A persons belief in their god would conflict with a communistic society in what way?

[Student of truth]

I can't go beyond this. Though I disagree with capitialism, imperialism, and facism, I can not forsake my God. Will not. So, how would a christian live in a communist society? suggestions

And don't tell me all "leftist" are aetheist, I know a few who aren't, who have inspired me to look into the goals of a "communist society"

[cop an Attitude]

are you christian? There is a form of communism that focuses on that. I myself find it bullshit but I'm also an atheist. you should look into it. There are christians and others of diffrent religiouns on this site, look for them.

A current thread based on this issue. (its about homosexuality then it switches over to god)-http://http://www.revleft.com/vb/help-t92745/index.html?t=92745

Wikipedia- http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

(sorry, i just assume you christian becuase your from the us.)

[#FF0000]

Christians, if they still existed, could still practice their religion. Just don't expect the community to spend public resources on a religious building.

[JimmyJazz]

So, how would a christian live in a communist society?

In the gulag olol

[freakazoid]

Fear not brother Student of truth. There are those of us who are Christian communists/anarchists. There is even a site for us, www.jesusradicals.com :thumbup:

[Decolonize The Left]

I can't go beyond this. Though I disagree with capitialism, imperialism, and facism, I can not forsake my God. Will not. So, how would a christian live in a communist society? suggestions

It is difficult to say. "Communists" and "anarchists" have no issues with individuals who are religious and leftist, but I personally do not believe the two to be logically compatible. You can see my argument here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/argument-against-monotheistic-t92450/index.html?p=1265298#post1265298).


And don't tell me all "leftist" are aetheist, I know a few who aren't, who have inspired me to look into the goals of a "communist society"

No one will tell you all leftists are atheists - it simply isn't true.

- August

[JimFar]

I myself am an atheist, but I don't think that there is any essential incompatibility between being a Christian and being a communist. Through out the history of Christianity there have been Christian groups who rejected private property and attempted to practice communism. In Europe, from the end of the Middle Ages into the beginnings of the modern era there appeared Christian revolutionaries who advocated communism (i.e. Thomas Münzer during the Peasant's War in Germany at the time of the Reformation).If you had asked whether being a Christian was compatible with being a Marxist, that would be a much more difficult question to answer. I think ultimately the answer to that would be no because Marxism is committed to a naturalistic and materialist approach to understanding the world and human society and so rejects theories that posit supernatural beings or forces that intervene in human history. However, having said that, it must be noted that there have been Christian thinkers who have drawn upon Marxist analysis, especially the liberation theologians in both the Catholic and Protestant churches.

[The Douche]

No it is not impossible to be a christian and a leftist. It is impossible to be a christian and a Marxist or Anarchist though, contrary to what some of the people on this site will say.

The simple reasons for this are:

Christians cannot be marxists because christians believe that everything that occurs is god's will. But marxists believe that class conflict and material conditions control the development of the world.

Christians cannot be anarchists because god is an unaccountable ruler, he cannot be recalled, and his descisions are final and there is no discussing them, this concept is inherently anti-anarchist.

But christians can still be socialists and "little c" communists. (as in, non-marxist communists)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Christians cannot be marxists because christians believe that everything that occurs is god's will.
No, we don't. Only Calvinists believe that. Most Christians don't.

Anyway, to answer the original question, a person's belief in their god would not conflict with a communist society in any way.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well either you are a crappy Christian or a crappy communist, I prefer you be the former myself, but we never get what we want.

I don't think it matters what particular sect of Christianity you adhere to, whether you believe in purgatory or predestination. What matters is you stop thinking like a materialist as a consequence of belief in the super natural.

Historical Materialism has no room for God; in fact a belief in God complicates things. Can God interfere with material conditions? When the working class suffers a serious setback is that God punishing us for Irreverence? Could you change the outcomes of a historical event just by praying or if you got enough people to pray?

Also, if he(maybe she?) is the one true and all powerful God, wouldn't it be in your best interests to convert every member of the working class into a Christian, even the ones who hold some other religion?

It would increase our chances of winning 100 fold, would it not?

At least that's what logically flows from your position as a Christian, if you are even serious about it, which I suspect you aren't.

But I have to ask, what exactly do you believe?

[Vahanian]

Wait, couldnt you just pratice your relgion privately? Just dont go shoving your belief do other peoples throats.

[Student of truth]

I believe in the bible, not a "sect." I believe that this world and the desires of it are passing away. I look forward to the next life, as I attempt to minimize my connection to this present world through transformation of my mind, the purification of my heart, and OBEDIANCE to the will of GOD. According to the bible, when our king(jesus, yashuwa) comes back, he will rule a new earth. This is what bible the bible says in revelation. (not made up, check it out) Until then, I don't see why we can't try to form a better way of life for all. Those who don't believe, don't have to, but imposing limits upon christian values is also a form of "dictatorship"

[N3p7uN3]

No, we don't. Only Calvinists believe that. Most Christians don't.

Anyway, to answer the original question, a person's belief in their god would not conflict with a communist society in any way.

Well, if you haven't noticed, Christianity is not just about a personal belief in God.

I found this at christianlibrary.org on a page entitled CHRISTIAN OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES


I. GOD WANTS US TO BE GOOD CITIZENS. (Verse 1)
A. We must be in subjection to government.
1. Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." 2. 1 Peter 2:17 - Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
B. Even bad rulers deserve respect for their office sake.
1. Acts 23:5 - Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"C. There is only one modifying principle.
1. Acts 5:29 - But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. 2. Doesn't give us the right to disobey any law we simply don't like.


Having said this, I don't see how a christian could live in a communist society at all.

[The Douche]

No, we don't. Only Calvinists believe that. Most Christians don't.

Anyway, to answer the original question, a person's belief in their god would not conflict with a communist society in any way.

That is simply not true. For instance, Calvinists are the majority in the US, an so, of course, my points in the conversation are going to apply mainly there. But there are two major sects (for the sake of conversation) within christianity, Catholocism and Protestantism, while it does split from there, the majority of protestants are in fact related to Calvin.

But that does not matter. The world is not outside the control of god, he calls the shots. To say otherwise would be to argue against the bible, the written word of god upon which christianity is founded.

As I said, to be a christian does not interfere with belief in communist ideas, there have always been communist tendencies within christianity. But it is directly opposed to both marxist and anarchist communism.


According to the bible, when our king(jesus, yashuwa) comes back, he will rule a new earth.

Then I will seek (as will any marxist or anarchist) to depose him, be cause anarchism and marxism both stand in opposition to any sort of class structure, heavenly rulers included.

[Student of truth]

I guess your right, peace. ......... Unless the governing authority was changed by an inspiration from god. Then in a communist society, I would not in follow the mutual concensus of the people, now would I?

Don't assume that I don't know what the bible says about authority. How do you know that god isn't bring about communism on purpose, so that those who would choose to be christian, could seperate themselves from those who didn't. Our community would be a beacon of light, persuading aethist and the like, of the true power, intergrity and character of god. Of course inevitably, the devil would corrupt the hearts of an already vulnerable community, convince them they need to rid the society of christians. Good news, for all of you who believe in communism, I believe it will have to happen, for the things to take place in revelations in society. peace.

[ernie]

I believe in the bible, not a "sect."
If you believe in the bible, then I don't see how anybody could consider you a leftist. The bible is full of reactionary crap; N3p7uN3's post is but one example of the inherently anti-communist nature of your "holy book".


I believe that this world and the desires of it are passing away. I look forward to the next life, as I attempt to minimize my connection to this present world through transformation of my mind, the purification of my heart, and OBEDIANCE to the will of GOD.
None of this leads to a rebellious working class who defy their masters. Quite the opposite: looking forward to the "next life" and obeying "god" distract people from their class interests and, thus, from class struggle.


According to the bible, when our king(jesus, yashuwa) comes back, he will rule a new earth. This is what bible the bible says in revelation. (not made up, check it out)
Yeah, I know this is what it says. Why anybody would believe this crapola is beyond me.


Until then, I don't see why we can't try to form a better way of life for all.
If your definition of better is based on the bible (where women subject to their husbands and all subject to their "king"), I don't think you're going to get a lot of people following you. We're tired of obeying!


Those who don't believe, don't have to, but imposing limits upon christian values is also a form of "dictatorship"
If someone wants to believe in "god" (or any other nonsense), nobody will force you to stop. However, in a communist/anarchist society, expect the working class to impose all kinds of limits on "christian values"...mainly because they suck.

[ernie]

No, we don't. Only Calvinists believe that. Most Christians don't.
How do you tell what is god's will and what isn't? What if you get it wrong? Aren't you afraid to piss him off?

[The Douche]

I guess your right, peace. ......... Unless the governing authority was changed by an inspiration from god. Then in a communist society, I would not in follow the mutual concensus of the people, now would I?

Don't assume that I don't know what the bible says about authority. How do you know that god isn't bring about communism on purpose, so that those who would choose to be christian, could seperate themselves from those who didn't. Our community would be a beacon of light, persuading aethist and the like, of the true power, intergrity and character of god. Of course inevitably, the devil would corrupt the hearts of an already vulnerable community, convince them they need to rid the society of christians. Good news, for all of you who believe in communism, I believe it will have to happen, for the things to take place in revelations in society. peace.

So you see a future where people are discriminated against for their religious ideas (or lack thereof)? You would not allow athiests in your hypothetical community?

You are not a communist or revolutionary at all if this is what you believe in. In fact, you sound more like a falangist, except not specific to catholocism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange)

[Pawn Power]

In the gulag olol

I would hope a communist society would not have gulags at all.

[Student of truth]

According to the bible, you won't be here, because you would have fallen to the anti-christ, (counterfeit savior, who most so called aetheist will follow, because he will fix everything) All those on the earth at that time, will have as the bible put it "in corruptible bodies" They will not have the desire to hurt, or rebel against the will of christ, because when he comes back, for the first time existence man will a pure ruler. Before christ died and ressurected he told us that, "those who serve will be the most in the kingdom of heaven." He also laid down his life for the ransom of many, so when he comes back, it doesn't seem like he would have changed his heart all of a sudden to oppress anyone. If you knew who the true christ was, you would have any problem submitting to his authority, because you would know that he loves you, and others the same.

[PRC-UTE]

You don't have to give up your belief in God, and no-one will bother you unless you claim that your deity tells you to actively oppose the revolution.

[Student of truth]

Why is it you misconstrue my words? That is not what I was saying at all. Infact, I won't argue with you either. Who are you to tell me what I am or what I am not? you are no AUTHORITY on that are you? And since you want to hate on christian values, that would disqualify you as a revolutionary also, and make you a dictator.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

According to the bible, you won't be here, because you would have fallen to the anti-christ, (counterfeit savior, who most so called aetheist will follow, because he will fix everything)

The Bible also says that Pi equals three and that insects have four legs. I'm not convinced of the Bible as a trustworthy source, to say the least.



All those on the earth at that time, will have as the bible put it "in corruptible bodies" They will not have the desire to hurt, or rebel against the will of christ, because when he comes back, for the first time existence man will a pure ruler.

Incoherent. Wipe the foam off your mouth and try again.


Before christ died and ressurected he told us that, "those who serve will be the most in the kingdom of heaven." He also laid down his life for the ransom of many, so when he comes back, it doesn't seem like he would have changed his heart all of a sudden to oppress anyone. If you knew who the true christ was, you would have any problem submitting to his authority, because you would know that he loves you, and others the same.

I don't submit to non-existant beings.

[PRC-UTE]

The Bible also says that Pi equals three and that insects have four legs. I'm not convinced of the Bible as a trustworthy source, to say the least.

It's also where Marx got the quote 'by each according to ability, to each according to need'.

[La Comédie Noire]

I believe in the bible, not a "sect." I believe that this world and the desires of it are passing away. I look forward to the next life, as I attempt to minimize my connection to this present world through transformation of my mind, the purification of my heart, and OBEDIANCE to the will of GOD. According to the bible, when our king(jesus, yashuwa) comes back, he will rule a new earth. This is what bible the bible says in revelation. (not made up, check it out) Until then, I don't see why we can't try to form a better way of life for all. Those who don't believe, don't have to, but imposing limits upon christian values is also a form of "dictatorship"


I am sorry I was mistaken, you are a true Christian, but your Marxism leaves a lot to be desired.

How can you be minimizing your connection to this world while activley trying to change it? It's hard for me to believe someone just killing time till the King of the Jews returns is going to give 100% to mere mortal struggle.

[Dr Mindbender]

I've never understood why a belief in god or religion has to be the domain of counter-revolutionary politics. As Freakazoid said, there are communist and anarchist christians.

In fact, all things considered, homophobia aside (which is only old testament doctrine anyway) you'd think that christianity should be the domain of the left, what with the right's distain for the weak and needy and love of warfare.

[JimmyJazz]

I believe in the bible, not a "sect."

Which bible? The Catholics'? The Protestants'? The Jehovah's Witnesses'? They're all different.


the majority of protestants are in fact related to Calvin.

Nope. Baptists are by far the biggest protestant group in the U.S.

[Dr Mindbender]

According to the bible, you won't be here, because you would have fallen to the anti-christ, (counterfeit savior, who most so called aetheist will follow, because he will fix everything) All those on the earth at that time, will have as the bible put it "in corruptible bodies" They will not have the desire to hurt, or rebel against the will of christ, because when he comes back, for the first time existence man will a pure ruler. Before christ died and ressurected he told us that, "those who serve will be the most in the kingdom of heaven." He also laid down his life for the ransom of many, so when he comes back, it doesn't seem like he would have changed his heart all of a sudden to oppress anyone. If you knew who the true christ was, you would have any problem submitting to his authority, because you would know that he loves you, and others the same.

If you're here to discuss politics, please do so and do it from a materialist perspective.

Preaching on this forum will only get you restricted.

[The Douche]

I've never understood why a belief in god or religion has to be the domain of counter-revolutionary politics. As Freakazoid said, there are communist and anarchist christians.

In fact, all things considered, homophobia aside (which is only old testament doctrine anyway) you'd think that christianity should be the domain of the left, what with the right's distain for the weak and needy and love of warfare.

There are no anarchist christians, belief in god represents acceptence of an unaccountable ruler, a self-admitted king.

Christianity is inherently anti-materialist.

You can be a christian and a communist but not a marxist, you can be a christian and a libertarian but not an anarchist.

Besides that, the OP has made a number of flat out reactionary and anti-communist posts. He seeks a society which is segregated between believers and non-believers and in the "help" thread by green apostle he promotes homophobia. The poster should be restricted.

[Student of truth]

That's a lie. There is one bible, 66 canonized books. I believein God's ability to keep the integrity of a book inspired by his spirit, through the passage of time. I say no sect, because the bible never said to have denominations. That was man made. I follow what the bible says. Jesus, when he came back, perfected the old law. With that said, The old testament policy of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is abolished. Now it's "bless those who persecute you, and pray for those who mispitefully use you." Don't confuse me with those who have used christianity to carry out the purpose of their evil hearts.

[The Douche]

Which bible? The Catholics'? The Protestants'? The Jehovah's Witnesses'? They're all different.



Not true (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families).

What do you know about Calvinism, I'm not trying to insult you with that question, but it would appear you don't really understand its affect on religion today.

Based on the stats you provided, 32.5% of christians/jews in the US subscribe to a form of christianity derived from and influenced by the calvinist movement. That number is larger than any other religious group in the US.

[Student of truth]

Who are you that you should boast such big things? You have no concept of true christianity and you constantly misconstrue people words to add fuel to the fire. Your not at all what you appearing to be in your words? What is your motive in all of your critizism?

[The Douche]

That's a lie. There is one bible, 66 canonized books. I believein God's ability to keep the integrity of a book inspired by his spirit, through the passage of time. I say no sect, because the bible never said to have denominations. That was man made. I follow what the bible says. Jesus, when he came back, perfected the old law. With that said, The old testament policy of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is abolished. Now it's "bless those who persecute you, and pray for those who mispitefully use you." Don't confuse me with those who have used christianity to carry out the purpose of their evil hearts.

Do the 10 commandments no longer apply? (since they are in the old testament)

How do you decide what to keep from the old testament and what to disregard?

How do you defend your stance on advocating a society segregated based on religious principles? How do you defend you position as a homophobe and a revolutionary? How can you not see god as a new ruling class? How can you oppose class society, but not the highest class of them all? How can you be a communist if you condemn the majority of communists to hell for atheism?


Who are you that you should boast such big things? You have no concept of true christianity and you constantly misconstrue people words to add fuel to the fire. Your not at all what you appearing to be in your words? What is your motive in all of your critizism?

What "big things" am I "boasting"? My understanding of christianity comes from reading the bible and attending church for years, where is yours from? I think I am exactly how I appear in my words, a communist revolutionary. My motive is to get you to understand, as well as many others that there can be no such thing as a marxist or anarchist christian. Or in your case, that you a full blown reactionary.

[JimmyJazz]

That's a lie. There is one bible, 66 canonized books.

Unless you're Catholic, in which case you read the so-called (according to Protestants) "apocrypha", and your bible has 73 books (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/) altogether.


What do you know about Calvinism, I'm not trying to insult you with that question, but it would appear you don't really understand its affect on religion today.

I grew up Calvinist for 22 years. Also, I had changed my previous post, check it out.

Here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reformed_churches#United_States_of_America _and_Canada) of Reformed (= Calvinist) churches in the U.S. As you can see they're overwhelmingly Presbyterian. And even so, they don't include mainline Presbyterians, but more the small, conservative branches of Presbyterianism. Presbyterianism as a whole (including mainline) falls after Catholicism, Baptists, Methodists/Weslyans, and Lutherans in terms of numbers in the U.S. So clearly Calvin has a fairly small influence on American protestant belief, at least in terms of people who directly trace themselves to him.

[The Douche]

Unless you're Catholic, in which case you read the so-called (according to Protestants) "apocrypha", and your bible has 73 books (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/) altogether.

@cmoney: I grew up Calvinist for 22 years. Also, I changed my post, check it out.

Ok cool. But baptists are still related to and influenced by the calvinist movement. Baptists were originally calvinist and many ideas today in the baptist church are related to/in line with calvinist thought. Though the Baptist church is largely moving away from calvinism.

Protestantism includes Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans (obviously it would include Lutherans!!) therfore the protestant sect is the majority in the US.

[JimmyJazz]

Ok cool. But baptists are still related to and influenced by the calvinist movement.

This is news to me (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0573.htm). On issues ranging from baptism to predestination/free will, Baptists consider themselves distinct from Calvinists.


Though the Baptist church is largely moving away from calvinism.

Actually, historically they are separate, although if you look at that link above in this post it seems that at least some are moving towards it. (Enough that the author of that page felt it necessary to write an essay against them and in favor of the historical separation).

I don't blame anyone for not being able to keep all this bullshit straight, btw; if I could, I would wash it all out of my brain to make more room for useful stuff like where I left my car keys last.

[Dust Bunnies]

I don't blame anyone for not being able to keep all this bullshit straight,

There are so many churches/spin offs/etc that it is almost like half of the time they are splitting over what is served at the pot luck dinner :rolleyes: . I mean couldn't people just keep it simple with Catholicism, Orthodoxism, Protestantism (and 3 sects?). It is almost like the way they will torture the heretic is by making them memorize every sect and the differences.

[Decolonize The Left]

There are so many churches/spin offs/etc that it is almost like half of the time they are splitting over what is served at the pot luck dinner :rolleyes: . I mean couldn't people just keep it simple with Catholicism, Orthodoxism, Protestantism (and 3 sects?). It is almost like the way they will torture the heretic is by making them memorize every sect and the differences.

It is impossible for religion to be 'kept simple' as nothing can be verified...

- August

[Faction2008]

I don't think religion and the socialist left can be compatible. You can believe in God but better not to integrate the religious part of your belief to socialism. Religious thinking is a backward and primitive way of viewing the world and while Socialism only looks to go forward and accept all types of humans; be they gay, hetero, black or white while religion encourages unnecessary death and homophobia.

[Oneironaut]

Who are you that you should boast such big things? You have no concept of true christianity and you constantly misconstrue people words to add fuel to the fire. Your not at all what you appearing to be in your words? What is your motive in all of your critizism?

The reasons why we are criticizing you is that you stated how women in marriage are under the authority of their husbands and you call homosexuals sinners. The members here on Revleft vehemently oppose sexism and homophobia. You will not have any support here as long as you address the contradictions in your beliefs. You sound much more like the religious right in the US. We are not criticizing you for your belief in god: i know i once went to mass and i have a feeling the majority of other members on this board were at one point religious or there are even a few who are religious currently. Your faith is not what we are criticizing. We understand the reasons why people turn to god in history. Its just a matter of fact that your interpretation of "true" christianity is sexist and homophobic. Other christians here would add that you have missed the point and true christians aren't sexist nor homophobic.

[Rascolnikova]

There are so many churches/spin offs/etc that it is almost like half of the time they are splitting over what is served at the pot luck dinner :rolleyes: . I mean couldn't people just keep it simple with Catholicism, Orthodoxism, Protestantism (and 3 sects?). It is almost like the way they will torture the heretic is by making them memorize every sect and the differences.

What's Orthidoxism?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

What's Orthidoxism?
I think he means most of the Eastern Orthodox churches like Greek and Russian orthodox.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't think it matters what particular sect of Christianity you adhere to, whether you believe in purgatory or predestination. What matters is you stop thinking like a materialist as a consequence of belief in the super natural.

Historical Materialism has no room for God; in fact a belief in God complicates things.
Wrong. A belief in a God who guides human history would obviously complicate things, but that is not the kind of God that most Christians believe in. If God does not guide human history, on the other hand, then it's perfectly possible for historical materialism to apply.


Can God interfere with material conditions?
Yes, he can, but in the vast majority of cases he does not.


When the working class suffers a serious setback is that God punishing us for Irreverence?
No. Bad luck or misfortune is not a sign of displeasure from God (see John 9:1-3, or the Book of Job).


Could you change the outcomes of a historical event just by praying or if you got enough people to pray?
Extremely unlikely. God does not guide human history.


Also, if he(maybe she?) is the one true and all powerful God, wouldn't it be in your best interests to convert every member of the working class into a Christian, even the ones who hold some other religion?
Maybe, but that's an issue separate from politics or the class struggle.


It would increase our chances of winning 100 fold, would it not?
Not really. There are plenty of instances in the Bible - not to mention all recorded history - where Jews and Christians suffered major defeats and setbacks. God promises many things, but victory in battle is usually not among them (it does happen a few times for a few specific battles, but it's never a universal promise made to all his followers).


But that does not matter. The world is not outside the control of god, he calls the shots. To say otherwise would be to argue against the bible, the written word of god upon which christianity is founded.
God has the power to control the world, but chooses not to do so. To say that God "calls the shots" or that everything happening in the world is "His will" is to crash headlong into the Problem of Evil. There is simply no way that the events currently happening in the world could possibly be the will of a benevolent God. And the Bible makes it absolutely clear that people can, and do, act against God's will.


None of this leads to a rebellious working class who defy their masters. Quite the opposite: looking forward to the "next life" and obeying "god" distract people from their class interests and, thus, from class struggle.
Only to the same extent that any non-revolutionary or non-class-related activities can "distract" you from the class struggle, including sports, sex, parties, computer games, and internet forums.

You must live in a very strange world if all your activities and hobbies are somehow related to class struggle.


How can you be minimizing your connection to this world while activley trying to change it? It's hard for me to believe someone just killing time till the King of the Jews returns is going to give 100% to mere mortal struggle.
Well, Jesus or no Jesus, in the grand scheme of things we're all just killing time until the Sun grows into a red giant star and incinerates the Earth some 5 billion years from now. In a more immediate time frame, most of us will be dead in 50-60 years. God or no God, you will die, and chances are that you will die before the revolution occurs.

Since I don't believe that the revolution will occur in my lifetime anyway, I don't see how putting more emphasis on my lifetime could make me a more committed revolutionary.

[Dóchas]

Wait, couldnt you just pratice your relgion privately? Just dont go shoving your belief do other peoples throats.

ye i agree thats how i would live in a communist society with my religion. id just practise it in private and i guess it would be ok as long as i didnt force it on anyone else.

[ernie]

Wrong. A belief in a God who guides human history would obviously complicate things, but that is not the kind of God that most Christians believe in. If God does not guide human history, on the other hand, then it's perfectly possible for historical materialism to apply.
Then what the fuck does he do all day? Why does he even exist? The simplest answer is that he doesn't.


Yes, he can, but in the vast majority of cases he does not.
Then he's a piece of shit, isn't he? Imagine having the power to create a more humane society and spending all your time sitting on your ass! Worst, he can create the perfect society right here and now. Again, he chooses not to.


Extremely unlikely. God does not guide human history.Unlikely? LOL. It almost seems like you have calculated the probability of a prayer working. (Actually, we can easily do that. People have prayed probably millions of times, with exactly zero successful outcomes. We can infer the probability of a prayer being successful: 0.)



Not really. There are plenty of instances in the Bible - not to mention all recorded history - where Jews and Christians suffered major defeats and setbacks. God promises many things, but victory in battle is usually not among them (it does happen a few times for a few specific battles, but it's never a universal promise made to all his followers).
In other words, if "god" existed, he would be a complete dick! Lucky for him he is imaginary, otherwise we would be holding him accountable for every innocent death in all of recorded history; from some random person being hit by a car, to every single jew who died in a Nazi concentration camp.



God has the power to control the world, but chooses not to do so. To say that God "calls the shots" or that everything happening in the world is "His will" is to crash headlong into the Problem of Evil. There is simply no way that the events currently happening in the world could possibly be the will of a benevolent God. And the Bible makes it absolutely clear that people can, and do, act against God's will.
But why? Why does he choose not to control the world? He can stop all suffering with a snap of the fingers. Oh, that's right, he's a figment of your imagination. Too bad...



Only to the same extent that any non-revolutionary or non-class-related activities can "distract" you from the class struggle, including sports, sex, parties, computer games, and internet forums.
I admit I misused the word "distract". You know very well what I meant, though. Religion teaches obedience to authority, a clear obstacle to working class liberation.


Well, Jesus or no Jesus, in the grand scheme of things we're all just killing time until the Sun grows into a red giant star and incinerates the Earth some 5 billion years from now. In a more immediate time frame, most of us will be dead in 50-60 years. God or no God, you will die, and chances are that you will die before the revolution occurs.

Since I don't believe that the revolution will occur in my lifetime anyway, I don't see how putting more emphasis on my lifetime could make me a more committed revolutionary.
Perhaps you're right. Chances are that, in the grand scheme of things, none of our individual actions have any significant impact. At least atheist lefties will do their part to accelerate history in a revolutioniary direciton, even if that part is too small to measure. The superstitious do the opposite, of course, and it doesn't seem to bother them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Religion teaches obedience to authority, a clear obstacle to working class liberation.

But why? Why does he choose not to control the world? He can stop all suffering with a snap of the fingers.
You seem to be arguing at the same time that (a) obedience to authority is bad, and (b) it would be a good thing if a benevolent God took control of our minds and made us all perfectly obedient automatons.

Contradiction.

[JimmyJazz]

There are so many churches/spin offs/etc that it is almost like half of the time they are splitting over what is served at the pot luck dinner :rolleyes:

That would actually be a logical thing to split over. And I don't just mean in comparison with the shit they really do split over.

[ernie]

You seem to be arguing at the same time that (a) obedience to authority is bad, and (b) it would be a good thing if a benevolent God took control of our minds and made us all perfectly obedient automatons.

Contradiction.
It's not a contradiction. I don't oppose "obedience to authority" as an abstract concept. If a perfect, all-powerful being existed, such that we could have a perfect society simply by submitting to its will, then I would gladly do it. After all, it would be a perfect society.

Since no such being exists, I oppose obedience to authority. Here, in real life, authority is never benevolent and always evil, no matter what the pope tells us :D.

[Rascolnikova]

Then what the fuck does he do all day? Why does he even exist? The simplest answer is that he doesn't.

Then he's a piece of shit, isn't he? Imagine having the power to create a more humane society and spending all your time sitting on your ass! Worst, he can create the perfect society right here and now. Again, he chooses not to.

Unlikely? LOL. It almost seems like you have calculated the probability of a prayer working. (Actually, we can easily do that. People have prayed probably millions of times, with exactly zero successful outcomes. We can infer the probability of a prayer being successful: 0.)

In other words, if "god" existed, he would be a complete dick! Lucky for him he is imaginary, otherwise we would be holding him accountable for every innocent death in all of recorded history; from some random person being hit by a car, to every single jew who died in a Nazi concentration camp.

But why? Why does he choose not to control the world? He can stop all suffering with a snap of the fingers. Oh, that's right, he's a figment of your imagination. Too bad..

I admit I misused the word "distract". You know very well what I meant, though. Religion teaches obedience to authority, a clear obstacle to working class liberation.

Perhaps you're right. Chances are that, in the grand scheme of things, none of our individual actions have any significant impact. At least atheist lefties will do their part to accelerate history in a revolutioniary direciton, even if that part is too small to measure. The superstitious do the opposite, of course, and it doesn't seem to bother them.


I'm curious. . . what do you feel the benefit is of arguing in this way?

While I know little about theology, it seems that a lot of the best things done in Africa and South America are done by catholic clergy under "liberation theology." There's also a strong reading of the bible to be had as a revolutionary text, concerned with injustice more than anything.

I personally haven't really gotten past the "if there's a God, he's a dick" stage, but if someone else is sincerely dedicated to both revolutionary causes and a christian worldview, why complain?

Most people's worldviews don't make sense. I'm never going to be able to change that. I'd rather encourage the ones who wish to accomplish the same things I do, and I assume you are the same in this regard. . . so am I correct in assuming that either you find All practices of religion to be harmful, or that this is fun for you? An in either case, is it useful to take this sort of tone?

[Faction2008]

Has anyone noticed that when people pray they find that only 0.00001% of them come true and yet it's regarded as a high success rate?

By the way Kwisatz Haderach your God {and I emphasize the word your because he really just belongs to you} sounds like a complete prick.

[ernie]

I'm curious. . . what do you feel the benefit is of arguing in this way?

While I know little about theology, it seems that a lot of the best things done in Africa and South America are done by catholic clergy under "liberation theology." There's also a strong reading of the bible to be had as a revolutionary text, concerned with injustice more than anything.

I personally haven't really gotten past the "if there's a God, he's a dick" stage, but if someone else is sincerely dedicated to both revolutionary causes and a christian worldview, why complain?
Well, the main topic of this back-and-forth between me and Kwisatz Haderach and some others is whether or not gods exist. Indeed, the quote you posted is mainly concerned with that matter.


Most people's worldviews don't make sense. I'm never going to be able to change that. I'd rather encourage the ones who wish to accomplish the same things I do, and I assume you are the same in this regard. . . so am I correct in assuming that either you find All practices of religion to be harmful, or that this is fun for you? An in either case, is it useful to take this sort of tone?
What tone? Is it the use of the word "fuck" that bothers you? Is it that I used a couple of sarcastic remarks? I suppose that's just a style of arguing. It's just that, when it comes to matters of faith, I can't help poking fun at the believers. Perhaps I am wrong in this regard.

That being said, I do think that 99% of practices of religion are, in a very real way, harmful. That is, I am pretty certain that a religious working class will never amount to anything revolutionary, in modern capitalist countries. You may contest that, if you wish, but this is where I am coming from.

[Rascolnikova]

Well, the main topic of this back-and-forth between me and Kwisatz Haderach and some others is whether or not gods exist. Indeed, the quote you posted is mainly concerned with that matter.

yes, I did read it before I posted.



What tone? Is it the use of the word "fuck" that bothers you? Is it that I used a couple of sarcastic remarks? I suppose that's just a style of arguing. It's just that, when it comes to matters of faith, I can't help poking fun at the believers. Perhaps I am wrong in this regard.

condescending and dismissive. I know it's a style of arguing; it just doesn't seem like a very useful one.

Don't get me wrong, I know it can be incredibly fun to be mean. . . but useful, no, unless fun is all you're after.



That being said, I do think that 99% of practices of religion are, in a very real way, harmful. That is, I am pretty certain that a religious working class will never amount to anything revolutionary, in modern capitalist countries. You may contest that, if you wish, but this is where I am coming from.

I don't consider myself qualified to say a religious working class in the first world will never be revolutionary. I know in South America a religious working class has done great things, and that Mormonism, with which I was raised, has a great deal of potential for socialist readings of theology--and I think probably Christianity in general does also.

[Bud Struggle]

Most people's worldviews don't make sense. I'm never going to be able to change that. I'd rather encourage the ones who wish to accomplish the same things I do, and I assume you are the same in this regard. . . so am I correct in assuming that either you find All practices of religion to be harmful, or that this is fun for you? An in either case, is it useful to take this sort of tone?

The problem is that for the Communist--Christianity is a COMPETING world view. Capitalists couldn't care less what a person believes in his/her private life--not so much for Communist.

If Jesus frees you of your chains--in your heart and soul, what need have you of Revolution and freedom from class oppression? You are already free. You'll see on this Forum thread after thread of "religion is stooopid". Why? Because it's an ideology fighting for the hearts and minds of the future of the world. And the Bible is better literature than Das Kapital by a long shot, to boot.

All this pro-what I believe and anti-what you believe on RevLeft is a bit strident for my tastes, but to each his/her own. :)

[Winter]

I think Religion and socialism are not compatible. As for a personal belief in god, like a deist or even a non-organized theist thought are not. Just my views.

[Killfacer]

This bloke is a complete nutter. Don't speak to him or you might catch it. Chatting about the anti-christ and all that, who are you, Torquemada?

[pusher robot]

Then what the fuck does he do all day? Why does he even exist? The simplest answer is that he doesn't.


What the hell kind of stupid logic is that?

Why does the universe exist? The simplest answer is it doesn't.

???

[Plagueround]

And the Bible is better literature than Das Kapital by a long shot, to boot.


I found the bible to be a bunch of poorly thought out violent fairy tales that contradicted each other and then a segment about this fairly groovy guy who advocated solidarity and peace between all mankind. He also mentioned a lot about casting away one's riches.

[JimmyJazz]

I think Religion and socialism are not compatible. As for a personal belief in god, like a deist or even a non-organized theist thought are not. Just my views.

I agree. I consider myself anti-clerical, not anti-theistic/deistic/whatever.

Then again, the bible was put together by clerics (and politicians) who decided what should go in and what should be kept out. Constantine decided what the final canon should be. Then Martin Luther et al. decided to throw some Old Testament books out. So anyone who says "I just follow the bible" is not entirely anti-clerical and I reject their position as well.

[Random Precision]

Capitalists couldn't care less what a person believes in his/her private life--not so much for Communist.

Well, that may be true for "communist" ultra left wing liberals who approach communism from a religious/moral standpoint, like many people on this site. But it's much different for actual Marxists. You could do with a read of my stickied post on Marxist views of religion.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, that may be true for "communist" ultra left wing liberals who approach communism from a religious/moral standpoint, like many people on this site. But it's much different for actual Marxists. You could do with a read of my stickied post on Marxist views of religion.


Indeed. I had read it before--but like all the Communist "primers" on this site--it's good to refresh yourself with the real essential ideas of Communism. It does seem that the Commies around here on occasion go their own way and maybe a read of RP's post might help them a bit, too. :D

Thanks.

[Rascolnikova]

The problem is that for the Communist--Christianity is a COMPETING world view.

I maintain that that depends on the communist, and the Christianity.



Capitalists couldn't care less what a person believes in his/her private life--not so much for Communist.It's funny you should bring this up. . . I don't find it to be at all the case. Capitalism seems to care very much that, in your private life, you believe

it is good that we live in a pluralist society, and we should try to be as pluralist as possible;

that you believe we are all free,

that somehow all of our respective struggles are to be respected as equal regardless of their material differences in harshness,

that consuming things is the way of having identity,

that the global poor are an unfortunate necessity,

that solving poverty should mostly be a question of private charity,

that wage slavery is fair and chosen,

that it reflects a defect of character or mental stability to not "adjust" to the brutalities and injustices with which we are surrounded,

that if you do care about these things, something short of changing the entire system is enough,

that our government reflects the will of the people,

that if it doesn't it's our own fault for not voting, and

that we have a free press and freedom of speech.


In fact, we can tell that capitalism cares what we believe because it has taken possession of our public discourse. Certainly people can speak amongst themselves quite freely in many contexts, but the vast majority of public communication that goes on is television. . And it is impossible to buy time on television at all, even if you have the money, if your message runs counter to the seething mass of consumerism that capitalism insists on. . . like these messages.* (http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/featured)

This is important, as much as anything else, because in these information saturated times much of the problem of reaching people is signal to noise ratio, and television is one of the few nearly-sure ways to do it. You should examine who has access to the apparatus that distributes ideologies widely, not just who can talk to their friends.


If you do happen to believe something counter-capitalist, why not go off and live it by yourself, you may ask? Because capitalism doesn't care, capitalism isn't going to stop you.

Except, capitalism is going to stop you; consider how things have been working out for native peoples worldwide. . . It's incredibly difficult, even for the most committed, to stay outside; one way or another, you will almost certainly be appropriated.



If Jesus frees you of your chains--in your heart and soul, what need have you of Revolution and freedom from class oppression? You are already free. You'll see on this Forum thread after thread of "religion is stooopid". Why? Because it's an ideology fighting for the hearts and minds of the future of the world.Which is exactly why capitalism, far from not caring, would much rather you be a Christian than a communist; as a Christian you can accept that the starving children are God's will, or a human construct outside your power--and one way or another, Jesus will save.



And the Bible is better literature than Das Kapital by a long shot, to boot.
I wouldn't know, but for the most part it doesn't hold a candle to Kafka and DeBeauvoir.


*I'm not a huge fan, but they've actually tried.

[pusher robot]

I maintain that that depends on the communist, and the Christianity.

It's funny you should bring this up. . . I don't find it to be at all the case. Capitalism seems to care very much that, in your private life, you believe...


How is that? Does your employer check on you at home to make sure you believe we're all free? Capitalist economies care not at all about your beliefs. They care about your subjective preferences only insomuch as they want to satisfy them. They only really care that your interactions with other people abide by some common rules.

In capitalism there's no such concept as doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Intentions are irrelevant. Outcome is what matters.


In fact, we can tell that capitalism cares what we believe because it has taken possession of our public discourse. Certainly people can speak amongst themselves quite freely in many contexts, but the vast majority of public communication that goes on is television. . And it is impossible to buy time on television at all, even if you have the money, if your message runs counter to the seething mass of consumerism that capitalism insists on. . . like these messages.* (http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/featured)It's not capitalism that's enforcing content guidelines on television advertisement, it's television networks. When independent agents use their agency to do something you don't like, it's more sensible to blame the agent than framework that makes agency possible.


Except, capitalism is going to stop you; consider how things have been working out for native peoples worldwide. . . It's incredibly difficult, even for the most committed, to stay outside; one way or another, you will almost certainly be appropriated.

It's only difficult because the ease of living offered by capitalism is so obviously better than the alternatives.

[Rascolnikova]

How is that? Does your employer check on you at home to make sure you believe we're all free?

I'll give you that it doesn't forcefully micromanage, and that its' certainly focused on results; as long as virtually all people believe something consistent with "economic growth," and the rest can have their resources easily enough appropriated, it's fine.



Capitalist economies care not at all about your beliefs. They care about your subjective preferences only insomuch as they want to satisfy them.Not true at all; they care about my subjective preferences only insomuch as they can use them to generate profit, which is not the same as satisfying them despite the very occasional overlap.



In capitalism there's no such concept as doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Intentions are irrelevant. Outcome is what matters.Indeed; in capitalism one must be satisfied with doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. At least it's consistent.



It's not capitalism that's enforcing content guidelines on television advertisement, it's television networks. When independent agents use their agency to do something you don't like, it's more sensible to blame the agent than framework that makes agency possible.1) I don't know how you could have missed this, but under capitalism, the people who hold the power are the capitalists. . . that means the corporations set up in the capitalist model.

2) When independent agents predictably act in a similar way which serves a certain set of interests, it's time to examine who benefits and why.

3) Television networks are in no way independent agents; like any corporations, they have a "duty to their shareholders." The people making decisions in them often put forth active efforts to fill this duty. Because responsibility for actions is diffused in this way, any other duties--like limiting externalities, or providing quality of life during working hours for the workforce--which a corporation might otherwise be considered to have are generally ignored in it's favor.



It's only difficult because the ease of living offered by capitalism is so obviously better than the alternatives.Tell that to the people of the Niger delta, or Bolivia, or rural Gabon, or--oh, wait, that thing I said before. . . basically all the native peoples of the world. It is indeed easier to convert after the multinational corporations have built a road through your fields and started rationing the river to only those who pay.


I mean this as kindly as possible, pusher, but you would be a lot more fun to argue with if you would learn the basic set of arguments that you presently ignore; maybe then we could talk about something interesting. The Corporation can be found on google video, is entertaining and only a couple of hours long, and will introduce you to the basic problems of corporatization. The introduction to Manufacturing Consent, likewise, is concise and jam packed full of things you seem not to understand. I'd be happy to argue with you about them afterwards, or even put in a similar time investment to study something about capitalism.

[pusher robot]

Not true at all; they care about my subjective preferences only insomuch as they can use them to generate profit, which is not the same as satisfying them despite the very occasional overlap.
Profit is the motive to satisfy your preferences. If you don't want or need a good or service, it's not likely you'll buy it.



Indeed; in capitalism one must be satisfied with doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. At least it's consistent.


You're not following me. Reasons are irrelevant. If you do a bad thing, it's not relevant that you had good intentions. If you do a good thing, nobody cares that you did it for bad reasons.



1) I don't know how you could have missed this, but under capitalism, the people who hold the power are the capitalists. . . that means the corporations set up in the capitalist model.

Who holds the real power is arguable. After all, a capitalist who fails to efficiently satisfy the needs or wants of other people will soon find himself deprived of capital.


2) When independent agents predictably act in a similar way which serves a certain set of interests, it's time to examine who benefits and why.

So...it's a conspiracy?


3) Television networks are in no way independent agents; like any corporations, they have a "duty to their shareholders." The people making decisions in them often put forth active efforts to fill this duty. Because responsibility for actions is diffused in this way, any other duties--like limiting externalities, or providing quality of life during working hours for the workforce--which a corporation might otherwise be considered to have are generally ignored in it's favor.

That's nonsensical. You are essentially saying that a business is not a free agent because it abides by the priorities of its owners. Well, okay, I guess I figured that was obvious to everyone. My point is that the owners as a group are free to have the corporation pursue any goals that they want, which makes them independent agents. Why don't you condemn the owners for their choices instead of the fact that they have choices?



Tell that to the people of the Niger delta, or Bolivia, or rural Gabon, or--oh, wait, that thing I said before. . . basically all the native peoples of the world. It is indeed easier to convert after the multinational corporations have built a road through your fields and started rationing the river to only those who pay.

It is not the fault of capitalism that those regions have dysfunctional governments that permit - or even promote - such situations.


I mean this as kindly as possible, pusher, but you would be a lot more fun to argue with if you would learn the basic set of arguments that you presently ignore; maybe then we could talk about something interesting. The Corporation can be found on google video, is entertaining and only a couple of hours long, and will introduce you to the basic problems of corporatization. The introduction to Manufacturing Consent, likewise, is concise and jam packed full of things you seem not to understand. I'd be happy to argue with you about them afterwards, or even put in a similar time investment to study something about capitalism.
I'm well aware of those points of view. I'm even plenty willing to accept that there are legitimate critiques of capitalism. But it's rather presumptuous of you to presume I don't understand them because I reject your interpretation of their conclusions. By all means if you want to discuss these things, make a thread or argue on their behalf.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm well aware of those points of view. I'm even plenty willing to accept that there are legitimate critiques of capitalism. But it's rather presumptuous of you to presume I don't understand them because I reject your interpretation of their conclusions. By all means if you want to discuss these things, make a thread or argue on their behalf.

I'm not presuming that you don't understand because you don't agree; I'm presuming you don't understand because I'd think if you understood you'd be making better arguments. If you know what's in those two items I mentioned, you know what I'm going to say to virtually everything in your post, and you would be bored too. . . or, preferably, you would be addressing the problems with my defenses instead of making blunt and simplistic claims.

I tried to be non-presumptuous about it, and the offer of my own time in exchange remains standing, but I'm bored, so if you want this addressed, do a little homework.