right wing christians combined.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This just shows that in Cuba they have not removed the conditions Marx says lead people to seek conslation in religion.

And thus why I think it is still a capitalist state (despite the rhetoric)...

[which doctor]

Catholic architecture is shit compared to Orthodox.
There is no "catholic architecture." Catholic churches have always been built in a wide variety of architectural styles.

[Ismail]

I'm sure all the aggressive types that love to "fuck shit up" will be saddened at this, but while religion isn't great, zealously trying to destroy (rather than dealing with its most reactionary types and teaching science over superstition) religion has never worked.

[kromando33]

Yet more evidence Cuba is going down the revisionist path to capitalism.

[JKP]

Yet more evidence Cuba is going down the revisionist path to capitalism.

But Castro is still in power...

[Comeback Kid]

Socialism =/= Atheism.

I cannot understand the old marxist fixation with religion. The most of the opposition which the marxists has encountered from the ordinary people has historically been the result of marxist-leninist zeal and persecution against religion.

Christianity has always been a tool for the political group in power. I do not doubt the church could theoretically work together with a socialist order, if convinced that the order won't persecute them.

Remember, it was persecution that made christianity grow.

Christianity is not the disease, but a symptome.


Christianity is a disease. It is diametrically opposed to communism.
Communism is a scientific method, based on empirical data and historical materialism, people cannot both be blinded by faith as well as follow a scientific method.



also, Castro being in power doesn't mean shit.

[kromando33]

But Castro is still in power...
Castro has always been a social-imperialist and revisionist, only thing that has changed is that his revisionist buddies Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev aren't giving him money to practise state capitalism and arbitrarily invade Africa now.

[Kitskits]

I want to puke only by seeing the title of the thread.

:p

[Yazman]

Fidel is not actually in power at all. Raul Castro has been the head of state for over a year now, how can you not know this? It's been in the media for a very long time, and Raul is known for his lax views on ideology as compared to Fidel.

[Enragé]

Im not against the existance of a church in cuba, but what on earth is served by Castro endorsing it, and it being the new Cuban church... except ofcourse justification for the rule of a bureaucratic class which will in the near future become the starting point of the capitalist class as it happened in the USSR.

[Nakidana]

Christianity is a disease. It is diametrically opposed to communism.
Communism is a scientific method, based on empirical data and historical materialism, people cannot both be blinded by faith as well as follow a scientific method.



also, Castro being in power doesn't mean shit.

There are lots of religious scientists today, many of them Christians. Einstein himself was religious. Are you saying none of them are able to use the scientific method because they have a religion?

[RedCommieBear]

There are lots of religious scientists today, many of them Christians. Einstein himself was religious. Are you saying none of them are able to use the scientific method because they have a religion?

Well, Einstein's religious views were, to say the least, really complicated, and sometimes look a bit contradictory. He was not a believer in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic 'personal' God'. He did consider himself 'deeply religious', by his own definition. His God was kind of like a metaphor for the harmony and wonder of the universe. This would probably put Einstein on the side of deism. Some interesting Einstein quotes:


There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy …


About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.


If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

Einstein and Religion (http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/)

Although Einstein had some very interesting views on religion, I think putting him in the boat of a 'religious scientist', at least by the mainstream definition, would be in-accurate. If you want examples of religious scientists, there tons that have much less controversy surrounding their religion.

[Wanted Man]

Cuba was "declared atheist"? Isn't that just negative spin towards the reading base? Why can't journalists just say "established full separation of church and state"?

QFT!

Anyway, I'm not sure what the problem is. In fact, I wasn't even aware that Russian orthodoxy had a presence in Cuba. Still, interesting to see the understanding that some people have of socialism and capitalism in Cuba. Apparently, "socialism = no churches" and "capitalism = churches". :-/

[Nakidana]

Well, Einstein's religious views were, to say the least, really complicated, and sometimes look a bit contradictory. He was not a believer in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic 'personal' God'. He did consider himself 'deeply religious', by his own definition. His God was kind of like a metaphor for the harmony and wonder of the universe. This would probably put Einstein on the side of deism. Some interesting Einstein quotes:


Although Einstein had some very interesting views on religion, I think putting him in the boat of a 'religious scientist', at least by the mainstream definition, would be in-accurate. If you want examples of religious scientists, there tons that have much less controversy surrounding their religion.

Yeah, he was religious, just not a follower of any of the mainstream ones.

My point is, just because you have a religion doesn't mean you can't acknowledge or apply the scientific method.

The naturalism that science uses doesn't require the assumption that nature is all there is. As long as you make the same basic philosophical assumptions that science makes (E.g. continuity of phenomena and the existence of an external reality which we can observe, at least partially, through our senses) you're perfectly able to hold a belief in the supernatural and apply the scientific method.

[SouthernBelle82]

Right. I'm a Christian and if you read writings from Jesus in the Bible he was a socialist too. The Christian's mentioned in Acts practiced socialism.

[Dros]

Right. I'm a Christian and if you read writings from Jesus in the Bible he was a socialist too. The Christian's mentioned in Acts practiced socialism.

Yeah right!

Jesus was an orthodox Jew which means that he believed (and practiced) the following:

1.) Homosexuals should be killed.
2.) It is okay to own slaves (as long as you don't envy the slaves of others).
3.) The maintenance of private property and a rigid and ultra-reactionary system of production relations.
4.) Incredible sexism.
5.) The killing (usually stoning of tons of people(read Leviticus)).
6.) In Acts (3.23), just to take your example, it is stated that all those who don't follow Jesus should be killed!!!!!
7.) And all kinds of other crazy, sadistic, shit.
==============================================

Also of import. There is no socialism before capitalism and there is no capitalism during biblical times. They may have had some shared ownership but it was not socialism.

[SouthernBelle82]

Jesus was an orthodox Jew huh? Gee he didn't do a very good job of that since he worked and traveled on the Sabbath. He challenged what you could and couldn't do and back then if you even did any farm work or helped a neighbor you were considered a "bad Jew" since you worked on the Sabbath. As to your other points:

1) There are no Biblical passages from Jesus in the gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) where Jesus discusses homosexuality at all. He didn't touch it. Period. Now Paul did but Paul isn't the savior and the one who gets you into Heaven according to Christianity. Jesus's second commandment was love your neighbor as yourself. No where did he say a thing about homosexuality. No where. If you quote anything after John and before Matthew that is not Jesus.

2) Show the Biblical verse from Jesus. Again anything before Matthew and after John is not Jesus. Try to remember that in your search.

3) Jesus didn't talk about private property I don't think. I think he was worried about other things. However read through the book of Acts. What they practiced IS socialism.

4) Actually no. There were at least two women who were active in Jesus's group and traveled with him. Mary Magdelene and a woman mentioned named Phoebe. Jesus actually was quite the opposite. When a crowd wanted to stone a woman for being a prostitute it was Jesus who said "no" and to look at themselves first.

5) Leviticus isn't Jesus. It's Judiasm. Again Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is Jesus.

6) Acts isn't Jesus either. Have you ever read the sermon on the mountain? It's there where Jesus says that "blessed are the peace makers for they will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

7) Yeah you did a good job providing that insight.... :rolleyes:

Whether or not you agree matters but what the first church in Acts did is socialism. Calling it socialism or not the actions still are the same. Just look at what they practiced. It's one of the many reason's why I'm communist.


Yeah right!

Jesus was an orthodox Jew which means that he believed (and practiced) the following:

1.) Homosexuals should be killed.
2.) It is okay to own slaves (as long as you don't envy the slaves of others).
3.) The maintenance of private property and a rigid and ultra-reactionary system of production relations.
4.) Incredible sexism.
5.) The killing (usually stoning of tons of people(read Leviticus)).
6.) In Acts (3.23), just to take your example, it is stated that all those who don't follow Jesus should be killed!!!!!
7.) And all kinds of other crazy, sadistic, shit.
==============================================

Also of import. There is no socialism before capitalism and there is no capitalism during biblical times. They may have had some shared ownership but it was not socialism.

[metalero]

Cuba holds the marxist view on religion, complete separation of church and state. There are no religious schools, and it is the most secular country in the world. Most of the population are atheists, and the state respect individual beliefs and practices as long they don't mess with politics. Religion is a product of human alienation under social relations dominated by exploitation, and religion persists even in a society in transition to socialism; Religion will only dissapear when class antagonisms and all their contradictions are over, and we're a bit far from seeing that soon.

[manic expression]

Anyone who's saying, "this means that Cuba isn't socialist!" is completely off target here. Socialism does not mean a dearth of religion, it means people get to decide their personal beliefs on divinity and religion and that politics have nothing to do with this personal issue.

Read James Connolly's "Socialism and Religion", which I believe is an excellent position on the subject:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/socrel.htm

Even Lenin, who took a much more hostile view of religion itself, stated consistently that religion was a personal issue. Cuba is doing what socialist societies should do: make religion a personal issue and leave it at that.

If anything, this just proves that people are so itching at the chance to irrationally declare Cuba non-socialist that they will use the most shocking leaps in logic to do so.

[Dros]

If that is what they are doing (leaving it a personal issue) then why is Castroendorsing it!!!


PS: Cuba still isn't socialist.:)

[Kitskits]

About the christ-is-good stuff.

Christ was this, christ was that. He was socialist, he was gay, he was a cow, he was human, he was god. etc etc

Ok, good he could have been whatever he was. However, religion is idealistic, is bugging the communist cause and must be exterminated if we are to proceed, along with religion, christ, muhammed and all the other dead shit of religion's history.

[spartan]

About the christ-is-good stuff.

Christ was this, christ was that. He was socialist, he was gay, he was a cow, he was human, he was god. etc etc

Ok, good he could have been whatever he was. However, religion is idealistic, is bugging the communist cause and must be exterminated if we are to proceed, along with religion, christ, muhammed and all the other dead shit of religion's history.

Thats all well and good but there are lots of workers who are religious so your plan would end up killing about a third of the worlds population.

So what you propose isnt really going to endear us and Socialism to the masses now is it?

Religion is a necessary evil which we Socialists will just have to put up with for the time being whether we like it or not.

Socialism is a mass movement, just like religion has a mass following, so we simply cant afford to alienate religious people who constitute a majority of the worlds population.

[Kitskits]

There seems to be an authoritarian/stalinist radar when someone speaks like this in threads. Anyway, not to be misunderstood, this was what I said in one post about religion.

Religion is idealism and other nonsense, communism is materialism. Either we destroy them or they destroy us. The war will be long and like in each war we don't necessarily win if we launch full scale assault at the beginning. The way to terminate religion is to ban all organized religion immediately and launch full-scale propaganda against personal religion.

And seriously, because some comrades (excluding me) are hoxhaists, maoists, stalinists etc it doesn't mean that they are murderers and that the forum is flooded with beasts.

[Dros]

Jesus was an orthodox Jew huh? Gee he didn't do a very good job of that since he worked and traveled on the Sabbath. He challenged what you could and couldn't do and back then if you even did any farm work or helped a neighbor you were considered a "bad Jew" since you worked on the Sabbath.

Ummm... Yes he most certainly was.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I
have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5: 17-18

"Although Jesus never described himself as an orthodox Jew or orthodox Pharisee, to be sure he was....No where is Jesus’ Jewishness more poignantly demonstrated than in today’s gospel lesson.

“One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.’ “(Mark 12: 28-31).

Here Jesus recites the SHEMA, 1 or Judaism basic creedal statement. The
Shema is considered by some rabbis and Jewish scholars as a prayer. It is based on the passage from the Hebrew Scriptures that is also one of the lessons for this Sunday from Deuteronomy 6." --Dr. Charles Page


1) There are no Biblical passages from Jesus in the gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) where Jesus discusses homosexuality at all. He didn't touch it. Period. Now Paul did but Paul isn't the savior and the one who gets you into Heaven according to Christianity. Jesus's second commandment was love your neighbor as yourself. No where did he say a thing about homosexuality. No where. If you quote anything after John and before Matthew that is not Jesus.

I'm quoting what Jesus believed. Here's what he did dew in Matthew:

" And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5.29-30)

We should cut off our limbs to avoid "sin". That is, if you are attracted to someone and look at them you need to pluck out your eyes.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7.13-14)

Most people are going to spend the rest of eternity in hell.

"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matthew 7.19)

Anyone who doesn't bear "good fruit" (children ?) gets a lava bath.

"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8.12)

I'm so glad this guy isn't real...

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!" (Matthew 11.21)

Jesus just damned two cities to eternal hell because they didn't like him. Wow...


2) Show the Biblical verse from Jesus. Again anything before Matthew and after John is not Jesus. Try to remember that in your search.

Right... See above. And below:

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20.17)

The touch of a woman is enough to make it so that you can't go to heaven.

"Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord" (Luke 2.23)

Guys are holy but gals ain't.

"But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" (Mark 13.7)

God is going to make life hard on pregnant women during the Last Days.:mad:


3) Jesus didn't talk about private property I don't think. I think he was worried about other things. However read through the book of Acts. What they practiced IS socialism.

"Thou shalt not steal" Guess what that means...

Again, Jesus was an Orthodox Jew and that means a rigid class system with private property.

Again, Socialism has a very specific meaning. It is the mode of production that can only happen AFTER capitalism. There is NO SUCH THING as ancient socialism even if the early Christian CULT had some form of communalism.


4) Actually no. There were at least two women who were active in Jesus's group and traveled with him. Mary Magdelene and a woman mentioned named Phoebe. Jesus actually was quite the opposite. When a crowd wanted to stone a woman for being a prostitute it was Jesus who said "no" and to look at themselves first.

Ooops. Got confused. See above for sexism.


5) Leviticus isn't Jesus. It's Judiasm. Again Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is Jesus.

Again, Jesus was Jewish!


6) Acts isn't Jesus either. Have you ever read the sermon on the mountain? It's there where Jesus says that "blessed are the peace makers for they will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

:rolleyes: Well then I guess Jesus wasn't a "socialist." You brought this book up. I can demonstrate that it is a horrible sadistic blood bath.


7) Yeah you did a good job providing that insight....

I think so. See above for a rather more in depth (but certainly not complete) list...

[SouthernBelle82]

I do like that. I don't want to see religion disappear but I would like it out of making policy decisions. That isn't for them to decide in my opinion. Even Jesus was against that. Oh and Jesus was also for not having religion be public such as when he said to pray in your closet. With religious schools personally I don't care as long as they're private and the government doesn't fund them. That's a breach of the seperation of church and state in my view.


Cuba holds the marxist view on religion, complete separation of church and state. There are no religious schools, and it is the most secular country in the world. Most of the population are atheists, and the state respect individual beliefs and practices as long they don't mess with politics. Religion is a product of human alienation under social relations dominated by exploitation, and religion persists even in a society in transition to socialism; Religion will only dissapear when class antagonisms and all their contradictions are over, and we're a bit far from seeing that soon.

[SouthernBelle82]

Well with me the only reason why it should be "exterminated" is in public policy making etc. The whole seperation of church and state ordeal.


About the christ-is-good stuff.

Christ was this, christ was that. He was socialist, he was gay, he was a cow, he was human, he was god. etc etc

Ok, good he could have been whatever he was. However, religion is idealistic, is bugging the communist cause and must be exterminated if we are to proceed, along with religion, christ, muhammed and all the other dead shit of religion's history.

[SouthernBelle82]

Well sure but if Jesus was such an orthodox Jew he wouldn't have been traveling on that day or performing miracles. And another thing you have to remember is Jesus spoke a lot with symbolism and parables and things that were familiar to people in those days when he supposivley was a live while they may seem weird or horrible or unfamiliar to us now. I can point to plenty of Bible verses where Jesus was a socialist. It's easy to do which is one reason why I hate people using religion for politics because you can be either/or. Here's an example:

Luke 6: 20Looking at his disciples, he said:
"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

23"Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. Love for Enemies

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Judging Others

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. A Tree and Its Fruit

43"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
The Wise a20Looking at his disciples, he said:
"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
23"Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. <H5>Love for Enemies

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Judging Others

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. A Tree and Its Fruit

43"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. The Wise and Foolish Builders

46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."nd Foolish Builders </H5> 46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

So we can do this whole back and forth thing all day.


Ummm... Yes he most certainly was.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I
have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5: 17-18

"Although Jesus never described himself as an orthodox Jew or orthodox Pharisee, to be sure he was....No where is Jesus’ Jewishness more poignantly demonstrated than in today’s gospel lesson.

“One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.’ “(Mark 12: 28-31).

Here Jesus recites the SHEMA, 1 or Judaism basic creedal statement. The
Shema is considered by some rabbis and Jewish scholars as a prayer. It is based on the passage from the Hebrew Scriptures that is also one of the lessons for this Sunday from Deuteronomy 6." --Dr. Charles Page



I'm quoting what Jesus believed. Here's what he did dew in Matthew:

" And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5.29-30)

We should cut off our limbs to avoid "sin". That is, if you are attracted to someone and look at them you need to pluck out your eyes.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7.13-14)

Most people are going to spend the rest of eternity in hell.

"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matthew 7.19)

Anyone who doesn't bear "good fruit" (children ?) gets a lava bath.

"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8.12)

I'm so glad this guy isn't real...

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!" (Matthew 11.21)

Jesus just damned two cities to eternal hell because they didn't like him. Wow...



Right... See above. And below:

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20.17)

The touch of a woman is enough to make it so that you can't go to heaven.

"Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord" (Luke 2.23)

Guys are holy but gals ain't.

"But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" (Mark 13.7)

God is going to make life hard on pregnant women during the Last Days.:mad:



"Thou shalt not steal" Guess what that means...

Again, Jesus was an Orthodox Jew and that means a rigid class system with private property.

Again, Socialism has a very specific meaning. It is the mode of production that can only happen AFTER capitalism. There is NO SUCH THING as ancient socialism even if the early Christian CULT had some form of communalism.



Ooops. Got confused. See above for sexism.



Again, Jesus was Jewish!



:rolleyes: Well then I guess Jesus wasn't a "socialist." You brought this book up. I can demonstrate that it is a horrible sadistic blood bath.



I think so. See above for a rather more in depth (but certainly not complete) list...

[ellipsis]

ok.. what does this tell you about people? after over 40 years of being with out religion for the most part.. they still want it? wtf?

from what i under stand Catholicism and Santaria are tolerated and practiced in cuba.

[SouthernBelle82]

I was watching some Cuba video's on Youtube and even saw photo's and video's of Jewish people worshipping too. I guess with me my whole thing is as long as they're not involved with the state and making policy's then you get no beef from me.


from what i under stand Catholicism and Santaria are tolerated and practiced in cuba.

[blackstone]

Cuba holds the marxist view on religion, complete separation of church and state. There are no religious schools, and it is the most secular country in the world. Most of the population are atheists, and the state respect individual beliefs and practices as long they don't mess with politics. Religion is a product of human alienation under social relations dominated by exploitation, and religion persists even in a society in transition to socialism; Religion will only dissapear when class antagonisms and all their contradictions are over, and we're a bit far from seeing that soon.

That's a bold lie your telling;

Wikipedia


Cuba has a multitude of faiths reflecting the island’s diverse cultural elements. Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism), which was brought to the island by Spanish colonists at the beginning of the 16th century, is the most prevalent professed faith. After the revolution, Cuba became an officially atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) state and restricted religious practice. Since the Fourth Cuban Communist Party Congress in 1991, restrictions have been eased and, according to the National Catholic Observer, direct challenges by state institutions to the right to religion have all but disappeared,[125] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#_note-catholic) though the church still faces restrictions of written and electronic communication, and can only accept donations from state-approved funding sources.[125] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#_note-catholic) The Roman Catholic Church is made up of the Cuban Catholic Bishops' Conference (COCC), led by Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Lucas_Ortega_y_Alamino), Cardinal Archbishop of Havana.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] It has eleven dioceses, 56 orders of nuns and 24 orders of priests. In January 1998, Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II) paid a historic visit to the island, invited by the Cuban government and Catholic Church.
The religious landscape of Cuba is also strongly marked by syncretisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretisms) of various kinds. This diversity derives from West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa) and Central Africans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Africa) who were transported to Cuba, and in effect reinvented their African religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_religion). They did so by combining them with elements of the Catholic belief system, with a result very similar to Brazilian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil) Umbanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbanda). Catholicism is often practised in tandem with Santería (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer%C3%ADa), a mixture of Catholicism and other, mainly African, faiths that include a number of cult religions. Cuba’s patron saint, La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caridad_del_Cobre&action=edit) (the Virgin of Cobre) is a syncretism with the Santería goddess Ochún. The important religious festival "La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre" is celebrated by Cubans annually on 8 September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8). Other religions practised are Palo Monte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Monte), and Abakuá (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaku%C3%A1), which have large parts of their liturgy in African languages.
Protestantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism), introduced from the United States in the 18th century, has seen a steady increase in popularity. 300,000 Cubans belong to the island’s 54 Protestant denominations. Pentecostalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism) has grown rapidly in recent years, and the Assemblies of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God) alone claims a membership of over 100,000 people. The Episcopal Church of Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_of_Cuba) claims 10,000 adherents. Cuba has small communities of Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews), Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) and members of the Bahá'í Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith).[126] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#_note-115) Havana has just three active synagogues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogues) and no mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque)[127] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#_note-116). Most Jewish Cubans are descendants of Polish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) and Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) Ashkenazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi) Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) who fled pogroms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms) at the beginning of the 20th century. There is, however, a sizeable number of Sephardic Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic_Jews) in Cuba, who trace their origin to Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) (primarily Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul) and Thrace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrace)). Most of these Sephardic Jews live in the provinces, although they maintain a synagogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue) in Havana. In the 1960s, almost 8,000 Jews left for Miami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami). In the 1990s, approximately 400 Jewish Cubans relocated to Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) in a co-ordinated exodus using visas provided by nations sympathetic to their desire to move to Israel.

[Dros]

Saying that he liked the poor does not make him a socialist.

I've said it before and I'll say it again THE WORD SOCIALIST HAS A VERY VERY VERY SPECIFIC MEANING! THERE ARE NO ANCIENT SOCIALISTS! SOCIALISM CAN ONLY EXIST AFTER CAPITALISM! JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST!

And it's all very well and good to say Jesus spoke in parables. I think all of the quotes I chose were explicitly literal. I have shown that Jesus was an orthodox Jew. Please adress that argument. This means he upheld all of the Leviticus horrors (he even said so). That means he upheld private property, rigid class structure, slavery, homophobia, sexism, et. all.

================================================== ======================

But this argument is missing a much more important point.

Religion is in and of itself bad even if Jesus was a "socialist" (which he's not). There is inherent value in the truth and the truth is that there is no god.

Moreover all this "don't judge," "love the neighbor", "turn the other cheek" stuff, is not only not socialist it's counter-revolutionary! Religion often advocates this kind of stuff. It prevents the masses from rising up by justifying production relations, supporting existing hierarchy, and subverting revolutionary action! If religion tells us that we get a better life in heaven and that we should be forgiving and passive, and then we follow that, THEN THERE WILL NEVER BE A REVOLUTION! For that reason, I think religion is the single biggest struggle the proletariat has today.

[daniyaal]

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I
have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5: 17-18

I... don't follow.

How does saying that OT law is completed make it still in effect? Christ didn't destroy the laws, but he did fulfill them, so I don't see how this passage forces a Christian to follow the OT.


How does this passage suddenly change how the OT laws work? For example, it would take an idiot to only read the OT and thus conclude that Jews should stone their disobedient children rather than examining the other laws involved, some from outside the OT (historical precedent shows that this is how it was interpreted at the time of the bible).

[manic expression]

If that is what they are doing (leaving it a personal issue) then why is Castroendorsing it!!!


PS: Cuba still isn't socialist.:)

Sorry, but I actually read the link, and there is nothing of the sort said. It simply vaguely states that Castro "supports" the project, which can mean quite a few things. Basically, you have no argument here because you're working off of your own misconceptions and not facts.

PS: You're still wrong. I'm still waiting for you to explain the existence of socialist property relations and a lack of capitalist property relations. Try a materialist analysis next time.

[Sky]

Some ultraleftists get carried away with these escapdes against religion. Under socialism, there is a separation of church and state and education from the church. Religion must be a private affair and churches must receive authorization from the State to exist. All peoples would be allowed to have religious beliefs. The Communist Party, however, considers religion to be a relic of the past. Communists struggle against religion and seek to enlighten the masses, but through persuasion and with respect towards the personal feelings of believers.

[Nakidana]

Thats all well and good but there are lots of workers who are religious so your plan would end up killing about a third of the worlds population.

So what you propose isnt really going to endear us and Socialism to the masses now is it?

Religion is a necessary evil which we Socialists will just have to put up with for the time being whether we like it or not.

Socialism is a mass movement, just like religion has a mass following, so we simply cant afford to alienate religious people who constitute a majority of the worlds population.

That's funny. From your posts in the "The enemy of our enemy" thread a couple of months ago I got the impression you were of the complete opposite opinion. (That we shouldn't cooperate with any religious people whatsoever)

Personally I think this whole debate is awfully black and white. Just because you have a religion doesn't mean you have a "turn the other cheek" mentality to all questions. I think this is quite clear if you take a look at the resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Instead of trying to label all religion as counter revolutionary, (essentially cutting off most of the world population from the struggle) I think a stance of secularism, not atheism, should be taken. Let people believe and pray if they want. You have to judge people by their politics, not by their religion. I mean I've heard people call themselves Muslim Christians, even Muslim Atheists. The real questions are; do they support secularism? Are they anti-racists? Are they anti-imperialists? Are they anti-capitalists?

This aggressive stance against anyone with the slightest bit of faith isn't leading anywhere. And it sure as hell isn't "the biggest struggle the proletariat has today".

[spartan]

That's funny. From your posts in the "The enemy of our enemy" thread a couple of months ago I got the impression you were of the complete opposite opinion. (That we shouldn't cooperate with any religious people whatsoever)

My opinions on such matters have changed drastically since those embarrassing days:D

[Nakidana]

My opinions on such matters have changed drastically since those embarrassing days:D

Good, lol. :D

[Dros]

Sorry, but I actually read the link, and there is nothing of the sort said. It simply vaguely states that Castro "supports" the project, which can mean quite a few things. Basically, you have no argument here because you're working off of your own misconceptions and not facts.

PS: You're still wrong. I'm still waiting for you to explain the existence of socialist property relations and a lack of capitalist property relations. Try a materialist analysis next time.

a.) It has nothing to do with the link.
b.) Castro "supports" the Church. How Marxist of him!
c.) Go back and read some Marx. Religion is the biproduct of Capitalism (although it will continue to exist in socialsim until it dies.)
d.) There are CAPITALIST PRODUCTION RELATIONS IN CUBA! PROVE TO ME THAT DESPITE THE OBVIOUS EXISTANCE OF A RULING CLASS (economically and politically) CUBA IS STILL SOMEHOW SOCIALIST!!! Seriously, if Cuba is socialist, than I think I prefer Capitalism... :)

[kromando33]

Fidel is not actually in power at all. Raul Castro has been the head of state for over a year now, how can you not know this? It's been in the media for a very long time, and Raul is known for his lax views on ideology as compared to Fidel.
Yeah, he has openly expressed 'interest' in the Chinese authoritarian model of state capitalism.

Also, calling Jesus 'socialist' is just false, supporting a primitivist notion of communalism is the opposite of supporting the dictatorship of the industrial proletariat, we do not want to turn the clock back, we are not regressive, we are progressive.

[manic expression]

a.) It has nothing to do with the link.
b.) Castro "supports" the Church. How Marxist of him!
c.) Go back and read some Marx. Religion is the biproduct of Capitalism (although it will continue to exist in socialsim until it dies.)
d.) There are CAPITALIST PRODUCTION RELATIONS IN CUBA! PROVE TO ME THAT DESPITE THE OBVIOUS EXISTANCE OF A RULING CLASS (economically and politically) CUBA IS STILL SOMEHOW SOCIALIST!!! Seriously, if Cuba is socialist, than I think I prefer Capitalism... :)

1.) Precisely.

2.) Give me an example that shows us HOW the Cuban government "supports" the church. "Support" could easily mean mere tolerance. Unfortunately, you seem uninterested with stuff like facts.

3.) Go back and read some Marxists. Every communist leader has maintained the necessity of division between church and state; that is all. Communists seek to make religion a personal issue only. People can have as much faith as they want, it just needs to stay out of government.

4.) More unsupported assertions from someone who can't make a materialist analysis. The mode of production in Cuba has nothing to do with private ownership, wage labor, property, profit or any other facet of bourgeois societies. Property relations are not bourgeois, for people cannot privately own the means of production (among other things). All the facts point to the inevitable conclusion that your position is wrong.

And yes, there is obviously a ruling class in Cuba. The working class.

[Lenin II]

I'm not even sure if Castro is an atheist or Roman Catholic or what he is anymore. Chavez is Catholic, correct?

Anyway, I agree with others on this thread. When I first converted to atheism, I took the Richard Dawkins stance of religion being the highest evil. Now I realize that corruption of religion is merely a symptom of capitalism, and thus, capitalism and its sister imperialism must be considered our highest evil.

[Dros]

2.) Give me an example that shows us HOW the Cuban government "supports" the church. "Support" could easily mean mere tolerance. Unfortunately, you seem uninterested with stuff like facts.

It means he doesn't oppose religion which is bad.


3.) Go back and read some Marxists. Every communist leader has maintained the necessity of division between church and state; that is all. Communists seek to make religion a personal issue only. People can have as much faith as they want, it just needs to stay out of government.

I'm sorry that's blatantly not true. Religion represents the most reactionary ideology currently arround. Good luck transforming the people for Communism when people still uphold private property and think that homosexuals should be killed. Look around. Read the bible. Understand the Marxist theory of religion. Marxists have TOLERATED the existance of religion until such time as it dies due to the absence of the material conditions which propegate it.


4.) More unsupported assertions from someone who can't make a materialist analysis. The mode of production in Cuba has nothing to do with private ownership, wage labor, property, profit or any other facet of bourgeois societies. Property relations are not bourgeois, for people cannot privately own the means of production (among other things). All the facts point to the inevitable conclusion that your position is wrong.

More ad hominem attacks from naive little boy who thinks Castro is cool. Go to Cuba. That's all I ask. Just go and tell me what you think. If that's what socialism looks like then there is no hope for humanity.

Just to let you know one fifth of the Cuban economy is privatized. There are vast numbers of poor people, and democracy is a farse. Sorry!

[kromando33]

Religion is nothing but an arm of the bourgeois state, it is fundamentally against the historical material view of Marxism, encourages blind fanaticism and reactionary thinking, it should not be allowed full stop. Enver Hoxha dealt with religion appropriately.

[manic expression]

It means he doesn't oppose religion which is bad.

Nice try at diversion. When it comes to the politics of socialism, all serious (and competent) leaders of our movement made a clear division between church and state; they did not oppose the very existence of religion or faith, they made it a personal issue. The policy that Cuba has implemented is no different from what Lenin and Connolly and countless other communist leaders argued for: make religion a personal issue.


I'm sorry that's blatantly not true. Religion represents the most reactionary ideology currently arround. Good luck transforming the people for Communism when people still uphold private property and think that homosexuals should be killed. Look around. Read the bible. Understand the Marxist theory of religion. Marxists have TOLERATED the existance of religion until such time as it dies due to the absence of the material conditions which propegate it.

You're not even understanding what I'm saying. Sure, religion doesn't help our movement, but that doesn't mean communists should actively try to liquidate its existence outright. The point is to create a worker state and gradually come to the point where organized religion has no place in society anymore. Again, this is what Lenin argued for.


More ad hominem attacks from naive little boy who thinks Castro is cool. Go to Cuba. That's all I ask. Just go and tell me what you think. If that's what socialism looks like then there is no hope for humanity.

Those weren't ad hominem attacks, they were criticisms of your position. Do try to recognize the difference.

I will go to Cuba. However, we've already been through this and established that your argument is absolutely ridiculous. You support the Cultural Revolution, and yet I doubt you were even alive when it happened (ni xihuan Mao Zedong, keshi ni mei qu guo zhong guo...zao gao!). How convenient that you try to debunk my analysis by saying that I haven't been to Cuba when you obviously do the exact same thing that I do. This argument is both immature and absurd.


Just to let you know one fifth of the Cuban economy is privatized. There are vast numbers of poor people, and democracy is a farse. Sorry!

Again Drosera, you're trying to get away with unsupported claims. Give some evidence and maybe you'll be able to present a serious argument.

kromando33

Religion is nothing but an arm of the bourgeois state, it is fundamentally against the historical material view of Marxism, encourages blind fanaticism and reactionary thinking, it should not be allowed full stop. Enver Hoxha dealt with religion appropriately.

What nonsense. Surely, Pope Urban II was the "arm of the bourgeois state" when he launched the First Crusade! Zoroaster was a capitalist through and through! Try cracking open a history book from time to time (or at least the writings of actual Marxist thinkers and leaders).

[Dros]

Nice try at diversion. When it comes to the politics of socialism, all serious (and competent) leaders of our movement made a clear division between church and state; they did not oppose the very existence of religion or faith, they made it a personal issue. The policy that Cuba has implemented is no different from what Lenin and Connolly and countless other communist leaders argued for: make religion a personal issue.

I haven't read Connolly but you are misrepresenting the Communist line here. Communists don't believe that religion is a "personal issue." They believe that it must be tolerated until the material conditions that allow it to thrive are annihilated.


You're not even understanding what I'm saying. Sure, religion doesn't help our movement, but that doesn't mean communists should actively try to liquidate its existence outright. The point is to create a worker state and gradually come to the point where organized religion has no place in society anymore. Again, this is what Lenin argued for.

Correct! Lenin did not support the Church! Lenin actively worked to subvert religion. And I support that!



Those weren't ad hominem attacks, they were criticisms of your position. Do try to recognize the difference.

You pretty much blatantly stated that I was stupid instead of making a response. (Which I find more then a little ironic.)


I will go to Cuba. However, we've already been through this and established that your argument is absolutely ridiculous. You support the Cultural Revolution, and yet I doubt you were even alive when it happened (ni xihuan Mao Zedong, keshi ni mei qu guo zhong guo...zao gao!). How convenient that you try to debunk my analysis by saying that I haven't been to Cuba when you obviously do the exact same thing that I do. This argument is both immature and absurd.

Right. The difference being that my possition on China is based on a knowledge of history instead of idealism. I know people who have been to Cuba and came back horrified by what they saw in terms of suffering. Now you can blame that on imperialism (and make a very good point) but the Cuban people are being ruthelessly exploited by the State. (This gets back to the state-cap thread.) This is what your precious Trotsky would call a "caste." And Cuba is what he would refer to as a Degenerated Worker's State.


Again Drosera, you're trying to get away with unsupported claims. Give some evidence and maybe you'll be able to present a serious argument.

Again, you have attempted to attack me instead of refute my argument. (Hint: claiming you've already proved it wrong doesn't count, especially when it's not true!)

[manic expression]

I haven't read Connolly but you are misrepresenting the Communist line here. Communists don't believe that religion is a "personal issue." They believe that it must be tolerated until the material conditions that allow it to thrive are annihilated.

I don't disagree. However, Cuba is dealing with the present, and so the question is what to do right now.

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm


Correct! Lenin did not support the Church! Lenin actively worked to subvert religion. And I support that!

Cuba's policies are basically the same as Lenin's in this regard (although material circumstances are different, of course, so there are some differences). The headline of Castro's "support" is misleading and inappropriate. Nowhere is this headline justified in the link.


You pretty much blatantly stated that I was stupid instead of making a response. (Which I find more then a little ironic.)

That's not what I was saying at all. If it came across that way, I assure you I didn't mean it that way. Although I am pretty confident I didn't insult you in such a way, I apologize for how you felt.


Right. The difference being that my possition on China is based on a knowledge of history instead of idealism. I know people who have been to Cuba and came back horrified by what they saw in terms of suffering. Now you can blame that on imperialism (and make a very good point) but the Cuban people are being ruthelessly exploited by the State. (This gets back to the state-cap thread.) This is what your precious Trotsky would call a "caste." And Cuba is what he would refer to as a Degenerated Worker's State.

In which part of our discussions have I shown myself oblivious to Cuban history? If you're going to call me idealist and ignorant of history, try to back it up. However, if you're going to say that since I haven't been to Cuba and therefore cannot have an accurate perception of the island, while you weren't even alive when events you support occured, you are always going to be guilty of hypocrisy. Face it: you have no more credentials than I to talk about Cuba.

By the way, I've talked to MULTIPLE people who've been to Cuba who fully support my arguments (communists and non-communists alike). Actually, the person who initally showed me the reality of Cuba's socialism lived there for quite some time. Furthermore, my evidence is supported by first-hand observations and research.

One more thing: although it seems that you have not been to Cuba, I have NEVER accused you of being incapable of knowing the Cuban situation due to this. Why? It's a cop-out that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I do hope you realize this.

Ni bu ke.yi dong zhong wen, suo.yi wo xiang ni you yi.ge wen.ti! ZAO GAO!


Again, you have attempted to attack me instead of refute my argument. (Hint: claiming you've already proved it wrong doesn't count, especially when it's not true!)

I didn't attack you, I pointed out the fact that you're making unsubstantiated claims. Until you show some evidence, my point stands.

[SouthernBelle82]

As I said Orthodox Jews viewed the Sabbath as a very important part of their lives. They were very strict about that and Jesus challenged it. He did miracles and traveled on that day when in his day and age in the Jewish society that was looked down upon. So the fact Jesus challenged that very important part of their lives doesn't make him an orthodox. From what I understand Orthodox's are very strict and follow the law's seriously. Jesus didn't change the law but he challenged it. If you can have a revolution while still following the messages of Jesus then it can happen. Jesus had his own revolution even without violence of any sort and challenged the status quo.


Saying that he liked the poor does not make him a socialist.

I've said it before and I'll say it again THE WORD SOCIALIST HAS A VERY VERY VERY SPECIFIC MEANING! THERE ARE NO ANCIENT SOCIALISTS! SOCIALISM CAN ONLY EXIST AFTER CAPITALISM! JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST!

And it's all very well and good to say Jesus spoke in parables. I think all of the quotes I chose were explicitly literal. I have shown that Jesus was an orthodox Jew. Please adress that argument. This means he upheld all of the Leviticus horrors (he even said so). That means he upheld private property, rigid class structure, slavery, homophobia, sexism, et. all.

================================================== ======================

But this argument is missing a much more important point.

Religion is in and of itself bad even if Jesus was a "socialist" (which he's not). There is inherent value in the truth and the truth is that there is no god.

Moreover all this "don't judge," "love the neighbor", "turn the other cheek" stuff, is not only not socialist it's counter-revolutionary! Religion often advocates this kind of stuff. It prevents the masses from rising up by justifying production relations, supporting existing hierarchy, and subverting revolutionary action! If religion tells us that we get a better life in heaven and that we should be forgiving and passive, and then we follow that, THEN THERE WILL NEVER BE A REVOLUTION! For that reason, I think religion is the single biggest struggle the proletariat has today.

[SouthernBelle82]

Well Jesus was progressive for his day. Especially since he had at least two known women who were a part of his missionary group when in those days it was unheard of.


Yeah, he has openly expressed 'interest' in the Chinese authoritarian model of state capitalism.

Also, calling Jesus 'socialist' is just false, supporting a primitivist notion of communalism is the opposite of supporting the dictatorship of the industrial proletariat, we do not want to turn the clock back, we are not regressive, we are progressive.

[Dros]

Cuba's policies are basically the same as Lenin's in this regard (although material circumstances are different, of course, so there are some differences). The headline of Castro's "support" is misleading and inappropriate. Nowhere is this headline justified in the link.

"The whole project has the support of Cuban leader, Fidel Castro."

That sounds pretty damning to me. Another thing: Cuba is trying to recement it's relationship with IMPERIALIST RUSSIA! What the FUCK!


That's not what I was saying at all. If it came across that way, I assure you I didn't mean it that way. Although I am pretty confident I didn't insult you in such a way, I apologize for how you felt.

Don't worry. I am not easy to offend and I don't get insulted. I was pointing out that you weren't actually making arguments.


In which part of our discussions have I shown myself oblivious to Cuban history? If you're going to call me idealist and ignorant of history, try to back it up. However, if you're going to say that since I haven't been to Cuba and therefore cannot have an accurate perception of the island, while you weren't even alive when events you support occured, you are always going to be guilty of hypocrisy. Face it: you have no more credentials than I to talk about Cuba.

You are correct that I have never been to Cuba. But from what I understand, the situation can be bad or horrific for the Proletariat. I am not saying that it is impossible to understand a situation without going there. That is not my argument. My point is, if you yourself went there, I imagine you might change your mind.


One more thing: although it seems that you have not been to Cuba, I have NEVER accused you of being incapable of knowing the Cuban situation due to this. Why? It's a cop-out that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I do hope you realize this.

See above!

[manic expression]

"The whole project has the support of Cuban leader, Fidel Castro."

That sounds pretty damning to me. Another thing: Cuba is trying to recement it's relationship with IMPERIALIST RUSSIA! What the FUCK!

Yes, although I trust you can appreciate how nebulous and vague that statement is. "Support", in this case, can mean a wide range of things. There is nothing to show that Castro is supporting the church outside of tolerating it.

Secondly, Cuba is trying to find trading partners. Mao Zedong didn't seem to mind shaking Nixon's hand when it came to basically the exact same issue. Socialist nations should not isolate themselves, they should trade for what they need and want; so long as the workers are in control of the process there is no problem.


Don't worry. I am not easy to offend and I don't get insulted. I was pointing out that you weren't actually making arguments.

Good to know you weren't insulted, but the fact is that I was making arguments. Anyway, big deal, let's continue.


You are correct that I have never been to Cuba. But from what I understand, the situation can be bad or horrific for the Proletariat. I am not saying that it is impossible to understand a situation without going there. That is not my argument. My point is, if you yourself went there, I imagine you might change your mind.

I've heard many things about Cuba. Many of those things are inaccurate. Conditions are not "bad or horrific" for the working class, one need only look at the facts to dismiss this. Cuba just posted another improvement in its infant mortality rate, which is now comfortably ahead of the rates of industrialized western nations (all of which are bathing in the wealth of imperialism, I might add), while enduring a crippling imperialist blockade. I can tell you one thing, American workers would be lucky to get such medical service, such housing, such education, such literacy, such gender and racial equality, such socialism.

I don't think I'd change my mind, since as I've said, I've talked to many people who have been to Cuba and who fully agree with me. I'll find out soon enough if all goes well.

And yes, you did imply that I was underqualified to talk about Cuba because I hadn't travelled there.

[Random_Guy]

I went to Cuba last year with a couple people. It's not what you think, drosera99. Yes, of course it's a poor country but its mostly due to the huge immoral blockade by the US. Since I'm latin, you wouldn't believe the amount of Cubans who start talking to you in confidence. Hell, we even became good friends with a Cuban named Camilo, he invited us to his home. Anyways, believe me when I say it, Fidel is still supported by the majority because of all the progressive social steps manic expression mentioned. I seen it with my own eyes, I've heard it from the peoples mouths. Camilo even told us "there is basically no "true" poverty here" he said "Look at the people begging for money, look at them! Look at their clothes, look at their body, do they look skinny? do they lack clothing? Are the children malnourished? It's all bullshit! They're doing it for their own greed." He was talking about the Cubans who beg the tourist for money. They are the ones who bring the bad vibes to the tourist he said.
Its true, people are poor over there but nobody is suffering. All Cubans eat, not a lot, but ALL of them eat. Which can't be said about other countries. We even noticed that there was some sort of upcoming regional election while in Matanzas.
I'll tell you this, they have HIGH HOPES for this Latin American Unity between the leftist countries. The smiles I got with my Hugo Chavez shirt :D
I know this rant sounds too pro-Fidel but it's what I saw and experienced in Cuba. All this negative shit I heard about Cuba are, too me, full of shit now. Because honestly, I expected the worse when I went to Cuba but now I realized the ones who complained about this great country are just a bunch of pampered assholes, thats all.


Sorry for going off topic, guys.

[spartan]

I went to Cuba last year with a couple people. It's not what you think, drosera99. Yes, of course it's a poor country but its mostly due to the huge immoral blockade by the US. Since I'm latin, you wouldn't believe the amount of Cubans who start talking to you in confidence. Hell, we even became good friends with a Cuban named Camilo, he invited us to his home. Anyways, believe me when I say it, Fidel is still supported by the majority because of all the progressive social steps manic expression mentioned. I seen it with my own eyes, I've heard it from the peoples mouths. Camilo even told us "there is basically no "true" poverty here" he said "Look at the people begging for money, look at them! Look at their clothes, look at their body, do they look skinny? do they lack clothing? Are the children malnourished? It's all bullshit! They're doing it for their own greed." He was talking about the Cubans who beg the tourist for money. They are the ones who bring the bad vibes to the tourist he said.
Its true, people are poor over there but nobody is suffering. All Cubans eat, not a lot, but ALL of them eat. Which can't be said about other countries. We even noticed that there was some sort of upcoming regional election while in Matanzas.
I'll tell you this, they have HIGH HOPES for this Latin American Unity between the leftist countries. The smiles I got with my Hugo Chavez shirt :D
I know this rant sounds too pro-Fidel but it's what I saw and experienced in Cuba. All this negative shit I heard about Cuba are, too me, full of shit now. Because honestly, I expected the worse when I went to Cuba but now I realized the ones who complained about this great country are just a bunch of pampered assholes, thats all.


Sorry for going off topic, guys.

Thats all well and good but there are also many stories of Cubans living in Cuba who would contradict most of what you said.

I am not saying that you are a liar, far from it, i am just saying that some people see things differently to others.

Indeed their was a member a few months ago here on revleft, who said that he was a Cuban, living in Cuba, who said that you couldnt say anything openly against Castro and the regime for fear of being arressted.

[Dros]

Yes, although I trust you can appreciate how nebulous and vague that statement is. "Support", in this case, can mean a wide range of things. There is nothing to show that Castro is supporting the church outside of tolerating it.

He's allowing them to build a huge fucking cathedral! As you've pointed out, the majority of the Cuban economy is public sector. I doubt there is private industry enough to build the Church. This means that he is supporting it!


Secondly, Cuba is trying to find trading partners. Mao Zedong didn't seem to mind shaking Nixon's hand when it came to basically the exact same issue. Socialist nations should not isolate themselves, they should trade for what they need and want; so long as the workers are in control of the process there is no problem.

Moderate trading is one thing. The reason that Cuba has not been able to develop socialism is because they have not tried to become self sufficient. They were slave to imperialists under Batista, and under Castro, all that changed in this regard is that they were producing for the Soviet Union.


I've heard many things about Cuba. Many of those things are inaccurate. Conditions are not "bad or horrific" for the working class, one need only look at the facts to dismiss this. Cuba just posted another improvement in its infant mortality rate, which is now comfortably ahead of the rates of industrialized western nations (all of which are bathing in the wealth of imperialism, I might add), while enduring a crippling imperialist blockade. I can tell you one thing, American workers would be lucky to get such medical service, such housing, such education, such literacy, such gender and racial equality, such socialism.

1.) It has always been my possition (check the other threads) that Castro has been good for the Cuban proletariat. It has always been my possition that the Cuban proletariat has been better off than other third world proletariats (as you have pointed out). I also know that it can be horrific for certain sections of the proletariat. Castro is infamous for the treatment of homosexuals for instance. I did not mean to suggest that the entirity of the proletariat had bad conditions.
2.) Social services =/= socialism. I have (again) never denied the existance of a social service program in Cuba which is very good and benefitial. That doesn't change the fact that the production relations in Cuba are fundementally capitalist.


I don't think I'd change my mind, since as I've said, I've talked to many people who have been to Cuba and who fully agree with me. I'll find out soon enough if all goes well.

Okay. Tell me what you learned when you get back.


And yes, you did imply that I was underqualified to talk about Cuba because I hadn't travelled there.

If you thought I said that you misunderstood me.


I went to Cuba last year with a couple people. It's not what you think, drosera99. Yes, of course it's a poor country but its mostly due to the huge immoral blockade by the US. Since I'm latin, you wouldn't believe the amount of Cubans who start talking to you in confidence. Hell, we even became good friends with a Cuban named Camilo, he invited us to his home. Anyways, believe me when I say it, Fidel is still supported by the majority because of all the progressive social steps manic expression mentioned.

Yes he is a progressive. He is popular. THE MODE OF PRODUCTION IN CUBA IS NOT SOCIALIST!!! THESE ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!


I seen it with my own eyes, I've heard it from the peoples mouths. Camilo even told us "there is basically no "true" poverty here" he said "Look at the people begging for money, look at them! Look at their clothes, look at their body, do they look skinny? do they lack clothing? Are the children malnourished? It's all bullshit! They're doing it for their own greed." He was talking about the Cubans who beg the tourist for money. They are the ones who bring the bad vibes to the tourist he said.

I hear people say the same thing about the incredibly poor in the US where they are certainly not faking.


Its true, people are poor over there but nobody is suffering. All Cubans eat, not a lot, but ALL of them eat.

1.) Yes people are certainly suffering.
2.) Again. Food=/=socialism!


The smiles I got with my Hugo Chavez shirt

Good. Castro = Chavez. They are progressives who advocate capitalism + a bandaid.


I realized the ones who complained about this great country are just a bunch of pampered assholes

Wow. Where did you get that? I'll tell you what Cuba needs: a real Communist (read Maoist) revolution!

This basicly sums up my possition on Cuba:


Fidel Castro mouths Marxist phrases. But he is not a communist. And the revolution Castro led did not break Cuba out of the bounds of bourgeois economic, political, and social relations.

Castro sought to substitute one form of imperialist dependency for another. Prior to 1959, Cuba had been a “monoculture”: an economy based on sugar production for a world market dominated by U.S. imperialism. Castro did not lead and mobilize the Cuban people to fundamentally restructure this economic legacy. That would have required a radical and mass-based land reform to lay the foundations for a collective and self-sustaining agriculture that could feed the population. It would have required the step-by-step development of an industrial capability that would contribute to the development of a diversified agriculture and strengthen economic self-reliance.

Instead of making this kind of radical break with imperialism, Castro sought a “quick fix.” Sugar would remain king of the Cuban economy and Cuba would remain hostage to the world market. But in place of the United States, the social-imperialist Soviet Union became the linchpin of neocolonial arrangements (the Soviet Union ceased being socialist in the mid-1950s). The Soviet Union guaranteed Cuba a reliable market for sugar and provided Cuba with credits and oil, part of which it re-sold on the world market for food.

By the mid-1960s, Cuba became tightly enmeshed in the Soviet bloc. Castro supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and of Afghanistan in 1979. He launched ideological attacks on Mao and the Cultural Revolution. Castro also provided foot-soldiers for Soviet operations to expand imperial influence in Africa.

Cuba called itself socialist. But the entire Cuban economy was subordinated to a capitalist economic logic—produce, produce, and produce what you produce best: sugar. The masses of Cubans became wage slaves to this commodity logic. Their labor and energies were not serving the all-round transformation of society but rather the reproduction of relations of dependency and imperial exploitation.

Based on these economic arrangements, Castro was able to pump revenues from sugar sales into social programs, like health care and education. These measures produced certain benefits for Cuba’s poor. Politically, this helped solidify a base of popular support for Castro. Did this make Cuba socialist? No.

[Dros]

As I said Orthodox Jews viewed the Sabbath as a very important part of their lives. They were very strict about that and Jesus challenged it. He did miracles and traveled on that day when in his day and age in the Jewish society that was looked down upon. So the fact Jesus challenged that very important part of their lives doesn't make him an orthodox.

All serious bible scholars acknowledge that Jesus was a very strict Jew. He even says so in the bible passage I demonstrated. Here's some more:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

Here is a good anwere to this point from a Christian theologian:

"I think the confusion here relates to the idea that Jesus broke the Mosaic law. Take for example, healing on the Sabbath. There is nothing in the Old Testament that prevents healing on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath was forbidden (Exodus 20:8-11). Going to the fields to plow, harvesting, or cooking were considered work (Exodus 34:21; 35:1-3). But healing or helping someone in trouble was never viewed as "work" in any Old Testament text or command that I know of.

Did Jesus ever break an Old Testament law? This is an important point. Jesus never broke the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5) -- if so, he would not be our perfect sinless sacrifice. Jesus was entirely sinless, even in reference to the Old Testament law (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). What Jesus broke were the Pharisaic additions to the law, not God's law.

The Jews had taken God's Word found in the Old Testament and ADDED their own oral traditions to the law. These added traditions were called "the tradition of the elders." For Jesus' view of these added traditions see Mark 7:1-13. These additions to the law were placed on the same authoritative level as God's Word!"


If you can have a revolution while still following the messages of Jesus then it can happen. Jesus had his own revolution even without violence of any sort and challenged the status quo.

a.) You can't have a revolution and follow Jesus. See my last post about why Christianity is necessarily counter-revolutionary.
b.) Jesus did not have a revolution. He got nailed to a board.

[kromando33]

Well Jesus was progressive for his day. Especially since he had at least two known women who were a part of his missionary group when in those days it was unheard of.
Maybe he was progressive for his day, but his day was over 2k years ago, alot has happened since then, for one the industrialization of production.

[manic expression]

Thats all well and good but there are also many stories of Cubans living in Cuba who would contradict most of what you said.

I am not saying that you are a liar, far from it, i am just saying that some people see things differently to others.

Indeed their was a member a few months ago here on revleft, who said that he was a Cuban, living in Cuba, who said that you couldnt say anything openly against Castro and the regime for fear of being arressted.

Sorry, spartan, that's just not true. Every person I've talked to who has been to Cuba, from college professors to communists to casual travellers, have said that Cubans are not afraid to share their views.

drosera99


He's allowing them to build a huge fucking cathedral! As you've pointed out, the majority of the Cuban economy is public sector. I doubt there is private industry enough to build the Church. This means that he is supporting it!

IIRC, the link pointed out that the funds were coming from Orthodox nations. That's the money behind the construction.


Moderate trading is one thing. The reason that Cuba has not been able to develop socialism is because they have not tried to become self sufficient. They were slave to imperialists under Batista, and under Castro, all that changed in this regard is that they were producing for the Soviet Union.

Define "moderate". I bet you can't.

At any rate, your talk of self-sufficiency is misled and irrelevant. Why? For starters, a small island cannot seriously be expected to be fully economically self-sufficient; it's just not reasonable to think that it EVER could. Secondly, Cuba has survived the fall of the Soviet Union, meaning your entire premise (being "slaves" to the "imperialist" USSR, which is another absurdity) is wrong on its face. Had Cuba been so dependent on the USSR, it surely would have fallen with it. Not so. Lastly, Cuba's workers are deciding who it trades with and they are ensuring that it benefits the working class of Cuba. That is socialism.

Again, have fun explaining this one away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_visit_to_China_1972


1.) It has always been my possition (check the other threads) that Castro has been good for the Cuban proletariat. It has always been my possition that the Cuban proletariat has been better off than other third world proletariats (as you have pointed out). I also know that it can be horrific for certain sections of the proletariat. Castro is infamous for the treatment of homosexuals for instance. I did not mean to suggest that the entirity of the proletariat had bad conditions.

If that is your position, then fine, it didn't seem that way to me. Let's move on.


2.) Social services =/= socialism. I have (again) never denied the existance of a social service program in Cuba which is very good and benefitial. That doesn't change the fact that the production relations in Cuba are fundementally capitalist.

What this position ignores is a.) the existence of socialist property relations and b.) the nonexistence of capitalist social relations. Your label of mere "social services" paints a picture of a capitalist welfare state, which is at best an incorrect assumption. Let's run through: private property has effectively been liquidated, worker democracy is at the heart of the political process, property is owned by the working class. To say that a country without capitalist property relations OR a capitalist mode of production could be capitalist is just irrational.

Here's the thing: if you're going to call it "capitalist", try to back it up.


Okay. Tell me what you learned when you get back.

Sin dudas, camarada, tenemos que exponer y aprender esta tema.


If you thought I said that you misunderstood me.

I'll take your word for it.


Good. Castro = Chavez. They are progressives who advocate capitalism + a bandaid.

Sorry, I have to jump in here. That statement ignores the fact that whatever issues you have with Chavez, he has helped the Cuban Revolution when no one seemed willing to lift a finger for it. Castro is a revolutionary, Chavez is a progressive; revolutionaries everywhere should be supportive of how Chavez is opposing imperialism, regardless of sectarian objections.

And I might add that Mao cooperated with Richard Nixon, and you're trying to criticize Castro for accepting Bolivarian aid? That makes no sense.


1.) Yes people are certainly suffering.
2.) Again. Food=/=socialism!

1.) No, they really aren't, and Cuba's achievements in the medical fields prove this. People have all their basic necessities and more.

2.) The point was that Cuba has constructed a system that works on the basis of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". In short, it has established socialism.


Wow. Where did you get that? I'll tell you what Cuba needs: a real Communist (read Maoist) revolution!

This basicly sums up my possition on Cuba:

Please, spare us. Your sectarianism wouldn't be so bad if it didn't disparage the achievements of the Cuban revolutionaries and workers. Cuba's socialism has endured and continues to defend the working class from imperialism. Perhaps if your eyes weren't so clouded with ideological residue, you would see Cuba for what it is: a successful socialist society.

[SouthernBelle82]

I saw at the YCL that they had some people who went to Cuba not too long ago and had a review up of it and from what you said and their experiences it seems to match up. I would love to see us here in the States be able to trade with Cuba again. I think that will help a lot with their economic situation and maybe help our debt issue too.


I went to Cuba last year with a couple people. It's not what you think, drosera99. Yes, of course it's a poor country but its mostly due to the huge immoral blockade by the US. Since I'm latin, you wouldn't believe the amount of Cubans who start talking to you in confidence. Hell, we even became good friends with a Cuban named Camilo, he invited us to his home. Anyways, believe me when I say it, Fidel is still supported by the majority because of all the progressive social steps manic expression mentioned. I seen it with my own eyes, I've heard it from the peoples mouths. Camilo even told us "there is basically no "true" poverty here" he said "Look at the people begging for money, look at them! Look at their clothes, look at their body, do they look skinny? do they lack clothing? Are the children malnourished? It's all bullshit! They're doing it for their own greed." He was talking about the Cubans who beg the tourist for money. They are the ones who bring the bad vibes to the tourist he said.
Its true, people are poor over there but nobody is suffering. All Cubans eat, not a lot, but ALL of them eat. Which can't be said about other countries. We even noticed that there was some sort of upcoming regional election while in Matanzas.
I'll tell you this, they have HIGH HOPES for this Latin American Unity between the leftist countries. The smiles I got with my Hugo Chavez shirt :D
I know this rant sounds too pro-Fidel but it's what I saw and experienced in Cuba. All this negative shit I heard about Cuba are, too me, full of shit now. Because honestly, I expected the worse when I went to Cuba but now I realized the ones who complained about this great country are just a bunch of pampered assholes, thats all.


Sorry for going off topic, guys.

[SouthernBelle82]

Yea. My mother has a friend who is originally from Gutamala and she went to Cuba once for missionary work with this underground church and she said about the same things you did. That people couldn't even open their windows to enjoy the fresh air (she did that and the host freaked out according to her) or talk politics in the street for example. Of course not having been there with my own eyes I have to take her word. I've also read Cubans who leave the country to go live in another can't take anything with them etc. So I guess it's hard to know what to experience unless you've done it yourself.


Thats all well and good but there are also many stories of Cubans living in Cuba who would contradict most of what you said.

I am not saying that you are a liar, far from it, i am just saying that some people see things differently to others.

Indeed their was a member a few months ago here on revleft, who said that he was a Cuban, living in Cuba, who said that you couldnt say anything openly against Castro and the regime for fear of being arressted.

[SouthernBelle82]

Well again I point to him challenging the Sabbath and what you could do on that day. He also challenged the religious leaders of their day and called them Pharasiee's. How is that being a strict Jew? From what I know people who are strict in their religion do not question their I guess leaders is what you'd call them. Jesus did that. He challenged the religious authority of his day and age. Doesn't sound too strict to me. Does it you? I never said Jesus broke the Sabbath he just challenged it. According to the scriptures people in that age took the Sabbath very seriously and didn't even do farm work on that day. They did everything they needed to either the day before or the day after. Jesus challenged that by traveling a lot of miles and doing miracles etc. The Pharasiee's took it very seriously and Jesus was challenging them.

A) Sure I can. My revolutionary is political and not spiritual. My spirituality is personal and between me and the God I believe in. I believe in what Jesus said when he said to pray in your closet. Of course I don't literally pray in my closet but I keep it all to myself. Read sometime what Jesus said about the Phrasiee's. I'm sure you've probably already read them but read through it again. I don't ever talk about my religion unless someone ask's me or tries to convert me or whatever. My revolutionary is political. It's about changing my country for the better. The fact that Jesus helped me to come to communism is between him and me. I personally don't really care at all if you approve or not or anyone else here. I'm going to have my beliefs and that's that. I'm not here to promote Christianity. In fact I think this thread is the first I've ever mentioned anything with my faith. I'm sure you know how to check (keep in mind I said "I think"). I'm here to commute with people who agree with me politically and not spiritually. If I wanted that there are plenty of message boards for that. To me I agree that with religion and the government it should always be seperate. When religion and government mix together it's always a dangerous consequence towards the country and the people within that said country. The said country can have as many churches and places of worship as much as they want as long as the government doesn't get involved with that said church. With Castro and the said church he's supporting isn't it Catholic? Is he Catholic? If so perhaps that's why he's "supportive" of it.

B) Well not really. While you're right about what happened to Jesus look at the effects Christianity has had on society as a whole whether positive or negative. Look at the point of a revolutionary and compare it to the gospel books and what's written there (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). I guess to a extent you can also look at Acts and what the first church did.


All serious bible scholars acknowledge that Jesus was a very strict Jew. He even says so in the bible passage I demonstrated. Here's some more:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

Here is a good anwere to this point from a Christian theologian:

"I think the confusion here relates to the idea that Jesus broke the Mosaic law. Take for example, healing on the Sabbath. There is nothing in the Old Testament that prevents healing on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath was forbidden (Exodus 20:8-11). Going to the fields to plow, harvesting, or cooking were considered work (Exodus 34:21; 35:1-3). But healing or helping someone in trouble was never viewed as "work" in any Old Testament text or command that I know of.

Did Jesus ever break an Old Testament law? This is an important point. Jesus never broke the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5) -- if so, he would not be our perfect sinless sacrifice. Jesus was entirely sinless, even in reference to the Old Testament law (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). What Jesus broke were the Pharisaic additions to the law, not God's law.

The Jews had taken God's Word found in the Old Testament and ADDED their own oral traditions to the law. These added traditions were called "the tradition of the elders." For Jesus' view of these added traditions see Mark 7:1-13. These additions to the law were placed on the same authoritative level as God's Word!"



a.) You can't have a revolution and follow Jesus. See my last post about why Christianity is necessarily counter-revolutionary.
b.) Jesus did not have a revolution. He got nailed to a board.

[SouthernBelle82]

Right but I'm talking about his day. Today he might be a moderate populist.


Maybe he was progressive for his day, but his day was over 2k years ago, alot has happened since then, for one the industrialization of production.

[Dros]

Well again I point to him challenging the Sabbath and what you could do on that day. He also challenged the religious leaders of their day and called them Pharasiee's. How is that being a strict Jew? From what I know people who are strict in their religion do not question their I guess leaders is what you'd call them. Jesus did that. He challenged the religious authority of his day and age. Doesn't sound too strict to me. Does it you? I never said Jesus broke the Sabbath he just challenged it. According to the scriptures people in that age took the Sabbath very seriously and didn't even do farm work on that day. They did everything they needed to either the day before or the day after. Jesus challenged that by traveling a lot of miles and doing miracles etc. The Pharasiee's took it very seriously and Jesus was challenging them.

a.) the Parasiees (not sure how you spell it in English) were a sect of Judaism, not religious leaders.
b.) the importance of this argument was to determine whether or not Jesus upholds the Old Testament. He clearly does. THAT MEANS HE ENDORSES SLAVERY, THE MURDER OF GAYS, AND COUNTLESS OTHER ATROCITIES AND DEFINITIVELY PROVES THAT HE WAS NOT "SOCIALIST"!!!!!
c.) you did say he broke the Sabbath.



A) Sure I can. My revolutionary is political and not spiritual. My spirituality is personal and between me and the God I believe in. I believe in what Jesus said when he said to pray in your closet. Of course I don't literally pray in my closet but I keep it all to myself.

See previous posts.


B) Well not really. While you're right about what happened to Jesus look at the effects Christianity has had on society as a whole whether positive or negative. Look at the point of a revolutionary and compare it to the gospel books and what's written there (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). I guess to a extent you can also look at Acts and what the first church did.

Nothing revolutionary in any meaningful sense...

[Dros]

IIRC, the link pointed out that the funds were coming from Orthodox nations. That's the money behind the construction.

Ooops. My bad. He's still allowing it to be built.



Define "moderate". I bet you can't.

Needed to sustain the economy. What the economy is incapable of producing. What Castro did was sell out the interests of the Proletariat to the Soviet Block. What do I win from this bet? How about you say "Castro is not a Communist, Cuba is not Socialist, and State capitalism is real"? I think that's reasonable...:cool:



At any rate, your talk of self-sufficiency is misled and irrelevant. Why? For starters, a small island cannot seriously be expected to be fully economically self-sufficient; it's just not reasonable to think that it EVER could.

It's reasonable to think that they could produce things other than sugar and try to industrialize. They didn't because Castro was Krushchev's puppy.


Secondly, Cuba has survived the fall of the Soviet Union, meaning your entire premise (being "slaves" to the "imperialist" USSR, which is another absurdity) is wrong on its face. Had Cuba been so dependent on the USSR, it surely would have fallen with it. Not so. Lastly, Cuba's workers are deciding who it trades with and they are ensuring that it benefits the working class of Cuba. That is socialism.

Look what happened to the Cuban economy when the USSR collapsed. Just out of curiosity, would you deny that the Krushchev and post Krushchev USSR was imperialist? For someone who whines about bureaucracy so much, I find it ironic that you would choose to be the revisionist's sock puppet.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_visit_to_China_1972

a.) a bad move on Mao's part.
b.) never said some trade wasn't necessary.

It's very suspicious to me that Castro a.) allied with Krushchev and toted his line and b.) that they are going to continue to grow close with Russia now that it is openly capitalist.


What this position ignores is a.) the existence of socialist property relations and b.) the nonexistence of capitalist social relations.

a.) which don't actually exist.
b.) which do actually exist/


Your label of mere "social services" paints a picture of a capitalist welfare state, which is at best an incorrect assumption.

No. That is essentially what Cuba is.


Let's run through: private property has effectively been liquidated, worker democracy is at the heart of the political process, property is owned by the working class. To say that a country without capitalist property relations OR a capitalist mode of production could be capitalist is just irrational.

No. The means of production are controlled by the state which is not run by the proletariat. The mode of production and the production relations are capitalist. This debate is not going anywhere. I'm not going to continue this facet of the discussion barring any new arguments made by you. I can see already that this conversation will be just like the old one.



And I might add that Mao cooperated with Richard Nixon, and you're trying to criticize Castro for accepting Bolivarian aid? That makes no sense.

That's not what I said. I said that Castro and Chavez are politically similar.



1.) No, they really aren't, and Cuba's achievements in the medical fields prove this. People have all their basic necessities and more.

Giving people medicine means they aren't being exploited? I prescribe Cuba 25cc of Socialism. That should do the trick!

PS: Tell that to all the gay people Castro fucked over.


2.) The point was that Cuba has constructed a system that works on the basis of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". In short, it has established socialism.

Ummm... No. It has not. And if that was the case, you would be arguing that Cuba had achieved Communism which would be... I'll say funny.


Please, spare us. Your sectarianism wouldn't be so bad if it didn't disparage the achievements of the Cuban revolutionaries and workers. Cuba's socialism has endured and continues to defend the working class from imperialism. Perhaps if your eyes weren't so clouded with ideological residue, you would see Cuba for what it is: a successful socialist society.

I'm sorry that I've desparaged the tremendous ability for Castro to put a bandaid on capitalism and imperialism. I hope it's a nice pink bandaid with a smiley face on it. That one always makes the kids happy. I wonder if that bandaid makes the Proletariat happy? I have a feeling they want real communism...

[SouthernBelle82]

A) Religious leaders were included in his criticisms of the Phariasee's and the hypocrites.

B) Even though he didn't talk about slavery himself or the murder of gays. I mean heck even if you commit adultery you were to be punished. See when people were going to stone the prostitute but Jesus came to her aide and said for them to look at themselves first. He also said "turn the other cheek" instead "eye for an eye" as the OT says. So while he didn't come to change the way things were he did come to challenge them.

C) No I said he challenged the Sabbath. I'm sure Jesus observed it as well while still traveling and doing miracles. Remember he was challenged about this to show how he was a bad Jew.

Depends on what your definition of "meaningful sense" is.


a.) the Parasiees (not sure how you spell it in English) were a sect of Judaism, not religious leaders.
b.) the importance of this argument was to determine whether or not Jesus upholds the Old Testament. He clearly does. THAT MEANS HE ENDORSES SLAVERY, THE MURDER OF GAYS, AND COUNTLESS OTHER ATROCITIES AND DEFINITIVELY PROVES THAT HE WAS NOT "SOCIALIST"!!!!!
c.) you did say he broke the Sabbath.




See previous posts.



Nothing revolutionary in any meaningful sense...

[RedKnight]

Here is what Rosa Luxembourg had to say on socialism's relationship to religion. http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/luxemburg/socialismandthechurches.html

[Lenin II]

A) Religious leaders were included in his criticisms of the Phariasee's and the hypocrites.

B) Even though he didn't talk about slavery himself or the murder of gays. I mean heck even if you commit adultery you were to be punished. See when people were going to stone the prostitute but Jesus came to her aide and said for them to look at themselves first. He also said "turn the other cheek" instead "eye for an eye" as the OT says. So while he didn't come to change the way things were he did come to challenge them.

C) No I said he challenged the Sabbath. I'm sure Jesus observed it as well while still traveling and doing miracles. Remember he was challenged about this to show how he was a bad Jew.

Depends on what your definition of "meaningful sense" is.
Then for the love of Jesus the socialist, STOP putting your quotes on the BOTTOM of the page!!

[Dros]

B) Even though he didn't talk about slavery himself or the murder of gays. I mean heck even if you commit adultery you were to be punished. See when people were going to stone the prostitute but Jesus came to her aide and said for them to look at themselves first. He also said "turn the other cheek" instead "eye for an eye" as the OT says. So while he didn't come to change the way things were he did come to challenge them.

Did Jesus uphold the law of Judaism? Very clearly, he did. This means YES! He believed in all of that!


C) No I said he challenged the Sabbath. I'm sure Jesus observed it as well while still traveling and doing miracles. Remember he was challenged about this to show how he was a bad Jew.

Really. This is totally irrelevant. All this proves is that he upheld the law. If you insist that he "challenged" certain religious authorities this two is extraneous: HE UPHELD THE HORRORS OF LEVITICUS! HE IS NOT SOCIALIST! HE IS A DISGUSTING PERSON WHO BELIEVED IN THE MOST DISGUSTING PRACTICES! I suggest you read LEVITICUS.

[SouthernBelle82]

Uhm this is how it does it automatically. I put my quotes at the top but the website does it the opposite. Yelling at the wrong person hun. So sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. Just because you yell at me doesn't mean I'm going to change. Deal.


Then for the love of Jesus the socialist, STOP putting your quotes on the BOTTOM of the page!!

[SouthernBelle82]

I'm not going to repeat myself again. You can go back to my previous posts on this. And I suggest you read through the gospels. If he did that he would have stoned the prostitute like everyone else was going to but he didn't now did he? Nope and the old law stated that he should have done so but he didn't. You can hate on Jesus all you want but it's not my issue. It's yours. Oh and also the old law stated not to talk to the Gentiles but yet he did all the time such as the woman at the well. There are plenty examples out there. You obviously aren't interested in them.


Did Jesus uphold the law of Judaism? Very clearly, he did. This means YES! He believed in all of that!



Really. This is totally irrelevant. All this proves is that he upheld the law. If you insist that he "challenged" certain religious authorities this two is extraneous: HE UPHELD THE HORRORS OF LEVITICUS! HE IS NOT SOCIALIST! HE IS A DISGUSTING PERSON WHO BELIEVED IN THE MOST DISGUSTING PRACTICES! I suggest you read LEVITICUS.

[Dros]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20

That is Jesus saying that he upholds the old testament laws and the Rabbinic additions. I've read the gospel. I suggest you do the same. You can continue to blindly worship a crazy, sadistic, ultrareactionary, nutter if you want to. Your self deception is your own business. But you will not decieve us. I think it's pretty clear from our conversation what is true:

1.) Jesus was not a socialist (this is simply an inarguable fact).
2.) According to both Jesuse and all contemporary bible scholars Jesus was a very religious Jew.
3.) This means he upholds the laws of the Old Testament including amongst other things the murder of all gays amoungst many many others.

[daniyaal]

Matthew 5:17-20

That is Jesus saying that he upholds the old testament laws and the Rabbinic additions. I\\\'ve read the gospel. I suggest you do the same. You can continue to blindly worship a crazy, sadistic, ultrareactionary, nutter if you want to. Your self deception is your own business. But you will not decieve us. I think it\\\'s pretty clear from our conversation what is true:

1.) Jesus was not a socialist (this is simply an inarguable fact).
2.) According to both Jesuse and all contemporary bible scholars Jesus was a very religious Jew.
3.) This means he upholds the laws of the Old Testament including amongst other things the murder of all gays amoungst many many others.

Actually it says that nothing will disappear from the Law. And it qualifies that with until everything is accomplished. There are several ways to approach this. First of all, he contrasts abolishing the Law with fulfilling the Law, that is to say that the Law was put in place with his coming in mind. However, having fulfilled this expectation he brings a new law. It is also possible to view “everything being accomplished” as being the cross or even the Bible in view of 1 Corinthians 13:10. Either way it cannot be ignored that the author of Hebrews gives explicit instructions about the place of the Law in Hebrews 8:7,13. (Interesting note, if you take the author of Hebrews to be Paul there is good reason to connect these verses with 1 Corinthians 13:10.)

[Dros]

However, having fulfilled this expectation he brings a new law.

I don't see that as a valid interpretation. He says that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." That is, the law shall be preserved until the end of days and also that "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." That is, upholding the laws is good.


It is also possible to view “everything being accomplished” as being the cross or even the Bible in view of 1 Corinthians 13:10.

I don't see how that applies here. Perhaps you can explain your thought in more detail.


Either way it cannot be ignored that the author of Hebrews gives explicit instructions about the place of the Law in Hebrews 8:7,13.

a.) "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." -Psalm 19:7

This supports the "perfection" of "God's law".
b.) The significance of this is that it is allegedly Jesus himself saying that he supports the law. All that the Hebrews quote shows (if you take it at face value and without looking at the contradiction with Psalm) is that after Jesus, God changed his mind.

[Le Libérer]

I read the book, Fidel and religion written by a Cuban Catholic priest, Frei Butto, it actually interviewed Fidel and Raul, Raul stating being a revolutionary is the most Christian act there is. I believe they both, held their Catholic upbringing close to their hearts because they speak fondly of their memories. When I read the book, it reminded me of a bible verse I had once read, Bring up a child the way he should go and he will not depart from it. I think Fidel has eventually done just that.

[metalero]

That's a bold lie your telling;

Wikipedia

Yet you failed in explaining how I was "Liying". You cited a typical enciclopedia article pointing statistics, and a brief history of Cuban religious population, and nothing else to disprove my statement (Cuban state is completely separate from church, and most of the population don't engage in religious practice). Religion exists in Cuba, as remnant of its religious past, but the role of religion is smaller than any other society in the world.

[daniyaal]

I don\'t see that as a valid interpretation. He says that \"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.\" That is, the law shall be preserved until the end of days and also that \"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.\" That is, upholding the laws is good. They do not. See Hebrews 8 and the ushering in of the Old Covenant. The passage you have brought up explains that the Law is not bad by any stretch, even though Jesus is preaching things not within it, nor should it be disregarded and libertinism embraced. However, Scripture is unequivocally clear that the Old Covenant and the Law are no longer the ethos under which Christians live, nor is it the means of salvation. Christ is the salvation and his teaching, conveyed through the apostles, is the ethos.
a.) \"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.\" -Psalm 19:7 This supports the \"perfection\" of \"God\'s law\". b.) The significance of this is that it is allegedly Jesus himself saying that he supports the law. All that the Hebrews quote shows (if you take it at face value and without looking at the contradiction with Psalm) is that after Jesus, God changed his mind. It says that if you are predisposed to believe that. If you are rather predisposed toward synchronisity it says exactly what I said it did. Let\'s look at your interpretation and see if it is more valid. Jesus didn\'t follow the law. He regularly broke the Sabbath. He encouraged Peter to eat unclean food. He touched unclean people. If your interpretation is correct, it suggests that Jesus was by his own words condemning his behavior. You are looking at a psalm like a doctrinal work and ignoring that it is poetry. If you look to the psalms for doctrine you find things like the earth has four corners and four winds. It doesn\'t fly. Your exegetical method fails to recognize genre. It is simply proof texting and real theology requires more than that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I think it proves that Cuba has never had Socialism as the people wouldnt be wanting any religious buildings (What with the withering away of organized religion under Socialism arguement).
Or it could prove that the "withering away of organized religion under Socialism argument" is wrong.


Communism is a scientific method, based on empirical data and historical materialism, people cannot both be blinded by faith as well as follow a scientific method.
The overwhelming majority of scientists before the 20th century were religious or at least deist in their outlook. Or are you implying that there was no science at all until recently and that Newton, for example, did not follow the scientific method? Hell, even Einstein made vague references to some kind of supreme being.


I have shown that Jesus was an orthodox Jew. Please adress that argument. This means he upheld all of the Leviticus horrors (he even said so). That means he upheld private property, rigid class structure, slavery, homophobia, sexism, et. all.
I was not aware that the mere fact of being Jewish automatically means that one supports slavery, sexism and stoning of homosexuals. The next time you see Jews going around stoning homosexuals or buying slaves, let me know. :rolleyes:


"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5.29-30)

We should cut off our limbs to avoid "sin". That is, if you are attracted to someone and look at them you need to pluck out your eyes.
See, that just shows how absurd and frankly stupid it is to commit to a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. No Christian in the entire history of Christianity ever plucked out an eye or cut off a limb to avoid sin. A 5 year old child could understand that the passage you quoted is using hyperbole to demonstrate a point (with the point being that the mind should dominate the body and not the other way around).

Honestly, isn't the Bible allowed to use simple figures of speech any more?

The same applies to all your other examples, by the way, such as when Jesus says that a man shall be known by his deeds as a tree is known by its fruit and you quote only the tree part and somehow reinterpret "fruit" to mean "children."


Moreover all this "don't judge," "love the neighbor", "turn the other cheek" stuff, is not only not socialist it's counter-revolutionary! Religion often advocates this kind of stuff. It prevents the masses from rising up by justifying production relations, supporting existing hierarchy, and subverting revolutionary action! If religion tells us that we get a better life in heaven and that we should be forgiving and passive, and then we follow that, THEN THERE WILL NEVER BE A REVOLUTION! Feudal societies were very religious, and yet somehow that didn't prevent the overthrow of feudalism and its complete replacement with capitalist relations of production.

Your argument that a religious society cannot change its relations of production is therefore contradicted by history. Notice also that the transition to capitalism did not destroy religion. If the bourgeoisie had insisted on fighting religion instead of fighting the landed aristocracy and its feudal privileges, we might still be living in feudalism today.

[Dros]

I was not aware that the mere fact of being Jewish automatically means that one supports slavery, sexism and stoning of homosexuals. The next time you see Jews going around stoning homosexuals or buying slaves, let me know. :rolleyes:

The fact that people don't know/care about what's in the bible doesn't mean that that is not what the bible says (ostensibly the word of god) nor does it mean that Jews 2000 YEARS AGO didn't believe that. Modern Judaism has embraced its own set of religious horrors from sexism and homophobia to the religiously motivated settlers movement and appartheid in Palestine.



See, that just shows how absurd and frankly stupid it is to commit to a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. No Christian in the entire history of Christianity ever plucked out an eye or cut off a limb to avoid sin. A 5 year old child could understand that the passage you quoted is using hyperbole to demonstrate a point (with the point being that the mind should dominate the body and not the other way around).

Was it hyperbolic when they told me to stone the gays, because they definitley did do that. And what the passage proves is that THE BIBLE IS ABSURD!


The same applies to all your other examples, by the way, such as when Jesus says that a man shall be known by his deeds as a tree is known by its fruit and you quote only the tree part and somehow reinterpret "fruit" to mean "children."

I understand the metaphor. It means we can kill people 'cause we don't like their kids. This is the divine word of your precious GOD! Do as he says.


Feudal societies were very religious, and yet somehow that didn't prevent the overthrow of feudalism and its complete replacement with capitalist relations of production.

Forgive me. I was unclear. With religion, we will never be able to complete the COMMUNIST revolution.


Your argument that a religious society cannot change its relations of production is therefore contradicted by history. Notice also that the transition to capitalism did not destroy religion. If the bourgeoisie had insisted on fighting religion instead of fighting the landed aristocracy and its feudal privileges, we might still be living in feudalism today.

Not that it can't change relations. That it can't abolish class and private property and reactionary concepts.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The fact that people don't know/care about what's in the bible doesn't mean that that is not what the bible says (ostensibly the word of god) nor does it mean that Jews 2000 YEARS AGO didn't believe that.
Did they believe that 2000 years ago? I don't know. By the time of Jesus, Palestine (or rather Judea) was more or less integrated into the Hellenistic world, which had a very open attitude towards male homosexual relations. I really don't know what the cultural norms regarding sexuality were in Judea in the first century. Perhaps you have some historical sources to back your claims about what the Jews in Jesus' time did or did not believe?

As far as your argument about what the Bible says, we have already established that you ridiculously (and intentionally) twist and misinterpret even the simplest passages to make them say whatever you want them to say. So I will not accept any broad sweeping claims from you until you show me the exact chapter and verse that you are talking about.

Also, if you had read Paul's letters you would know that Christian doctrine states that the purpose of Old Testament Law was to show the fallability of man. Paul claims that the Law is impossible to follow, and that it was intentionally set up that way in order to demonstrate the need for a saviour. In brief, Christians don't follow Old Testament Law and aren't expected to. The most obvious example of this is that Christianity doesn't require circumcision.


Was it hyperbolic when they told me to stone the gays, because they definitley did do that. And what the passage proves is that THE BIBLE IS ABSURD!
It's absurd to use hyperbole and figures of speech? Good luck getting your point across without them. Whoops, I can't say "get your point across," since you'll probably tell me that a point is a mathematical concept with no dimensions and therefore cannot go across anything. :rolleyes:

Well, this sucks. It looks like I've opened up quite a can of worms and we won't be getting anywhere. Of course, you'll probably interpret that as saying that I can't travel because my car got sucked by a giant worm. This is what happens when you take everything at face value. But please don't ask me what the value of my face is. We could go on like this forever, you know - well, not forever, not literally... Oh forget it. And no, I don't want to hear you complain that you can't forget things on demand.


I understand the metaphor. It means we can kill people 'cause we don't like their kids. This is the divine word of your precious GOD! Do as he says.
Right. Sure. See above.

It seems clear to me that your hatred of religion is irrational, since you do not base it on what religious people actually do or believe but rather on what you think they should believe.

In other words, your attack on religion is a straw man.


Forgive me. I was unclear. With religion, we will never be able to complete the COMMUNIST revolution.
Why not? What makes this revolution different from all the others with regard to religion?


Not that it can't change relations. That it can't abolish class and private property and reactionary concepts.
Again, why not? It is true that class and property relations haven't been abolished in religious societies (just like they haven't been abolished in any other societies yet), but religious societies had no trouble going through great fundamental transformations in those relations.

[Dros]

Did they believe that 2000 years ago? I don't know. By the time of Jesus, Palestine (or rather Judea) was more or less integrated into the Hellenistic world, which had a very open attitude towards male homosexual relations. I really don't know what the cultural norms regarding sexuality were in Judea in the first century. Perhaps you have some historical sources to back your claims about what the Jews in Jesus' time did or did not believe?

1.) I've shown rigorously that Jesus upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith. Those laws state that homosexuals should be killed (it states this more then once).
2.) Judea was at that time under the political control of Rome. But, as with most Roman territories, local culture and limited indiginous self rule was allowed to continue. This means that Roman attitudes towards homosexuality would not have been legal standards.


As far as your argument about what the Bible says, we have already established that you ridiculously (and intentionally) twist and misinterpret even the simplest passages to make them say whatever you want them to say. So I will not accept any broad sweeping claims from you until you show me the exact chapter and verse that you are talking about.

Firstly, how do you know that my interpretation is a misinterpretation? That was a very different time and they did things very strangely. However, I acknowledge that that particular example may have been to literally interpreted. All you need to do is read the Bible to come up with numerous examples of where it is horrible and atrocious. I would estimate that (without "misinterpreting" anything) your precious God has killed (not allowed to die, MURDERED) over thirty million people (a conservative estimate) in the Bible through floods, plagues, and mass destruction (he's worse then Hitler!)


Also, if you had read Paul's letters you would know that Christian doctrine states that the purpose of Old Testament Law was to show the fallability of man. Paul claims that the Law is impossible to follow, and that it was intentionally set up that way in order to demonstrate the need for a saviour. In brief, Christians don't follow Old Testament Law and aren't expected to. The most obvious example of this is that Christianity doesn't require circumcision.


The fact that you don't believe your own savior is irrelevant to my point. Remember, Paul never knew Jesus. Jesus explicitly contradicts that statement in Matthew (I think) as shown above.


It's absurd to use hyperbole and figures of speech? Good luck getting your point across without them. Whoops, I can't say "get your point across," since you'll probably tell me that a point is a mathematical concept with no dimensions and therefore cannot go across anything. :rolleyes:


No. It's absurd to believe that a floating guy, who no one can see (but appearently talks to the president and other dillusional people) spontaneosly erupted into existance and created the universe and everthing in it out of nothing in less then one week. If you can do that, I'll believe in God.


Well, this sucks. It looks like I've opened up quite a can of worms and we won't be getting anywhere. Of course, you'll probably interpret that as saying that I can't travel because my car got sucked by a giant worm. This is what happens when you take everything at face value. But please don't ask me what the value of my face is. We could go on like this forever, you know - well, not forever, not literally... Oh forget it. And no, I don't want to hear you complain that you can't forget things on demand.


You get amusment points for that one!:D:D:D



It seems clear to me that your hatred of religion is irrational, since you do not base it on what religious people actually do or believe but rather on what you think they should believe.

Read a history book. There are LOTS of people who share my "misinterpretation". Many of them run the fucking planet. Go back, look at history and today and then tell me my hatred of the most destructive force on the planet is irrational. (PS: I find it ironic that someone who believes in God is calling me irrational.)



In other words, your attack on religion is a straw man.

Ummm..... You need to wake up and listen to what your fellow Christians believe (and tell me on a regular basis).


Why not? What makes this revolution different from all the others with regard to religion?

Because this is the first revolution that aims to abolish the state, private property, hierarchy, class, and gender structures that are enshrined by every religion ever.

I suggest you read through the earlier phases of this thread and respond to the arguments I've already made.

[Nakidana]

1.) I've shown rigorously that Jesus upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith. Those laws state that homosexuals should be killed (it states this more then once).
2.) Judea was at that time under the political control of Rome. But, as with most Roman territories, local culture and limited indiginous self rule was allowed to continue. This means that Roman attitudes towards homosexuality would not have been legal standards.

And you have a source confirming that Jesus killed homosexuals? Jesus might not have been a perfect socialist, but I do believe he had many things in common with the socialist movement of today. You have to see these things in context of the conditions of that time. I mean, I don't think the socialist movement was inherently tolerant of homosexuals to start with. The stance towards homosexuals was slowly built up as the question arose. A perfect example is Cuba's change in policy towards homosexuality.


I would estimate that (without "misinterpreting" anything) your precious God has killed (not allowed to die, MURDERED) over thirty million people (a conservative estimate) in the Bible through floods, plagues, and mass destruction (he's worse then Hitler!)Yeah well that's the thing about God, nobody knows why he allows "evil" to exist. Nobody knows his "grand plan" or if he even has a plan. Why? Because we as human beings are limited. We don't know everything and we probably never will know everything. So why do you feel the need to lambast a belief that cannot be scientifically disproven?

The fact is, God is described as benevolent in the Abrahamic religions and most religious people believe he is benevolent. That's why they pray to him. You're putting up a straw man here, suggesting they are praying to an evil God, but we both know that's not how people see God. They see God as the good guy. Do you want to forbid them from praying?


No. It's absurd to believe that a floating guy, who no one can see (but appearently talks to the president and other dillusional people) spontaneosly erupted into existance and created the universe and everthing in it out of nothing in less then one week. If you can do that, I'll believe in God.Here you're again setting up a straw man to lambast religion. It's safe to say that most religious people don't think God talks to the president, and you know this.

If you think about it the belief that somebody created the universe is not really as absurd as you would make it look like. People see stuff being created by other beings all the time. The chair you sit on, the keyboard you type on, the screen you're watching atm etc. All material objects created by someone. Why is it such an absurd thought that some all powerful being might have created the universe we live in today? It's important to note that I'm not trying to argue about how the universe came to be, I'm just trying to show how ridiculous it sounds when you try to label all religious people as insane. Please, they've got another view of how the universe was created and so what? Are we going to march against the war in Iraq where real people are fucking dying or are we going to stay here and discuss whether God does or does not exist?


Go back, look at history and today and then tell me my hatred of the most destructive force on the planet is irrational. (PS: I find it ironic that someone who believes in God is calling me irrational.)Why do you insist on having such a black and white view of religion in the world? Can you point me in the direction of scientific research showing the correlation between belief in the supernatural and an increased aggressiveness?


Because this is the first revolution that aims to abolish the state, private property, hierarchy, class, and gender structures that are enshrined by every religion ever.Every religious person I've met has had a different political view. Some have been leftists, some have been rightists. To say that all religious people are opposed to those changes is false.

[Dros]

And you have a source confirming that Jesus killed homosexuals? Jesus might not have been a perfect socialist, but I do believe he had many things in common with the socialist movement of today. You have to see these things in context of the conditions of that time. I mean, I don't think the socialist movement was inherently tolerant of homosexuals to start with. The stance towards homosexuals was slowly built up as the question arose. A perfect example is Cuba's change in policy towards homosexuality.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go back and read the rest of this thread. JESUS CAN NOT BE A SOCIALIST. SOCIALISM CAN, BY DEFINITION, ONLY OCCUR AFTER CAPITALISM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ANCIENT CAPITALISM.


Secondly, Jesus upholds the law of the old testament. I have proved this rigorously. I never claimed that Jesus himself killed gays. I have stated that the Jewish faith and Jewish people did do this and that he fully endorsed the religious laws of the old testament that enshrine the murder of homosexuals.



Yeah well that's the thing about God, nobody knows why he allows "evil" to exist. Nobody knows his "grand plan" or if he even has a plan. Why? Because we as human beings are limited. We don't know everything and we probably never will know everything. So why do you feel the need to lambast a belief that cannot be scientifically disproven?

No. The argument I am making is not "why does god allow evil to exist?" the question is: WHY IS YOUR GOD, HIMSELF, WHO YOU WORSHIP, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCES, HIS "DIVINE WORD", A MASS MURDERER FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE THAT HISTORY HAS EVER CREATED?

If we imagine for a moment that God exists (he doesn't), I would not worship him even if he proved his existance to me.


The fact is, God is described as benevolent in the Abrahamic religions and most religious people believe he is benevolent. That's why they pray to him. You're putting up a straw man here, suggesting they are praying to an evil God, but we both know that's not how people see God. They see God as the good guy. Do you want to forbid them from praying?

Was he benevolent when he killed thousands of Israelites for carrying out the census that he ordered?! There are hundreds of examples of your God's sadism. The fact that "moderates" don't know their own God, or like to only read the "cool" parts of the Bible does not change the ultimate facts of what your God has done and what, if you believe the Bible, you must ultimately endorse.

Look at a history book. Look at the modern world. Look what religion has done.


Here you're again setting up a straw man to lambast religion. It's safe to say that most religious people don't think God talks to the president, and you know this.

"Most?" In the US, a lot of people do. I bet you live in an urban area. Go to Texas. Go to Oklahoma. Go to Alabama. People are crazy. It has become obvious to me over the course of this thread that all the religious "leftists" have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the world today, or what is mainstream for religion in the US and in the world.

WAKE THE FUCK UP.


If you think about it the belief that somebody created the universe is not really as absurd as you would make it look like. People see stuff being created by other beings all the time. The chair you sit on, the keyboard you type on, the screen you're watching atm etc. All material objects created by someone. Why is it such an absurd thought that some all powerful being might have created the universe we live in today? It's important to note that I'm not trying to argue about how the universe came to be, I'm just trying to show how ridiculous it sounds when you try to label all religious people as insane.

That still sounds totally absurd. It is your pathetic way of resolving the limitations of modern science and your own need for a moral authority in the Universe. This is an extention of the first cause argument here is a good rebuttal of that argument:

"The first cause argument is very popular among theists. It is based on the assumption that everything has a cause, and from this assumption it is argued that the universe must have had a cause, and that this cause is a god. However, if everything has a cause, then the god must also have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and so on infinitely. This is a conclusion that I think isn't palatable for any theist. If the theists, to counter this, claims that his god is uncaused, then he has contradicted the assumption on which the argument is based and has therefore invalidated it. Furthermore even if the argument were correct, all it would tell us would be that there is a first cause. Calling this first cause "God", doesn't give it any of the properties, which are normally ascribed to gods, it could be some perfectly natural occurrence. I might as well say "I call the chair, I'm sitting on, 'God', therefore God exists"."

The fundemental point here is that your argument is a logical fallacy. You find an infinite regression, assert that it has an ending and then call it god. Another problem with this argument is the following: the people working in the factory who built my chair built it out of boards. The people who made the boards cut the boards out of fallen trees cut by lumberjacks. The trees themselves and the wood in them were synthesised out of minerals in the soil and energy produced from photosynthesis. The energy was generated by the decaying of atoms deep inside the sun. God alledgedly created the Universe out of... what? Nothing? All of the matter and energy in the world leapt spontaneously into existance? Really? And what about God? Where did he come from if he created everything then he must have created himself? Out of... what exactly? No. I think I'm pretty justified in saying that religion is absurd and religious people are crazy.


Please, they've got another view of how the universe was created and so what? Are we going to march against the war in Iraq where real people are fucking dying or are we going to stay here and discuss whether God does or does not exist?

So you no longer wish to justify your absurd beliefs. Yes I do protest the religiously justified Crusade (you should read up on those) against the people of Iraq. But I also fight here against the reactionary forces of capitalism, fascism, and religion.


Why do you insist on having such a black and white view of religion in the world? Can you point me in the direction of scientific research showing the correlation between belief in the supernatural and an increased aggressiveness?

Because religion is one of the greatest stumbling blocks in the path of the proletarian revolution. A "scientific study"? What does that mean (that statement is not fallsifiable) and when did I ever make that argument? How about you give me a scientific justification for how an invisible, floating man spontaneously came into existance and created the entirity of existance out of nothing in less then a week. If you would like some reading on why religion is always fucked up, I suggest you read The End of Faith, Sam Harris; Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris; God is not Great, by Christopher Hitchins; the God Dillusion, by Richard Dawkins; and Breaking the Spell, by Dan Dennett. Or you could just wake up and look at the world.


Every religious person I've met has had a different political view. Some have been leftists, some have been rightists. To say that all religious people are opposed to those changes is false.

I didn't say that. I said that religion, as a social force, is inherently reactionary, will always be reactionary, and should be opposed at all costs.

In answere I again say: go back and read the fucking thread.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

1.) I've shown rigorously that Jesus upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith. Those laws state that homosexuals should be killed (it states this more then once).
Jesus said he upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith. That is true. Many other Jews also said they upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith, both in Jesus' time and today. Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews today do not kill homosexuals, and you have no evidence that they did so in Jesus' time. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Jesus advocated violence against homosexuals, particularly given his "love thy neighbor" doctrine.

In other words: Since it is possible for millions of other religious Jews to not advocate the killing of homosexuals, it is certainly possible for Jesus to do the same. You may believe that this goes against their religion, but it's their religion, not yours, so they get to interpret its teachings, not you.


2.) Judea was at that time under the political control of Rome. But, as with most Roman territories, local culture and limited indiginous self rule was allowed to continue. This means that Roman attitudes towards homosexuality would not have been legal standards.
Do you have any evidence at all regarding the treatment of homosexuals in the Roman province of Judea?


Firstly, how do you know that my interpretation is a misinterpretation?
Because no Christian ever supported your interpretation. Now, you may argue that your reading of the Bible is correct and the Christian reading of the Bible is wrong. That's fine. But you cannot accuse Christians of supporting things they do not in fact support, even if you believe the Bible tells them to support those things.

People should be judged according to what they do, not according to what you believe they should want to do.


That was a very different time and they did things very strangely. However, I acknowledge that that particular example may have been to literally interpreted. All you need to do is read the Bible to come up with numerous examples of where it is horrible and atrocious. I would estimate that (without "misinterpreting" anything) your precious God has killed (not allowed to die, MURDERED) over thirty million people (a conservative estimate) in the Bible through floods, plagues, and mass destruction (he's worse then Hitler!)
Three points:

1. How exactly did you estimate that?

2. Is murder always wrong? If yes, then you expect to have a bloodless revolution? If no, then under what circumstances is murder justified - would it be justified in order to advance a plan that leads to the salvation of mankind, for example?

3. If indeed God exists, then death is not the end of existence, so it's not as bad as it might otherwise be. God can kill people and compensate them in the afterlife. On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, then he never actually killed anyone.


The fact that you don't believe your own savior is irrelevant to my point. Remember, Paul never knew Jesus. Jesus explicitly contradicts that statement in Matthew (I think) as shown above.
On the contrary, the fact that different people have different interpretations of the Bible - starting as early as Paul himself - is very relevant to your point, because it shows that Christians are not the monolithic group you try to paint them as, and they certainly do not all share the same views.

Again, I'd like to remind you that Christians do not practice circumcision, and therefore break one of the most fundamental tenets of Jewish Law. It's not just Paul that broke Jewish Law - we all do.


No. It's absurd to believe that a floating guy, who no one can see (but appearently talks to the president and other dillusional people) spontaneosly erupted into existance and created the universe and everthing in it out of nothing in less then one week. If you can do that, I'll believe in God.
God is not a floating guy, he certainly doesn't talk to Bush, he did not spontaneously erupt into existence, and he did not create the universe in less than one Earth week.



Well, this sucks. It looks like I've opened up quite a can of worms and we won't be getting anywhere. Of course, you'll probably interpret that as saying that I can't travel because my car got sucked by a giant worm. This is what happens when you take everything at face value. But please don't ask me what the value of my face is. We could go on like this forever, you know - well, not forever, not literally... Oh forget it. And no, I don't want to hear you complain that you can't forget things on demand.
You get amusment points for that one!:D:D:D
Thanks. :D Just don't forget that it also makes a point about literal interpretation. ;)


Read a history book. There are LOTS of people who share my "misinterpretation". Many of them run the fucking planet.
I sincerely doubt that the people who run the planet believe in anything except their own greed, megalomania and lust for power - no matter what they might say in order to gain votes.

People who oppose religion show a surprising willingness to actually believe what bourgeois politicians say about themselves. I am somewhat more cynical than that.


Go back, look at history and today and then tell me my hatred of the most destructive force on the planet is irrational.
Religion is not the most destructive force on the planet - capitalism currently holds that distinction. And two hundred years ago feudalism held it. Religion certainly has some influence on world events, but its influence is and always has been minimal compared to economic and social factors.

When some ruling class wants to begin a war of conquest and plunder and claims that its reasons for doing so are religious (rather than being simple greed and economic interests), I don't believe them. Neither should you.


(PS: I find it ironic that someone who believes in God is calling me irrational.)
If I have ever said something irrational, please point it out to me, and explain why it is irrational.


Ummm..... You need to wake up and listen to what your fellow Christians believe (and tell me on a regular basis).
There are about 2 billion self-identified Christians in the world. They represent about a third of the entire human species at the moment. I cannot possibly know what each and every one of them believes, nor can I be held responsible for all their actions.

I would venture to guess, however, that you have not been exposed to a representative sample of Christians from various groups and denominations across the world.


Because this is the first revolution that aims to abolish the state, private property, hierarchy, class, and gender structures that are enshrined by every religion ever.
There is no logical reason why belief in the existence of supernatural entities or events needs to entail support for the state, private property, hierarchy, class or gender discrimination. Please show me how you get from the proposition "there is a God" to the proposition "we must support capitalism."

[Nakidana]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go back and read the rest of this thread. JESUS CAN NOT BE A SOCIALIST. SOCIALISM CAN, BY DEFINITION, ONLY OCCUR AFTER CAPITALISM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ANCIENT CAPITALISM.I never argued that Jesus was a socialist, I merely said he had certain values that correspond with the values of socialism today. That's what I meant when I said he wasn't a "perfect socialist".


Secondly, Jesus upholds the law of the old testament. I have proved this rigorously. I never claimed that Jesus himself killed gays. I have stated that the Jewish faith and Jewish people did do this and that he fully endorsed the religious laws of the old testament that enshrine the murder of homosexuals.
And many others have oppressed homosexuals throughout history including atheist communists. Does this mean they have no progressive values whatsoever? No. And if you refuse to look upon historical figures in context of the period they were living in, then everyone can be declared reactionary. Nobody is perfect because everybody is human.


No. The argument I am making is not "why does god allow evil to exist?" the question is: WHY IS YOUR GOD, HIMSELF, WHO YOU WORSHIP, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCES, HIS "DIVINE WORD", A MASS MURDERER FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE THAT HISTORY HAS EVER CREATED?Hmm, but actually this is the argument of "why does God allow evil to exist?" that I was talking about. I see your proposition like this; if God is divine and worthy of worship why does he kill people, or allow people to be killed. Surely if he is almighty he is responsible for the killings, and thus a "mass murderer". This is exactly the argument I was talking about. Why does he allow it? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, one answer to this could be that we as human beings are limited and thus do not understand the "grand plan" of God. But what does this mean? It doesn't mean shit if you don't believe in God. And that's the whole point, God cannot be scientifically disproven and thus this whole debate ends at logical fallacies and whatnot. If you're a believer you'd just say that logic cannot be applied to God as he is almighty and thus not bound by human logic. And if you're not a believer you'd rant on with the logical fallacies.

To restrict membership of socialist and communist organisations based on this philosophical debate is, IMHO, completely counterproductive.


If we imagine for a moment that God exists (he doesn't), I would not worship him even if he proved his existance to me.Okay.


Was he benevolent when he killed thousands of Israelites for carrying out the census that he ordered?! There are hundreds of examples of your God's sadism.This I answered above I believe.


The fact that "moderates" don't know their own God, or like to only read the "cool" parts of the Bible does not change the ultimate facts of what your God has done and what, if you believe the Bible, you must ultimately endorse.But the moderates would also claim that they believe the Bible. They might just say they don't read it literally. So even though they DO believe the Bible, they still don't endorse a certain way of interpretation. You see religious people are not a homogenous group. They have many different ways of reading and interpreting their holy scriptures. That's why it's such a wrong thing to generalise and call all religious people crazy or reactionary like you've done. They're human beings just like you and me and have their different political views. Judge them by their political views not by their religion.


Look at a history book. Look at the modern world. Look what religion has done.Many things, both good and bad, have been done in the name of religion. Much of it depends on the individuals in question, the conditions they were living in and the way they interpreted their religion. As both good and bad things have been done in the name of religion, I don't think you can call the ideas solely reactionary.


"Most?" In the US, a lot of people do. I bet you live in an urban area. Go to Texas. Go to Oklahoma. Go to Alabama. People are crazy. It has become obvious to me over the course of this thread that all the religious "leftists" have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the world today, or what is mainstream for religion in the US and in the world.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Today an estimated 85,7&#37; of the world population is religious. That's a lot of people to be calling crazy, comrade. A lot of people to cut off from the struggle.

I'm not going to tell you to "WAKE THE FUCK UP" though, I just want you to empty your mind and take a look at the numbers. I think I know what's going on today and bombing mosques isn't the answer.


That still sounds totally absurd. It is your pathetic way of resolving the limitations of modern science and your own need for a moral authority in the Universe. This is an extention of the first cause argument here is a good rebuttal of that argument:


"The first cause argument is very popular among theists. It is based on the assumption that everything has a cause, and from this assumption it is argued that the universe must have had a cause, and that this cause is a god. However, if everything has a cause, then the god must also have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and so on infinitely. This is a conclusion that I think isn't palatable for any theist. If the theists, to counter this, claims that his god is uncaused, then he has contradicted the assumption on which the argument is based and has therefore invalidated it. Furthermore even if the argument were correct, all it would tell us would be that there is a first cause. Calling this first cause "God", doesn't give it any of the properties, which are normally ascribed to gods, it could be some perfectly natural occurrence. I might as well say "I call the chair, I'm sitting on, 'God', therefore God exists"."

The fundemental point here is that your argument is a logical fallacy. You find an infinite regression, assert that it has an ending and then call it god. Another problem with this argument is the following: the people working in the factory who built my chair built it out of boards. The people who made the boards cut the boards out of fallen trees cut by lumberjacks. The trees themselves and the wood in them were synthesised out of minerals in the soil and energy produced from photosynthesis. The energy was generated by the decaying of atoms deep inside the sun. God alledgedly created the Universe out of... what? Nothing? All of the matter and energy in the world leapt spontaneously into existance? Really? And what about God? Where did he come from if he created everything then he must have created himself? Out of... what exactly? No. I think I'm pretty justified in saying that religion is absurd and religious people are crazy.Certainly if theists have been able to put together such an argument they're not crazy. If you think people who put forward such arguments are crazy then you won't have a lot of people to talk with.

Again all this is is a philosophical debate. You can't disprove God scientifically and thus the discussion is stranded. All a theist needs to say is: "Oh I believe God is ever-present and thus didn't have a first cause". You might think this is a logical fallacy. You might ask who created God in the first place. You might ask why the universe itself couldn't just be ever-present, but all this amounts to is speculation. Philosophy. As said for the fourth time now, none of this can be studied using the scientific method and will most probably remain on the level of philosophy till the end of time.

My point is, in the end it all comes down to this: "You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want". To call a person crazy and restrict his participation in organisational matters because he does not share your beliefs is simply bigoted.


So you no longer wish to justify your absurd beliefs. Yes I do protest the religiously justified Crusade (you should read up on those) against the people of Iraq. But I also fight here against the reactionary forces of capitalism, fascism, and religion.I don't think you understood my point. I was arguing that it is more important to fight imperialism than to fight religion. You see this is where we differ: You don't want anything to do with religious people whatsoever, as far as I can understand. I personally don't care what religious beliefs people have, as long as they agree with me on overall political questions.

I don't care if they believe in Santa Claus. When the revolution is over, I'll be glad to discuss philosophy and the supernatural till the end of my days. Now, I want to fight imperialism, and if you want to fight imperialism too then let's march side by side.


A "scientific study"? What does that meanYou said religion was the most destructive force on the planet. Thus when acquiring religion people must somehow turn more aggressive. I just wanted a scientific study of this phenomenon.

And by the way damn Christopher Hitchens and all his works. Whenever I'm feeling down I just watch Galloway take Hitchens' reactionary traitorous arse apart and instantly feel better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH_BULU2vcM&watch_response


I didn't say that. I said that religion, as a social force, is inherently reactionary, will always be reactionary, and should be opposed at all costs.Okay, I still don't agree though. It should be analysed on a case by case basis, not thrown in the reactionary trash can by default.

[RNK]

They do not turn more aggresive, as if some chemical has been introduced to their brain or some other such behaviour-modifying nonsense. The affect religion has on the psyches of its followers takes years to manifest itself, and it does so usually in various forms of intolerance and extremely conservative thinking. Religion is, afterall, a conformist thing, it demands conformity to a certain message, a certain way of thinking, certain opinions and so on and so forth. Whether the actual, literal message at the heart of the religion is manifested in its practice, the fact remains that the existence of religion in every human society in known history has led to untold acts of violence, from the thousands upon thousands of wars, killings, genocidal extermination, etc.

There's no known, analysed and calculated scientific phenomenon (social or otherwise) that has charted and mapped this progress from religious enlightenment to fundamentalism. We know there is some correlation based on the thousands of years of history we have to go on, a history that shows that nearly all of the most despicable acts of violence in humanity's history has occured because of religion. Perhaps there is something about the complete abandonment of scientific theory and the embracement of irrational ghostly boogymen which has the effect of eroding a person's moral consciousness. Perhaps having to force ones self to conform to such idiocy incites aggressiveness. Who knows? In the modern religiously-veiled world it's heresy for someone to claim this sort of thing. So scientific study by a capable person or group is unlikely, for the time being. Atleast until Pat Robertson dies and donates his brain for scientific research.

[Dros]

And many others have oppressed homosexuals throughout history including atheist communists. Does this mean they have no progressive values whatsoever? No. And if you refuse to look upon historical figures in context of the period they were living in, then everyone can be declared reactionary. Nobody is perfect because everybody is human.

Progressive value? Capitalism has progressive value as the mode of production that ushers in the proletarian revolution. It still fucking sucks. And yes. I do look at historical figures in context. The difference between you and I is that I don't worship anyone (especially reactionary, dillusional, criminals).



Hmm, but actually this is the argument of "why does God allow evil to exist?" that I was talking about. I see your proposition like this; if God is divine and worthy of worship why does he kill people, or allow people to be killed. Surely if he is almighty he is responsible for the killings, and thus a "mass murderer". This is exactly the argument I was talking about. Why does he allow it? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. It is not that he allowed these people to die. It is that HE HIMSELF, PROACTIVELY KILLED THEM. Why did God kill all these people? Why did God put a plague on the Jews for carrying out the census he ordered? Is he a sadist or just out of his fucking mind? Either way, Hitler was a better person then the Abrahamic God of the Bible.


Again, one answer to this could be that we as human beings are limited and thus do not understand the "grand plan" of God.

If I was arguing with anyone else I would dismiss this kind of argumentation as religious, but that doesn't seem to work here. This is a rather silly way of attempting to reconcile your belief in an all power, all loving God with the fact that the world is a shithole. Look around. If God did THIS to us, then he is certainly a sadist.


But what does this mean? It doesn't mean shit if you don't believe in God.

ie. Rational.


And that's the whole point, God cannot be scientifically disproven and thus this whole debate ends at logical fallacies and whatnot. If you're a believer you'd just say that logic cannot be applied to God as he is almighty and thus not bound by human logic. And if you're not a believer you'd rant on with the logical fallacies.

When have I ever presented a logically fallacious argument please? Your only proof of the existance of God turned out to be a fallacy. Now you say you can't prove God exists. If God exists, how is he "beyond" our logic or our science? What is it about our deep space telescopes that don't allow us to see his all-loving face? Is he made out of special fairy dust? Or does he live in another dimension (maybe with all of the aliens)? Maybe he was the guy on the grassy knoll. Or, more likely, and according to all of the scientific evidence, according to all logical thought, and the obvious conclusion easily reachable by any reasonable mind: GOD DOES NOT EXIST. And if he did, he would be the most terrible person I have ever heard of.


To restrict membership of socialist and communist organisations based on this philosophical debate is, IMHO, completely counterproductive.

Ummm... What?


This I answered above I believe.

Explain why God told David to have a census and then, when he did, he killed thousands of people.

(Note: "for kicks" is an insufficient answer.)


But the moderates would also claim that they believe the Bible. They might just say they don't read it literally. So even though they DO believe the Bible, they still don't endorse a certain way of interpretation.

No. I see it more of an implicit recognition that the religion is bs and they are still trying to salvage it by ignoring the parts they don't like.


You see religious people are not a homogenous group. They have many different ways of reading and interpreting their holy scriptures.

Never said otherwise.


That's why it's such a wrong thing to generalise and call all religious people crazy or reactionary like you've done. They're human beings just like you and me and have their different political views. Judge them by their political views not by their religion.

I never said that all religious people are reactionary. I have said, and repeatedly clarified, that religion as a social force is inherently reactionary.

I judge people by a lot of criteria. Religious people are irrational. Always.


Many things, both good and bad, have been done in the name of religion. Much of it depends on the individuals in question, the conditions they were living in and the way they interpreted their religion. As both good and bad things have been done in the name of religion, I don't think you can call the ideas solely reactionary.

Oh but I can. All of the "good" things done by religion have been accompanied at the same time and within the very same act, by a reactionary thing. Let's look at Saint Mother Teresa. She fed children in India. Good thing. At the same time, she undermined birth control, implanted reactionary sexist mindsets, and an extremely militant form of Catholicism (read The Missionary Position by Chris Hitchens).


Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Today an estimated 85,7% of the world population is religious. That's a lot of people to be calling crazy, comrade. A lot of people to cut off from the struggle.

yawn

Never said they were cut off from the struggle. I acknowledge that mass dillusion is still an epidemic. I am saying that socialism will cure that disease.


I'm not going to tell you to "WAKE THE FUCK UP" though, I just want you to empty your mind and take a look at the numbers. I think I know what's going on today and bombing mosques isn't the answer.

If you know what is going on today then you would know why it is more than reasonable to say the religion is destructive. And secondly, you would know that a VERY VERY LARGE number of people share my interpretation of the Bible (the difference between us is that they believe that drivel).


Certainly if theists have been able to put together such an argument they're not crazy. If you think people who put forward such arguments are crazy then you won't have a lot of people to talk with.

John Nash, one of the most brilliant economists of the day, was schitzophrenic. Some of the smartest people I know are religious. Doesn't mean that believing in supernatural ghost father spirits and angels isn't nuts.


Again all this is is a philosophical debate. You can't disprove God scientifically and thus the discussion is stranded.

That would most certainly depend on your definition of proof. I think science has so thoroughly debunked God that is safe to say that he does not exist.



[COLOR=black]My point is, in the end it all comes down to this: "You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want". To call a person crazy and restrict his participation in organisational matters because he does not share your beliefs is simply bigoted.

No. Religion is not an "okay let's agree to disagree" issue. Religion is the second largest threat to the proletarian revolution (if you consider capitalism and imperialism to be the same thing). That would be like the Bourgeoisie telling Lenin to relax and just get along with them.


I don't think you understood my point. I was arguing that it is more important to fight imperialism than to fight religion. You see this is where we differ: You don't want anything to do with religious people whatsoever, as far as I can understand. I personally don't care what religious beliefs people have, as long as they agree with me on overall political questions.

For this revolution to be successful, we must fight both capitalism and the ideological manifestations of capitalism, the invisible shackles on the hands of proletarians everywhere: religion. The slavery of wages is the slavery to God.


You said religion was the most destructive force on the planet. Thus when acquiring religion people must somehow turn more aggressive. I just wanted a scientific study of this phenomenon.

I'd like a scientific study corrolating straw man arguments with the number of threads in the discussion.

Capitalism is the most distructive force on the planet (yes even before God!). The second a fourteen year old proletarian kid gets a job does she become more destructive? No. Same thing. The ideology in its entirety is reactionary and destructive on multiple levels which I have just touched on here.


And by the way damn Christopher Hitchens and all his works. Whenever I'm feeling down I just watch Galloway take Hitchens' reactionary traitorous arse apart and instantly feel better:

So you're sending Christopher (which interestingly means "Christ bringer") to burn in the firey pits of hell for the rest of eternity. You're right. Religion is awesome... Is this the religious equivalent of a purge?

==============================================

I'll get around to Edric's post tomorrow.

[Nakidana]

Before you respond to this post I want you to approach it with an open mind. I'm not trying to "disprove" everything you say drosera99, I'm genuinely trying to understand your POV. You on the other hand seem to be treating this discussion as some sort of quote war. The reason I'm saying this is you seem to be misreading my replies constantly. Calm down, you'll never have people agreeing with you 100&#37;. :)


Progressive value? Capitalism has progressive value as the mode of production that ushers in the proletarian revolution. It still fucking sucks. And yes. I do look at historical figures in context. The difference between you and I is that I don't worship anyone (especially reactionary, dillusional, criminals).

First of all, I don't worship any human being. Second, I don't think Jesus is inherently reactionary. He was a human being that had some values that I respect.


You are wrong. It is not that he allowed these people to die. It is that HE HIMSELF, PROACTIVELY KILLED THEM. Why did God kill all these people? Why did God put a plague on the Jews for carrying out the census he ordered? Is he a sadist or just out of his fucking mind? Either way, Hitler was a better person then the Abrahamic God of the Bible.

Sorry, but I still don't think I'm wrong. What's the difference between actively killing people and allowing them to die if you're almighty? :)


If I was arguing with anyone else I would dismiss this kind of argumentation as religious, but that doesn't seem to work here. This is a rather silly way of attempting to reconcile your belief in an all power, all loving God with the fact that the world is a shithole. Look around. If God did THIS to us, then he is certainly a sadist.

Yeah, to YOU it might seem silly, to others it might make perfect sense. Since you can't justify your beliefs with scientific research that's as far as you're ever going to reach.



When have I ever presented a logically fallacious argument please? Your only proof of the existance of God turned out to be a fallacy. Now you say you can't prove God exists. If God exists, how is he "beyond" our logic or our science? What is it about our deep space telescopes that don't allow us to see his all-loving face? Is he made out of special fairy dust? Or does he live in another dimension (maybe with all of the aliens)? Maybe he was the guy on the grassy knoll. Or, more likely, and according to all of the scientific evidence, according to all logical thought, and the obvious conclusion easily reachable by any reasonable mind: GOD DOES NOT EXIST. And if he did, he would be the most terrible person I have ever heard of.

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I wasn't trying to say you presented a logically fallacious argument, I was trying to say that the debate ends at logical fallacies, and logical fallacies and the pointing out of logical fallacies is not science.

And you lay out another straw man because I never tried to prove the existence of God. This is where you have it all wrong, you think I'm trying to convert you or something. I just think religious people should be tolerated, as long as they're not trying to impose their religion on other people. I never, ever, tried to prove the existence of God.

So please, can you start reading my replies with an open mind now? Is that too much to ask? I know you're eager to "win" this debate and thus justify your beliefs, but what kind of victory will it be if you keep setting up straw men?

There are two reasons why you can't "prove" God exists. First of all, because scientific "proof" does not exist. In science you use the scientific method wherein you use observations to support your theory. This is not proof though, just support of your theory. If somebody observes something that runs counter to your theory, then the theory is disproven, but the theory itself can never be proven.

Second, God is not a material being. That's why he is beyond science. You see science doesn't deal with the immaterial, only the material. The world we can observe through our senses. Science does not make any claims regarding the immaterial. If the immaterial materialises, sure, science can be applied and arrive at conclusions. But as long as the phenomenon is not observable, you won't be able to do any scientific research on it.

You're wrong when you say there is scientific evidence to disprove God. That's not how science works. Science only operates in the material world.


Ummm... What?

Based on your statements that religious people are crazy, I was under the impression you would not allow religious people to join socialist organisations.


Explain why God told David to have a census and then, when he did, he killed thousands of people.

(Note: "for kicks" is an insufficient answer.)

This, again, could be answered by the argument of "we do not understand God as we as human beings are limited". Of course, that's a belief.


No.

Why not? Are you saying religious people endorse all interpretations of their holy scriptures?


I see it more of an implicit recognition that the religion is bs and they are still trying to salvage it by ignoring the parts they don't like.

Of course, you're entitled to have that opinion, but honestly who cares how they read the scriptures? Why not take a look at their actual politics instead of nitpicking their, according to you, logically inconsistent view of life.


Never said otherwise.

Good, then you agree that people with the same religion can have differing political views?


I never said that all religious people are reactionary. I have said, and repeatedly clarified, that religion as a social force is inherently reactionary.

I judge people by a lot of criteria. Religious people are irrational. Always.

Okay, so you do tolerate religious people? And it's not true that religious people are irrational. I know many religious people who are perfectly capable of reasoning rationally and applying logic both mathematically and philosophically.


Oh but I can. All of the "good" things done by religion have been accompanied at the same time and within the very same act, by a reactionary thing. Let's look at Saint Mother Teresa. She fed children in India. Good thing. At the same time, she undermined birth control, implanted reactionary sexist mindsets, and an extremely militant form of Catholicism (read The Missionary Position by Chris Hitchens).

First you say assert that religion is solely reactionary and then you say that religion has done some "good" things. And no, I won't read anything by Hitchens that rightist dog.


Never said they were cut off from the struggle. I acknowledge that mass dillusion is still an epidemic. I am saying that socialism will cure that disease.

The way you're talking about religion being the most destructive force today and whatnot, you are effectively cutting them off from the struggle.


If you know what is going on today then you would know why it is more than reasonable to say the religion is destructive. And secondly, you would know that a VERY VERY LARGE number of people share my interpretation of the Bible (the difference between us is that they believe that drivel).

Source?


John Nash, one of the most brilliant economists of the day, was schitzophrenic. Some of the smartest people I know are religious. Doesn't mean that believing in supernatural ghost father spirits and angels isn't nuts.

So why do you keep referring to religious people as crazy, when you know they're perfectly able to be rational?


That would most certainly depend on your definition of proof. I think science has so thoroughly debunked God that is safe to say that he does not exist.

Not proof, disproof. In science this basically comes down to observations that do not fit with the established hypothesis. So you'd need some observations that run counter to the hypothesis that God exists. But that's the thing God is immaterial, so it's impossible to observe anything that would contradict his existence. At the same time it's impossible to observe anything that would support his existence.

So no, science has not debunked God, and if you believe that you don't know what science is.


No. Religion is not an "okay let's agree to disagree" issue. Religion is the second largest threat to the proletarian revolution (if you consider capitalism and imperialism to be the same thing). That would be like the Bourgeoisie telling Lenin to relax and just get along with them.

Why not? Don't you find it very bigoted to restrict a guy from participating solely because he believes in God and you don't?


For this revolution to be successful, we must fight both capitalism and the ideological manifestations of capitalism, the invisible shackles on the hands of proletarians everywhere: religion. The slavery of wages is the slavery to God.

Naa, I don't agree. I think a policy of forceful imposition of atheism on all believers would just further isolate the left from the masses. And please explain how wage slavery equals belief in God?


I'd like a scientific study corrolating straw man arguments with the number of threads in the discussion.

Ah, but that wasn't a straw man. Look, this is what you said a couple of pages ago:


Go back, look at history and today and then tell me my hatred of the most destructive force on the planet is irrational. [Talking about religion]

And now:


Capitalism is the most distructive force on the planet (yes even before God!).

:confused:

Seeing as how you said that religion was the most destructive force today, I was just wondering if you might have some scientific research showing the link between religion and aggressiveness. Surely somebody must have done research on how atheists are less aggressive than theists.


The second a fourteen year old proletarian kid gets a job does she become more destructive? No. Same thing. The ideology in its entirety is reactionary and destructive on multiple levels which I have just touched on here.

You must have some basis for declaring religion the most destructive force today.


So you're sending Christopher (which interestingly means "Christ bringer") to burn in the firey pits of hell for the rest of eternity. You're right. Religion is awesome... Is this the religious equivalent of a purge?

Christopher Hitchens is a warmonger and I can't believe how any leftist can bring himself to read and support him, much less any revolutionary leftist.

He's a neo-con imperialist and completely and utterly despicable. This just goes to show where the ultra atheist leftists get their inspiration from... :rolleyes:

[Dros]

I'm genuinely trying to understand your POV.

My position is pretty clear: religion is an inherently reactionary force that needs to be struggled against.


you'll never have people agreeing with you 100%. :)

That's to bad.:D

In all seriousness, the reason that I'm a bit of an asshole about this is that I see the whole "tolerance" line as not applicable here. As I have pointed out before, I think religion is a HUGE stumbling block in the way of proletarian revolution and something that needs to be combated. This is why I am a stickler on this issue more than any other issue facing the left today.


First of all, I don't worship any human being. Second, I don't think Jesus is inherently reactionary. He was a human being that had some values that I respect.

I don't respect people who uphold and justify ultra-reactionary (even at that time and within that context) modes of oppression and discrimination against homosexuals.



Sorry, but I still don't think I'm wrong. What's the difference between actively killing people and allowing them to die if you're almighty? :)

There is a difference between allowing someone to die and killing them. God killed millions of people. Sometimes for doing things he had told them to do.


Yeah, to YOU it might seem silly, to others it might make perfect sense. Since you can't justify your beliefs with scientific research that's as far as you're ever going to reach.

This is another version of the relativism argument. "To some, evolution is not true and intelligent design is". This can not be the case. We are dealing with material reality here. There is one scientific "truth" and there IS NO GREY AREA.


See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I wasn't trying to say you presented a logically fallacious argument, I was trying to say that the debate ends at logical fallacies, and logical fallacies and the pointing out of logical fallacies is not science.

Okay. The theist's arguments always end in logical fallacies. Therefore, they are untrue. While this doesn't 100.00% prove that god doesn't exist, I think Occam's razor applies. If I tell you there is a camel in your back yard and you look outside and it's not there, and you walk over every square inch of you back yard trying to find the camel, and then you hire dogs to sniff down the camel, and you still haven't found it, have you proved 100% that it isn't there? No. But for all intents and purposes it is safe to say that the Camel (like God) does not exist.


And you lay out another straw man because I never tried to prove the existence of God. This is where you have it all wrong, you think I'm trying to convert you or something. I just think religious people should be tolerated, as long as they're not trying to impose their religion on other people. I never, ever, tried to prove the existence of God.

You offered up the silly "someone made your chair so obviously someone made up the universe because there is a universe factory like the chair factory" argument that has been debunked more times then anyone can count.


There are two reasons why you can't "prove" God exists.

I'm pretty sure there is only one: HE DOESN'T EXIST. Thankfully.


First of all, because scientific "proof" does not exist. In science you use the scientific method wherein you use observations to support your theory. This is not proof though, just support of your theory. If somebody observes something that runs counter to your theory, then the theory is disproven, but the theory itself can never be proven.

Correct. But there are certain theories with overwhelming amounts of evidence that are, for all intents and purposes, viewed as fact by reasonable people. Such as evolution.


Second, God is not a material being.

Great. God is immaterial. IE God does not exist. And if you want to claim that he does, he exists only in the sense that certain people believe he exists. Do they believe that he actually exists or just that the idea of God exists? I just thought of a giant purple hamster who built the sun out of playdough. Does he exist? Does he exist just because I thought of him? The idea certainly exists now, but I'm pretty confident that he doesn't.

(Ten points if you can scientifically prove that my hampster doesn't exist.)


That's why he is beyond science. You see science doesn't deal with the immaterial, only the material.

You mean, science doesn't deal with the nonexistant, only with things that are actually real.

This is pretty basic Marxist theory. Go back and read The Dialectics of Nature by Engels. The universe is made up of mass and energy. These can be observed by science. If God can't be observed by science, HE DOES NOT EXIST!


The world we can observe through our senses. Science does not make any claims regarding the immaterial. If the immaterial materialises, sure, science can be applied and arrive at conclusions. But as long as the phenomenon is not observable, you won't be able to do any scientific research on it.


You're wrong when you say there is scientific evidence to disprove God. That's not how science works. Science only operates in the material world.

There is scientific evidence that shows that God did not create the world and all of the animals in a weeks time. There is evidence that shows that humanity did not come out of two people in a garden (imagine just how inbread we would all be). There is evidence that God did not create our universe.


Based on your statements that religious people are crazy, I was under the impression you would not allow religious people to join socialist organisations.

Religious people are not allowed to become members of the orginization that I am affiliated with.


This, again, could be answered by the argument of "we do not understand God as we as human beings are limited". Of course, that's a belief.

This of course, is bs. "I do not understand why mein fuhrer Adolf Hitler faked his own death and retreated into the hollow earth with his army of Aryan polar bear warriors! All I know is that he will return to liberate us from the non Aryan slave masters who control the world through the Illumanati and the New World Order!"


Good, then you agree that people with the same religion can have differing political views?

Ummm... Yes?!


Okay, so you do tolerate religious people? And it's not true that religious people are irrational. I know many religious people who are perfectly capable of reasoning rationally and applying logic both mathematically and philosophically.

Yes I tolerate religion in the same way that I tolerate capitalism: I acknowledge that it will continue to exist until the establishment of socialism (late socialism in the case of religion).


First you say assert that religion is solely reactionary and then you say that religion has done some "good" things.

I do not support any religious charities or any religious orginizations. Religion, as a social force, is reactionary. That is not to say that religious people, in the name of religion, haven't gone out and fed and educated the poor etc. That is to say, that that kind of action when carried out in the name of religion, has very harmful side effects. I suggest you reread that section of my post.


And no, I won't read anything by Hitchens that rightist dog.

It is important to realize that people who have wrong political beliefs are not wrong on every issue. This is a mistake made by Stalin. He once accepted the agricultural policy of a proletarian leftist scientist who believed in the theory of aquired charecteristics over the broad scientific consensus of petty Bourgeois intelligentsia scientists who put forward the correct line of evolution by natural selection.


The way you're talking about religion being the most destructive force today and whatnot, you are effectively cutting them off from the struggle.

This is the struggle.




Source?

Are you kidding me?! Look at the country? Are you seriously denying that there is a huge group of Christian fundementalists in the US? Have you ever, ever, ever, ventured outside of San Francisco? When you make out there, I think you won't ask me again.


So why do you keep referring to religious people as crazy, when you know they're perfectly able to be rational?

I think a better question is: WHY DO PERFECTLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PERFECTLY REASONABLE ON OTHER ISSUES, BELIEVE THIS CRAP?


Not proof, disproof. In science this basically comes down to observations that do not fit with the established hypothesis. So you'd need some observations that run counter to the hypothesis that God exists. But that's the thing God is immaterial, so it's impossible to observe anything that would contradict his existence. At the same time it's impossible to observe anything that would support his existence.


See above/reality.


So no, science has not debunked God, and if you believe that you don't know what science is.

Yes it has. In science, you make observations, then explain those observations through a theory. The God theory has none of its remaining evidence, and no new data to support it. It has been transplanted with multiple, evidenced theories. God is more outdated than Newton.


Why not? Don't you find it very bigoted to restrict a guy from participating solely because he believes in God and you don't?

Who have I restricted?

And yes it might be "bigoted." And I might be a "bigot."

Bigoted, "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions."

Yes. I'd say that I believe I am right.


Naa, I don't agree. I think a policy of forceful imposition of atheism on all believers would just further isolate the left from the masses. And please explain how wage slavery equals belief in God?


Who said anything about forceful imposition of Atheism? I never advocated that. I advocate the forceful elimination of the production relations on which religion is based.


Seeing as how you said that religion was the most destructive force today, I was just wondering if you might have some scientific research showing the link between religion and aggressiveness. Surely somebody must have done research on how atheists are less aggressive than theists.


Religion =/= the sum of all religious people. Capitalism is the most destructive force today but if you took a study (and somehow managed to quantify aggression) I think you'd find that the proletariat is much more "aggressive" then the capitalist exploiter class. I never said that religious people are aggressive. That is a total straw man. I said and maintain that religion is destructive.


You must have some basis for declaring religion the most destructive force today.

2nd most. And yes. I do have a basis. It is called "history" and "reality".



Christopher Hitchens is a warmonger and I can't believe how any leftist can bring himself to read and support him, much less any revolutionary leftist.


See above.


He's a neo-con imperialist and completely and utterly despicable. This just goes to show where the ultra atheist leftists get their inspiration from... :rolleyes:

SEE ABOVE.

[Purple]

I think for one thing the fact that Fidel is endorsing it shows that Fidel is arguably supporting the desires of the citizens of Cuba, and if they want a church to worship in, to deny them would be unethical as citizens are supposed to influence the views of their leaders, not the leaders that of their citizens. And I do not find the argument that "Cuba isnt socialist because people still need religion" to be a valid argument, as religion and belief in the supernatural has for a long time deeply rooted itself in Latin American culture. There is also a difference between individual faith and organized religion, such as the Vatican promote, that are to influence opinions and herd-mentality, and I do not see anything negative in the establishment of a Cuban church as long as there is no authoritative leader to control it and its members.

[Dros]

Jesus said he upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith. That is true. Many other Jews also said they upheld and believed in the laws of the Jewish faith, both in Jesus' time and today. Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews today do not kill homosexuals, and you have no evidence that they did so in Jesus' time. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Jesus advocated violence against homosexuals, particularly given his "love thy neighbor" doctrine.

Except that many Jews, especially orthodox Jews, are homophobic. Some Orthodox men say a prayer every morning thanking God that they aren't women. Wow.

And while people rarely go out and stone gays in this part of the world, religion, Christ, and the Bible continues to enshrine homophobic ideas.

You are misrepresenting the "love thy neighbor" story here. You know full well that that doesn't mean "love everyone". Go back and reread that story. It refers to certain people.

I have provided evidence that Jesus supported homophobia and violence against homosexuals even if there is no recorded incidents of him persecuting them. Here is a simple syllogism:

a.) The Jewish laws support violence against homosexuals.
b.) Jesus upholds every iota of the Jewish law.
c.) Jesus upholds violence against homosexuals.

Not complicated.

Source on ancient Judean homophobia: Homosexuality and Civilisation p. 34-35 and others.



In other words: Since it is possible for millions of other religious Jews to not advocate the killing of homosexuals, it is certainly possible for Jesus to do the same. You may believe that this goes against their religion, but it's their religion, not yours, so they get to interpret its teachings, not you.

This conversation was about Jesus's personal beliefs. These others are reactionary to. Look at Israel.


Do you have any evidence at all regarding the treatment of homosexuals in the Roman province of Judea?


See above. This is just one source. There are dozens I assure you.


Because no Christian ever supported your interpretation.


Are you high or just ignorant of the thousands of religious extremists in the world?


Now, you may argue that your reading of the Bible is correct and the Christian reading of the Bible is wrong. That's fine. But you cannot accuse Christians of supporting things they do not in fact support, even if you believe the Bible tells them to support those things.


They do support them. I live in a very progressive town. The school has been trying to integrate gender roles and sexual orientation into the curriculum. We put books into Kindergarten classrooms that were 100% optional that depicted children with two moms. Some christians sewed the school, started protesting against the "homosexual agenda" and eventually got enough attention to get the Westboro Baptist Church and certain neo-Nazis to come to our town and picket my elementary school.

People fucking believe this shite.


People should be judged according to what they do, not according to what you believe they should want to do.


Yes they should.


1. How exactly did you estimate that?

skepticsannotatedbible.com

Rough estimate of all the people God has killed in floods, plagues, and just random sadism.


2. Is murder always wrong? If yes, then you expect to have a bloodless revolution? If no, then under what circumstances is murder justified - would it be justified in order to advance a plan that leads to the salvation of mankind, for example?


I do not intend to have bloodless revolution. Revolution is not murder. It is war. What God does is murder. For instance, he ordered David to take a census. When David took said divinely ordered census, God got pissed off then flipped a shit and killed a shit ton of people with a plague. I think God is schitzophrenic.


3. If indeed God exists, then death is not the end of existence, so it's not as bad as it might otherwise be. God can kill people and compensate them in the afterlife. On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, then he never actually killed anyone.


Well in that case, the holocaust must have been a huge awesome party!


On the contrary, the fact that different people have different interpretations of the Bible - starting as early as Paul himself - is very relevant to your point, because it shows that Christians are not the monolithic group you try to paint them as, and they certainly do not all share the same views.


I have never said that Christians were monolithic. Paul did not know Jesus and has nothing to do with Jesus's personal opinions or whether or not he is worthy of worship.


Again, I'd like to remind you that Christians do not practice circumcision, and therefore break one of the most fundamental tenets of Jewish Law. It's not just Paul that broke Jewish Law - we all do.


Jesus is pissed as hell at you.


God is not a floating guy, he certainly doesn't talk to Bush, he did not spontaneously erupt into existence, and he did not create the universe in less than one Earth week.


Then where did he come from (other than your own mind). What is he? And who is talking to W? (Cheyney.)


I sincerely doubt that the people who run the planet believe in anything except their own greed, megalomania and lust for power - no matter what they might say in order to gain votes.


Don't underestimate the religious fanatic.


People who oppose religion show a surprising willingness to actually believe what bourgeois politicians say about themselves. I am somewhat more cynical than that.


I hope they don't believe in God. If they didn't, then they are far less likely to get everyone killed. But I think they do. Which scares me.


Religion is not the most destructive force on the planet - capitalism currently holds that distinction. And two hundred years ago feudalism held it. Religion certainly has some influence on world events, but its influence is and always has been minimal compared to economic and social factors.


You are correct. Religion is the second most destructive force on the planet and it has a HUGE ROLE in world affairs. (Source: reality/history/watch the fucking news.)


When some ruling class wants to begin a war of conquest and plunder and claims that its reasons for doing so are religious (rather than being simple greed and economic interests), I don't believe them. Neither should you.


And then everyone supports them. Another reason to get rid of religion.


If I have ever said something irrational, please point it out to me, and explain why it is irrational.


You believe in God. God is irrational.


There are about 2 billion self-identified Christians in the world. They represent about a third of the entire human species at the moment. I cannot possibly know what each and every one of them believes, nor can I be held responsible for all their actions.


No. But I know that each and every one of them is wrong.

I would venture to guess, however, that you have not been exposed to a representative sample of Christians from various groups and denominations across the world.



There is no logical reason why belief in the existence of supernatural entities or events needs to entail support for the state, private property, hierarchy, class or gender discrimination. Please show me how you get from the proposition "there is a God" to the proposition "we must support capitalism."

Not "there is a God" but "there is an Abrahimic God" and "the Bible/Koran" is true. See earlier in this thread for an explanation of why religion is reactionary.

[daniyaal]

Jesus upholds every iota of the Jewish law. Actually, Jesus said that he fufilled the Law. In the sense the Law was just a prophecy of what was to come. You still haven\'t answered why Christians are not obligated to follow the dietary laws of Leviticus. Why Christ encouraged Peter to eat unclean food and why Christ touched unclean people.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Except that many Jews, especially orthodox Jews, are homophobic.
Irrelevant. You said that Jewish Law requires one to kill homosexuals. Many orthodox Jews are indeed homophobic, but they do not kill homosexuals. Therefore, according to your view, they do not follow Jewish Law.

Indeed, I don't think there has been any recorded incident of a Jewish community killing homosexuals in a long time. I'm sure the world's Jews will be very surprised to find out that, according to you, they are all heretics.


I have provided evidence that Jesus supported homophobia and violence against homosexuals
No you have not. There is no evidence that Jesus ever talked about homosexuals, let alone supported violence against them.


a.) The Jewish laws support violence against homosexuals.
b.) Jesus upholds every iota of the Jewish law.
c.) Jesus upholds violence against homosexuals.

Not complicated.
Try this one instead:

a.) The Jewish laws support violence against homosexuals. (according to you)
b.) Jesus claims to uphold every iota of the Jewish law.
c.) Millions of Jews also claim to uphold every iota of the Jewish law but do not support violence against homosexuals.
d.) Therefore... [fill in the blank]


Source on ancient Judean homophobia: Homosexuality and Civilisation p. 34-35 and others.
Very well. I haven't read that book, but I will concede this point until I do.


This conversation was about Jesus's personal beliefs. These others are reactionary to. Look at Israel.
Regardless what you think Jesus may or may not have believed, there is no evidence that he ever undertook any homophobic action, and I'd rather judge people by their actions than by their words (or, in this case, by the words of a book which they once said they supported).


Are you high or just ignorant of the thousands of religious extremists in the world?
You said Christians are required to live by Jewish Law. While there are indeed thousands of Christian fundamentalists in the world, none of them live by Jewish Law.

Not a single Christian in the world believes that (s)he is required to obey Jewish Law. That is what I meant when I said your interpretation of the Bible is not supported by any Christians anywhere.


They do support them. I live in a very progressive town. The school has been trying to integrate gender roles and sexual orientation into the curriculum. We put books into Kindergarten classrooms that were 100% optional that depicted children with two moms. Some christians sewed the school, started protesting against the "homosexual agenda" and eventually got enough attention to get the Westboro Baptist Church and certain neo-Nazis to come to our town and picket my elementary school.

People fucking believe this shite.
As I said, there are two billion Christians in the world. Of course some of them are reactionary pricks. Many of them are reactionary pricks. but I see no reason to believe that most - let alone all - of them are reactionary.


skepticsannotatedbible.com

Rough estimate of all the people God has killed in floods, plagues, and just random sadism.
They must be very rough indeed, considering the fact that no numbers are given in the Bible or in any other sources. In other words, they are little more than a glorified wild guess.


I do not intend to have bloodless revolution. Revolution is not murder. It is war. What God does is murder. For instance, he ordered David to take a census. When David took said divinely ordered census, God got pissed off then flipped a shit and killed a shit ton of people with a plague. I think God is schitzophrenic.
Since you love this particular story so much, do you mind giving me chapter and verse, so we have something concrete to talk about other than your personal interpretation?

Also, since you are saying that revolutionary killing is not murder, how to you define "murder?" When is it acceptable to kill and when is it not? Is war murder? How about a people's war?


I have never said that Christians were monolithic. Paul did not know Jesus and has nothing to do with Jesus's personal opinions or whether or not he is worthy of worship.
Perhaps, but Paul did shape Christianity, so if you want to talk about the things that real Christians actually believe, you can't avoid Paul.



Again, I'd like to remind you that Christians do not practice circumcision, and therefore break one of the most fundamental tenets of Jewish Law. It's not just Paul that broke Jewish Law - we all do.
Jesus is pissed as hell at you.
I guess all Christians are going to hell, then?

You're basically saying that all Christians are heretics and none of them hold to the true faith. Now do you see why I said that your interpretation of the Bible is bizarre and not supported by any actual religious person?


Don't underestimate the religious fanatic.
Isn't it a little convenient that all "religious fanatics" in positions of power seem to believe they have orders from God to increase their own power and wealth? You'd expect a bit more diversity in their goals, but apparently not.


I hope they don't believe in God. If they didn't, then they are far less likely to get everyone killed. But I think they do. Which scares me.
Religion or not, ruling classes never seem to start wars that go against their material interests (which you would expect them to do at least from time to time if their motivations were really religious and not economic). So you have nothing to be worried about.


You are correct. Religion is the second most destructive force on the planet and it has a HUGE ROLE in world affairs. (Source: reality/history/watch the fucking news.)
See above for reasons to be skeptical that religion is as important as the bourgeois media would like you to believe.


You believe in God. God is irrational.
How so? I will concede that there is no evidence for the existence of God, because such evidence is a priori impossible (for example, assuming the universe had a creator, there is no conceivable way for that creator to prove to us that he did in fact create the universe; he could demonstrate that he is powerful, but not that he created the universe).

However, it is not necessarily irrational to believe something which has no supporting evidence. For example, a scientist who puts forward a hypothesis is very likely to believe his own hypothesis even before anyone submits it to a test; your definition of rationality would seem to require all of us to take a completely dispassionate stance towards every idea, hypothesis or theory. That simply doesn't happen.

Besides, are you implying that the majority of scientists before the 20th century (who were theists) were irrational?


No. But I know that each and every one of them is wrong.
Wrong on religion, perhaps. How do you know they are also wrong on politics?


I would venture to guess, however, that you have not been exposed to a representative sample of Christians from various groups and denominations across the world.
Well, I know people from all the major denominations and I have read about some of the less prominent ones. I think I have a pretty good idea about the beliefs of most sizable Christian groups.


Not "there is a God" but "there is an Abrahimic God" and "the Bible/Koran" is true. See earlier in this thread for an explanation of why religion is reactionary.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that religion is reactionary because (a) some passages in some holy books can be interpreted to have reactionary meanings, and (b) religion has been used for reactionary purposes throughout history.

Both those arguments are weak. (a) is weak because there are multiple interpretations of holy texts and some of them are entirely free from any reactionary influences, and (b) is weak because religion has been used for progressive as well as reactionary purposes.

I do not deny that religion can be reactionary. Of course it can be. I am only saying that it can just as easily be progressive.

[Module]

It seems quite a bit of debate's going on here now, but I can't really be bothered to read all of it now. :o So I'll just say -
How disappointing.
That Castro has begun to promote the religiousness of the people of Cuba for the sake of international relations with Russia, from what I understand of that article?
Also the fact that religion is 'flourishing' in Cuba, but if this is what the people want then nobody's in any position to oppose it.

[KurtFF8]

Christianity is a disease. It is diametrically opposed to communism.
Communism is a scientific method, based on empirical data and historical materialism, people cannot both be blinded by faith as well as follow a scientific method.


I have a feeling that Liberation Theologists would disagree with your assessment of Christianity.

[Le Libérer]

Well like I posted earlier, Fidel and Raul was interviewed by a Catholic priest who documented the brothers childhood religious upbringing. Raul, surprisingly said revolutionary is a christ like action. They also allowed the 80 men to confess while they made their way to battle and overthrow Baptista. It just makes sense to me they as well as the people of Cuba want religion available to them. I also think its probably the older Cubans who want this more so than younger Cubans who grew up without religion, at least publically.

I believe theres something to the millions of people who have stopped addictions thru 12 step programs, when they cannot stop by themselves by finding their higher power. Are they religious?

I say live and let live. So what if there will be a Cuban Church. What someone does in their prayer closet is none of my business, as long as they dont get in my face with it.

If leftists were more tolerant of the differences between us, and quit nitpicking details, we might actually have real revolution.

[Nakidana]

Phew, I'll see if I can get through it all... ;)


My position is pretty clear: religion is an inherently reactionary force that needs to be struggled against.I don’t agree. I think religion needs be handled on a case by case basis. Some religious institutions might be reactionary. They should be dealt with. Other religious institutions might just function as a place of collective worship. They should be left alone. Nobody is forcing you to go church, but other people might like to do it. I don’t see anything inherently reactionary in going to church for example.

And I seriously don’t think fighting religion should be a first priority. I mean how realistic is it to cut off 85&#37; of the population from membership of our organisations. It’s simply...out of touch with reality.


In all seriousness, the reason that I'm a bit of an asshole about this is that I see the whole "tolerance" line as not applicable here. As I have pointed out before, I think religion is a HUGE stumbling block in the way of proletarian revolution and something that needs to be combated. This is why I am a stickler on this issue more than any other issue facing the left today. Yeah, probably due to all the Christopher Hitchens literature you’ve been reading.


I don't respect people who uphold and justify ultra-reactionary (even at that time and within that context) modes of oppression and discrimination against homosexuals. I think Edric O answered this. Jesus wasn’t ultra-reactionary and you shouldn’t throw that term around carelessly.


There is a difference between allowing someone to die and killing them. God killed millions of people. Sometimes for doing things he had told them to do. Here’s the thing, God is almighty, right? So everything that happens must be his will. What’s the difference then? If God is almighty, and somebody dies of natural causes, wouldn’t it be his fault? Wouldn’t he have “killed” them with “natural causes”?

You fail to understand that if God is almighty, then every phenomenon that kills people would have to be his will.


This is another version of the relativism argument. "To some, evolution is not true and intelligent design is". This can not be the case. We are dealing with material reality here. There is one scientific "truth" and there IS NO GREY AREA. No no, this is nothing like the evolution vs intelligent design debate. Evolution has physical evidence, you can actually observe it in the material world. So you’re able to use the scientific method and thus back up your theory with enough observations to make it even stronger. You can’t observe God. It’s simply impossible for science to deal with God, or any other supernatural being, because there are no observations to be made. Science doesn’t imply that God does or does not exist. It simply cannot say anything about the supernatural because science deals with the material world.

You can choose to believe that there is no reality except for the material reality, but don’t start arguing that that view is scientifically supported. Science just deals with the material world it doesn’t claim the supernatural doesn’t exist. I’m not talking out my ass here, that’s how science works.

And it’s definitely not true that there is one scientific truth. It is an essential feature of science that there is no truth. When you use the scientific method you make some observations, and those observations might contradict perfectly accepted “scientific truths”. It’s exactly this feature that has kept science going. A perfect example is Newton’s theories. A while ago they were considered “scientific truth”, but then scientists discovered that they don’t hold true at the level of atomic particles. This doesn’t mean the theories were discarded though. They’re still very valid in some areas and are used when sending people out into space.

So much for the grey area, eh? :)


Okay. The theist's arguments always end in logical fallacies. Therefore, they are untrue. While this doesn't 100.00% prove that god doesn't exist, I think Occam's razor applies. If I tell you there is a camel in your back yard and you look outside and it's not there, and you walk over every square inch of you back yard trying to find the camel, and then you hire dogs to sniff down the camel, and you still haven't found it, have you proved 100% that it isn't there? No. But for all intents and purposes it is safe to say that the Camel (like God) does not exist.Yeah, if the world worked according to Occam’s razor, that would be true. But the world doesn’t always work according to Occam’s razor, and without any scientific research, I’m afraid it doesn’t stand any ground. Again we can take Newton’s theories. They were notably simpler than the theories introduced when it was discovered that Newton’s theories didn’t hold ground. It doesn’t mean they were correct though. Observations were made which made it clear that the simple theories weren’t correct.

When dealing with the supernatural, these observations can’t be made. You can’t prove that supernatural beings don’t exist, because they’re not of this world. There are no observations to be made.

My point is, Occam’s razor deals with scientific theories. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural.


You offered up the silly "someone made your chair so obviously someone made up the universe because there is a universe factory like the chair factory" argument that has been debunked more times then anyone can count. As I said in my former post, I wasn’t trying to prove the existence of God, I was trying to show that religious people are not crazy because they’re perfectly able to put together logical arguments. Those arguments might be incorrect, sure, but the mere fact that they’re able to debate with people like you is evidence that they’re not crazy.


I'm pretty sure there is only one: HE DOESN'T EXIST. Thankfully. No, you might believe that, but it’s not proof.


Correct. But there are certain theories with overwhelming amounts of evidence that are, for all intents and purposes, viewed as fact by reasonable people. Such as evolution. Correct. :)


Great. God is immaterial. IE God does not exist. And if you want to claim that he does, he exists only in the sense that certain people believe he exists. Do they believe that he actually exists or just that the idea of God exists? I just thought of a giant purple hamster who built the sun out of playdough. Does he exist? Does he exist just because I thought of him? The idea certainly exists now, but I'm pretty confident that he doesn't.Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. I personally don’t believe the giant purple hamster exists, but more importantly, because the hamster is a supernatural being I can’t apply the scientific method and thus further justify my belief.


You mean, science doesn't deal with the nonexistant, only with things that are actually real.
This is pretty basic Marxist theory. Go back and read The Dialectics of Nature by Engels. The universe is made up of mass and energy. These can be observed by science. If God can't be observed by science, HE DOES NOT EXIST! No, that’s not what I mean. Science uses methodological naturalism. It deals with nature, but it doesn’t assume nature is all there is. It just notes that nature is the only objective standard there is.

Just because something is not observable in nature doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science just doesn’t deal with it.


There is scientific evidence that shows that God did not create the world and all of the animals in a weeks time.Correct. :)


There is evidence that shows that humanity did not come out of two people in a garden (imagine just how inbread we would all be). Correct. :)


There is evidence that God did not create our universe.Not correct. :( There are many hypothesises of how the universe was created, but no scientific evidence to support any of them. This is quite understandable as science has a hard time working with anything outside our observable universe. There are observations suggesting a big bang, but no evidence of creation.


Religious people are not allowed to become members of the orginization that I am affiliated with. That’s what I thought and that’s what I’m essentially arguing against. You’re cutting off people from organising because they believe in God.


This of course, is bs. "I do not understand why mein fuhrer Adolf Hitler faked his own death and retreated into the hollow earth with his army of Aryan polar bear warriors! All I know is that he will return to liberate us from the non Aryan slave masters who control the world through the Illumanati and the New World Order!" Well first of all, I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to argue here. Hitler is limited, God isn’t? In the case of Hitler you have observations you can use to deduce his motives. This is not the case with God.

This is a horrible comparison.


Ummm... Yes?!Then why won’t your organisation allow religious people with similar political goals to join?


Yes I tolerate religion in the same way that I tolerate capitalism: I acknowledge that it will continue to exist until the establishment of socialism (late socialism in the case of religion).You don’t seem tolerant. You’ve claimed more than once that the destruction of religion is one of the most important steps for the proletariat. That’s not tolerance, that’s a frontal attack.


I do not support any religious charities or any religious orginizations. Religion, as a social force, is reactionary. That is not to say that religious people, in the name of religion, haven't gone out and fed and educated the poor etc. That is to say, that that kind of action when carried out in the name of religion, has very harmful side effects. I suggest you reread that section of my post.I don’t agree. There have been examples of religious institutions working together with comrades to feed the poor. The Black Panther Party was supported by many deeply religious people who worked together with them in their breakfast programs. I don’t find anything harmful in this.


It is important to realize that people who have wrong political beliefs are not wrong on every issue. This is a mistake made by Stalin. He once accepted the agricultural policy of a proletarian leftist scientist who believed in the theory of aquired charecteristics over the broad scientific consensus of petty Bourgeois intelligentsia scientists who put forward the correct line of evolution by natural selection.Seems more like a failure to understand what science really means. This is somewhat true though; most scientists have some sort of politically motivated agenda going. Observations are observations though and in a free environment all it takes is one contradicting observation to take down the whole concept. The main problem, AFAIK, was that Soviet and Western scientists were mostly working in isolation from each other, and thus could not share research. In the end it just so happened that the Soviet scientists were wrong in this area.

Christopher Hitchens is a neo-con though, and he uses his rabid atheist stance to justify imperialism. Personally, I think this is completely unacceptable.


This is the struggle. Cutting off 85% of the people from organising is the struggle?


Are you kidding me?! Look at the country? Are you seriously denying that there is a huge group of Christian fundementalists in the US? Have you ever, ever, ever, ventured outside of San Francisco? When you make out there, I think you won't ask me again.Yeah I am serious, the US isn’t the only country in the world and up till now for every “fundamentalist” I’ve spoken to I’ve spoken to 10 religious people without any extremely reactionary political opinions.


I think a better question is: WHY DO PERFECTLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PERFECTLY REASONABLE ON OTHER ISSUES, BELIEVE THIS CRAP? Because they don’t think it’s unreasonable.


Yes it has. In science, you make observations, then explain those observations through a theory. The God theory has none of its remaining evidence, and no new data to support it. It has been transplanted with multiple, evidenced theories. God is more outdated than Newton.No this is flat out wrong. Science doesn’t deal with God as I’ve explained above. God, as an almighty supernatural being, hasn’t been “transplanted” with any scientific theories, this is just wrong.


Who have I restricted?
And yes it might be "bigoted." And I might be a "bigot."

Bigoted, "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions."

Yes. I'd say that I believe I am right.You have restricted religious people from organising based on...the neo-con Christopher Hitchens?


Who said anything about forceful imposition of Atheism? I never advocated that. I advocate the forceful elimination of the production relations on which religion is based. Well you advocate restriction of religious people from organising. I’d call this an aspect of forceful imposition of atheism.



Religion =/= the sum of all religious people. Capitalism is the most destructive force today but if you took a study (and somehow managed to quantify aggression) I think you'd find that the proletariat is much more "aggressive" then the capitalist exploiter class. I never said that religious people are aggressive. That is a total straw man. I said and maintain that religion is destructive.You said religion was the most destructive force today. As religious people usually have a religion I took it they were part of this “destructive force”.

Anyway...


2nd most. And yes. I do have a basis. It is called "history" and "reality".That’s my basis as well and I reach a different conclusion.

Christopher Hitchens is an idiot. ;)