Jesus: An Anti-Revolutionary Force

[Winter]

THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS




"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.


Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.


Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.


Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.


Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.


Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.


Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."



The eight beatitudes of Jesus is one of the main foundations of Christianity. All forms and denominations of Christianity can all agree that these teachings are absolutely essential to their faith. Should we, as revolutionaries, see these sayings as a threat? I believe it is.


First of all, it assumes in a form of life-after-death. It tells us, "In this life there is struggle and suffering, and there's nothing you can do about it. Put up passively with it, because when you die, your ideal life will come true."


But as science tells us, life after death is far from a fact. So, why should we passively await change when we can change things for the better now, in this life?



"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.



Spirit is the force which gives the human animal motivation. Motivation to endure through trials and overcome tyranny. Yet here, this wise teacher tells us that it doesn't matter how much spirit we have. As long as one obeys the status quo, one is assured access into this "kingdom of Heaven". It assures us that it's okay to do nothing about inequalities, because our reward for doing nothing is greater than the reward dissenters obtain.




Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.


The comfort which is described here is one that is assumed to begin in the after-life. Mourning for a loved one is a natural event we all must sucuumb to someday in our life-times. But do we really need a supernatural comforter? Is this not the obligation of our loved ones and friends? To assume a spirit like force will one day comfort us shows that other people are not neccesarry. It destroys the concept of human solidarity, nulling one of the most important functions of our fellow man.







Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.






This has been proven wrong time and time again. Do we see the meek in control? No, you see the people teaching this type of rhetoric controling things. To promote meekness as a spiritual quality is one of the most clever ways to devolve the working man's revolutionary spirit. To be meek is to be humble. Yes, it is a personality trait to be a humble person, but to be humble against inequalities is outright nonsense. Inequalities should not be something we must put up with until the day we die.






Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.






To hunger and thirst for something is not the same as obtaining it. Jesus here teaches us that we should not strive for these traits, but that they will come about in the after-life. By then, one would no longer require food, water, or righteousness because we would no longer need those things to live, we would be dead. Let us obtain righteousness by fighting against world tyranny and spreading equality.






Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.






Since humans are not merciful, god is, so be the exception and be merciful towards your fellow man and god will be merciful to you. Just gaze upon history and notice all the good Christians who followed this one. Christianity has been the anti-theses to anything remotely "merciful". Scientists, indiginous peoples, and pagans know first hand about Christian mercy. It is time to dish out this type of "mercy" to the tyrants of the world.






Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.






What exactly is a pure heart here? A Christian would argue that by believing Jesus is lord will make ones heart pure. To accept Jesus as lord is to follow these anti-progressive teachings that will surely keep us as slaves forever. After-all, god does condone slavery, it's in the bible: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) and Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)






Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.






Once more, we see a teaching that many good Christians of history have never followed themselves. The fact that Christianity was involved in most wars in Europe during the middle ages shows that most Christians, including most popes, are not children of god. If we desire progress, revolution is necesarry. Revolution must involve violence. To be peacemakers is to be a pacifistic serf whos conditions will never change. This is exactly what the elites desire. Is it any wonder why world leaders espouse this stuff?






Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."






It's okay to be persecuted. So why fight back? After-all, you're going to heaven.





The lie that an after-life is sure to come has caused these beatitudes to be so powerful. People fail to realize that change can only come about in this lifetime, our only lifetime. Jesus as an anti-revolutionary force has always been the intended results by those who crafted this religion. They knew the un-educated would buy into these beliefs. Their lives have always revolved bad conditions and powerlessness. This completely undermines class solidarity and progress.

[Yardstick]

The eight beatitudes of Jesus is one of the main foundations of Christianity. All forms and denominations of Christianity can all agree that these teachings are absolutely essential to their faith. Should we, as revolutionaries, see these sayings as a threat? I believe it is.


First of all, it assumes in a form of life-after-death. It tells us, "In this life there is struggle and suffering, and there's nothing you can do about it. Put up passively with it, because when you die, your ideal life will come true."
This is not a correct interpretation of what is being said. The beatitudes are not about putting up with this life cause 'heaven is better.'

But as science tells us, life after death is far from a fact. So, why should we passively await change when we can change things for the better now, in this life? A 'life after death' is outside of the scope of science. Also, a 'life after death' doesn't mean we should be passive. Clear examples of this are the many Christian backed charities, missions, etc.

If Christians where taught to stick their heads in the sand until death, than they wouldn't be doing any of these things.







Spirit is the force which gives the human animal motivation. Motivation to endure through trials and overcome tyranny. Yet here, this wise teacher tells us that it doesn't matter how much spirit we have. As long as one obeys the status quo, one is assured access into this "kingdom of Heaven". It assures us that it's okay to do nothing about inequalities, because our reward for doing nothing is greater than the reward dissenters obtain.
Wrong again, Jesus is providing examples of how the world will be turned upside down.







The comfort which is described here is one that is assumed to begin in the after-life. Mourning for a loved one is a natural event we all must sucuumb to someday in our life-times. But do we really need a supernatural comforter? Is this not the obligation of our loved ones and friends? To assume a spirit like force will one day comfort us shows that other people are not neccesarry. It destroys the concept of human solidarity, nulling one of the most important functions of our fellow man.
It's a real stretch to suggest that the comfort of a supernatural force nullifies the need for fellowship. Christians themselves support the idea of community, after all that's what a church is.










This has been proven wrong time and time again. Do we see the meek in control? No, you see the people teaching this type of rhetoric controling things. To promote meekness as a spiritual quality is one of the most clever ways to devolve the working man's revolutionary spirit. To be meek is to be humble. Yes, it is a personality trait to be a humble person, but to be humble against inequalities is outright nonsense. Inequalities should not be something we must put up with until the day we die.
Here again, you completely miss the point. Jesus is providing another example of how the world will be reversed. The working man, the ones at the bottom of society will be at the top, while those who are exploitive will be pushed to the bottom.

Sound familiar?









To hunger and thirst for something is not the same as obtaining it. Jesus here teaches us that we should not strive for these traits, but that they will come about in the after-life. By then, one would no longer require food, water, or righteousness because we would no longer need those things to live, we would be dead. Let us obtain righteousness by fighting against world tyranny and spreading equality.
/sigh See above.









Since humans are not merciful, god is, so be the exception and be merciful towards your fellow man and god will be merciful to you. Just gaze upon history and notice all the good Christians who followed this one. Christianity has been the anti-theses to anything remotely "merciful". Scientists, indiginous peoples, and pagans know first hand about Christian mercy. It is time to dish out this type of "mercy" to the tyrants of the world.
It's no secret that Christians have historically failed to follow the teachings of Jesus. This is not however, a criticism of the beatitudes, or an example of Jesus being 'anti-revolutionary.' And then of course you call for the same injustice to befall Christians as you just criticized historical Christians for committing.









What exactly is a pure heart here? A Christian would argue that by believing Jesus is lord will make ones heart pure. Another false assumption. The idea of confession arises from the knowledge that humans are not pure, even those who believe in Jesus.To accept Jesus as lord is to follow these anti-progressive teachings that will surely keep us as slaves forever. After-all, god does condone slavery, it's in the bible: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) and Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) It is true that this is in the bible. Keep in mind this is not Jesus' words. But are in fact the words of a man. The authors of the bible clearly carried with them cultural biases when writing the bible.











Once more, we see a teaching that many good Christians of history have never followed themselves. The fact that Christianity was involved in most wars in Europe during the middle ages shows that most Christians, including most popes, are not children of god. If we desire progress, revolution is necesarry. Revolution must involve violence. To be peacemakers is to be a pacifistic serf whos conditions will never change. This is exactly what the elites desire. Is it any wonder why world leaders espouse this stuff? Your lack of understanding of non-violent resistance is sad. Also keep in mind that the leaders of states generally keep this part on the down low. It is hard to recruit soldiers and police when they are being told to be peacemakers.











It's okay to be persecuted. So why fight back? After-all, you're going to heaven.
Your lack of understanding of the Christian perspective on the after life is showing.




The lie that an after-life is sure to come has caused these beatitudes to be so powerful. People fail to realize that change can only come about in this lifetime, our only lifetime.So if a revolution does not occur in your lifetime does that make you a failure? Jesus as an anti-revolutionary force has always been the intended results by those who crafted this religion. I would suggest reading more into how the religion began. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't started by the illuminati :rolleyes: They knew the un-educated would buy into these beliefs. This is a false statement, there are many educated people who hold these beliefs. Priest themselves have masters degrees. Hardly uneducated.Their lives have always revolved bad conditions and powerlessness. This completely undermines class solidarity and progress.

I'd also suggest you read more into the Christian perspective of the after life. Contrary to popular belief it is not the idea that ones soul goes up into the clouds where you sit in eternal bliss and play the harp or any of that nonsense. I'd suggest you read some stuff about by N.T. Wright. He is an archbishop in the Anglican church and a sound new testament scholar.

[Winter]

I'd also suggest you read more into the Christian perspective of the after life. Contrary to popular belief it is not the idea that ones soul goes up into the clouds where you sit in eternal bliss and play the harp or any of that nonsense. I'd suggest you read some stuff about by N.T. Wright. He is an archbishop in the Anglican church and a sound new testament scholar.

I've studied Christianity in the past. I know heaven isn't a place in the clouds. But I believe any form of life after death sets forth false hopes in something that may not even exist.

[Yardstick]

I've studied Christianity in the past. I know heaven isn't a place in the clouds. But I believe any form of life after death sets forth false hopes in something that may not even exist.

Then you know that Christians believe that heaven and earth will join, God's kingdom combining with earth.

What this means for our discussion, is that Earth according to Christianity is not a temporary place where we have to wait around until the sweet release of death.
Instead Christians should be working towards God's kingdom on Earth.

This does not mean they should partake in holy wars, crusades, or inquisitions. But rather that they should work towards the ideals of loving ones neighbor. Which is evident when Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love God, and your neighbor. Meaning if you follow this, everything else will follow.

What I'm getting at, is that Christianity, and the beatitudes specifically, are not messages of apathy. Instead, they are a call to work towards something 'better.' Just as you call the proletariat to work for something better.

[al8]

Even if you interpret it so that they are or should be fighting for a monarhcy on earth controlled by a fictional character done by supernatuaral means, that is just as or even more deluded and diversionary. And facists are working for something 'better' too, so are racists and other reactionaries. If their conception is schewed their intentions don't mean much.

[Yardstick]

Even if you interpret it so that they are or should be fighting for a monarhcy on earth controlled by a fictional character done by supernatuaral means, that is just as or even more deluded and diversionary. And facists are working for something 'better' too, so are racists and other reactionaries. If their conception is schewed their intentions don't mean much.

Where exactly do you disagree with the notion of loving ones neighbor?

[al8]

If the neigbor is a jerk I do not love him. And why should I? People must earn the trust and develop love. Saying that people are de facto deserving of this or that respect, love, devotion regardless of circumstance is absurd.

[Yardstick]

It may very well be absurd. But that doesn't make it bad for people to strive towards it. Perhaps you do not wish to show respect or kindness for your fellow man, but can you really criticize other people who are trying to do this? Perhaps my world view is just to far separate from yours but I can not fathom how people showing kindness towards others could be a bad thing.

I think you need to show the connection of loving ones neighbor being on the same grounds as racism before you make the comparison.

And both being absurd doesn't cut it.

[Yardstick]

I looked up N.T. Wright for you http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html

[al8]

It may very well be absurd. But that doesn't make it bad for people to strive towards it.

It does make it bad because it neglects context. I don't want people to reward bad behavior. That is what makes this demand - "____ your neighbor" absurd. It is not contextual and dependent on normal human interaction, it is a demand out of nowhere. Since it is in my interest that people behave rationally, I do not tolerate christianity - nor all the social mores and warped thinking associated with it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yardstick:
Firstly, let me say that I appreciate your well-articulated and elegant defense of Christianity. And I mean that honestly.

But with that said, I disagree with you entirely. I do not hold the same position as WD on this issue, but I do not agree with your response to WD's critiques.


Then you know that Christians believe that heaven and earth will join, God's kingdom combining with earth.

What this means for our discussion, is that Earth according to Christianity is not a temporary place where we have to wait around until the sweet release of death.
Instead Christians should be working towards God's kingdom on Earth.

Ok, but this is seriously problematic. While it may produce better consequences (in theory) than the current reactionary Christian attitude, it is still fundamentally incoherent.
Who is this "God?"
Where did "he" come from?
Why does God have a gender?!?
Why can't I see, touch, hear, smell, or physically feel this supreme being?

And the list of extremely important questions goes on and on.

My point being that Christianity, even this kind interpretation of Jesus' teachings such as you have elaborated, posits a supernatural being which human beings must submit to in order to achieve "positive change." It places human life, the only thing we know exists, below God - hence it devalues human beings by necessity. This is unacceptable.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

communists working for a better utopian earth for the sake of humanity are more likely to be loved by God (if she/he did actually exsist) than Christians who are doing what they are told to and in fear of eternal damnation and so that they can be rewarded by going to heaven,

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I've studied Christianity in the past. I know heaven isn't a place in the clouds. But I believe any form of life after death sets forth false hopes in something that may not even exist.

That....from a communist


My point being that Christianity, even this kind interpretation of Jesus' teachings such as you have elaborated, posits a supernatural being which human beings must submit to in order to achieve "positive change." It places human life, the only thing we know exists, below God - hence it devalues human beings by necessity. This is unacceptable.

Could be worse. I'd much rather stare at a crucifix than Lenin or Mao's ugly faces.
:laugh:

[Decolonize The Left]

Could be worse. I'd much rather stare at a crucifix than Lenin or Mao's ugly faces.
:laugh:

You could also worship a pile of moss... I fail to see your point.

Very few leftists worship Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Some may idolize them, but at least they are open to rational discourse - unlike yourself, obviously.

Feel free to take your childish, inane, and asinine comments elsewhere - chit chat perhaps. We are trying to have a discussion.

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You could also worship a pile of moss... I fail to see your point.

Very few leftists worship Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Some may idolize them, but at least they are open to rational discourse - unlike yourself, obviously.

LoL Ever been to China? Cuba? Moscow before they turned all those idols into scrap metal?

"It's not that we worship them, it's just that their portraits are prettier"

[Decolonize The Left]

LoL Ever been to China? Cuba? Moscow before they turned all those idols into scrap metal?

"It's not that we worship them, it's just that their portraits are prettier"

I don't consider masses of individuals with herd mentality blindly following the word of their 'leaders' leftists. Your claims do not follow from my argument.

- August

[Yardstick]

Yardstick:
Firstly, let me say that I appreciate your well-articulated and elegant defense of Christianity. And I mean that honestly.

But with that said, I disagree with you entirely. I do not hold the same position as WD on this issue, but I do not agree with your response to WD's critiques.



Ok, but this is seriously problematic. While it may produce better consequences (in theory) than the current reactionary Christian attitude, it is still fundamentally incoherent.
Who is this "God?"
Where did "he" come from?
Why does God have a gender?!?
Why can't I see, touch, hear, smell, or physically feel this supreme being?

And the list of extremely important questions goes on and on.

My point being that Christianity, even this kind interpretation of Jesus' teachings such as you have elaborated, posits a supernatural being which human beings must submit to in order to achieve "positive change." It places human life, the only thing we know exists, below God - hence it devalues human beings by necessity. This is unacceptable.

- August

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I just noticed that others have posted in this thread! My apologies.

Onto your questions.

God is the divine. That which is the sum of all good.

Where did he come from? No idea, 'he' hasn't told me. I think the issue here is one of a western paradigm. The idea that things are linear, and have a beginning and an end is not a universally held paradigm. Where does a circle start? With that said, it could also be argued that God is outside of time(which is really nothing more than a measurement of change, although I thing a discussion on the philosophy of time would be getting a bit off topic.)

I very much doubt that God does have a gender. However Abrahamic religions(the religious background I'm from) has historically been rather patriarchal and it comes as no surprise that they would attempt to describe God in the masculine. There are many religions that describe God in both the masculine and feminine. It would seem to me that God would contain both feminine and masculine qualities.

This is where our philosophies will simply take different turns. This argument leads me to believe you are a materialist, in the sense that you believe there is no spiritual, but only matter. There is in fact a materialist argument for the existence of a God(I am wholly underqualified to provide that argument though, for that I would suggest you look into Process metaphysics, and more specifically Process Theology.) However, I am more inclined towards dualism(both matter and spiritual) or even Idealism(only the spiritual.)

Now onto your actual point. This is a valid concern, however I simply do not see human life as devalued by the existence of a supreme being. It seems rather self evident to me that humanity is not perfect, nor could perfection be reached. I don't see people reaching towards that as a bad thing though, and if they would like to use a role model such as Jesus in order to do that, all the power to them.

Even if it were accepted that a divine being devalues humanity, I would like to hear more of an argument as to why exactly this is a bad thing.

With all that said, I'm not sure how your arguments relate to the beatitudes being anti-revolutionary. Perhaps you could connect the dots for me?

In the end, my point is that Christianity doesn't have to be right for it to be good. Perhaps there is no God and Jesus never existed. But I fail to see the harm in me gathering in community with like minded individuals for support and attempting to treat people with dignity and respect. While it's clear that Al8 feels people must earn the right to be treated with basic kindness I still fail to see how others doing differently is a bad thing. In fact I'd go so far as to assume that Al8 appreciates when people afford him the kindness he is not willing to reciprocate.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I just noticed that others have posted in this thread! My apologies.

It is quite alright, I have done the same before.


Onto your questions.

God is the divine. That which is the sum of all good.

Ok, but who determines "good?"

For example, I find pesto pasta to be good. But my neighbor does not, she finds marinara pasta to be good.

But certainly you are not speaking of preferences (such as my pasta example), rather you are speaking of values. Unfortunately, this falls to the same argument - who determines what is a "good" value? You? Me? The individuals who wrote the Bible? Jesus?


Where did he come from? No idea, 'he' hasn't told me. I think the issue here is one of a western paradigm. The idea that things are linear, and have a beginning and an end is not a universally held paradigm. Where does a circle start? With that said, it could also be argued that God is outside of time(which is really nothing more than a measurement of change, although I thing a discussion on the philosophy of time would be getting a bit off topic.)

I am happy to have a discussion on the philosophy of time. Therefore I shall begin - time as we understand it is artificial. Seconds, minutes, hours, years, etc... is an artificial measure of change. And, as you noted, this artificial measure of time is linear.

Time itself is not linear, it is infinite. When incorporated into a framework (the W axis), the framework becomes four-dimensional. In such a framework time is not linear, but infinite and eternal - it is as space (or depth) is in the third dimension.

With that said, we are three dimensional beings. We perceive time as linear and cannot help but do so. Hence we are forced to ask, given that you are proposing a concept to be an eternal truth, "where did it come from?"


I very much doubt that God does have a gender. However Abrahamic religions(the religious background I'm from) has historically been rather patriarchal and it comes as no surprise that they would attempt to describe God in the masculine. There are many religions that describe God in both the masculine and feminine. It would seem to me that God would contain both feminine and masculine qualities.

Ok. But why "masculine and feminine" qualities? Why does God have a form at all? Why does God even resemble human beings, who you have already stated are imperfect?


This is where our philosophies will simply take different turns. This argument leads me to believe you are a materialist, in the sense that you believe there is no spiritual, but only matter. There is in fact a materialist argument for the existence of a God(I am wholly underqualified to provide that argument though, for that I would suggest you look into Process metaphysics, and more specifically Process Theology.) However, I am more inclined towards dualism(both matter and spiritual) or even Idealism(only the spiritual.)

I am a materialist, and perhaps I will investigate this "process theology" if it seems interesting.

If you are a dualist, I have more questions for you.
- How are the spiritual and the material related?
- How do they effect one another if they are completely different substances? In fact, one isn't even a substance, so how does it interact with substances?
- How can the spiritual be understood, believed with reason/logic, be truthful, or be real if it cannot be sensed?


Now onto your actual point. This is a valid concern, however I simply do not see human life as devalued by the existence of a supreme being. It seems rather self evident to me that humanity is not perfect, nor could perfection be reached. I don't see people reaching towards that as a bad thing though, and if they would like to use a role model such as Jesus in order to do that, all the power to them.

But there is an issue which must be discussed here. "Perfection" is a human invention - it is a result of our experiencing/perceiving things and conceptualizing them beyond their material reality (ex: I can draw a circle, it is not perfect, but I can conceptualize a perfect circle).

Before there were beings to conceptualize things, everything just was. It was perfect and imperfect and all the little spaces in between. In fact, it still is this way - we just divide and break it into manageable parts in order to function.


Even if it were accepted that a divine being devalues humanity, I would like to hear more of an argument as to why exactly this is a bad thing.

Certainly.
1) For human beings, human experience is all there is.
2) Hence, due to the fact that experience is all we can know, love, hate, destroy, rebuild, etc... it is of the up-most value.
3) To devalue that which is, in favor of that which is posited, is to devalue oneself and all others. This is bad because it detracts from the only thing one can be - oneself.


With all that said, I'm not sure how your arguments relate to the beatitudes being anti-revolutionary. Perhaps you could connect the dots for me?

It doesn't really. :D


In the end, my point is that Christianity doesn't have to be right for it to be good. Perhaps there is no God and Jesus never existed. But I fail to see the harm in me gathering in community with like minded individuals for support and attempting to treat people with dignity and respect. While it's clear that Al8 feels people must earn the right to be treated with basic kindness I still fail to see how others doing differently is a bad thing. In fact I'd go so far as to assume that Al8 appreciates when people afford him the kindness he is not willing to reciprocate.

Ah. My argument against this stems from my previous argument about religion (specifically the notion of a supreme being) devaluing humanity.

- August

[MarxSchmarx]

Thanks for that, AW, I agree with your intuition that belief in a higher power is inherently demeaning towards humans. I've pondered exactly how to justify this intuition for some time, and have had thoughts along the lines you express. However, there were some limitations I bumped into and I thought it would help to share.

In particular,



1) For human beings, human experience is all there is.
2) Hence, due to the fact that experience is all we can know, love, hate, destroy, rebuild, etc... it is of the up-most value.


This step I am having some difficulty with. Value inherently requires contrasting between alternatives, and if "experience is all there is", there are no alternatives, and so how can we say it is more valuable than one thing over another?



3) To devalue that which is, in favor of that which is posited, is to devalue oneself and all others. This is bad because it detracts from the only thing one can be - oneself.


This too seems a little strange. An ignorant person, for instance, might posit that by education and dedication they can become learned, and value a "learned" state that they, after all, only posit, over being ignorant, which is their current state. Similarly, a religious person might posit that they can, through prayer, become closer to God, and thereby value a divine, posited state over their current state. Indeed, such connections are made explicit in some traditions like Islam.

Ultimately, I think in order to justify humanism, we have to assert not only that the divine and the afterlife are merely posited, but that they simply do not exist. Once people believe that their present life "is the only shot they've got", then I think they will start to value life and the quality of life as such more than they currently do.

[Decolonize The Left]

This step I am having some difficulty with. Value inherently requires contrasting between alternatives, and if "experience is all there is", there are no alternatives, and so how can we say it is more valuable than one thing over another?

Experience is all humans can know. It is not necessarily "everything." For surely if there were no human beings there would still be a hunk of rock rotating around a star which was capable of sustaining life?

So we can contrast experience with that which we believe would exist despite human experience. But in terms of knowledge, experience is all we have - hence it is of up-most value.


This too seems a little strange. An ignorant person, for instance, might posit that by education and dedication they can become learned, and value a "learned" state that they, after all, only posit, over being ignorant, which is their current state. Similarly, a religious person might posit that they can, through prayer, become closer to God, and thereby value a divine, posited state over their current state. Indeed, such connections are made explicit in some traditions like Islam.

Your analogy is shaky. We have ample evidence, as does that ignorant person, that those who engage in education and dedication become "learned." We have absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that praying (which materially speaking is nothing more than thinking or speaking in a certain position) leads to being 'closer to God.'


Ultimately, I think in order to justify humanism, we have to assert not only that the divine and the afterlife are merely posited, but that they simply do not exist. Once people believe that their present life "is the only shot they've got", then I think they will start to value life and the quality of life as such more than they currently do.

I agree with the underlying message here, though I would caution you against putting forth the line that 'this present life is the only shot you've got.' The reason for this is that such a line can draw lots of responses which are valueless and worthless for that individual. They run:
'Well I'll enjoy while it lasts.' This individual proceeds to abuse drugs and alcohol and eventually does not enjoy it at all.
'Well then who cares?' This is the classic nihilist line - I don't think I need to explain why this response is absurd.
'Well I better do all the things I want to do.' This leads to a superficial valuing of immediate experiences ultimately leading to dissatisfaction as one can never experience everything.
Etc...

The key is to make this life infinitely valuable in it's temporal nature. I'll let this paradox sit for a bit before I expand on the idea.

- August

[Killfacer]

why the hell are you arguing about this? This is the most moronic subject since that one about the world ending. Christ, surely there are better things to do that:

1. Argue about someone who may never have existed
2. Argue about someone, when the only information you have on the subject was written years after his death and compiled by freaks
3. Argue in all seriousness about whether jesus was a revolutionary. What a load of shit. Freaks.

[Decolonize The Left]

why the hell are you arguing about this? This is the most moronic subject since that one about the world ending. Christ, surely there are better things to do that:

1. Argue about someone who may never have existed
2. Argue about someone, when the only information you have on the subject was written years after his death and compiled by freaks
3. Argue in all seriousness about whether jesus was a revolutionary. What a load of shit. Freaks.

Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing what-so-ever...

Furthermore, isn't it ironic that you think this is so stupid but still manage post a completely asinine and insulting post yourself? Way to make yourself look really, really, stupid.

I was actually trying to have a discussion. Do I think Jesus was a revolutionary leftist? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean I can't talk with others about the idea. Stop being so reactionary.

- August

[JimmyJazz]

Religion is, materially speaking, about personal conduct. Every religion provides a simple rule ("do unto others") or a simple laundry lists of rights and wrongs (10 commandments) that is supposed to be a flawless guide for those who want to be good, moral people. All religion therefore advocates Virtue Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics).

Radical/anti-capitalist thought, on the other hand, is consequentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism). Radicals don't believe that personal morals are enough to change the world--deep structural/institutional/cultural changes must be made as well. Without these changes, no amount of adherence to a list of personal do's and dont's can eliminate the world's greatest ills.

So, religion is definitely incompatible with radicalism. But I think it's important to realize that religion is not incompatible because of its specific teachings, as though if only it taught different values it would suddenly become compatible. It's the very idea of universal virtues rather than consequentialism which makes it incompatible--not the specific things it espouses as virtues. In fact, as far as those go, some of them actually contradict the hardcore greed and anti-cooperative spirit of capitalism.

BTW, I think some radicals are guilty of a certain degree of virtue ethics in place of consequentialism. The more anti-organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_%26_Anarchist_Action_Network) radicals are guilty of it; lifestylists and such.