The Bible: What does it mean to you? [Archive]

Dyslexia! Well I Never!

25th June 2008, 00:56

To be fair the Romans re-penned the original texts that were re-composed to make the bible which where then copied by half-educated monks for a thousand or so years the worth of the bible as a source of anything but occaisionally interesting and highly suspect stories is virtually nil.

Now the Romans (in some cases literally) were pigfucking scumbags they were definately brutal, depraved and manipulative. Far from the prefect people to relate stories without bias.

How can you call an object that in the hands of fanatics leads to the deaths of millions not a weapon? More to the point how can you call an object that has lead to cities being razed as anything less than a weapon of mass destruction?

Going to the vatican and seeing the misappropriated riches of gold and marble can make a person much more inclined towards the "pigfucking scumbags WMD" side of the debate.

Of course one should consider the fact I did possibly make the statements on the poll rather too strong (For I am in fact far more inclined to burn priests than bibles) but bugger it I liked writing them.

I refuse to regret my Pigfucker vote.

25th June 2008, 01:30

i vote the fiction can sell for 2000 years,but i agree with some comrades above that burning books is leading to nothing,even if is about shitty things!

Fuserg9:star:

YeOldeCommuniste

25th June 2008, 04:40

It's a work of fiction and a completely unreliable historical source, but it's an interesting cultural study.

Scrap

25th June 2008, 04:45

I wouldn't say it's morally okay. I would say it's morally alright.

Lost In Translation

25th June 2008, 05:01

It's mostly bull, but once in a blue moon, you come against possibly valuable moral lessons. Makes for good bedtime reading for an atheist, and I will probably bump into the Bible again in University.

Charliesoo

25th June 2008, 05:52

Written by "Pig-Fuckers"

That choice was simply too good to pass up. The Bible (as all relgious texts)serve as textbooks for manipulation. Manipulation into accepting the troubles of the world for the "hopes" of a better afterlife. To common man, a man whose stomach is empty, such words are a death warrant.

redSHARP

25th June 2008, 05:54

i voted for the last. i knew the last one was overly dramatic, but hell! why not? i am not for book burning. it is lies and bullshit to maintain a heirarchy that is caste like. it degrades women, children, and the ideas of freedom. it is full of "heroes" who were killed for their "bravery" but would have slit your throat when the moment came. the stories, which were origianlly for good moral living, have become translated and changed over the years to represent a white man world. the church has used it to enslave the workers and to destroy cultures and enslave races. yeah a fucking white jesus, i cant see how we can get farther from the truth. it is the tool of the cappi scum elite. what makes it the truth? why cant some people get over the fact that maybe the bible is wrong or maybe a book of myths on par with the Illiad?(the bible did have more than a few authors and revisions).

great morals but i think about 75% of us think murder is wrong, i dont need a book to figure that shit out. People alway say "i learned to be a great person from the bible, maybe you can learn a thing or to." okay then! how about i take advice from this "timeless" book and ethnically cleanse the holy land because god told me to. why the fuck did the jews have to slaughter jericho? they could have simple have a few beers with them and work out their problems. for fuck sake, the jewish nomads had no tolerance for any pagan in the holy land! why take advice from a book, when reason cleary trumps all.

me: should i kill my neighbor, nail his wife, lie to parents, steal their car, stone gays and adulters, and praise multiple gods on a sunday?
reason: uhhh, nah. i think that is obviously wrong.
me:really? did a book to tell you that?
reason: no, it just makes plain fucking sense.

was the holy land a shit hole before the jews brought their "divine wisdom"? was it just one massive orgy of rape and murders? oh thank God the jews brought their book to the holy land and cleaned up that mess, oh and slaughtered a few towns for being different. personally i think the world was doing just dandy. And lets just add jesus to the mix, that worked out well. i think jesus is puking in terror knowing his words of tolerance and love were discarded for new words such as "aryan race" and the classic "racial holy war", used by the National Alliance and the KKK.

i'm sorry for ranting and being angry but the bible represents so many wrongs in this world. and i am not saying any thing bad about the jews, i was just using them as an example since i just finished a book about the crusades and the wars before it and after it, and the jewish nomads were pretty violent people.

Demogorgon

25th June 2008, 14:13

None of those options fit. The Bible is a number of different things depending on which parts you look at. Looking at the old testament, there are a number of things that it can be used for. First of all it makes for an excellent insight into the views and attitudes of the ancient Israeli tribes. You can learn a lot about a culture through its mythology after all.

Next it can be quite a good historical document due to it listing the legal codes that were in use at the time. From a historical point of view, that is always worth knowing.

There are parts of it that can provide a bit of historical insight into things that happened in the past. There is definitely some historically accurate material in there and in some cases it provides a good perspective of "the other side" so to speak, because often records of some of those historical events are otherwise from the cultures that invaded Ancient Israel.

It ells us also about how people lived back then, both in terms of its accounts of things that allegedly happened and also in terms of the pure stories, such as the Book Of Ruth.

As for the New Testament, it serves a different purpose, as its use is often more theological than historical, though there are of course parts that are of historical importance.

Starting with the Gospels, the Synoptic Gospels are quite difficult to approach because it is uncertain how much of the account of Jesus the man is truth and how much of it is Legend that grew up around him. It is not even certain if there was one man or if it is the amalgamation of the lives of several men. A lot of these stories can go like that. Certainly the story of Jesus is suspiciously similar to several myths from other cultures with many of the same archetypes being referenced, this indicates to me that at least some of it (ignoring the parts about miracles and such) came from popular legend. Also some parts have obviously been included to fit in with Old Testament prophecy. Jesus would not have been born in Bethlehem for instance, there is no record of a Roman Census from the time period in question, that would have been included to fit in with the Prophecy made to David.

Nonetheless the synoptic Gospels do at least give some account of an individual or individuals that have had a major impact on human history.

The Gospel of John is pretty different as it is not really an account of Jesus' life but rather a theological document and as such has to be read entirely separately. It is a really brilliant document in terms of explaining much of the thought behind Christianity and is useful on that regard. It also makes for brilliant reading.

The rest of the New Testament is mostly a good document of early Christianity. The most important parts being those featuring the various letters, as again they explain much of the thinking and context behind the formation of Christianity. They show especially the way Christianity started to move from being a break-away sect of Judaism towards increasingly being a cult and then religion adopted by Roman people.

Lastly the Book Of Revelations is a strange beast indeed. The most basic thing it tells us is of the love of metaphor early Christians had, which makes reading the rest of the New Testament in context a bit easier. Also once you start working through the metaphor it tells us quite a bit about the way that people were thinking then and how they were dealing with Roman Persecution.

Kwisatz Haderach

25th June 2008, 14:29

More to the point how can you call an object that has lead to cities being razed as anything less than a weapon of mass destruction?
The Mongols under Genghis Khan and his successors relied heavily on their superb horsemanship - and arguably their superior horse breeds - to ride across vast distances, outflank and outmaneuver their enemies in battle, and thus defeat large, powerful empires much more advanced than they were. They destroyed many cities and probably killed millions of people - quite an achievement for the 13th century. And none of that would have been possible without their horses.

Are horses therefore weapons of mass destruction?

BurnTheOliveTree

25th June 2008, 14:49

Who's World:

Anything in the hands of fanatics is dangerous, but the cause of danger is fanaticism itself. I agree that religious texts offer motivation for this kind of thing, but it is just inaccurate to say that it is a WMD. Do christians bash people over the head with it? It is not even a weapon, it is at worst a motivator for violence.

great morals

The bible has atrocious morals. Turn the other cheek, render unto ceasar, to lie with man is an abomination, animal sacrifice to purify churches, religious sectarianism, etc etc.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Pslam 137.

-Alex

Dyslexia! Well I Never!

25th June 2008, 22:19

Edric O - how exactly are a warrior peoples thousands of war mounts

an object

The implication is swaying heavily to the singular.

Not to say a single copy of the bible has caused all the atrocities of christian faith because that despite being fucking stupid implies that another copy of the bible couldn't.

Religious literature is dangerous, devisive and manipulatory in it is a political tool to force people to reject those things that make us capable of improving society and oppose those who would threaten the status quo in the name of strict adherence to a moral system based on the gratification of an omnipresent father figure and an eventual reward consisting of an enormous bunch of intangible bullshit.

Picture if you will the scene of the bible's formulation (glaring inconsistencies included.)

(the scene is in the doorway of a bronze age hut somewhere in the middle east)

The Cast.

Joziah - A literate Jew writing a book with which he hopes to oppress his fellow man and generally get back at everyone he dislikes. (later known as Moses)

Ben-Judah - His friend and illiterate Jew of moderate mindset (later killed for apostasy)

A pig - soon to be fucked by a scumbag.

[curtain rises]

[Joziah sitting in doorway with wax tablet near pig, Ben-Judah enters from stage left]

Joziah: (Looks up) I had an idea I'll base the system of morality on the fear of being burned alive!

Ben-Judah: I don't know Jo that sounds a bit harsh you want people to do as you say, not shit themselves.

Joziah: You are such a little *****! I'm gonna write it anyway that'll show 'em.

[Joziah writes]

Ben-Judah: You're a scumbag Jo, I'd stop you if I thought anyone will read your shitty little pamphlet anyway I mean "The Bible" what kind of fucking title is that?

Joziah: I really hate you Ben we all know you won't read it because you can't read you illiterate prick. Laters anyway I'm gonna go a fuck some pigs.

[Joziah exits stage left with pig lifting robes. Ben-Judah remains]

Ben-Judah: (Shaking head) That pigfucking scumbag...

[Curtain falls]

redSHARP

26th June 2008, 03:37

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! fucking awesome A+!!

Dros

26th June 2008, 18:58

Any "leftist" who loves the bible should really take a look at the first few verses of Romans, Chapter 13.

Dyslexia! Well I Never!

26th June 2008, 23:48

If you've ever seen the face of an armed vatican policeman when you try to through pure forgetfulness take a butter knife into the vatican in a rucksack (along with a bread roll and some soft cheese no less) you swiftly learn that they have not taken a single ounce of tolerance from the oodles strewn haphazardly through the new testament of the bible.

Just like every almost other brainless **** who holds it dear.

Mersault

26th June 2008, 23:58

What does the bible mean to you? That's an interesting question. I like it. It probably means 1,000 different things, which probably render it meaningless.

Perhaps the bible has no meaning. Perhaps it's just a bed time story. I would have preferred something with a happier ending, but I suppose most people at that time were into gothic kind of sentiments.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th June 2008, 00:07

Edric O - how exactly are a warrior peoples thousands of war mounts

an object
The implication is swaying heavily to the singular.

Not to say a single copy of the bible has caused all the atrocities of christian faith because that despite being fucking stupid implies that another copy of the bible couldn't.
Ah, so you're not really talking about one physical object any more than I was. So what exactly does your singular refer to? A single... what? Not copy of the Bible, certainly. A single copy of the Bible couldn't do much, for the simple reason that not very many people could read the same book at the same time. Just like a single horse couldn't carry a whole army.

So yeah, Genghis Khan needed more than one horse, and the Inquisition needed more than one Bible. What's your point?

Religious literature is dangerous, devisive and manipulatory in it is a political tool to force people to...
Wait, what? Since when do books force people to do things? If you've been chased down the street by an angry Bible trying to force you to go off to the crusades, let me know.

Lots of literature tries to persuade people to do things that are evil, or wrong, or stupid. As long as dangerous people can write, there will be dangerous literature. What are you going to do, burn every book you don't agree with?

Picture if you will the scene of the bible's formulation (glaring inconsistencies included.)
Wow, your stupidity astounds me. You could have just said "ZOMG religion is t3h suck LOLZ" and saved yourself some typing.

If you've ever seen the face of an armed vatican policeman when you try to through pure forgetfulness take a butter knife into the vatican in a rucksack (along with a bread roll and some soft cheese no less) you swiftly learn that they have not taken a single ounce of tolerance from the oodles strewn haphazardly through the new testament of the bible.

Just like every almost other brainless **** who holds it dear.
Oh noes, they're gonna take away our butter knives! Help help, I'm being repressed! :lol:

Glorious will be the day when our greatest worry will be the facial expression of some guy guarding a tiny little walled compound that houses nothing of particular economic importance.

redSHARP

27th June 2008, 08:44

its got some great art though.

look the point in general is not the book itself, unless it has small choking parts for children or some shit like that. our grievences against it are not based off the book, just what it represents to us.

we see an evangelical bomb an abortion clinic and we trace its roots to the bible. we see kids marching to the tune of the religious right and we trace it to the bible. we also see more harmless things, such as parents trying to ban Harry Potter or to the more serious gay rights ban. all this shit came from one source, and as long as a priest or nun teaches from it, it will be the symbol of ignorance. i dont care what peoples beliefs are, the fact still remains, the bible isnt true. so could people stop taking it so fucking literally?

Jazzratt

27th June 2008, 10:15

Glorious will be the day when our greatest worry will be the facial expression of some guy guarding a tiny little walled compound that houses nothing of particular economic importance.

Sacks and sacks of missappropriated(sp?) gold is of no "particular economic importance" now?

Kwisatz Haderach

27th June 2008, 11:43

Sacks and sacks of missappropriated(sp?) gold is of no "particular economic importance" now?
Well, yes. The price of gold is far higher than its actual practical value. If gold were traded solely for its physical and chemical qualities, it would be significantly cheaper.

Sacks and sacks of gold have considerably less value than the same weight in electronic equipment. If the Vatican contained large amounts of cutting edge machinery or microchips or hardware, then I would care. As it stands now, though, the Pope is just sitting on a huge pile of expensive art. Art doesn't put any food on the table, and it's not part of the means of production by any stretch of the imagination. We should get around to nationalizing it eventually, but it's not exactly high priority.

Demogorgon

27th June 2008, 11:50

Sacks and sacks of missappropriated(sp?) gold is of no "particular economic importance" now?

It might not matter much. First of all as has been pointed out, it has little practical value.

Anyway the Vatican Treasures (which are a lot more than just gold) are pretty much priceless and the Holy See maintains itself by borrowing against them. In practical terms they are debt security against multiple loans. I am not sure if they could be considered to have much economic significance. If the Holy See were to forfeit them, there would be many parties with a claim to ownership causing them to be held in Limbo.

Holden Caulfield

27th June 2008, 13:02

the bible isn't even the words of Jesus never mind 'God',

clearly propaganda

Dyslexia! Well I Never!

28th June 2008, 21:11

Edric O - My point is that a the bible is endlessly copied (and corrupted) and from a single book compliled for political reasons by Romans. Of course every Inquisitor (to use your example) owned a bible this is obvious but it is the fact that they believed the words within it justified their terrible acts of mutilation, torture and murder, the Mongols on the other hand were a warrior people who happened to ride horses. The Mongols would have fought without horses. Thus the lessons of the bible caused Inquisitors to kill those who they viewed as evil, whereas possessing horses didn't actually cause the Mongols to kill anyone. They did that because they were vicious bastards.

Oh noes, they're gonna take away our butter knives! Help help, I'm being repressed! :lol:

Glorious will be the day when our greatest worry will be the facial expression of some guy guarding a tiny little walled compound that houses nothing of particular economic importance.

When a uniformed man levels a mp5 submachinegun at you and shouts at you in a language you don't understand I seriously doubt you'd think the day very glorious.

For all that to be over a fucking butter knife you'd forgotten in the rucksack you'd been carrying with is just a bit fucking stupid.

Right... economic importance.

The Vatican bank anyone? The thousands of tons of marble the fucking place in built of, enormous quantities of gold clad all over the fucking place, fuck knows how much in gold and legal tender from their shady banking operation and horded tithe payments in gold from the bulk of europe for the last 1700 odd years.

As much as I'd like to bomb the vatican to the bedrock it simply has too much social and economic importance to destroy... you'd have to strip the place first.

Well, yes. The price of gold is far higher than its actual practical value. If gold were traded solely for its physical and chemical qualities, it would be significantly cheaper.

Indeed if we traded gold at it's worth as a material it would be cheaper.

Unfortunately it also just happens to be the basis of the economy of just about every country in the world, the fact it's value is the standard against which the promisary currency systems that the majority of the world works on functions doesn't seem to bother some people does it?

Holden Caulfield- The Bible is a concise study in falsehood and propoganda you say? Whoever would have guessed?

chimx

28th June 2008, 21:57

Any "leftist" who loves the bible should really take a look at the first few verses of Romans, Chapter 13.

People that read Romans so superficially should study theology more. The passages you are referring to have a wikipedia entry on them, that's a good place to start.

the bible isn't even the words of Jesus never mind 'God

Much of the bible predates Jesus and are more about the cultural history of Judaism. They are stories following a long history of oral tradition and are invaluable in understanding the cultural heritage of the people in that area.

As for the Gospels, they were not words of Jesus. They were words of Peter, Jesus' apostle.

Die Neue Zeit

29th June 2008, 07:22

I'm not voting, as this pertains to the CHRISTIAN Bible and its purposeful mistranslations.

Jazzratt

29th June 2008, 12:26

I'm not voting, as this pertains to the CHRISTIAN Bible and its purposeful mistranslations.

Correct, I don't see how that would stop you voting though? Also, why put "christian" in capitals? Is there some other book routinely referred to as "the Bible" which was written by pig-fuckers but isn't christian?

It might not matter much. First of all as has been pointed out, it has little practical value.

And as has been raised as a counter to that, while ideally we would trade on practical value in the here and now we trade, more or less, on shininess.

Anyway the Vatican Treasures (which are a lot more than just gold) are pretty much priceless and the Holy See maintains itself by borrowing against them. In practical terms they are debt security against multiple loans. I am not sure if they could be considered to have much economic significance. If the Holy See were to forfeit them, there would be many parties with a claim to ownership causing them to be held in Limbo.Sounds, from what you're saying they have a lot of significance to the Holy See's creditors.

Demogorgon

29th June 2008, 12:39

And as has been raised as a counter to that, while ideally we would trade on practical value in the here and now we trade, more or less, on shininess.

No we don't. Some people here seem to be under the misapprehension that we are still on the gold standard. We aren't. Gold is still used by Governments as a back up that they can sell to protect their currency, but the Vatican uses the Euro, so that is irrelevant. The only case I can think of where the Holy See's gold could have any real significance if it were to try and sell it to a foreign Government to raise their own supply of foreign currency to finance themselves. As it has shown no wish whatsoever to do that so far, I doubt it will happen

Sounds, from what you're saying they have a lot of significance to the Holy See's creditors.
No, think about it. The only economic beneficiaries here if the Holy See fails to meet its debts will be lawyers. In practice the debts are always met so using the Vatican Treasures as security is simply a formality. However should the debts not be met, there will be multiple creditors claiming the right to same pieces of art. They will remain in legal limbo for God knows how long if that happens.

The true economic importance of the Vatican (as distinct from the Holy See) is almost entirely based on the number of tourists it draws. Any countries importance in economic terms comes down to the resources it has and what it produces. The Vatican's production is almost entirely focussed on tourism. Now that is important of course, but not that important, especially as the tourist attractions will stand no matter what. The Vatican has little economic importance.

The Holy See is a bit more significant of course due to its banking, but again I think people are over-emphasising it.

Module

29th June 2008, 12:44

Well, I picked the last one, though I also would've picked the one above it, given both are true.
The Bible is pure moral propaganda, full of absolutely unjustifiable atrocities, used to uphold an oppressive status quo, plain and simple.
The fact that it mentions that God "loves" his people being used by so many people to say that the Bible is essentially good could be by the same logic used to say that Hitler is essentially good, because he loves his people. Those who think that the Bible is morally okay should stop being so naïve and actually read the damn thing.
It truly was written by pigfucking scumbags.

Malakangga

29th June 2008, 14:19

sorry,i'm not voting,i'm a moslem and i don't know too much about the Bible.
but i like this thread

Dros

29th June 2008, 17:28

People that read Romans so superficially should study theology more. The passages you are referring to have a wikipedia entry on them, that's a good place to start.

Right. I see. So when Paul says that all governments and all authority are ordained by God and that we mere humans shouldn't rebel against that authority he actually meant... what exactly? No Gods, no masters? Come on. Are you actually so much of a liberal that you are now going to say that the Bible isn't blatantly reactionary?

RedAnarchist

29th June 2008, 17:41

Its an irrelevant work of fiction that has contributed to bigotry and oppression.

welshboy

29th June 2008, 18:36

I voted fiction as there is absolutely no contemporary evidence to back up any of the main events in the book. No evidence for the existence of Jesus, I mean come on if he had been such a rabble rouser surely there would have been some reference to him somewhere, no evidence for the flight from Egypt, no evidence of the flood, no evidence for any of it.
Absolute tosh,
I would have gone for the pig fucking option but I have never read up on the sexual predilections of the fictional characters of the time.
I have always, ever since I sussed out santa and the easter bunny, been bewildered by otherwise rational people offering such reverence towards a work of fiction, I mean trekkies are pretty weird but they never slaughtered anyone for preferring Babylon 5...well not to my knowledge any way.

Dyslexia! Well I Never!

29th June 2008, 19:28

Bud Struggle

29th June 2008, 22:31

We should get around to nationalizing it eventually, but it's not exactly high priority.

It is nationalized already: to the Nation of the Vatican City.:)

Module

29th June 2008, 22:47

Are you actually so much of a liberal that you are now going to say that the Bible isn't blatantly reactionary?
Without a doubt. ;)

welshboy

1st July 2008, 20:19

To be fair there is some Roman documentory evidence for the existance of a Jewish rabble rouser called Jesus of Nazereth (an area the Romans noted as the home of many trouble makers.)

This same evidence states that he spoke out against the roman occupation and was beleived to have connections to a group of anti-roman murderers called the Iscariot (which translates roughly to knifeman or possibly assassin) and that he was handed over the Romans for trial and execution by the Jews and died somewhere around 30-35 AD.

In short there is some limited evidence that there was a man called Jesus, he pissed off the people at the top and was quietly killed off by the Romans.

Nope sorry you really are mistaken, don't worry though most people are. It's so widely put about that there is contemporary evidence that it's become 'common knowledge'. The earliest record of anyone called Christ is the historian Josephus who was writing decades after the supposed death of Jesus.
He mentions once that there is a cult of people who worship the christ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum)
The passage itself is widely believed to be a forgery from sometime in the middle ages as it contains inaccuracies that that Josephus never would have made.
No other early christian writers mention this passage despite the fact that, if authentic, it would provide them with an extremely early reference to the life of their god from a widely respected Jewish historian.
The christ myth was built up from a variety of sources and picked and chose bits from other religions of the day, notably from Mithraism.

hekmatista

1st July 2008, 20:54

As a collection of myth and metaphor, the bible is as important to European culture as Homer, Cervantes, or Shakespeare. Other than that, its impact has been mostly negative. Its morality is savage, even for its own time. The brighter spots, like Jesus' utopian humane musings on the Mount are undermined by other passages in which people, like chaff, are swept into the fire. Still, one should read the high points, if only to understand what other people are talking about.

Jordi-FCB

2nd July 2008, 01:20

It means nothing to me, but I respect people that some people find religion important, not for the stories thats in the books, but for the values for liveing life in society it teaches.

Socialist18

2nd July 2008, 02:56

It is meaningless to me,people follow it because they fear death and religion is an escape from death. I cant comprehend the mentality it takes to follow it.
One can occupy one's mind with far more interesting things that nonsensical drivel.
People are free to do as they wish but for mankinds sake I wish they followed something else.

Chapter 24

2nd July 2008, 03:04

I chose the fourth option. While I am no believer in the Bible or any holy text for that matter, I do respect people's rights to its access and reading of it. I don't consider the work of genocidal Chirstians in the past to entirely represent Christian-based ideas and dogma, but of course they (the genocidal Christians) were influenced off of Christian text (obviously, they commited acts in the name of God, Jesus, the Pope, etc). The Bible may contain falsehoods but at the same time I don't see the Bible as the religious equivalent to Mein Kampf.

Sir Comradical

2nd July 2008, 03:16

The bible can never be referred to as one entity because it is made up of dozens of books and written by many authors. It is a historically significant doctrine which depicts the political, religious, economic and moral ways of past peoples. Just because one may disagree with the ruling reactionary psychopaths in the bible who recieved revelations from god telling them to pillage and rape the kingdom next door doesn't mean that the text is stupid or irrelevant...it's a testament to history interwomen with elaborate myths and fantasmic explanations (eg. City burns down, god must have done it). The new testament is just paganism which transformed a dissident against Rome (jesus) into a wierd human sacrafice. The book was then used as a method of control by the vatican plunging europe into the dark ages.

Sir Comradical

2nd July 2008, 03:24

Any "leftist" who loves the bible should really take a look at the first few verses of Romans, Chapter 13.

Agreed.

Romans 13: "Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission and the existing authorities have been put there by god"...yeh, not reactionary at all.Then you got 6:22 - "But now you have been set free from sin and are the slaves of God"...sounds like spiritual fraud and slavery to me...

Red Anarchist of Love

2nd July 2008, 17:00

paul never changed his ways, he wrote the last half and of the new testanat and trashed the ideas of jesus christ

Red Anarchist of Love

2nd July 2008, 17:04

Red Anarchist of Love

2nd July 2008, 17:12

jesus was the end of the roman empire, you can't fight empirical wars with a doctrine of love. fuck religon, fuck the state, fuck bush, fuck iraq occupation!

welshboy

2nd July 2008, 17:30

Jesus didn't exist sweetheart.

Kropotesta

2nd July 2008, 18:12

Jesus didn't exist sweetheart.
I've been informed that there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is for the existence of Julius Ceasar. Not the super powers bit though.

Kropotesta

2nd July 2008, 18:13

jesus was the ultimate left, he embodied the force of love which is humanity, he stuck it to the man, and advocated peace. his words has been bastardised by western system of, greed, hate, and wars. jesus never advocated a religon. about the only part of the bible worth reading is sermon on the mount.
Do you have any proof of this?

welshboy

2nd July 2008, 18:42

I've been informed that there is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is for the existence of Julius Ceasar. Not the super powers bit though.
The earliest reference to JC is in the history of the Jews by Yosef Ben Matityahu also known as Josephus or his Roman name Titus Flavius Josephus. This was written in 93-95 CE so about sixty years after the supposed crucifiction. The passage inquestion is the Testimonium Flavianum and this passage itself is widely disputed for amongst other things the use of language that does not tally with Josephus's other writing in the same text.
The passage itself is also never referred to by other early christian scholars despite the fact it would be a widely known proof for those scholars. It is more likely a forgery placed in later, after all we all know the lengths some faith heads will go to in order to 'prove' their faith.
Wheras we can be pretty certain that Julius Caesar existed what with all the coins and statues and texts and invasions and that. ;)

Kropotesta

2nd July 2008, 18:53

Wheras we can be pretty certain that Julius Caesar existed what with all the coins and statues and texts and invasions and that. ;)
Exactly what I claimed, but still they persisted. These weren't even religious people either!

welshboy

2nd July 2008, 21:02

Exactly what I claimed, but still they persisted. These weren't even religious people either!
That's the power of 'common knowledge' for you.

Sir Comradical

2nd July 2008, 22:49

paul never changed his ways, he wrote the last half and of the new testanat and trashed the ideas of jesus christ

Agreed. Just read the book of Romans and one can see how reactionary St. Paul's ideas are toward's women and state power.

Dyslexia! Well I Never!

4th July 2008, 01:38

In short the bible is a sackful of shit writen for the most part by lying sacks of shit back when we were still in ages named after the metal we'd most recently mastered.

While it forms a basis for understanding of much great western literature it is fundamentally inconsequential to the common man in his eveyday life unless he wishes to quote something tired and official sounding.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the bible:

Wealth is good when there is no sin; but poverty is evil by the standards of the proud. (Sirach 13:23)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords. (Hosea 13:16)

My that's a loving god for you eh?

The bible should have been forgotten years ago. Leave the nonsense of the past where it belongs on a high shelf far from children and imbeciles who might believe it.

Socialist18

4th July 2008, 01:50

Sir Comradical

4th July 2008, 02:08

Comrade Nadezhda

4th July 2008, 08:31

Burn the bible. It's a work of fiction and a tool of the bourgeois ruling class.

progressive_lefty

4th July 2008, 08:38

Jesus was a leftist, no doubts about that. It's incredible to hear so many religious extremists talk about their praise for 'Jesus'. Even though the Bible is full of socialist-minded passages about equality, feeding the poor, loving thy enemy, turning the other cheek....

welshboy

4th July 2008, 10:25

A nice wee film on the historicity of jay-sus can be found here (http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3812309/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There), well the torrent for it can be.

mykittyhasaboner

4th July 2008, 11:04

i like to make bonfires. but who needs twigs and sticks? bibles burn better.

pusher robot

30th July 2008, 20:44

i like to make bonfires. but who needs twigs and sticks? bibles burn better.

Guy Montag, report to the station!

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 22:33

Guy Montag, report to the station!

Witty one, Brother Pusher! :lol:

Jazzratt

1st August 2008, 15:03

Witty one, Brother Pusher! :lol:

26 days to come up with a fairly obvious comment is "witty"?

Bud Struggle

1st August 2008, 21:36

26 days to come up with a fairly obvious comment is "witty"?

Brother Pusher's my Brother, and I his. I support his comments.

More than you Commies could ever say about one another. :lol:

And FWIW: I'm made a hundred of literary/philosophical refrences in my posts--think you Commies would have the clue to notice any one of them?

PigmerikanMao

21st August 2008, 03:33

The bible is a nice story. I mean, I'd read it if I were in the mood for a nice fairy tale, like Rapunzel or some shit like that. I'd never take it seriously, but there's no reason to burn it.

maverick

21st August 2008, 21:56

I'm somewhere inbetween

I don't agree with the religious stuff but it's morally okay. It's untrue.

and

It's evidence that fiction can sell for two thousand years solid. It's a complete falsehood

I think there is some wisdom and actually some good points of the Bible. I though also acknowledge that their is a lot of questionally ethical viewpoints and such. So it's generally a double-edged sword which may motivate people to do both good and bad. I think its dumb and narrowminded to also assume religion is the cause of all the world problems etc. and that its the biggest WMD of all time. That's plain idiotic. Society and civilization and other agendas are often behind a lot of the radicalism in our society. I'm not saying that the Bible is completely innocent I'm just saying the problems in our society are much more complex and their are bigger root causes of problems.

Also

"The burning is but a prologue: where books are burned, people in the end are burned too."
-Heinrich Heine

The quote is wise.

Killfacer

22nd August 2008, 03:47

guy montag? From Farenhiet 451 yeah?

maverick

22nd August 2008, 04:46

Actually, Heine, the man behind the quote, was a German-Jewish 19th century romantic era writer/poet. The words you see in my last post were actually those that were of his tombstone. He had a very indepth forsight into German politics. Some say he alluded or forsaw what the ultimate conclusion of the German Empire's actions would lead to, in other words an entity such as Nazi Germany.

I apprently am not allowed to post links(being my post count is too low), but wikipedia has a good article.

Here is a sample of his writings, regarding what I was speaking of above...

"Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals. (...)

Do not smile at my advice -- the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last. At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll."

So it is unrelated from Farehnheit 451, even though that's a great book that represents or shows what could happen if people don't steer clear from the militant-esque type of thinking of burning that which is undesirable to them or others.

EDIT: Actually the original quote was simply "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people."

The version of the quote I used seems like its another variation.

welshboy

23rd August 2008, 06:37

Aye the bible is full of great moral guidance. Like it's fine to own a slave so long as they're not Jewish and you are, if anyone tries to convert you or talks to you aboput any of the other plethora of gods out there then you are to stone them to death, rape is cool, murder is cool. Great moral text. Admittedly that's all from the old testament but the Jay-sus guy wasn't all sweetness and light neither. Well the things attributed to the fictional character Jay-sus weren't all sweetness and light.:D
"Where they burn bibles they also have a significantly higher level of education and rationality." - Welshboy

pusher robot

27th August 2008, 07:29

So it is unrelated from Farehnheit 451, even though that's a great book that represents or shows what could happen if people don't steer clear from the militant-esque type of thinking of burning that which is undesirable to them or others.

I think he was asking about my bit o' snark above, which was of course an obvious reference to F.451.

Killfacer

28th August 2008, 17:35

Pusher robot is in fact correct. I was refering to Pusher's delightful Guy Montag statement.

Dystisis

31st August 2008, 18:24

Decolonize The Left

31st August 2008, 18:48

Something shrouded in mystery for us now 2000 years later, most probably caused by their beliefs at the time. The story is similar in many religious schools, they include similar archetypes such as Jesus, Horus, Mary, Isis, etc. It is unknown whether or not these are meant to be considered symbolically (Jesus as a symbol for man, f.ex.) or literally. Of course, the Church and the followers of christianity profitted greatly from imposing the literal view.

In any case, I call it fiction because there is no evidence for most of the things taking place in the Bible.

But that's just because you don't have faith. If you do, bushes will actually burn and speak to you, and no, you don't need drugs... only faith.

You'll also see angels, miracles, understand why racism and sexism are totally cool and justified, and have that nice warm feeling inside because you're going to heaven while others burn for all eternity for not believing in what you believe.

- August

Comrade B

27th September 2008, 06:19

Burning bibles is no different than burning the Koran (US POW prisons), forcing people to spit on the Torah (Nazis), and destroying ancient Buddhist statues (Afghanistan).

Rosa Provokateur

28th September 2008, 00:32

It's a fascinating insight into the lives of Bronze Age savages. It's such a pity that a lot of people still think it is applicable to the modern world.
Well, I'd be interested to hear how what Christ said isn't applicable.

Rosa Provokateur

28th September 2008, 00:35

Faux Real

11th October 2008, 21:57

None of the above.

The first compilations of what could be called a complete bible wasn't made until several hundreds of years after Jesus and his apostles had died, so that's enough time for the Vatican to have altered it for their own gain.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th October 2008, 22:02

Well, I'd be interested to hear how what Christ said isn't applicable.

He spouted some "peace and love" crap that every wannabe prophet seeking followers has done since the beginning of time. What exactly has he said that nobody with a functioning brain and sense of moral conscience has said already?

Bud Struggle

11th October 2008, 23:46

He spouted some "peace and love" crap that every wannabe prophet seeking followers has done since the beginning of time. What exactly has he said that nobody with a functioning brain and sense of moral conscience has said already?

So here's a story. You've met me before. I came here a middle aged businessman six months ago, a Capitalist with preconceived thoughts about Communism not too much different than CapitainCapitalist or CommieHater, (but with better table manners,) I listened and learned and developed some of my views.

I'm no communist to be sure, but I understand a good deal about what you have to say. I don't agree most of it, but do agree that you make sense in certain parts of what you have to say. But I took--and am taking the time to listen. And I am still listening.

I have no reason to do so but to learn, which I have done. That might be what is called being progressive.

You might try the same with Christianity. Read, learn listen with an open mind. You don't have to become a Christian or even agree. But if a middle aged Capitalist can get a better grasp on the world from wandering into RevLeft--imagine what a 20ish Commie could get from exploring other different and exotic ways of looking at existance.

Just a suggestion, but if you have ever wonder why Capitalist always win....;)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th October 2008, 06:41

And of course, you didn't answer my question. Go ahead, this is the religion forum, let's talk religion.

My point was that you don't have to be a Christian or even religious to come to some of the conclusions that Jesus allegedly did. Look at the religions, moral philosophies and ethical systems that have existed throughout history across the world - while they differ wildly in the details, certain universal tenets can be found: Murder (of in-group members) is proscribed, honesty praised and deceit condemned, and so on.

This indicates that morality transcends religion, therefore we can be moral without God, the Bible was a product of it's times, ergo the Bible is irrelevant to modern morality.

This is further buttressed by the fact that modern society simply ignores certain Biblical moral codes. People are no longer stoned to death for eating shellfish, wearing multi-fabric clothing or working on the Sabbath. Killing people for not having the same religion as oneself is illegal and looked upon with disgust by everyone except the fundamentalist throwbacks.

I repeat, the Bible is irrelevant in our modern world.

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 18:21

And of course, you didn't answer my question. Go ahead, this is the religion forum, let's talk religion....

I repeat, the Bible is irrelevant in our modern world.

Sure, the Bible is very relevent to the modern world. It doesn't matter if God exists or not (another arguement) the Bible is important. First of all--America (like it or not) is VERY important in the world and the base philosophy of the United States is Juedo-Christian. The Bible being the core book of that philosophy. The United States is roughly 80% Christian to boot--and Christians hold (more or less) to the beliefs of the Bible. Again the book is important.

Christianity is a fast growing belief system in Africa and in China--both rapidly emerging economic areas of the world. As economic and ethical entities--both areas belief systems should be understood and respected inorder that they can be integrated into the world markets. Again the bible is important.

Christianity in the guise of Fundamental Christianity is growing in South America--they believe in the LITERAL word of the Bible. It's important to understand the Bible in order to assertain what is going on in that part of the world.

Lastly, it doesn't seem the belief in God is going away, (except maybe in Europe--but that may be just a passing trend) in fact it's growing and it seems that the Bible and the Koran and other Sacred Books might be the key to understand the world of the future as much as they has been to understand the world of the past.

:)

AAFCE

12th October 2008, 18:25

A book that seems to go hand in hand with my Civics book in school.

Everything always has some to do with Religion. :/

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th October 2008, 18:43

Sure, the Bible is very relevent to the modern world. It doesn't matter if God exists or not (another arguement) the Bible is important. First of all--America (like it or not) is VERY important in the world and the base philosophy of the United States is Juedo-Christian. The Bible being the core book of that philosophy. The United States is roughly 80% Christian to boot--and Christians hold (more or less) to the beliefs of the Bible. Again the book is important.

The United States may indeed be a majority Christian nation, but that is a misleading statement - The US was founded as a secular nation. Look up the Treaty of Tripoli.

Christianity is a fast growing belief system in Africa and in China--both rapidly emerging economic areas of the world. As economic and ethical entities--both areas belief systems should be understood and respected inorder that they can be integrated into the world markets. Again the bible is important.

Christianity has been in steady decline in Europe. The Bible is important as a source of moral teachings only to Christians. Besides, the correctness of a moral system is not decided by it's popularity. Also note that the vast majority of Christians pick and choose their moral teachings from the Bible, and that many Christians hold moral principles that are not found in the Bible.

Christianity in the guise of Fundamental Christianity is growing in South America--they believe in the LITERAL word of the Bible. It's important to understand the Bible in order to assertain what is going on in that part of the world.

What is there to understand? Fundamentalist Christians adhere more strictly to the moral teachings of the Bible, as opposed to their more liberal brethren. If you accept the "nice" things that Jesus said, why not accept the nastier bits of the Old Testament? The only basis for doing so is a moral framework external to Christianity.

Lastly, it doesn't seem the belief in God is going away, (except maybe in Europe--but that may be just a passing trend) in fact it's growing and it seems that the Bible and the Koran and other Sacred Books might be the key to understand the world of the future as much as they has been to understand the world of the past.

Actually, it seems that the recent surge in religiosity is a reaction to increasingly outspoken secularism and atheism. Why else are missionaries being such busy little bees in Africa and China, if not for the fact that their racket is on the wane in Europe and the Commonwealth?

Looking at the overall historical trend, religion is on it's way out. And that can only be a good thing.

Trystan

12th October 2008, 18:52

It's a badly written novel.

And if God is the greatest being, why was Dostoevsky such a better writer? :confused:

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 19:32

The United States may indeed be a majority Christian nation, but that is a misleading statement - The US was founded as a secular nation. Look up the Treaty of Tripoli. Indeed it is secular--but the founding Philosophy (not religion) is Judeo-Christian. and the Bible is the basic document of that PHILOSOPHY.

Christianity has been in steady decline in Europe. The Bible is important as a source of moral teachings only to Christians. Besides, the correctness of a moral system is not decided by it's popularity. Also note that the vast majority of Christians pick and choose their moral teachings from the Bible, and that many Christians hold moral principles that are not found in the Bible. All those things indeed may be so--but Christianity has waxed and wained over the years--no need to believe any paticular state is static. And while people do pick and choose beliefs from the Bible--it is the Bible that there are picking and choosing from--not Das Kapital. :)

What is there to understand? Fundamentalist Christians adhere more strictly to the moral teachings of the Bible, as opposed to their more liberal brethren. If you accept the "nice" things that Jesus said, why not accept the nastier bits of the Old Testament? The only basis for doing so is a moral framework external to Christianity. No, the Bible and it's teaching are pervasive in the world--in some parts more than others, granted. But the Bible's there, its teaching are an active belief of billions of people--what more needs to be said?

Actually, it seems that the recent surge in religiosity is a reaction to increasingly outspoken secularism and atheism. Why else are missionaries being such busy little bees in Africa and China, if not for the fact that their racket is on the wane in Europe and the Commonwealth? Maybe so, but Europe isn't the "future" of the world, is it? It's the "world of yesterday". The future is elsewhere and Christianity is part of that future--that makes the Bible relevent.

Looking at the overall historical trend, religion is on it's way out. And that can only be a good thing.
Your opinions, of course, and I disagree on both counts.

You haven't made you case about how the Bible is unimportant in today's world or the world of the future.

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 19:39

It's a badly written novel.

And if God is the greatest being, why was Dostoevsky such a better writer? :confused:

The Bible has more great "one liners." ;)

Lord Testicles

12th October 2008, 20:18

The Bible has more great "one liners." ;)

You mean like:

Deuteronomy 2

2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th October 2008, 20:44

Indeed it is secular--but the founding Philosophy (not religion) is Judeo-Christian. and the Bible is the basic document of that PHILOSOPHY.

Wrong. The Founding Fathers of the US were, for the most part, Deists and agnostics. To quote Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" - hardly the words of someone who digs Christian philosophy.

All those things indeed may be so--but Christianity has waxed and wained over the years--no need to believe any paticular state is static. And while people do pick and choose beliefs from the Bible--it is the Bible that there are picking and choosing from--not Das Kapital. :)

Christianity like all religions before it shall pass, just as the religions of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Romans and the Norse before it. The Enlightenment and all that followed has provided a vigorous, rigorous basis for a completely secular system of philosophy. Religion has been around, in various forms, for millennia. That's a lot of historical inertia to overcome. It's only been about 300 years since the start of the Enlightenment - but progress has most certainly been made, and I see no reason why it shouldn't continue.

The problem with picking and choosing from the Bible is that unlike communism, Christianity (and other religions for that matter) claims to be a philosophical, cosmological, and sociological "theory of everything" - if one can freely pick and choose what rules, guidelines and regulations to follow and which to disregard, and to arbitrarily state which sections are factual and which are allegory, then it makes a mockery of the whole process. In any case, on what standard are such things to be decided and why?

No, the Bible and it's teaching are pervasive in the world--in some parts more than others, granted. But the Bible's there, its teaching are an active belief of billions of people--what more needs to be said?

I was not questioning it's pervasiveness - I was questioning it's validity. With so many different interpretations, how does one decide which is right? And why this or that interpretation and not any other?

There are so many differing interpretations that the logical principle of parsimony leads me to the conclusion that for all the moral and scientific shortcomings of biblical literalism, it's nothing compared to massive house of cards that represent other interpretations of the Christian faith, which basically amount to avoiding the issue.

Maybe so, but Europe isn't the "future" of the world, is it? It's the "world of yesterday". The future is elsewhere and Christianity is part of that future--that makes the Bible relevent.

Been to your local Temple of Jupiter lately? What? You don't have one?

The long-term trend of history is unmistakeable. Polytheism once dominated the world, and was superceded by monotheistic faiths. It seems that they are in turn doomed to subtract just one more god and become atheism!

As for Europe, if you'll permit me to be poetic, she appears to be slumbering at the moment, as she was during the Dark Ages. Before that, she was resplendent in the garments of Rome. It would not surprise me if she awakes yet again.

You haven't made you case about how the Bible is unimportant in today's world or the world of the future.

Because it's becoming increasingly unrelated to how Christians (and the population in general) actually behave, let alone the statute books of modern nations. When was the last time somebody was punished for working on a Sunday?

What, when it comes down to it, is the Bible actually for? Moral guidance? Nope, since plenty of people seem to be capable of acting moral without ever reading it. An account of the creation of the world? Not that one either, as it has been soundly thrashed on the evidence front by science.

If not for those purposes, then what?

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 21:28

Wrong. The Founding Fathers of the US were, for the most part, Deists and agnostics. To quote Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" - hardly the words of someone who digs Christian philosophy. And Thomas Jefferson also made his own version of the Bible. You keep mistaking the RELIGION of the Bible for the Philosophy. In early america the bible was the common texbook in every classroom. All the major universities were founded by Christian sects. The outlook was secular but with a defitite Christian point of view. the idea of the secularism wasn't anti-Christian, but rather anti patizanims among the sects.

Christianity like all religions before it shall pass, just as the religions of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Romans and the Norse before it. The Enlightenment and all that followed has provided a vigorous, rigorous basis for a completely secular system of philosophy. Religion has been around, in various forms, for millennia. That's a lot of historical inertia to overcome. It's only been about 300 years since the start of the Enlightenment - but progress has most certainly been made, and I see no reason why it shouldn't continue. Well that's opinion. I'll say this, unlike Marxism--Christianity doesn't die easily. Remember where Stalin asked how many divisions the pope has? Well the First secrataries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union are long gone and the Pope still sits in the Vatican.

The problem with picking and choosing from the Bible is that unlike communism, Christianity (and other religions for that matter) claims to be a philosophical, cosmological, and sociological "theory of everything" - if one can freely pick and choose what rules, guidelines and regulations to follow and which to disregard, and to arbitrarily state which sections are factual and which are allegory, then it makes a mockery of the whole process. In any case, on what standard are such things to be decided and why? Maybe that's how the world works. EVERY society that has ever claimed to be Socialist/Communist has picked and choosed its Marxism and Communism. The SU, China, Cuba, whatever Hugo Chavez is doing--on and on. Every socialist society that ever existed certaniny makes a mockery of Marx and Communism, don't you think so? Much the same thing.

I was not questioning it's pervasiveness - I was questioning it's validity. With so many different interpretations, how does one decide which is right? And why this or that interpretation and not any other? Good point. And we're at a loss here. Again much could be said about Marxism. You know, I hink there's about as much chance for real Marxism to take root in this world as there is/was for real christianity to take root. But that's the world.

There are so many differing interpretations that the logical principle of parsimony leads me to the conclusion that for all the moral and scientific shortcomings of biblical literalism, it's nothing compared to massive house of cards that represent other interpretations of the Christian faith, which basically amount to avoiding the issue. But the house of cards still stands while many houses (Communism for example) have fallen by the wayside. Christianity--though wounded encompases billions--Marxism a marginal few.

Been to your local Temple of Jupiter lately? What? You don't have one? Don't know, but Christianity does speak something to the hearts of men--or it would have lasted so long. Communism--not so much, don't you think?

The long-term trend of history is unmistakeable. Polytheism once dominated the world, and was superceded by monotheistic faiths. It seems that they are in turn doomed to subtract just one more god and become atheism! Now you're getting preachy! That's your visit to the Sybil. :D

As for Europe, if you'll permit me to be poetic, she appears to be slumbering at the moment, as she was during the Dark Ages. Before that, she was resplendent in the garments of Rome. It would not surprise me if she awakes yet again. In that belief I share you sentiments. Though I'm an American my parents were refugees fom Poland and I was brought up in a very European home. My heart has always been there.

Because it's becoming increasingly unrelated to how Christians (and the population in general) actually behave, let alone the statute books of modern nations. When was the last time somebody was punished for working on a Sunday? But it's not the LAWS that matter--it's the Judeo-Christian way of thinking that matter. the cultural insights the way of doing business, America--is pretty Judeo-Christian.

What, when it comes down to it, is the Bible actually for? Moral guidance? Nope, since plenty of people seem to be capable of acting moral without ever reading it. An account of the creation of the world? Not that one either, as it has been soundly thrashed on the evidence front by science.

If not for those purposes, then what? Again good question. The Bible if for moral guidance. As a Capitalist I am here on RevLeft because of the understanding of human dignaty and fairness I get from being a Christian. Otherwise I would be just another "CommieHater" of "CapitainCapitalist" telling some starving kid in Africa to "get a job." You know--well, I probably don't need to tell you, "you know"--that guy is the "real world."

I don't see a lot saving this world from the viciousness of those guys, those CommieHaters. There's plenty of those bastards out there. (BTW: I could care less about his attitude about Communism--it's his crass Capitalism that I deplore.)

Honestly if Communism is going to work--I wish it well. I just don't see that as the way, the Bible just seems to work for more people.

And who knows--there might even be a God. :)

JimmyJazz

12th October 2008, 21:32

Christianity does speak something to the hearts of men--or it would have lasted so long.

Hmmm, no...tradition and not getting disowned by your family, those appeal to the hearts of men.

Note how Christianity does not particularly "appeal to the hearts of men [and women]" born outside of Christian lands.

P.S. - have you and Kwisatz ever had a debate? I would definitely read it if you did.

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 21:34

Hmm, no...tradition and not getting disowned by your family, those appeal to the hearts of men.

It's sighning up new followers every day a LOT faster than Marxism.

JimmyJazz

12th October 2008, 21:38

Well I wasn't reading the discussion that led up to your comments, but did anyone ever claim otherwise? AFAI saw you're the only one claiming your philosophy "speaks something to the hearts of men [and women]". I don't claim that linear regression speaks to the hearts of men either, but it is pretty useful.

If you want to talk about socialism--production to meet human need rather than for profit, economic participation by all--then yeah, that actually does have an intrinsic appeal to people which is quite clear. The right wing has gone on a decades-long smear campaign against the words "socialism" and "communism", but it can't and hasn't eradicated the appeal of those ideas. They arise pretty spontaneously, in fact, without anyone having to introduce them to people.

Marxism, though, is a theory of social change, not a theory of social organization like socialism is. I don't see why it would have emotional appeal to anyone.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th October 2008, 22:54

And Thomas Jefferson also made his own version of the Bible. You keep mistaking the RELIGION of the Bible for the Philosophy. In early america the bible was the common texbook in every classroom. All the major universities were founded by Christian sects. The outlook was secular but with a defitite Christian point of view. the idea of the secularism wasn't anti-Christian, but rather anti patizanims among the sects.

I could write my own version of the Bible, that wouldn't make me a Christian or even necessarily an advocate of Christian philosophy. The fact that schools in the early US used the Bible as a textbook, combined with the fact that none of them but the rinky-dink "Bible Colleges" do so nowadays is a point in my favour, not yours. Even the the US educational system as supported by the state has moved on since then. The idea of seperation fo church and state, which the US was established on, is a concept completely alien to Christianity - Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God".

Well that's opinion. I'll say this, unlike Marxism--Christianity doesn't die easily. Remember where Stalin asked how many divisions the pope has? Well the First secrataries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union are long gone and the Pope still sits in the Vatican.

That religions are doomed to fade into obscurity is not my opinion, but undeniable historical fact.

I am not proposing that Marxism replace religion in any manner, so I fail to see why you are bringing it up. It's not even as if it's comparable with Christianity - Marxism is a socio-economic theory, not a religion. You're comparing apples and carrots.

Maybe that's how the world works. EVERY society that has ever claimed to be Socialist/Communist has picked and choosed its Marxism and Communism. The SU, China, Cuba, whatever Hugo Chavez is doing--on and on. Every socialist society that ever existed certaniny makes a mockery of Marx and Communism, don't you think so? Much the same thing.

Why do you insist on trying to change the subject? I thought we were talking about Christianity, not Marxism.

Good point. And we're at a loss here. Again much could be said about Marxism. You know, I hink there's about as much chance for real Marxism to take root in this world as there is/was for real christianity to take root. But that's the world.

You see, it's this passive acceptance of "the way things are" that I seek to discourage. Marxism is not a religion or anything like it - it is intended to be a set of tools for understanding the world, rather than simply taking someone else's word for it. The fact that some Marxists take a dogmatic approach to Marxism is of no more consequence than Lysenkoism was for evolutionary theory - dogmatic Marxism will fail the crucial test of reality and be freely abandoned, much like Lysenkoism and Lamarckism - but you can't do that with the word of Almighty God Himself.

A good Marxist has the same approach as a scientist. Bad Marxists disregard the scientific method in favour promoting their particular tendency. The early leaders of the Soviet Union were sincere Marxists who truly believed they were doing the right thing. But they were mistaken. Bad Marxists insist on repeating their mistakes. Good Marxists know better.

But the house of cards still stands while many houses (Communism for example) have fallen by the wayside. Christianity--though wounded encompases billions--Marxism a marginal few.

Yes, Christianity is a "tough old bird". That just means that those who wish for a more atheist society have to work longer and harder.

It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

Don't know, but Christianity does speak something to the hearts of men--or it would have lasted so long. Communism--not so much, don't you think?

If Marxism had generations of childhood indoctrination, centuries of persecution and forcible conversion of non-Marxists, and a rich and powerful organisation like the Catholic Church supporting it then it would probably last just as long. But I would fear for it's rational content in such a scenario.

Now you're getting preachy! That's your visit to the Sybil. :D

Not quite sure I understand your second sentence there.

But it's not the LAWS that matter--it's the Judeo-Christian way of thinking that matter. the cultural insights the way of doing business, America--is pretty Judeo-Christian.

That much is obvious. But I and many others like me have been born and raised in a Judaeo-Christian culture without actually being Christian.

Again good question. The Bible if for moral guidance. As a Capitalist I am here on RevLeft because of the understanding of human dignaty and fairness I get from being a Christian. Otherwise I would be just another "CommieHater" of "CapitainCapitalist" telling some starving kid in Africa to "get a job." You know--well, I probably don't need to tell you, "you know"--that guy is the "real world."

If the Bible is for moral guidance, then what's stopping you from killing non-believers? It's clearly condoned and even commanded by God within it's pages. "Suffer not the witch to live" and all that.

Honestly if Communism is going to work--I wish it well. I just don't see that as the way, the Bible just seems to work for more people.

It may seem to, but take a closer look at both the Bible and the people who claim to follow it and you'll see that's not the case.

And who knows--there might even be a God. :)

I consider that highly unlikely, in light of the evidence. Or lack of same, as the case may be.

Bud Struggle

13th October 2008, 01:20

I could write my own version of the Bible, that wouldn't make me a Christian or even necessarily an advocate of Christian philosophy. The fact that schools in the early US used the Bible as a textbook, combined with the fact that none of them but the rinky-dink "Bible Colleges" do so nowadays is a point in my favour, not yours. Even the the US educational system as supported by the state has moved on since then. The idea of seperation fo church and state, which the US was established on, is a concept completely alien to Christianity - Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God". You are missing my point--the separation of church and state applies to RELIGION, not the Judeo-Christian philosophy. Two distinct things.

That religions are doomed to fade into obscurity is not my opinion, but undeniable historical fact. Sure it is. I suppose the Revolution is a historical fact, too. FWIW: history deals with the past, fortune telling deals with the future. You've been reading you McNeil in a crystal ball.

I am not proposing that Marxism replace religion in any manner, so I fail to see why you are bringing it up. It's not even as if it's comparable with Christianity - Marxism is a socio-economic theory, not a religion. You're comparing apples and carrots. You miss the point of Marxism. It's been pretty much proven to be a failure as a socio-economic theory. Tried and failed numerous times--where it does succeed is as a moral theory--all people getting things equally. It makes some sense there.

You see, it's this passive acceptance of "the way things are" that I seek to discourage. Marxism is not a religion or anything like it - it is intended to be a set of tools for understanding the world, rather than simply taking someone else's word for it. The fact that some Marxists take a dogmatic approach to Marxism is of no more consequence than Lysenkoism was for evolutionary theory - dogmatic Marxism will fail the crucial test of reality and be freely abandoned, much like Lysenkoism and Lamarckism - but you can't do that with the word of Almighty God Himself. As is Religion a tool for understanding the world. I'd say that that Marxism HAD a good run as a tool for understanding the world--but it is the god that failed. Yea, I know--all sorts of problems but at one time maybe a third of the world was Marxist. That's a pretty good shot. All gone--but somehow you think you are going to get ANOTHER shot at it. You are a pretty hopeful guy.

A good Marxist has the same approach as a scientist. Bad Marxists disregard the scientific method in favour promoting their particular tendency. The early leaders of the Soviet Union were sincere Marxists who truly believed they were doing the right thing. But they were mistaken. Bad Marxists insist on repeating their mistakes. Good Marxists know better. I think a good Marxist is closer to being a Scientologist than a scientist. (Cheep shot! :lol:) Seriously there is no more science to Marxism than to any other "ism". The Soviet Union is EXACTLY the way Marxism looks IN THE REAL WORLD. It doesn't get any better than that. It always will looks like that. Look at Nepal--it's turning into the SU/Maoist China right before your very eyes.

Yes, Christianity is a "tough old bird". That just means that those who wish for a more atheist society have to work longer and harder.

It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Maybe, but today at mass we got a report what my parish is doing in its sister parish in the Dominican Republic: we built 328 houses, three schools, supply a clinic with a doctor from the parish every week of the year, donated water filtation systems and fire stations. Lots more--and we're only crappy Catholics--you should see what the Fundamentalists are doing. And yea we all offer (not sell) Christianity. It's a vast powerhouse of faith going on in the third world.

If Marxism had generations of childhood indoctrination, centuries of persecution and forcible conversion of non-Marxists, and a rich and powerful organisation like the Catholic Church supporting it then it would probably last just as long. But I would fear for it's rational content in such a scenario. It had/has all of that. The SU was a hotbed of atheism and now there are plenty of Christians. And so is China--though Christianity is little by little taking hold.

Not quite sure I understand your second sentence there. A Sybil was a Greek fortune teller.

That much is obvious. But I and many others like me have been born and raised in a Judaeo-Christian culture without actually being Christian. Lots born in the SU and China that are now Christian.

Sorry, but I don't honestly see atheism as anything like a sure thing.

And now the Scotch is taking effect--I won't be able to post again till tomowrrow.

All the best.

welshboy

30th October 2008, 00:34

Well, I'd be interested to hear how what Christ said isn't applicable.

Provide me some proof of what Jesus said and I'll tell you what I think of it, hell provide me with some proof that he actually existed and I'll be amazed. (and like I said Josephus doesn't count as it's more than likely a forgery and so not a reliable source)

Decolonize The Left

31st October 2008, 01:04

It's sighning up new followers every day a LOT faster than Marxism.

Tom, I'm amazed at how you respond to any argument against religion - it's always the same: 'it's better than Marxism!'

What you do here is you effectively evade every criticism you can. In the first place, you make a poor analogy which isn't logical. In the second, you dismiss the argument by switching the focus. And in the third, you avoid having to say anything of substance.

Try something else please, or, perhaps, make an argument. I know this is hard for you as religion has taught you to avoid justification, arguments, and all sorts of logic, but you can do it... I believe in you... I... have... faith... ;)

- August

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 23:27

Tom, I'm amazed at how you respond to any argument against religion - it's always the same: 'it's better than Marxism!'

What you do here is you effectively evade every criticism you can. In the first place, you make a poor analogy which isn't logical. In the second, you dismiss the argument by switching the focus. And in the third, you avoid having to say anything of substance.

Try something else please, or, perhaps, make an argument. I know this is hard for you as religion has taught you to avoid justification, arguments, and all sorts of logic, but you can do it... I believe in you... I... have... faith... ;)

- August

I'm taking a Utilitarian approach to religion. I look on religion as a competing philosophy of life to Marxism. People use it, they believe in it, it doesn't die away after a few years--and most importantly, it's useful.

Not so much with Marxism. :(

It almost doesn't matter if there is a God or not--what way of looking at the world is most useful to the greatest amount of people? Which gives the most happiness? It seems religion wins hands down.

People sign uo to follow Jesus by the droves all around the world every day. The "Communist" Chinese are converting little by little. Where Communism should be doing really well, in places like South America--Christian Fundamentalism is growing very quickly. After years and years of Athiest propaganda religion sprung right up again after the fall of the Soviet Union.

August, you don't think this is interesting?

Decolonize The Left

5th November 2008, 00:28

I'm taking a Utilitarian approach to religion. I look on religion as a competing philosophy of life to Marxism. People use it, they believe in it, it doesn't die away after a few years--and most importantly, it's useful.

Religion is not a philosophy. The basis of your whole outlook is entirely flawed. Once again you mistake and conflate entire concepts.

Not so much with Marxism. :(

Useful in what sense? As a utilitarian you must surely understand the varieties of the word "useful?"

It almost doesn't matter if there is a God or not--what way of looking at the world is most useful to the greatest amount of people? Which gives the most happiness? It seems religion wins hands down.

Hmm... quite an enormous claim from TomK on revleft... Does religion really win?
This (http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html)website seems to have a long list of atrocities committed in the name of religion, which according to you "gives the most happiness." And this (http://listverse.com/religion/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/)website lists eight major atrocities committed in the name of God.

Then you must remember that religion was used to justify the murder, torture, massacre, and genocide of so many peoples it's tough to comprehend. But hey, it wins hands down right? Because you say so...?

People sign uo to follow Jesus by the droves all around the world every day. The "Communist" Chinese are converting little by little. Where Communism should be doing really well, in places like South America--Christian Fundamentalism is growing very quickly. After years and years of Athiest propaganda religion sprung right up again after the fall of the Soviet Union.

So you're standard for comparison (a comparison which I have already noted isn't apt) is how many people believe it? So, by your standards, slavery and serfdom were great in feudal times? Everyone believed it then...

What are you talking about? Your claims aren't logical in any sense.

- August

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 00:56

Religion is not a philosophy. The basis of your whole outlook is entirely flawed. Once again you mistake and conflate entire concepts. Of course it a philosophy--it's a systematic way of viewing the world. It just happens to postulate a God--other philosophies don't postulate a God. Philosophy is above all the study of existance and the things that relate to human existance--truth, beauty, language. I think religion falls into that category very nicely.

Useful in what sense? As a utilitarian you must surely understand the varieties of the word "useful?" Useful in the sense that it gives people happiness and a systematic understanding of the world. Billions of people find praying a useful activity.

Hmm... quite an enormous claim from TomK on revleft... Does religion really win?
This (http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html)website seems to have a long list of atrocities committed in the name of religion, which according to you "gives the most happiness." And this (http://listverse.com/religion/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/)website lists eight major atrocities committed in the name of God. Sure lots of bad stuff happened with religion--I could give you websites that show all of the dreadful murders and purges that Communists committed--are you ready to give up Communism because of all that nasty things communism has done?

Then you must remember that religion was used to justify the murder, torture, massacre, and genocide of so many peoples it's tough to comprehend. But hey, it wins hands down right? Because you say so...? Hey, the Good of the People was used to justify Communism. Pol Pot killed millions. I know what you going to say--Pol Pot wasn't a Communist--believe me I don't think the people that committed those murders for religion really believed in God.

So you're standard for comparison (a comparison which I have already noted isn't apt) is how many people believe it? So, by your standards, slavery and serfdom were great in feudal times? Everyone believed it then... Ouch! Bad analogy. People believed in Communism for a while there, too. Now they don't. But as to the analogy, Slavery was forced on people, So was Communism. And for that matter in the past so was Religion. For the most part people are free to believe what they want these days--and no one believes in slavery, No one believes in communism (the 800 people on RevLeft excepted,) but they still believe in religion--by the billions. I think they must feel it's useful.

What are you talking about? Your claims aren't logical in any sense.

- August Me not logical? You are the one that believes in the Revolution!

Decolonize The Left

5th November 2008, 01:18

Of course it a philosophy--it's a systematic way of viewing the world. It just happens to postulate a God--other philosophies don't postulate a God. Philosophy is above all the study of existance and the things that relate to human existance--truth, beauty, language. I think religion falls into that category very nicely.

I understand that that's what you think. But you're wrong. Here's the definition of philosophy:
" (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology" (Merriam-Webster; bold added)

Perhaps you were referring to this definition: "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology" (Merriam-Webster)

Yet, you can see that even in that definition religion cannot take hold - for religion is essentially illogical.

Useful in the sense that it gives people happiness and a systematic understanding of the world. Billions of people find praying a useful activity.

Wrong. Billions of people pray. You have induced that they find it "useful."

Sure lots of bad stuff happened with religion--I could give you websites that show all of the dreadful murders and purges that Communists committed--are you ready to give up Communism because of all that nasty things communism has done?

No, but I am not a utilitarian due to the enormous problems with such an ethical theory.

Hey, the Good of the People was used to justify Communism. Pol Pot killed millions. I know what you going to say--Pol Pot wasn't a Communist--believe me I don't think the people that committed those murders for religion really believed in God.

You sure? The primary religious texts are sure full of a lot of violence, retribution, torture, rape, pillaging, etc... Why wouldn't these characteristics be carried over throughout the history of humanity?

Ouch! Bad analogy. People believed in Communism for a while there, too. Now they don't. But as to the analogy, Slavery was forced on people, So was Communism. And for that matter in the past so was Religion. For the most part people are free to believe what they want these days--and no one believes in slavery, No one believes in communism (the 800 people on RevLeft excepted,) but they still believe in religion--by the billions. I think they must feel it's useful.

Yes, it was a bad analogy. And this explanation is no better. You claim that "for the most part people are free to believe what they want these days," but such a claim couldn't be more ignorant. We have come to understand the extent of conditioning, social roles, and the limiting of information available to children. Your claim is pure blind idealism. It is also full of generalizations...
- August

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 02:09

I understand that that's what you think. But you're wrong. Here's the definition of philosophy:
" (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology" (Merriam-Webster; bold added) I see this as needlessly narrow. Besides, theology isn't religion.

Perhaps you were referring to this definition: "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology" (Merriam-Webster)

Yet, you can see that even in that definition religion cannot take hold - for religion is essentially illogical. Better--Ethics surely if in the pervue of religion, and mataphysics, and aesthetics and maybe epistemology. I think religion fits as a philosophy quite nicely. As far as logic goes--you know logic is such a closed system--it's an engine really, more than anything else--it can only process what you feed it. Religion can be quite logical within itself as can Atheism. And after all the guy who "invented" logic in the first place posited an "unmoved mover."

Wrong. Billions of people pray. You have induced that they find it "useful." Why else would they do it? It's obviously a free choice. They must get something out of it. I see it as as something they derive some satisfaction from, and that alone makes it useful.

No, but I am not a utilitarian due to the enormous problems with such an ethical theory. I'm not usually a utilitarian in most places in my life either. But like all philosophy, it has it's place.

You sure? The primary religious texts are sure full of a lot of violence, retribution, torture, rape, pillaging, etc... Why wouldn't these characteristics be carried over throughout the history of humanity? No doubt they reflect the times inwhich they were written. The same could be said of Lenin's writings. Pretty brutal stuff.

The one real exception is the New Testament. For it's day, it was pretty mild stuff. A judgment here and there, but a lot of toleration and forgivness written in a rather unforgiving landscape.

Yes, it was a bad analogy. And this explanation is no better. You claim that "for the most part people are free to believe what they want these days," but such a claim couldn't be more ignorant. We have come to understand the extent of conditioning, social roles, and the limiting of information available to children. Your claim is pure blind idealism. It is also full of generalizations...
- August

I understand your point--but then again, back to the Soviet Union--much of that same type of indoctrination was given to Soviet children for generations about the wonders of Communism--but it failed to take hold. Christianity bad mouthed and ignored--is taking hold again. It must have something that more materialistic philosophies seem to miss. The same is going on in China.

Clearly for all it's faults religion, and Christianity in particular does seem to take hold rather easily and rather well.

Sankofa

7th November 2008, 05:12

The Bible is barely passable as toilet paper. I voted for the pig fuck option, even though I'm against book burning completely.

Decolonize The Left

7th November 2008, 07:50

I see this as needlessly narrow. Besides, theology isn't religion.

The dictionary is indeed, "narrow." It defines words...

Better--Ethics surely if in the pervue of religion, and mataphysics, and aesthetics and maybe epistemology. I think religion fits as a philosophy quite nicely. As far as logic goes--you know logic is such a closed system--it's an engine really, more than anything else--it can only process what you feed it. Religion can be quite logical within itself as can Atheism. And after all the guy who "invented" logic in the first place posited an "unmoved mover."

Tom, you really need to stop this form of argumentation - it's quite pointless.

In the first place, you cannot reduce an entire system of thought to it's 'founder' (in this case, Aristotle). Even if we ignore the solid argument that he was not the 'founder' of logic (as the Chinese developed logical systems as well), your point is still absurd.

In the second place, religion may have philosophical qualities, as it is a way of relating to the world, but it is fundamentally grounded in faith. It is not a philosophy as it does not take reality as its premise - rather, is posits God and takes that as its premise.

Why else would they do it? It's obviously a free choice. They must get something out of it. I see it as as something they derive some satisfaction from, and that alone makes it useful.

Well, it's not "obviously a free choice." You are positing free will. I do not wish to argue free will vs. determinism with you (for I do not accept the premises of the debate), so I'll just address your point.

Why would they do it? Perhaps because they've been trained to do it?

I'm not usually a utilitarian in most places in my life either. But like all philosophy, it has it's place.

No, all philosophy does not have it's place. Many have had their place but are now obsolete.

No doubt they reflect the times inwhich they were written. The same could be said of Lenin's writings. Pretty brutal stuff.

I do not care much for Lenin, and also the whole point of my discussion with you was/is to attempt to explain why your consistent and pervasive attempts to make analogies between religion and leftism were/are absurd.

And furthermore, if they do reflect the times in which they were written, why are they used as "proof" today? If, as you agree, these texts are full of brutal things, why appeal to them as the holy word of God and subsequently use them in sermon?

If these religious texts were written by men, and are filled with contradictions and violence/murder/rape/evil, why appeal to them as the divine texts?

The one real exception is the New Testament. For it's day, it was pretty mild stuff. A judgment here and there, but a lot of toleration and forgivness written in a rather unforgiving landscape.

The New Testament is not "mild." It successfully overthrew the prevailing mode of morality which was "brutal," but it does not follow that it was not such in it's own right. Let us remember that it was the Orthodox Christians who subsequently 'purged' their ranks of the Gnostics and other 'heretics' for centuries.

I understand your point--but then again, back to the Soviet Union--much of that same type of indoctrination was given to Soviet children for generations about the wonders of Communism--but it failed to take hold. Christianity bad mouthed and ignored--is taking hold again. It must have something that more materialistic philosophies seem to miss. The same is going on in China.

Tom, you just don't seem to take responsibility for yourself. It's beginning to get annoying.

The whole point is to address your continuous attempts to compare religion to communism. This isn't a coherent analogy.

And what's amazing is that to justify your use of this analogy, you use it!

Clearly for all it's faults religion, and Christianity in particular does seem to take hold rather easily and rather well.

Hmmm... what a good argument you have here... so beginning in 1933, Nazism started to take hold in Germany. By 1940, it had taken hold rather easily and rather well.... and this makes it....?

- August

Bud Struggle

8th November 2008, 17:09

Your preachy tone is tiring August. :)

And my point is entire correct--Communism is religion, "lite."

Decolonize The Left

8th November 2008, 20:40

Your preachy tone is tiring August. :)

And my point is entire correct--Communism is religion, "lite."

My favorite part about this post is the fact that I don't have to respond to it - I already did (and only 9 days ago)! Here:

Tom, I'm amazed at how you respond to any argument against religion - it's always the same: 'it's better than Marxism!'

What you do here is you effectively evade every criticism you can. In the first place, you make a poor analogy which isn't logical. In the second, you dismiss the argument by switching the focus. And in the third, you avoid having to say anything of substance.

Try something else please, or, perhaps, make an argument. I know this is hard for you as religion has taught you to avoid justification, arguments, and all sorts of logic, but you can do it... I believe in you... I... have... faith... ;)

- August

I tired, but you failed to continue in the vein of logic and reason and have again resorted back to your tired tactic.

You're like a dog who no one likes anymore but still tries the same trick to impress people...

- August

Bud Struggle

8th November 2008, 20:52

You're like a dog who no one likes anymore but still tries the same trick to impress people...

- August

I just find the insults rather tiring. My discussions with you--aren't about the logic, or the debate or anything else--it's the constant "you're and idiot" and "you're a fool there" that tires me. I certainly don't insult you, or anyone else here on RevLeft--and I realize you Communists sometimes use me to take out your frustrations--and for the most part, that's fine with me I take it all pretty lightly up to a point, then it just gets old. All this stuff starts looking more and more like you have some sort of obsession--where the discussion takes second place to you making your points with barbs attached. Maybe that's how you live your real life, maybe that's just your style. I don't know. But me, not so much. It's the same thing with discussing things with Jasmine--it's just the same old same old ever and over again.

So anyway August, I just rather not discuss religion or anything else with you.

All the best,

Tom

Decolonize The Left

9th November 2008, 00:35

I just find the insults rather tiring. My discussions with you--aren't about the logic, or the debate or anything else--it's the constant "you're and idiot" and "you're a fool there" that tires me. I certainly don't insult you, or anyone else here on RevLeft--and I realize you Communists sometimes use me to take out your frustrations--and for the most part, that's fine with me I take it all pretty lightly up to a point, then it just gets old. All this stuff starts looking more and more like you have some sort of obsession--where the discussion takes second place to you making your points with barbs attached. Maybe that's how you live your real life, maybe that's just your style. I don't know. But me, not so much. It's the same thing with discussing things with Jasmine--it's just the same old same old ever and over again.

So anyway August, I just rather not discuss religion or anything else with you.

All the best,

Tom

Tom, this is simply ridiculous. I started out polite and cordial, and tried to have a discussion. In fact, the whole premise of my responding to your posts was an attempt to have a discussion - namely a series of arguments with justification in order to discover the merits of one's statements.

But you refused to do this - you didn't want to have a discussion. How do I know this? Because in a short run of posts you repeatedly refused to justify statements, analyze analogies, and form coherent posts. You just claimed things and wanted me to say "oh, ok Tom." But that's not a discussion - that's pointless.

And then, when I point out to you that this whole tactic of avoiding debate was silly and wasn't becoming of you, you just went ahead and did it again!

And then when I called you on it, you quit.

What does that say about you?

- August

Demogorgon

16th November 2008, 03:20

I'll step into the debate at this point I think
I see this as needlessly narrow. Besides, theology isn't religion.Theology is different from Philosophy though the two overlap, however philosophy of religion (which is different from theology) is very much part of philosophy.

Better--Ethics surely if in the pervue of religion, and mataphysics, and aesthetics and maybe epistemology. I think religion fits as a philosophy quite nicely. As far as logic goes--you know logic is such a closed system--it's an engine really, more than anything else--it can only process what you feed it. Religion can be quite logical within itself as can Atheism. And after all the guy who "invented" logic in the first place posited an "unmoved mover."Well we have moved on somewhat from Aristotelian logic, though much of what he says holds. Really though we have to hold to logic if we are going to discuss these things otherwise it is all rather pointless. I think properly made arguments for religion can be very logical and it is silly to say that religion is illogical as it is perfectly possible for something to be wrong but logical, i.e. the starting premises could be wrong. That said most flaws with arguments in favour of religion that I know of come in the logic rather than the starting premises (at least the overt oremises).

Why else would they do it? It's obviously a free choice. They must get something out of it. I see it as as something they derive some satisfaction from, and that alone makes it useful.
Yes religion is often followed for purposes of obtaining satisfaction, indeed that is presumably the reason in all cases not involving coercion, but that doesn't say anything regarding its validity. Moreover the comparison to Marxism is flawed because, if you are right about people using Marxism as a surrogate religion (as some undoubtedly do) that wouldn't make Marxism an alternative to religion but simply a religion, full stop. And if, as you say, it has died away that wouldn't represent a triumph of religion but simply one dying ut in favour of others.

Of course I don't see Marxism, used properly as a religion. I am not going to be one of those pretentious prats who talk about their "scientific study of history" but to me Marxism is a set of methodology for understanding the world. It can be compared to liberalism for instance, but hardly to religion.

That is why I think, people here who are using Marxism as their surrogate religion look like such idiots most of the time.

I understand your point--but then again, back to the Soviet Union--much of that same type of indoctrination was given to Soviet children for generations about the wonders of Communism--but it failed to take hold. Christianity bad mouthed and ignored--is taking hold again. It must have something that more materialistic philosophies seem to miss. The same is going on in China. Well religion never really went away so saying that it is "coming back" is over-stating it a bit, but it is no surprise. The State's attempts to make a perverted form of Marxism in effect the official religion came to an end and the older religions stepped in to fill the gulf. People follow religion for certain reasons and so long as those reasons exist they will basically take their pick of religions with a strong bias towards the one they were raised in or are/were otherwise expected to follow. With the disappearance of one such religion, it is entirely unremarkable that others have filled the void.

Clearly for all it's faults religion, and Christianity in particular does seem to take hold rather easily and rather well.
Individual religions wax and wain. These days it is Islam more than Christianity that is thriving for instance (though admittedly they are extremely similar). It is religion itself rather than particular strains of it that people gravitate to as a whole. To use a not entirely PC analogy, think of it like tobacco. A nicotine addict will have a completely different choice as to what brand they smoke than they do with regards to whether they smoke at all.

I don't believe that the general popularity of religion is any evidence of any particular religion's truth.