Jesus's Socialism [Archive]

Metzgermeistr

27th November 2008, 02:44

Hey man, here you go:

Supportive Bible Verses:
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2: 42, 44, 45
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version) Acts 4:32-37
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Mathew 25: 31-46

25 The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over the people; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves ‘Benefactors.’ But you are not to be like that. Luke 22:25
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil. 1 Timothy 6:10
10"What should we do then?" the crowd asked. 11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same." 12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13"Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them. 14Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay." Luke 3: 10-14

Rosa Provokateur

27th November 2008, 03:51

The entire Sermon on the Mount. Y'shua was a rebel, our messiah of the masses.

Revy

27th November 2008, 04:20

The problem is that nobody knows what he said. In fact, it's not even certain that he existed (http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm). More to the point, what's the purpose of convincing the religious that Jesus was a socialist?

I agree. When we talk about "Jesus", we're not talking about any historical figure, but the man portrayed in the New Testament.

Perhaps there was something revolutionary about Jesus, but there was nothing revolutionary about the Apostle Paul.

Romans 13:1-7: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Herman

27th November 2008, 09:23

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."

Pogue

27th November 2008, 21:10

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."

What about when they say this doesnt say it was impossible?And when they say eye of the needle was a gate to jerusalem?

ernie

27th November 2008, 23:32

What about when they say this doesnt say it was impossible?And when they say eye of the needle was a gate to jerusalem?
Yeah, that was most likely a mistranslation. Google it and see for yourself.

Y'shua was a rebel, our messiah of the masses.
No. If he even existed, there was nothing rebellious about him; why, a quick skim of the bible will tell you that he was a reactionary turd, even by 1st century standards.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

28th November 2008, 04:36

I agree. When we talk about "Jesus", we're not talking about any historical figure, but the man portrayed in the New Testament.

As well as the koran, let's not forget.

Like Socrates, the historicity isn't as important as the message.

Perhaps there was something revolutionary about Jesus, but there was nothing revolutionary about the Apostle Paul.

Paul wasn't an apostle; he wasn't converted to Christianity until after Jesus was dead and buried and un-dead and un-buried and all that junk.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

28th November 2008, 04:57

No. If he even existed, there was nothing rebellious about him; why, a quick skim of the bible will tell you that he was a reactionary turd, even by 1st century standards.

That's a very shallow thing to say, as only a moron would think a 'quick skim' of any text, let alone ancient texts translated across multiple languages (some of which are extinct), would get you an accurate representation of the message they're trying to convey.

Jesus represents the fulfillment of the Law Of Moses.

You see, Jesus came about at a time when the Jews in Judea had very strict religious laws. They were controlled by the Romans, and like when the Assyrians destroyed the 10 Northern Tribes, and during their Babylonian exile, I think this caused a religious fervor among them.

You could only take a certain number of steps on the sabbath, for instance, nor could you work or even administer aid to someone in need. Jesus told us that this was now unneccessary.

When a woman was accused of adultery, the Pharisees wanted her stoned to death, as per The Law of Moses. Jesus interjected in a well-cited piece of scripture, saying that only God can judge the woman, as none of the Earthly judges are without fault.

Those on this site, and other atheists who use one verse to claim the fact that Jesus wanted a continuation of Old Testament practices (homophobia/strict religious law etc) miss the point of Jesus. He represents the end of the hammurabi code-style laws of an eye for an eye and in it's stead the law of jesus, which really has only one commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself, that thy days may be long upon the land.

But let me ask, not only you but all the other jesus haters:

If Jesus were a reactionary turd, why would the reigning religious leaders (pharisees) and political powers (roman control) have him executed?

To me, clearly the Jewish leadership saw him as a threat to the power base and had him done away with. But who cares, the Romans ended up cutting down every tree around Jerusalem to make crosses, and they put millions of them on crosses....

Dr Mindbender

4th December 2008, 20:10

''a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven is like a camel entering the eye of a needle''

I don't know what book that verse is from, but it's one of my favourites.

Dr Mindbender

4th December 2008, 20:12

More to the point, what's the purpose of convincing the religious that Jesus was a socialist?
to turn them away from the right?

If they're going to batshit religous they may as well be left wing batshit religious.

:lol:

Jazzratt

4th December 2008, 20:31

It's perhaps useful as a way of convincing some christians, but I don't see how it could be generally useful to all christians. For the most part Jesus is all things to all men and trying to hang political labels (especially anachronistic ones - really a 0AD socialist?!) on him isn't going to convince people of it.

For every socialist line jesus has uttered there are others supportive of the status quo we exist in and so on. "Render unto caeser" and all that.

communard resolution

4th December 2008, 21:36

For every socialist line jesus has uttered there are others supportive of the status quo we exist in and so on. "Render unto caeser" and all that.

Quite possibly, the alleged Jesus quotes say more about the author's political attitudes than about those of Jesus - even if Jesus really existed. It would be interesting/fun to find out which gospel has the most progressive slant overall.

CultOfAbeLincoln, do you happen to know whether there's anything that strongly suggests every individual gospel was really written by only one author (Gospel According To Paul, etc.)? Or any evidence/indication that strongly points to the contrary?

Dust Bunnies

5th December 2008, 02:05

There are four gospels.
Matthew (Mark clone)
Mark
Luke
John

Time to find the Roman Marx :P

Valeofruin

5th December 2008, 07:04

Why would we argue with Christians?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

5th December 2008, 07:47

Quite possibly, the alleged Jesus quotes say more about the author's political attitudes than about those of Jesus - even if Jesus really existed. It would be interesting/fun to find out which gospel has the most progressive slant overall.

The gospels as we know them today? None of them.

The truly progressive ones were destroyed, altered, and reformed to change from gospels of liberation to that of servitude. This, in my opinion (and I am certainly not all that learned on the subject), began once Christianity went from an underground statement of faith in a god greater than Rome to the Emperor himself basically dictating doctrine.

Also, the Catholic Church had a monopoly on the texts for over a thousand years, which was written in Latin which most people in Europe didn't speak (not that many people were literate). That monopoly was held by force (William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating it into English, for example) for hundred of years, and while I think King James' translators did a decent job with the english translation from the Greek, there is no telling how much was lost.

CultOfAbeLincoln, do you happen to know whether there's anything that strongly suggests every individual gospel was really written by only one author (Gospel According To Paul, etc.)? Or any evidence/indication that strongly points to the contrary?

Great question, and I have absolutely no idea. But then again, I am no Bible scholar.

I'm a believing (but inactive) Mormon, so I believe that the Bible was corrupted and the "great apostasy" began almost immediately follwing the death of the apostles.

ernie

5th December 2008, 13:03

to turn them away from the right?

If they're going to batshit religous they may as well be left wing batshit religious.

:lol:
As Jazzratt points out, this is not really a good strategy. Convincing workers that neither "god" nor Jesus exist is much more effective.

communard resolution

5th December 2008, 13:19

This, in my opinion (and I am certainly not all that learned on the subject), began once Christianity went from an underground statement of faith in a god greater than Rome to the Emperor himself basically dictating doctrine. Could it be that it was also the Roman Catholic church that revived the Old Testament that was laregely identical with the Hebrew Bible? If you compare the Old Testament to the New one, they are very different in how they imagine God. The God of the Old Testament is cruel, unforgiving, jealous, vindictive, and supports his tribe against all others - in other words, just the kind of God that comes in handy if you want to intimidate your plebs into submission.

The New Testament, on the other hand, presents a more forgiving, kind, and universal God model. This God cares about all people of all tribes, from the oppressors to the oppressed. As far as I know, Jesus pretty much rendered the Ten Commandments obsolete by saying "from now on, there's only two of them: love God more than yourself, love your neighbour as much as yourself". But then with the formation of the Roman Catholic church, all of the sudden the Ten Commandments are back, and so is the frightening old God and his Testament.

What is your opinion on this?

I am not a believer myself, by the way, but I do take some historic interest in these things.

Anti Freedom

11th December 2008, 09:25

I think this would be rather pointless, anyone who doesn't know their theology well enough to rebut you wouldn't care what you said, and a person who cared about Christian theology would probably know enough to make a seemingly tenable Christian position. In any case, Christ was obviously an anarchist.

He criticizes the acts of government:

Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?"

and refuses to accept dominion over the governments as the governments are the devil's.

Luke 4:5-8 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (7) If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." (8) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'"

His commands are not those for a government, but rather for free individuals:

Mat 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

He and his disciples do not promote the use of governmental courts:

Luke 12:57-59 "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? (58) As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. (59) I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny."

1 Corinthians 6:1-7 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? (2) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (3) Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! (4) So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? (5) I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, (6) but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (7) To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

Matthew 5:39-41 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

The over-emphasis on Romans 13 is a fault of many believers, but to look at it as some overwhelming matter is false, as for Christ, it was not a matter of duty, but rather a desire not to disrespect the established order, and likely for the sake of those who believe in it.

Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Mark 12:31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

And obedience to rules for the sake of obedience is incorrect:

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Matthew 23:27-28 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. (28) So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

And Christians are equal before God, with no teachers.

Matthew 23:8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. (9) And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (10) Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

So, I mean, obviously an anarchist. I don't think this view is crazy and untenable though, as there've been Christian anarchists over the ages such as Leo Tolstoy, Jacques Ellul, and modern figures such as theologian Greg Boyd.

communard resolution

11th December 2008, 10:19

Anti Freedom

11th December 2008, 10:43

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th December 2008, 10:56

The New Testament, on the other hand, presents a more forgiving, kind, and universal God model. This God cares about all people of all tribes, from the oppressors to the oppressed. As far as I know, Jesus pretty much rendered the Ten Commandments obsolete by saying "from now on, there's only two of them: love God more than yourself, love your neighbour as much as yourself". But then with the formation of the Roman Catholic church, all of the sudden the Ten Commandments are back, and so is the frightening old God and his Testament.

What is your opinion on this?

I am not a believer myself, by the way, but I do take some historic interest in these things.

The New Testament merely moves the out-group hate up a level - this time it's non-Christians, not non-Hebrews, who are subject to the ire of God and his followers. Check out Revelations, and you'll see a bloodbath to equal anything in the Old Testament - there's lots of suffering and slaughter for the unbelievers, and Christians are on God's roll-call to Heaven.

Still think he's a nice fellow?

Anti Freedom

11th December 2008, 11:06

Could it be that it was also the Roman Catholic church that revived the Old Testament that was laregely identical with the Hebrew Bible? If you compare the Old Testament to the New one, they are very different in how they imagine God. The God of the Old Testament is cruel, unforgiving, jealous, vindictive, and supports his tribe against all others - in other words, just the kind of God that comes in handy if you want to intimidate your plebs into submission.

The New Testament, on the other hand, presents a more forgiving, kind, and universal God model. This God cares about all people of all tribes, from the oppressors to the oppressed. As far as I know, Jesus pretty much rendered the Ten Commandments obsolete by saying "from now on, there's only two of them: love God more than yourself, love your neighbour as much as yourself". But then with the formation of the Roman Catholic church, all of the sudden the Ten Commandments are back, and so is the frightening old God and his Testament.

What is your opinion on this?

I am not a believer myself, by the way, but I do take some historic interest in these things.

Well, the Orthodox Christian answer is that the Old Testament never fell out. In fact, it is very often referenced in the New Testament in both quotes and as a general background, such that if you read the New Testament, it is hard to say that it is completely separate from the Old Testament, and I think even some of the commands to love used in the New Testament are found in Leviticus, such as the love your neighbor as yourself.

Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Not only that, but the 10 commandments were also never really dropped off, as you suggest, they were de-emphasized. Christ actually made the commandments even stricter in some cases:

Matthew 5:21-22 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' (22) But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' (28) But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Not only that, but certain verses in the New Testament are seen as carrying with them traits of the Old Testament God, such as found in Romans 9.

Romans 9:13-22 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

I mean, there is less "God is wrathful against all", but there is less of "God the father" in the New Testament as well, still you can see some aspects though:

Luke 12:5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

It could of course be argued that part of this is due to alterations in the text, however, I think the view that the Old Testament was dropped off or involved a different God, died out relatively early in the Christian faith. The major splits that people still think back to are the Arian controversy, about the nature of God and Christ, the Pelagians, the Catholic and Orthodox church, and then the Reformation, but if a corruption of the sort proposed occurred where a true teaching was willfully subverted, I'd suspect there'd be more of a split in the church and more documentation. This is not to say that there are no controversies over proper Christian texts or that current texts do not seem corrupted, there are controversies and the modern bible has some issues with the original source texts, but a deeper split seems needed if it was caused by power, and given that some people would likely dissent over the complete, willful corruption of their religion.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 23:11

Are you referring to my post or to the OP?

In any case, I'm surprised that not a single Christian has cared to comment on my claims or answer my question so far, even though there are more than enough of them in the Opposing Ideologies section. One would think that they know their history and their theology better than I do.

Eh I don't want to comment on Catholicism. I haven't been a Catholic, so I shouldn't judge a religion which I believe does a lot of good today.

That said, I think the Catholic Church of he Dark-Ages was wholly evil, reactionary, and kept human progress at a minimal level. The christians who conquered the new world were also despicable and we should all hope there's a hell so they can burn.

Anyway, most of the old testament wasn't written until the Babylonian Captivity (before Cyrus the Great) when the jews were going through a religious fervor. This is the first time Genesis, for example, was written (though we do have archaeological record as to judaism before then), and naturally the God of the Old Testament was therefore one who would punish the chosen people harshly if they didn't follow him.

It could of course be argued that part of this is due to alterations in the text, however, I think the view that the Old Testament was dropped off or involved a different God, died out relatively early in the Christian faith. The major splits that people still think back to are the Arian controversy, about the nature of God and Christ, the Pelagians, the Catholic and Orthodox church, and then the Reformation, but if a corruption of the sort proposed occurred where a true teaching was willfully subverted, I'd suspect there'd be more of a split in the church and more documentation. This is not to say that there are no controversies over proper Christian texts or that current texts do not seem corrupted, there are controversies and the modern bible has some issues with the original source texts, but a deeper split seems needed if it was caused by power, and given that some people would likely dissent over the complete, willful corruption of their religion.

Most of the splits, especially in the West, were done because from about 300 onwards the Catholic Church held all the power, especially after the Western Roman Empire fell. Every leader I know of who started a split, from Henry VIII to Martin Luther, did so because the power of the Pope was overbearing.

Dean

12th December 2008, 23:48

TheCultOfAbeLincoln is usually completely fucked in his posts. But here, he is dead-on.

PigmerikanMao

13th December 2008, 00:33

I'm pretty sure Henry the VIIIth couldn't have cared less- he just wanted new wives and used the pope excuse to start the Anglican Church. He had ulterior motives than to thwart the supremacy of the pope. As for Martin Luther, he didn't attack the power of the pop directly, but rather some unfavorable aspects of the catholic church at the time.
;)

TheCultofAbeLincoln

13th December 2008, 00:57

TheCultOfAbeLincoln is usually completely fucked in his posts. But here, he is dead-on.

Consider this Cult2.0

I'm pretty sure Henry the VIIIth couldn't have cared less- he just wanted new wives and used the pope excuse to start the Anglican Church. He had ulterior motives than to thwart the supremacy of the pope. As for Martin Luther, he didn't attack the power of the pop directly, but rather some unfavorable aspects of the catholic church at the time. But both of them did bring necessary cracks to the Catholic stranglehold on thought concerning the place of God, what God, has in society. It is not hard to speculate that this eventually led to the notion (along with many other factors) to the ideas of more than 1 Jesus should be allowed in the same communities, or even no God whatsoever*. Whether or not you are religious, I think everyone should give credit to them (though it wasn't done for ideological or scientific reasons), along with everyone else who pushed the envelope and was burned at the stake for it. And that is a long, long list.

Now, I'm mostly catholic irish/german/italian ancestry and I'm not all anti-catholic or whatever.

*Of course, this doesn't mean fully God-less. If there is no God, then the ultimate goal of the species is to create him in our image.

Rosa Provokateur

15th December 2008, 17:31

No. If he even existed, there was nothing rebellious about him; why, a quick skim of the bible will tell you that he was a reactionary turd, even by 1st century standards.
Bollocks, Jesus was a feminist.

Jazzratt

16th December 2008, 02:02

Bollocks, Jesus was a feminist.

Chapter and verse, bellend.

Rosa Provokateur

17th December 2008, 15:00

Chapter and verse, bellend.
He saved an adulteress from being stoned to death, he hung out with a widow at a well, Mary Magdeline was one of his core-apostles, When he was resurrected he showed himself to the two Marys before anyone else. He had a soft spot for women and took their side, defended them.

Jesus was a feminist.

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 15:17

Mary Magdeline was a fag hag.

Rosa Provokateur

17th December 2008, 15:24

Mary Magdeline was a fag hag.
Your point being?

Hit The North

17th December 2008, 16:37

No point. *shrugs*

PigmerikanMao

19th December 2008, 00:42

Moving on then... Defending women doesn't necessarily mean that one is a feminist. Although I agree with the aspect that he did in fact have merit in this field, more conclusive evidence would be needed to deem him an actual "feminist." Like Jazzratt said, specific book and verse would be far more useful. :)

communard resolution

19th December 2008, 12:55

Rosa Provokateur

19th December 2008, 15:44

Lord Testicles

19th December 2008, 16:08

Hit The North

19th December 2008, 16:24

Jesus could be no more a feminist in first century Palestine, than he could have been a cosmonaut.

Neither was he an anarchist, socialist or communist. These theories of society had not yet been invented.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to add, there is no scientific evidence that this man, Jesus, existed in the first place, so any question about his beliefs is moot.

Rosa Provokateur

22nd December 2008, 22:45

Jesus could be no more a feminist in first century Palestine, than he could have been a cosmonaut.

Neither was he an anarchist, socialist or communist. These theories of society had not yet been invented.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to add, there is no scientific evidence that this man, Jesus, existed in the first place, so any question about his beliefs is moot.
If it's moot then why do you bother to discredit him?

Rosa Provokateur

22nd December 2008, 23:00

They just seem to be verses involving women, there was no evidence there that Jesus was a feminist.

Try these verses.

Romans 1:26-27
Revelation 2:20-23 (Hey look, jesus kills children too.)
Revelation 14:1-4
Genesis 3:16

And a whole load of others: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

In Romans 1:26-27 God didnt make them do what they did but allowed them to do what they did; gave them over, not forced them over. The sin here wasnt same-sex relations but rather heterosexuals forcing themselves to be homosexual, abandoning there "natural relations".

Revelation 2:20-23 was written by John of Patmos to give hope to the struggling churches suffering under Nero. It wasnt prophecy and cant be taken 100% literally.

What are you trying to say with Revelation 14:1-4? I dont know what it means and I doubt that you do either. At any rate there's no lesson learned from the verse and it wasnt prophetic so I dont think it has much value or weight.

Read all of Genesis 3 and you'll see that woman isn't the only party to come under consequence, all parties are. The sin wasnt that Adam & Eve ate the fruit but that they lied about it, God is quick to forgive and slow to anger but for them to lie when the evidence is obviously against them showed God how far they'd fallen not to mention they never even confessed the truth to themselves.

communard resolution

22nd December 2008, 23:55

heterosexuals forcing themselves to be homosexual, abandoning there "natural relations".

Why would anyone want to do that, and how exactly does that work?

Even if people forced themselves to become homosexuals and if it worked, what do you personally think would be evil about such behaviour?

The sin wasnt that Adam & Eve ate the fruit but that they lied about itIs it true that the original Hebrew word for Satan is feminine, or is that just a rumour?

RGacky3

23rd December 2008, 01:41

I usually don't post in the religious forum but I could'nt help myself.

Jesus, was not a Social revolutionary, he was 100% disinterested in politics, his followers did not partake in politics, (thats why they were killed by the romans, for not heiling cesar, not joining hte army, and so on), When Jesus was offered to be declared a king he refused. He told his followers the were "no part of this world," he never, nor did his followers, joined or supported any of the Jewish revolutionary movements going on at the time. He encouraged relative obedience to the powers that be.

His point when he talked about the rich having a hard time getting into the kingdom of god was to point out that materialism distracts people form religious persuits, it was'nt a social message. JEsus was concerned about Gods Kingdom, not the social order of things at the time.

Jesus was a religious revolutionary, and thats all. The communism his followers practised was simply an internal thing, they wern't trying to change the system, that was to have equality and mutual support for those in the congregation, But it was for the religion.

As far as Jesus and Socialism or whatever is concerned, its irrelivant, Jesus was a religious figure, Socialism has nothing to do with religion.

Hit The North

23rd December 2008, 11:34

If it's moot then why do you bother to discredit him?

He needs discrediting in the minds of those who believe in him. I think everyone deserves the truth, and the truth is is that there is not a shred of independent, corroborating evidence that the man Jesus, ever existed - nor, for that matter, his alleged "Father".

Rosa Provokateur

30th December 2008, 04:31

Why would anyone want to do that, and how exactly does that work?

Even if people forced themselves to become homosexuals and if it worked, what do you personally think would be evil about such behaviour?

Is it true that the original Hebrew word for Satan is feminine, or is that just a rumour?
The Roman pagan worship sometimes included prostitution and orgies and in their furvor it isnt impossible that they could've gone against their conscience and ignored what was natural to them. The behavior would be bad because it goes against creation. Heterosexuals shouldnt be forces into homosexuality just like homosexuals shouldnt be forced into heterosexuality.

Satan: Standard Hebrew Satan'el, English accuser

MarxSchmarx

30th December 2008, 05:25

He needs discrediting in the minds of those who believe in him. I think everyone deserves the truth, and the truth is is that there is not a shred of independent, corroborating evidence that the man Jesus, ever existed - nor, for that matter, his alleged "Father".

Sometimes the ends justify the means.

For better or worse, under capitalism secularism is something of a luxury. Out of sheer tradition and habit, billions of people turn to the promise of a better life in the next world rather than the current to get them through their shitty days. Worse, religion thrives when "secular" institutions like technology and bureaucracies have failed to deliver them from misery.

If we can use the Gospel, let people like GA and Fidel Castro pour through the scriptures, we could show religious workers that their beloved Jesus was a communist, and they should be too if they want to be like Him. Believe me, there are a lot of Jesus loving workers out there who will be very receptive to His "communism". It`s like, have your good times now AND after you die, two for the price of one.

Hit The North

30th December 2008, 20:28

Except that Jesus wasn't a communist and Christianity does not espouse a socialist creed.

MarxSchmarx

31st December 2008, 01:31

Except that Jesus wasn't a communist and Christianity does not espouse a socialist creed.

Does it matter? Everybody and anybody twists the Bible (written sufficiently vaguely) to conveniently fit their own personal and political agendas. Affirm those passages you like, declare as heretical those you don't, and presto, you have dogma. 'Twas ever thus. I don't think we should let purism get in the way of imitating the enormously successful techniques of the likes of, for example, American Republicans.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

31st December 2008, 03:35

Does it matter? Everybody and anybody twists the Bible (written sufficiently vaguely) to conveniently fit their own personal and political agendas. Affirm those passages you like, declare as heretical those you don't, and presto, you have dogma. 'Twas ever thus. I don't think we should let purism get in the way of imitating the enormously successful techniques of the likes of, for example, American Republicans.

I'm kind of allergic to the idea of lying to people "for their own good". Why not just tell them the truth about capitalism, and not bother with any of that Jesus shit, which is at best a distraction from the core issues of the revolutionary left, and at worst an actively malign influence?

Remember, we want people to be able to think for themselves, not simply parrot whatever they've been told, which is what the American Republican approach produces.

MarxSchmarx

1st January 2009, 23:16

I'm kind of allergic to the idea of lying to people "for their own good". Why not just tell them the truth about capitalism, and not bother with any of that Jesus shit, which is at best a distraction from the core issues of the revolutionary left, and at worst an actively malign influence?

Where I live, most people have some familiarity with leftists or those who denounce capitalism. These have generally been negative encounters (like being pestered to buy a newspaper at the subway station or being burned by a useless union), so they develop a certain immunity to secular appeals,and even something of a resistance to it. Granted this exists for religion as well (e.g., priest abused your trust), but I think there is less of it.

Nevertheless, everybody has their own cultural baggage that they bring to the movement. If some of this includes "Jesus shit", frankly it doesn't bother me if they still share my vision for a post-capitalist society.

Another tricky part is that many workers believe in their heart of hearts, that there is no alternative. This is fair. Prosperous societies like Sweden are basically capitalist, and nobody wants to live in North Korea. Impressive though the successes of, for example, revolutionary Spain were, they didn't last.

Few people in this day and age have the patience to sit through a long discussion of why capitalism is flawed. But because religion has served capitalism so well, they are willing to sit through a nominally religious discourse delivered by someone within their tradition. In the process, we can open their eyes to the possibility of socialism. I feel this is more than we can get appealing to strictly secular values.

However, I agree there is an element of this approach that is playing with fire. The resolution to this, as I see it, is as follows.

Ultimately, I think the example of the developed world shows religious convictions have no staying power. As such, once people's material conditions improve, their religious convictions are generally discarded. Thus, I believe that if the theocrats among us hope to "piggy-back" on the success of leftism, they will fail.

Remember, we want people to be able to think for themselves, not simply parrot whatever they've been told, which is what the American Republican approach produces.

I agree, and this will be the outcome of a socialist school system once we've established it. In the interim, our task is to "encourage" to think a certain way for themselves.

Hit The North

3rd January 2009, 02:26

Granted this exists for religion as well (e.g., priest abused your trust), but I think there is less of it. Priests betray your trust every time they open their lying mouths and talk about Heaven and the redemption of Jesus.

Ultimately, I think the example of the developed world shows religious convictions have no staying power. As such, once people's material conditions improve, their religious convictions are generally discarded. The proof against this assertion is the fact that the USA is the most developed capitalist society and is also the most religious nation in the West. The resurgence of religious belief, usually tied to nationalist sentiment, in the former Stalinist countries of Eastern Europe and the astonishing impact of political Islam in Asia and elsewhere also demonstrates that religious conviction often possesses a durability which Lazarus himself would envy.

Almost everywhere, the resurgence in religious belief has been a reactionary phenomenon.

MarxSchmarx

3rd January 2009, 05:54

The proof against this assertion is the fact that the USA is the most developed capitalist society and is also the most religious nation in the West.

I disagree. First, by virtually any measure of "human development", the US is closest to 3rd world conditions than any other "1st world" country. Second, the most religious segments of American society are also its most backward - the Appalachian and deep south, and blacks and immigrants from developing countries in the urban centers. Middle- and uppder-class people who live in "developed" areas of America (like the inner ring suburbs and wealthier neighborhoods in the cities) are extremely secular. Extreme unevenness in development within America has created a large, under-developed segment of the population whose religiosity overshadows the secularism of the rest of the country.

The resurgence of religious belief, usually tied to nationalist sentiment, in the former Stalinist countries of Eastern Europe and the astonishing impact of political Islam in Asia and elsewhere also demonstrates that religious conviction often possesses a durability which Lazarus himself would envy.

Again, I disagree. Look at where the most moderate forms of Islam are practiced in Asia - they are the relatively more developed nations of Malaysia, Turkey, and until recently, Lebanon, Iraq and the former Soviet Caucasus and Central Asian states. By contrast, the most radical Islamist states are also the more undeveloped - Afghanistan, Yemen, Oman, etc...

As for the link between religion and nationalism, this has proven an utter dead end in every developed country with the possible (and, even then, clearly exceptional) example of the United States. From Christian Democrats in Europe to Sokka Gakkai in Japan, religious nationalists have failed to gain much traction once a certain level of economic development is achieved.

Priests betray your trust every time they open their lying mouths and talk about Heaven and the redemption of Jesus.

Again, the problem is that many workers don't look at it this way.

Rosa Provokateur

5th January 2009, 15:14

Remember, we want people to be able to think for themselves, not simply parrot whatever they've been told, which is what the American Republican approach produces.

Just because someone is christian doesnt mean they cant think for themselves. I converted into it on my own free-will and because it lined up with my convictions, one of those convictions being social justice. To discredit christians and regard them as counter-revolutionary just because they have a faith is biased.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th January 2009, 17:47

Just because someone is christian doesnt mean they cant think for themselves.

That's true, plenty of Christians question their faith and eventually deconvert.

I converted into it on my own free-will and because it lined up with my convictions, one of those convictions being social justice.Why does having a conviction for social justice require being a Christian, of all things? Why not a Sikh, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Humanist?

The vagueness of your statements make me think you haven't really thought about why you're a Christian at all.

To discredit christians and regard them as counter-revolutionary just because they have a faith is biased.Individual Christians may be nice enough people, hell, I'm going to eat with some later this evening. But their overall track record is shameful, and I lay the blame for that firmly on the mindset that being religious encourages - magical thinking, out-group hostility, and servility among others.

Rosa Provokateur

6th January 2009, 04:35

That's true, plenty of Christians question their faith and eventually deconvert.

Why does having a conviction for social justice require being a Christian, of all things? Why not a Sikh, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Humanist?

The vagueness of your statements make me think you haven't really thought about why you're a Christian at all.

Individual Christians may be nice enough people, hell, I'm going to eat with some later this evening. But their overall track record is shameful, and I lay the blame for that firmly on the mindset that being religious encourages - magical thinking, out-group hostility, and servility among others.
And many atheists question their lack of faith and convert.

At doesnt but to truly be a christian requires having conviction for social justice. When I was looking at all the prophets and what not of the different faiths, Jesus exemplified the most concern for the poor and under-class. A man willing to die shamefully for the oppressed is worth following in my opinion.

The overall track-record of communists isnt too good either but we still work with them.

MarxSchmarx

6th January 2009, 07:50

Why does having a conviction for social justice require being a Christian, of all things? Why not a Sikh, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Humanist?

The vagueness of your statements make me think you haven't really thought about why you're a Christian at all.
Actually, I think being a Christian is just as pointless as any of these other cults. So, although it might not be "correct" to be a Christian, it isn't wrong.

Although with Buddhism and Humanism you might be able to make a slightly better defense. But I guess for that matter, Sufism and some very esoteric Christianity could be equally, well, "consistent" with a basically atheist world-view (I just don't know enough about Hinduism and Sikhism to say for those traditions).

Which means what we chose, on a religious level, is to some extent arbitrary anyway. As (I guess) an atheist, I still follow certain elements of my tradition like the holidays I celebrate with my family. I take some comfort, ridiculous though it may be, when I think that my funeral will be conducted in a traditional way with a clergy person from my tradition.

Bogus? Sure. Counter-revolutionary? Nah, not really.

Hit The North

6th January 2009, 10:30

A man willing to die shamefully for the oppressed is worth following in my opinion.

So why not "follow" Spartacus, instead?

Again, contrary to any supporting evidence you continue to believe in a character who's existence is, at best, uncertain.

You might as well put your faith in Sherlock Holmes or some other fictional character.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th January 2009, 13:42

And many atheists question their lack of faith and convert.

Yeah, and I have a name for those people; gullible.

At doesnt but to truly be a christian requires having conviction for social justice.Your wording suggested you had a sense of social justice before becoming a Christian, so that doesn't answer my question; it seems you're putting the cart before the horse.

When I was looking at all the prophets and what not of the different faiths, Jesus exemplified the most concern for the poor and under-class.Even if he did (which I doubt), so what? What's wrong with just being a good person without the crutches of faith?

A man willing to die shamefully for the oppressed is worth following in my opinion.Why "follow" anyone at all?

The overall track-record of communists isnt too good either but we still work with them.The overall track record of communists is a hell of a lot shorter. A century and a half of struggle compared to over ten centuries of Christian dominance? It's no contest as to which has had the most malign influence on the course of history.

Actually, I think being a Christian is just as pointless as any of these other cults. So, although it might not be "correct" to be a Christian, it isn't wrong.

If that's true, then the whole "social justice" malarkey is irrelevant and simply a lame excuse. Which is kind of my point.

JimmyJazz

8th January 2009, 20:15

Jesus could be no more a feminist in first century Palestine, than he could have been a cosmonaut.

Neither was he an anarchist, socialist or communist. These theories of society had not yet been invented.

He could have been some form of utopian/primitive communist. He could not have been a so-called "scientific" socialist though, I agree.

I can't remember for sure who the Deleonist on this site is (mikelepore?), but I once followed that person's sig to DeLeonism.org and found this rather cool essay written in 1897 and published in the SLP's The People:

"Was Jesus A Socialist? (http://www.deleonism.org/text/97020002.htm)"

It's sort of a predictable critique of utopian socialism from a scientific socialist/historical materialist perspective. However, I find it extremely cool for the fact that (1) it was written 112 years ago; (2) it was apparently written in response to an article in Eugene Debs' Railway Times. This is less than a year after Debs became a socialist (which he did during the prison term that he got following the Pullman strike), but before he came to a Marxist/historical materialist understanding of socialism.

What can I say; I'm a history nerd. This stuff makes me smile.

Hit The North

9th January 2009, 18:19

What can I say; I'm a history nerd. This stuff makes me smile.

Then, as a self-confessed history nerd, you should realise that the first utopian socialists emerged in 18th century Europe, thus disqualifying the crucified one from being one.

Although you might be interested in the fact that the "founder of German communism" thought along similar lines:

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

DÃ³chas

9th January 2009, 18:35

my sig is a pretty good one

Rosa Provokateur

13th January 2009, 15:20

So why not "follow" Spartacus, instead?

Again, contrary to any supporting evidence you continue to believe in a character who's existence is, at best, uncertain.

You might as well put your faith in Sherlock Holmes or some other fictional character.
As honorable as Spartacus was there isnt anything he did that makes him different from the majority of revolutionaries throughout history.

Jesus had an extremely un-orthodox way of doing things, even for today. His teachings are the fear of the status-quo and his way of practicing it is in direct opposition to the way the world's leaders work.

Even if he didnt exist, he exemplified what I think is the best way to live and so I choose to follow and try to be how he was.

Rosa Provokateur

13th January 2009, 15:34

Yeah, and I have a name for those people; gullible.

Your wording suggested you had a sense of social justice before becoming a Christian, so that doesn't answer my question; it seems you're putting the cart before the horse.

Even if he did (which I doubt), so what? What's wrong with just being a good person without the crutches of faith?

Why "follow" anyone at all?

The overall track record of communists is a hell of a lot shorter. A century and a half of struggle compared to over ten centuries of Christian dominance? It's no contest as to which has had the most malign influence on the course of history.

If that's true, then the whole "social justice" malarkey is irrelevant and simply a lame excuse. Which is kind of my point.
Why are they gullible? I dont think those that leave their faith are gullible, they sometimes have good reason and I put that blame on the church. We've failed to treat these brothers and sisters as they should be.

I did and thats what drew me to Jesus; he was a man rooted in it and the Christian faith is, at its core, soaked in it.

Nothing, but I believe in the existence of God and I seek relationship with Him.

Good point. Jesus refused the reigns of power and chose to die rather than allow others to be harmed for his movement, this is compassion at its height. I dream of living in a world where that kind of compassion is an every-day event. To do that I've got to learn from the one who taught it.

I agree and it breaks my heart knowing all the crimes that've been commited in the name of christianity. It goes against what Jesus taught. I see no difference between so-called "Christian" dominance and the so-called "communist" dominance of Stalin, Mao, the Soviet Union, and Kim Jong Il; all dominance is wrong. The effects on history have been terrifying to say the least.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th January 2009, 16:42

Why are they gullible? I dont think those that leave their faith are gullible, they sometimes have good reason and I put that blame on the church. We've failed to treat these brothers and sisters as they should be.

Not all Christians become atheists because they were treated like shit by their fellow believers - in fact, as far as I can tell, the bullying and intimidation generally begins after they have declared themselves atheists.

And then of course, you have the quasi-primitivist sects that deliberately hobble their offspring, sending them out into the wide world with no preperation whatsoever - so of course they're going to come running back.

I did and thats what drew me to Jesus; he was a man rooted in it and the Christian faith is, at its core, soaked in it.No it isn't. It is a disgustingly sectarian religion with an eternity of bliss for the believers and oblivion or eternal torture for the heathens and infidels (depending on the particular flavour of Christianity).

Of course, you probably don't believe in that, but that's just the problem isn't it? You Christians pick and choose what bits to believe and what bits to ignore. On what basis? It seems to me that the basis is entirely down to convenience - "peace and love" drivel for when the religion is weak or it's followers faint of heart, but when the believers get their paws on the levers of power, watch out!

You Christians have had thousands of years to prove yourselves, and your record stinks. It's time to consign Christianity to the trashcan of history where it belongs, along with all other religions.

I'm frankly amazed that you feel drawn to a man you have never met, and whose alleged words have been copied and interpreted again and again throughout history like some millennial game of Chinese Whispers. Not to mention the fact that Jesus, if he existed, was in all likelyhood a devout Jew, and would have been disgusted that Paul spread his teachings to the "pigs" - pearls before swine and all that.

Nothing, but I believe in the existence of God and I seek relationship with Him.Why do you believe? In spite of the deafening silence of this alleged being, why do you seek a relationship with it?

Good point. Jesus refused the reigns of power and chose to die rather than allow others to be harmed for his movement, this is compassion at its height.How do you know that?

I dream of living in a world where that kind of compassion is an every-day event. To do that I've got to learn from the one who taught it.What's wrong with a living teacher? Or life experience? Or forging your own path? Or anything other than following the teachings of man whose words have been filtered through multiple translations and editions, who likely had a completely different mindset to yours and certainly to mine, and who would have been gobsmacked like the rube he was had he seen the world as it is today?

I agree and it breaks my heart knowing all the crimes that've been commited in the name of christianity. It goes against what Jesus taught.We don't know what Jesus taught. He was probably illiterate like most people at the time - his script was written by other people. A number of decades after his death, if I remember correctly.

I see no difference between so-called "Christian" dominance and the so-called "communist" dominance of Stalin, Mao, the Soviet Union, and Kim Jong Il; all dominance is wrong. The effects on history have been terrifying to say the least.If only your fellow believers were like that - but, as history shows, views like yours are in the minority. Even so, it pains me to see people waste their time on self-evident nonsense, even if they're being nice about it.

And about those "so-called" Christians - make no mistake, the Christians that ran the Inquisition, burnt witches and committed genocide against the Aztecs and other indigenous peoples were just as sincere and devout in their belief as you are. They truly believed they were saving souls, they weren't moustache-twirling comic book villains.

Hit The North

13th January 2009, 22:09

As honorable as Spartacus was there isnt anything he did that makes him different from the majority of revolutionaries throughout history.

Which is what I thought you claimed to be.

From this point on, I'm going to proceed on the basis that Jesus actually lived. As you know, I don't believe this. I think he is far more credibly a composite of myth, symbolism and Platonism than an actual historical figure.

Jesus had an extremely un-orthodox way of doing things, even for today.Unless you want to run with the myth of miracles and man-God narratives, I think you over-emphasise his uniqueness. There are many similar figures in human history. Gandhi for instance?

But whatever his methods, they were not the methods of a revolutionary. The avoidance of power and force which you so admire in his approach is not viable if one wants to revolutionise society.

This is why I oppose the notion, propounded earlier in this thread, that we should use Jesus to radicalise workers. The conclusions of his ministry: (i) self-sacrifice; (ii) love thine enemy; (iii) the ultimate reward is in heaven, amongst them, are not the conclusions we want workers to come to.

His teachings are the fear of the status-quo and his way of practicing it is in direct opposition to the way the world's leaders work.
This is wishful thinking if one soberly analyses the history of Christianisty.
But again, yes we could concede that his way is opposite to those of the world's leaders: they hold power and exercise it, he does not. Again, this is a message which forges chains, not breaks them.

Even if he didnt exist, he exemplified what I think is the best way to live and so I choose to follow and try to be how he was.It's good to have a role model :). But it is interesting that his possible non-existence is not a problem for you, but is, in fact, irrelevant. So I was correct in my earlier post: you may as well follow some other fictional character.

JimmyJazz

15th January 2009, 03:53

Then, as a self-confessed history nerd, you should realise that the first utopian socialists emerged in 18th century Europe, thus disqualifying the crucified one from being one.

I'm not a Marxist terminology nerd though, just a history nerd. Maybe one day I will be, but not yet. What would you call a group of people who "lived together and owned everything in common" (the apostles), in Marxist terms?

Pogue

15th January 2009, 11:50

Why are they gullible? I dont think those that leave their faith are gullible, they sometimes have good reason and I put that blame on the church. We've failed to treat these brothers and sisters as they should be.

I did and thats what drew me to Jesus; he was a man rooted in it and the Christian faith is, at its core, soaked in it.

Nothing, but I believe in the existence of God and I seek relationship with Him.

Good point. Jesus refused the reigns of power and chose to die rather than allow others to be harmed for his movement, this is compassion at its height. I dream of living in a world where that kind of compassion is an every-day event. To do that I've got to learn from the one who taught it.

I agree and it breaks my heart knowing all the crimes that've been commited in the name of christianity. It goes against what Jesus taught. I see no difference between so-called "Christian" dominance and the so-called "communist" dominance of Stalin, Mao, the Soviet Union, and Kim Jong Il; all dominance is wrong. The effects on history have been terrifying to say the least.

Why on earth does love and solidarity have to come from a supernatural being such as god? Humans display the virtues of 'Jesus' on a daily basis without being the 'supreme being', surely this is evident a made up man in the sky isn't the source of goodness?

Hit The North

15th January 2009, 19:23

H-L-V-S makes an excellent point and this is another reason we shouldn't use Jesus or any other religious symbol to radicalise workers - the sheer mystification of human relations which religion engenders.

Hit The North

15th January 2009, 19:27

I'm not a Marxist terminology nerd though, just a history nerd. Maybe one day I will be, but not yet. What would you call a group of people who "lived together and owned everything in common" (the apostles), in Marxist terms?

Where is it written that the apostles (12 men, excluding the "evil" one who topped himself? :lol:) lived in this manner?

Wherever, this would still not make them utopian socialists or socialists of any hue.

Decolonize The Left

16th January 2009, 06:10

Why on earth does love and solidarity have to come from a supernatural being such as god? Humans display the virtues of 'Jesus' on a daily basis without being the 'supreme being', surely this is evident a made up man in the sky isn't the source of goodness?

It is evident to individuals of reason, yes. But religious folk will simply claim that God brought/gave that love to humans - you ignore the fact that religion posits beyond material reality due to an inability to accept said reality.

- August

JimmyJazz

16th January 2009, 06:40

Where is it written that the apostles (12 men, excluding the "evil" one who topped himself? :lol:) lived in this manner?

Wherever, this would still not make them utopian socialists or socialists of any hue.

Well, OK, but what would it make them? They lived communally, so most people would say that they were small-c communists. Not necessarily me, just most people.

It's in Acts; in fact, Green Apostle quotes the exact verse in his signature. No, of course it doesn't include Judas, and since it says "believers" I would assume it includes others who had been converted by the apostles but weren't themselves apostles.

In Acts they draw straws to choose a replacement for Judas in order to once again have 12. So there were still 12 apostles after Judas offed himself. Is "topped himself" British slang for committing suicide btw? Because that's awesome if so.

Hit The North

16th January 2009, 14:53

It's in Acts; in fact, Green Apostle quotes the exact verse in his signature.

Yes, but Acts is part of a book which claims the truth for virgin births, resurrections from the dead and alchemy, so what it claims the "believers" did or did not do, must be taken with a pinch of salt, don't you think?

Is "topped himself" British slang for committing suicide btw? Because that's awesome if so.

Yes, it means he done himself in. :)

Cunning_plan

16th January 2009, 16:09

Whilst fictional the work Quo Vadis provides a brilliant insight into the "socialism" of early Christianity.

JimmyJazz

17th January 2009, 05:33

Yes, but Acts is part of a book which claims the truth for virgin births, resurrections from the dead and alchemy, so what it claims the "believers" did or did not do, must be taken with a pinch of salt, don't you think?

Yes, it means he done himself in. :)

Sure, I just didn't think the veracity of the story was relevant in deciding how to classify them.

Great, I will definitely use that phrase. First I'm off to smoke a fag.

Hit The North

17th January 2009, 17:03

Whilst fictional the work Quo Vadis provides a brilliant insight into the "socialism" of early Christianity.
The fact that you have to place the word socialism in scare quotes tells us everything, though.

JJ:
Sure, I just didn't think the veracity of the story was relevant in deciding how to classify them.

That's a good point and I don't want to dismiss the idea that early Christian communities practised, or at least espoused, a form of material equality between believers (its appeal to the large slave population of the Roman Empire provides a sociological explanation as to why it might). Nevertheless, this is not socialism in any real modern sense of the word and is not a word they applied to themselves.

Rosa Provokateur

23rd January 2009, 15:37

Not all Christians become atheists because they were treated like shit by their fellow believers - in fact, as far as I can tell, the bullying and intimidation generally begins after they have declared themselves atheists.

And then of course, you have the quasi-primitivist sects that deliberately hobble their offspring, sending them out into the wide world with no preperation whatsoever - so of course they're going to come running back.

No it isn't. It is a disgustingly sectarian religion with an eternity of bliss for the believers and oblivion or eternal torture for the heathens and infidels (depending on the particular flavour of Christianity).

Of course, you probably don't believe in that, but that's just the problem isn't it? You Christians pick and choose what bits to believe and what bits to ignore. On what basis? It seems to me that the basis is entirely down to convenience - "peace and love" drivel for when the religion is weak or it's followers faint of heart, but when the believers get their paws on the levers of power, watch out!

Why do you believe? In spite of the deafening silence of this alleged being, why do you seek a relationship with it?

What's wrong with a living teacher? Or life experience? Or forging your own path? Or anything other than following the teachings of man whose words have been filtered through multiple translations and editions, who likely had a completely different mindset to yours and certainly to mine, and who would have been gobsmacked like the rube he was had he seen the world as it is today?

We don't know what Jesus taught. He was probably illiterate like most people at the time - his script was written by other people. A number of decades after his death, if I remember correctly.

If only your fellow believers were like that - but, as history shows, views like yours are in the minority. Even so, it pains me to see people waste their time on self-evident nonsense, even if they're being nice about it.

And about those "so-called" Christians - make no mistake, the Christians that ran the Inquisition, burnt witches and committed genocide against the Aztecs and other indigenous peoples were just as sincere and devout in their belief as you are. They truly believed they were saving souls, they weren't moustache-twirling comic book villains.
Even so, to bully anyone because of their beliefs goes against what Jesus taught.

Sectarianism is a problem in all communities, christian as well as leftist. I'm against denominationalism but the best I can do is work to make peace between congregations and get them to work together.

I agree, christianity is dangerous when given power just like anything else. Constantine's mistake was to make it a State religion. I will fight against a so-called "Christian" state as much as I would against anyother state.

I seek relationship with Him because I see it as natural; fish shouldnt be seperated from water, people shouldnt be seperated from God.

Nothing, life experience and forging my own path are what've made my faith so strong. It's a path rarely taken by alot of people and that includes those in the christian faith. I believe that Jesus meant what he said, and so I live according to it.

It's possible that we dont have his teachings but in my eyes that doesnt make his words in the Bible any less valid.

I'm sorry to cause you pain but part of my mission is to "comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable" as Shane Claiborne put it.

Just because someone is convinced that they're doing right doesnt make it right. Conviction is the Spirit's job, our job is to love.

Rosa Provokateur

23rd January 2009, 15:48

Unless you want to run with the myth of miracles and man-God narratives, I think you over-emphasise his uniqueness. There are many similar figures in human history. Gandhi for instance?

But whatever his methods, they were not the methods of a revolutionary. The avoidance of power and force which you so admire in his approach is not viable if one wants to revolutionise society.

This is why I oppose the notion, propounded earlier in this thread, that we should use Jesus to radicalise workers. The conclusions of his ministry: (i) self-sacrifice; (ii) love thine enemy; (iii) the ultimate reward is in heaven, amongst them, are not the conclusions we want workers to come to.

This is wishful thinking if one soberly analyses the history of Christianisty.
But again, yes we could concede that his way is opposite to those of the world's leaders: they hold power and exercise it, he does not. Again, this is a message which forges chains, not breaks them.

It's good to have a role model :). But it is interesting that his possible non-existence is not a problem for you, but is, in fact, irrelevant. So I was correct in my earlier post: you may as well follow some other fictional character.
And Gahndi believed in God as well, I see a pattern.

To revolutionize society you've got to break the way it works. Ending power and force by rejecting power and force begins a new way of life, a new kind of world.

Self-sacrifice is needed sometimes for the benefit of others, we cant win over our enemies if we're busy hating them, and heaven is a reward that can be built here on earth by ending the evil thats oppressing so many.

All power to the one who rejects it.

Existence and non-existence heave nothing to do with the relevance of the message. Too much time is wasted trying to prove God and not enough trying to live like Him.

Decolonize The Left

24th January 2009, 01:46

To revolutionize society you've got to break the way it works. Ending power and force by rejecting power and force begins a new way of life, a new kind of world.

Society has worked according to religion for centuries. Please do not ignore history.

All power to the one who rejects it.

Prepare yourself for slavery. There will be one who does not reject power, will consolidate said power, and enslave you. This is perhaps the most naive statement, well maybe not, in this thread.

Again, please do not ignore history.

Existence and non-existence heave nothing to do with the relevance of the message. Too much time is wasted trying to prove God and not enough trying to live like Him.

"Live like Him?" According to what standard? The Bible? Written by people, not God.

I seek relationship with Him because I see it as natural; fish shouldnt be seperated from water, people shouldnt be seperated from God.

But water exists... you don't know God exists as you can't prove it. Hence it is not "natural" like "a fish in water" as the latter can be observed, repeatedly.

I believe that Jesus meant what he said, and so I live according to it.

You don't know what Jesus said. What you can read is:
What someone else wrote about what Jesus may have said.
What was translated hundreds of times.
What was a selection of texts, while others were purposefully omitted.

So... how can you claim Jesus said these things, or that what you think he said is even accurate?

Just because someone is convinced that they're doing right doesnt make it right.

Now read that again and consider your faith. You are convinced you're right, but that doesn't mean you are. In fact, all signs point to the fact that you're wrong.

- August

Rosa Provokateur

28th January 2009, 16:30

Society has worked according to religion for centuries. Please do not ignore history.

Prepare yourself for slavery. There will be one who does not reject power, will consolidate said power, and enslave you. This is perhaps the most naive statement, well maybe not, in this thread.

Again, please do not ignore history.

"Live like Him?" According to what standard? The Bible? Written by people, not God.

But water exists... you don't know God exists as you can't prove it. Hence it is not "natural" like "a fish in water" as the latter can be observed, repeatedly.

You don't know what Jesus said. What you can read is:
What someone else wrote about what Jesus may have said.
What was translated hundreds of times.
What was a selection of texts, while others were purposefully omitted.

So... how can you claim Jesus said these things, or that what you think he said is even accurate?

Now read that again and consider your faith. You are convinced you're right, but that doesn't mean you are. In fact, all signs point to the fact that you're wrong.

- August
I dont ignore history but I dont dwell on it either. The past is dead, all that matters is today. As far as religion, I dont believe in it.

He can try to enslave me but thats only assuming I recognize his authority. Slavery only works if the enslaved recognize their oppressor as having the right to rule. I recognize no such right. I ignore man-made authority because it has no hold on me.

The standard of what I believe God to be like. According to 1John, God is love. Thus to live like Him, I live lovingly.

So I cant prove it. The natural is more than just what can be observed.

I take it on faith. Everything he said fits and none of it contradicts itself.

Agreed. Just because I'm a christian arguing a christian world-view doesnt mean I'm right or that I've got everything nailed. Faith is a continual process that involves learning, questioning, studying, etc.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th January 2009, 18:24

I dont ignore history but I dont dwell on it either. The past is dead, all that matters is today. As far as religion, I dont believe in it.

You claim to follow the teachings of Christ, making you a Christian. Christianity is a religion. Ergo, you believe in religion.

And Christianity has a considerably less than admirable historical record.

He can try to enslave me but thats only assuming I recognize his authority. Slavery only works if the enslaved recognize their oppressor as having the right to rule. I recognize no such right. I ignore man-made authority because it has no hold on me.Tell that to the copper that breaks a nightstick over your skull.

I take it on faith. Everything he said fits and none of it contradicts itself.O RLY?

Matthew 10:34 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/10.html#34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

John 14:27 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/14.html#27) Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

Jesus, contradicting himself.

Agreed. Just because I'm a christian arguing a christian world-view doesnt mean I'm right or that I've got everything nailed. Faith is a continual process that involves learning, questioning, studying, etc.What you're learning is nonsense, you're not asking the right questions, and you're studying irrelevancies.

Decolonize The Left

28th January 2009, 22:00

I dont ignore history but I dont dwell on it either. The past is dead, all that matters is today. As far as religion, I dont believe in it.

See NoXion's reply.

He can try to enslave me but thats only assuming I recognize his authority. Slavery only works if the enslaved recognize their oppressor as having the right to rule. I recognize no such right. I ignore man-made authority because it has no hold on me.

The Africans did not 'recognize the authority' of the white men who came with guns.
The Jews did not 'recognize the authority' of the Nazi's in their tanks.

So... what are you talking about?

The standard of what I believe God to be like. According to 1John, God is love. Thus to live like Him, I live lovingly.

See NoXion's response.

So I cant prove it. The natural is more than just what can be observed.

Ok. But do you believe in a sun god then? Seriously, do you believe that the sun is a god? Because that has just as little evidence as your Christian God, and it has been believed by way more people throughout history than the Christian god, so why not believe that?

I take it on faith. Everything he said fits and none of it contradicts itself.

Wow... thanks to NoXion for handling this.

Agreed. Just because I'm a christian arguing a christian world-view doesnt mean I'm right or that I've got everything nailed. Faith is a continual process that involves learning, questioning, studying, etc.

Faith is belief without evidence and/or justification.

Faith is a denial of learning.
It is a denial of questioning.
It is a denial of studying.

If you were to actually do those things, you would realize immediately that your faith in God is unjustified and therefore worthless.

If you were to actually do those things, you would look out upon a world free of your impositions of religion, and you would actually understand what it means to love - as your love would come from you, not through some idiotic dogma. It would finally be true.

- August

MarxSchmarx

29th January 2009, 04:23

Faith is belief without evidence and/or justification.

Faith is a denial of learning.
It is a denial of questioning.
It is a denial of studying.

As a historical question, I wonder whether what is commonly called "faith" is just a substitute for beliefs that are re-inforced by one's upbringing.

Most people's "faith" revolves around the particular tradition they were raised in. As such, because it has been reinforced by their surroundings, it is, basically, justified.

What I think distinguishes faith from other forms of "justified belief" ultimately is that one's upbringing is contingent on the time and place of one's birth. This contingency is what renders "faith" less legitimate than other forms of "justified belief".

However, I hasten to add that it is not clear to me, by this standard, that any form of "justified belief" is not contingent on one's surroundings. For instance, a "justified belief" in, say, subatomic particles prior to the advent of quantum mechanics was probably unreasonable. However, today, there is plenty of reason to have a "justified belief" in subatomic particles. This suggests that there is always a contingent element to "justified belief", faith being only one end of the continuum.

Decolonize The Left

29th January 2009, 07:02

As a historical question, I wonder whether what is commonly called "faith" is just a substitute for beliefs that are re-inforced by one's upbringing.

Most people's "faith" revolves around the particular tradition they were raised in. As such, because it has been reinforced by their surroundings, it is, basically, justified.

What I think distinguishes faith from other forms of "justified belief" ultimately is that one's upbringing is contingent on the time and place of one's birth. This contingency is what renders "faith" less legitimate than other forms of "justified belief".

However, I hasten to add that it is not clear to me, by this standard, that any form of "justified belief" is not contingent on one's surroundings. For instance, a "justified belief" in, say, subatomic particles prior to the advent of quantum mechanics was probably unreasonable. However, today, there is plenty of reason to have a "justified belief" in subatomic particles. This suggests that there is always a contingent element to "justified belief", faith being only one end of the continuum.

Very interesting post - once again, you prove your worth to the board.

If all justified belief is indeed, as you speculate, contingent on one's surroundings, would this not lead it to be meaningless? If this is the case, why call it justified belief at all? Why not simply call it 'knowledge,' as this term loses it's current meaning as well?

As far as I understand, we use the different terms to qualify different phenomena. Ex:
Belief (in X)
Justified Belief (belief in X with reason/evidence)
Knowledge (belief in X with reason/evidence as well as the fact that X is true)

Faith (belief despite and/or without reason/evidence)

I agree that many people's faith revolves around upbringing, but these people develop the capacity for reason at some point, do they not?

While I acknowledge that conditioning is the basis of religion, as it is unlikely to 'convert' anyone of intelligence, I still hold religious individuals responsible for their beliefs, as I should hope all people would do.

- August

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th January 2009, 07:31

Faith is belief without evidence and/or justification.

Faith is a denial of learning.
It is a denial of questioning.
It is a denial of studying.

He had to study to pass Biology.

Obviously, if his faith denied him from doing this he won't graduate from High School.

If you were to actually do those things, you would realize immediately that your faith in God is unjustified and therefore worthless.

You need to realize that his faith is a private matter between him and whatever God he chooses to worship.

If you were to actually do those things, you would look out upon a world free of your impositions of religion, and you would actually understand what it means to love - as your love would come from you, not through some idiotic dogma. It would finally be true.

So now atheists are the only ones capable of feeling real love?

Shit, might as well join a religion if you're into intolerant, narrow views such as these.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th January 2009, 11:38

You need to realize that his faith is a private matter between him and whatever God he chooses to worship.

If that's so, why is he talking about it on a public forum?

Revolutionary Youth

29th January 2009, 14:26

Some kind of preaching I think.

Rosa Provokateur

29th January 2009, 17:59

You claim to follow the teachings of Christ, making you a Christian. Christianity is a religion. Ergo, you believe in religion.

And Christianity has a considerably less than admirable historical record.

Tell that to the copper that breaks a nightstick over your skull.

O RLY?

Matthew 10:34 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/10.html#34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

John 14:27 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/14.html#27) Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

Jesus, contradicting himself.

What you're learning is nonsense, you're not asking the right questions, and you're studying irrelevancies.
I follow Christ, not Christianity. Christianity is a watered-down, tamed, and castrated version of Jesus' teachings; it's an attempt to bottle his ideas, make them compatable with the ruling powers, and use them as a means to an end. I stand against it as much as I do the State itself.

I'll be sure to after I'm done giving him a hug.

You're taking Matthew 10:34 out of context; read verses 35 and 36 along with it and you'll see that he's talking about upsetting the very fabric of society, to the point that not even the family-unit will be left un-touched.

Who's to say it's non-sense if I find it valuable, what are the right questions, and what makes it irrelevant?

Rosa Provokateur

29th January 2009, 18:05

The Africans did not 'recognize the authority' of the white men who came with guns.
The Jews did not 'recognize the authority' of the Nazi's in their tanks.

So... what are you talking about?

Ok. But do you believe in a sun god then? Seriously, do you believe that the sun is a god? Because that has just as little evidence as your Christian God, and it has been believed by way more people throughout history than the Christian god, so why not believe that?

Faith is belief without evidence and/or justification.

Faith is a denial of learning.
It is a denial of questioning.
It is a denial of studying.

If you were to actually do those things, you would realize immediately that your faith in God is unjustified and therefore worthless.

If you were to actually do those things, you would look out upon a world free of your impositions of religion, and you would actually understand what it means to love - as your love would come from you, not through some idiotic dogma. It would finally be true.

- August
I'm talking about this: a man with a tank only has power if I fear his tank, if I value my freedom more and feel no fear then what good is the tank?

I believe that God made the sun. The number of believers is irrelevant to me, the legitimacy of the teaching is what matters.

Faith requires learning, questioning, and studying. Only those with a weak faith refuse to do so, fearing that it threatens God's existence as they comprehend it. I embrace these things because I have no such fear.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th January 2009, 19:21

I follow Christ, not Christianity. Christianity is a watered-down, tamed, and castrated version of Jesus' teachings; it's an attempt to bottle his ideas, make them compatable with the ruling powers, and use them as a means to an end. I stand against it as much as I do the State itself.

Semantic chicanery. You are a Christian, making you part of Christianity whether you like it or not.

I'll be sure to after I'm done giving him a hug.It's hard to hug someone who's got their boot on your neck. Also, why the fuck would you want to hug a wretched copper?

You're taking Matthew 10:34 out of context; read verses 35 and 36 along with it and you'll see that he's talking about upsetting the very fabric of society, to the point that not even the family-unit will be left un-touched.That's still not peaceful, especially considering the martial language used - "a sword" is an implement of war, used in deadly struggle.

Who's to say it's non-sense if I find it valuable, what are the right questions, and what makes it irrelevant?1) What you think is valuable is not the same as what is actually valuable. A crackhead values crack much the same way as a faithhead values faith.

2) Some of the right questons involve the provenance of the Bible, which is the only known source of Jesus' alleged "teachings". Considering the historical role of Christianity, why don't you think that the Bible and it's contents will reflect that, being translated and transcribed by historical Christendom after all?

3) Jesus was a reforming rabbi who lived and died centuries ago, in a world much different in character to that of today's.

I'm talking about this: a man with a tank only has power if I fear his tank, if I value my freedom more and feel no fear then what good is the tank?

It can run you over or shoot you.

Game over.

Decolonize The Left

30th January 2009, 00:47

He had to study to pass Biology.

Obviously, if his faith denied him from doing this he won't graduate from High School.

Obviously, you missed the point - entirely. I am aware that this is not uncommon for you, but this one should be simple. I was speaking about his faith in religion, not in 'general' as one cannot have 'faith in general.'

You need to realize that his faith is a private matter between him and whatever God he chooses to worship.

Simply incorrect. I guess the faith of the Catholic Church was "a private matter between [them] and whatever God [they] choose to worship" as they strung people onto stakes a burned them alive... yup... just a private matter there, no need for public interest...

So now atheists are the only ones capable of feeling real love?

What is "real love?"

- August

Hit The North

30th January 2009, 00:51

I follow Christ, not Christianity.

There is no Christ except through the lens of Christianity.

Decolonize The Left

30th January 2009, 00:55

I'm talking about this: a man with a tank only has power if I fear his tank, if I value my freedom more and feel no fear then what good is the tank?

No. Actually a man with a tank has power because he has a tank and that tank it capable of killing you. It is not the tank you fear, but death. The tank itself is a chunk of metal, but it can blow up a school full of children. Surely you fear that?

I believe that God made the sun. The number of believers is irrelevant to me, the legitimacy of the teaching is what matters.

You don't know Jesus' teachings as the Bible is not an accurate or reliable source of historic fact.

Faith requires learning, questioning, and studying. Only those with a weak faith refuse to do so, fearing that it threatens God's existence as they comprehend it. I embrace these things because I have no such fear.

What? Faith is belief without reason and/or evidence. How does this relate to learning (which is a process of reasoning)?

I don't fear I'm threatening God's existence at all. Why would I fear something which can't be proven? That's insanity!

- August

TheCultofAbeLincoln

30th January 2009, 02:28

Obviously, you missed the point - entirely. I am aware that this is not uncommon for you, but this one should be simple. I was speaking about his faith in religion, not in 'general' as one cannot have 'faith in general.'

All right, that's a good one.

Simply incorrect. I guess the faith of the Catholic Church was "a private matter between [them] and whatever God [they] choose to worship" as they strung people onto stakes a burned them alive... yup... just a private matter there, no need for public interest...

When did we start talking about European intolerance? I don't even know if Green Apostle is a catholic, but needless to say he isn't preaching a return to anything reminiscient of a theocratic state, just that he personally feels a relationship with some force greater than he is. I agree that he doesn't have the right to enslave others to his views, but this shouldn't mean no respect is given to his beliefs or what it means as long as they are progressive.

What is "real love?"

You tell me, whatever love is when free of inhibitions to some idiotic dogma which one can only assume is religion. Which is to say mos people who have ever lived are incapable of ever feeling as much love as you can.

Decolonize The Left

31st January 2009, 23:56

When did we start talking about European intolerance? I don't even know if Green Apostle is a catholic, but needless to say he isn't preaching a return to anything reminiscient of a theocratic state, just that he personally feels a relationship with some force greater than he is. I agree that he doesn't have the right to enslave others to his views, but this shouldn't mean no respect is given to his beliefs or what it means as long as they are progressive.

Well, you said that faith and religion were merely private relationships between an individual and God. I pointed out the faults in such a statement.

You tell me, whatever love is when free of inhibitions to some idiotic dogma which one can only assume is religion. Which is to say mos people who have ever lived are incapable of ever feeling as much love as you can.

It has nothing to do with the quantity of love ("as much love as you can"). It has everything to do with the quality of love - the source of said love. Love which is based upon an imaginary relationship with an unexplainable, unverifiable, unknowable, idea is psychologically unsound.

- August

Rosa Provokateur

1st February 2009, 00:54

It's hard to hug someone who's got their boot on your neck. Also, why the fuck would you want to hug a wretched copper?

That's still not peaceful, especially considering the martial language used - "a sword" is an implement of war, used in deadly struggle.

1) What you think is valuable is not the same as what is actually valuable. A crackhead values crack much the same way as a faithhead values faith.

2) Some of the right questons involve the provenance of the Bible, which is the only known source of Jesus' alleged "teachings". Considering the historical role of Christianity, why don't you think that the Bible and it's contents will reflect that, being translated and transcribed by historical Christendom after all?

3) Jesus was a reforming rabbi who lived and died centuries ago, in a world much different in character to that of today's.

It can run you over or shoot you.

Game over.
Anybody mad enough to beat someone to death needs a good hug.

I'm still trying to figure the sword part out. As soon as I know, I'll get back to you on it.

1) I dont value faith, its just something I have. Its done nothing but good for me so I see no reason to discard it.

2) Could you reiterate. I dont know what you're asking me.

3) Different in substance, not in flavor. Like in his time we still have a huge gap between the "haves" and "have-nots", the State has officers on every block in-order to protect the existing establishment, and a religious elite has hi-jacked a good faith and exploited it for evil means.

It can only do so provided I dont sabotage it before it's used.

The game hasnt even begun.

Rosa Provokateur

1st February 2009, 01:00

psychologically unsound.

- August
Not so. If anything it's perfectly sound as far as psychological goes, psyche being latin for soul and the soul being part of the core of my relationship with God.

Decolonize The Left

1st February 2009, 01:13

Not so. If anything it's perfectly sound as far as psychological goes, psyche being lating for soul and the soul being part of the core of my relationship with God.

Well, technically "psyche" is the human soul, mind, or spirit, not necessarily the soul. But none-the-less, I wasn't talking about the psyche which is:
"In psychology (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychology) and related fields, the psyche is the entirety of the non-physical (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=non-physical&action=edit&redlink=1) aspects of a person" for such a silly concept can't be debated as it's pure speculation.

Psychology is the study of the human mind/behavior. It is highly unsound to believe in the existence of something which has no evidence in its favor (in fact, has loads of evidence in favor of its non-existence). Why? Because it's delusional.

- August

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st February 2009, 15:19

Anybody mad enough to beat someone to death needs a good hug.

No, what they need is a bullet/half-brick to the brain. Hugging won't do shit.

Seriously, pacifism is a losing strategy, and is correctly percieved as weakness.

I'm still trying to figure the sword part out. As soon as I know, I'll get back to you on it.Fucking hell man, it wasn't a fucking riddle.

1) I dont value faith, its just something I have. Its done nothing but good for me so I see no reason to discard it.You do value it, otherwise you wouldn't have it.

2) Could you reiterate. I dont know what you're asking me.The Bible was copied, translated and compiled by Christendom which according to you "is a watered-down, tamed, and castrated version of Jesus' teachings; it's an attempt to bottle his ideas, make them compatable with the ruling powers, and use them as a means to an end. I stand against it as much as I do the State itself"

Jesus' alleged teachings, which you claim to follow, have filtered through something you have viciously criticised. It is disingenuous to follow the written teachings of a man who likely was illiterate, it is not?

3) Different in substance, not in flavor. Like in his time we still have a huge gap between the "haves" and "have-nots", the State has officers on every block in-order to protect the existing establishment, and a religious elite has hi-jacked a good faith and exploited it for evil means. Firstly, that's incredibly simplistic. The exploited working class is in a much different position to the slaves and peasants of Jesus' time. For a start, they are vastly more educated and therefore have a chance of siezing power for themselves.

The notion that the "State" (such as it was in Jesus' time) had officers "on every block" is downright ridiculous, and shows an unbelievable ignorance of history. They didn't have the population, technology and expertise to set up anything like the kind of surveillance and enforcement arrangements we have today.

Religious faith encourages servile, unthinking behaviour. Why do you think the ruling classes find it so useful?

It can only do so provided I dont sabotage it before it's used.It's protected by men with guns and no compunctions against killing.

The game hasnt even begun.Tough talk coming from a wannabe victim of police brutality.

Rosa Provokateur

2nd February 2009, 18:32

No, what they need is a bullet/half-brick to the brain. Hugging won't do shit.

Seriously, pacifism is a losing strategy, and is correctly percieved as weakness.

The Bible was copied, translated and compiled by Christendom which according to you "is a watered-down, tamed, and castrated version of Jesus' teachings; it's an attempt to bottle his ideas, make them compatable with the ruling powers, and use them as a means to an end. I stand against it as much as I do the State itself"

Jesus' alleged teachings, which you claim to follow, have filtered through something you have viciously criticised. It is disingenuous to follow the written teachings of a man who likely was illiterate, it is not?

Firstly, that's incredibly simplistic. The exploited working class is in a much different position to the slaves and peasants of Jesus' time. For a start, they are vastly more educated and therefore have a chance of siezing power for themselves.

The notion that the "State" (such as it was in Jesus' time) had officers "on every block" is downright ridiculous, and shows an unbelievable ignorance of history. They didn't have the population, technology and expertise to set up anything like the kind of surveillance and enforcement arrangements we have today.

Religious faith encourages servile, unthinking behaviour. Why do you think the ruling classes find it so useful?

It's protected by men with guns and no compunctions against killing.

Tough talk coming from a wannabe victim of police brutality.
You cant liberate a man if he's dead and no man deserves to be denied a place in revolution.

Who's tougher? A man who gets hit and hits back or a man who gets hit and has the self-control and endurance to turn the other cheek? Nothing weak about that as Martin Luther King's legacy can testify.

It's the best record we have and was in use before Constantine took control. Once he took power and integrated the faith with the State organized religion was born and we've been fighting it ever since. I dont judge based on someone's education but on the truth of what they're saying and doing.

Sometimes the facts are simple. Maybe the surveillance wasnt 24/7 but the Romans kept an extremely tight-grip on the region and I see parallel between then and now.

They find everything useful. Even Che's image is used to sell t-shirts and merchandise off of which they profit.

Rather convenient.

Even tougher being a gay man who embraces a faith though the faith's main-stream rejects him.

welshboy

3rd February 2009, 08:37

If it's moot then why do you bother to discredit him?
It's moot because t's about as worthwhile as discussing whether or not Hermione Granger is a feminist! At least Ms Granger is contemporary.
There is not a single piece of evidence that Jesus existed and I challenge those who would say otherwise to produce such evidence.
Please note however that Josephus does not count as the passage referring to a christ is more than likely a forgery.
So come on. If this guy was such a socialist rabble rouser thee must have been some record of him. I mean rthe Romans were such avid record keepers that there must be some sort of evidence of his existence.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd February 2009, 18:58

You cant liberate a man if he's dead and no man deserves to be denied a place in revolution.

You also can't liberate a man who doesn't want to be liberated and who actively works against that liberation. He doesn't deserve a place in the revolution because he doesn't want it.

Who's tougher? A man who gets hit and hits back or a man who gets hit and has the self-control and endurance to turn the other cheek? Nothing weak about that as Martin Luther King's legacy can testify."Turning the other cheek" merely presents your enemy with a fresh target.

I find it hilarious yet sad that you're so ignorant of American history. Firstly, racism is still a problem in the US, and secondly, what gains have been won were accompanied by violent struggle. Haven't you ever considered that perhaps the reason MLK is lauded by sections of borgeouis society is because his personal non-violence didn't actually threaten it?

It's the best record we have and was in use before Constantine took control. Once he took power and integrated the faith with the State organized religion was born and we've been fighting it ever since.Who are "we"?

I dont judge based on someone's education but on the truth of what they're saying and doing.How do you know what someone thousands of years ago said and did if they didn't write it down, but someone else did? How do you know they weren't lying or misremembering?

Sometimes the facts are simple. Maybe the surveillance wasnt 24/7 but the Romans kept an extremely tight-grip on the region and I see parallel between then and now.If you stretch things enough you can draw parrallels between almost anything. Doesn't mean the parrallels are relevant.

They find everything useful. Even Che's image is used to sell t-shirts and merchandise off of which they profit.Unlike religion, Che shirts are a very minor and recent "tool" in the arsenal of the ruling classes.

Rather convenient.It's not "convenient" it's a deliberate motion on the part of the ruling class hegemony to hold on to their power.

Even tougher being a gay man who embraces a faith though the faith's main-stream rejects him.Likewise your own Bible:

Romans 1

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But what else would you expect from the worldview of people from the savage Iron Age?

Rosa Provokateur

5th February 2009, 17:02

You also can't liberate a man who doesn't want to be liberated and who actively works against that liberation. He doesn't deserve a place in the revolution because he doesn't want it.

I find it hilarious yet sad that you're so ignorant of American history. Firstly, racism is still a problem in the US, and secondly, what gains have been won were accompanied by violent struggle. Haven't you ever considered that perhaps the reason MLK is lauded by sections of borgeouis society is because his personal non-violence didn't actually threaten it?

Who are "we"?

How do you know what someone thousands of years ago said and did if they didn't write it down, but someone else did? How do you know they weren't lying or misremembering?

If you stretch things enough you can draw parrallels between almost anything. Doesn't mean the parrallels are relevant.

Unlike religion, Che shirts are a very minor and recent "tool" in the arsenal of the ruling classes.

It's not "convenient" it's a deliberate motion on the part of the ruling class hegemony to hold on to their power.

Likewise your own Bible:

Romans 1

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But what else would you expect from the worldview of people from the savage Iron Age?
Maybe but we have to try.

I never said it wasnt.

If anything you've fallen into a bourgeouis state of mind by saying MLK wasnt a threat to power. The ruling-class has worked hard to soften his image as a radical and you've fallen for it.

Christians who recognize that the faith has been hi-jacked, see through the facade of organized religion, and are working to take it back.

These men were willing to die for it. I highly doubt that anyone would willingly die for something they knew to be un-true.

Point taken.

Half-true. By utilizing his image, Che has been turned into little more than a bill-board and has been almost sapped of his passion and idealism. They did it to Jesus, they did it to MLK, and they're doing it to Che. They have no problems using our martyrs and freedom-fighters against us.

Agreed.

It was against their nature, they were born straight and abandoned their natural heterosexuality to pursue what they werent meant for. If I, being born gay, abandoned my nature and pursued heterosexual sex I'd be in the same boat.

The only savage attitude I see is that of judgmentalism.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th February 2009, 17:26

Maybe but we have to try.

Waste of time. If they haven't laid down their arms or joined our side by the time the revolution rolls around, it's obvious they have their mind made up.

I never said it wasnt. The point was that MLK would never have got to point he got to without violent struggle by others.

If anything you've fallen into a bourgeouis state of mind by saying MLK wasnt a threat to power. The ruling-class has worked hard to soften his image as a radical and you've fallen for it.Your focus on the personage of MLK is what is borgeouis, not my perception of him. Although having said that most serious borgeouis historians have given up on the "great man" theory of history.

Christians who recognize that the faith has been hi-jacked, see through the facade of organized religion, and are working to take it back.Many Christians would dispute that the Christian faith has been "hijacked". What makes you right and not them?

These men were willing to die for it. I highly doubt that anyone would willingly die for something they knew to be un-true.People have been historically speaking willing to die for a great many follies. Willingness to die for something only proves that they percieve it as important to them, nothing else.

Point taken.

Half-true. By utilizing his image, Che has been turned into little more than a bill-board and has been almost sapped of his passion and idealism. They did it to Jesus, they did it to MLK, and they're doing it to Che. They have no problems using our martyrs and freedom-fighters against us.Which is why it's not a good idea to "follow" personalities or "great men", but to think for oneself.

Agreed.

It was against their nature, they were born straight and abandoned their natural heterosexuality to pursue what they werent meant for. If I, being born gay, abandoned my nature and pursued heterosexual sex I'd be in the same boat. How could you possibly know this? Especially considering Christian attiudes to homosexual behaviour.

The only savage attitude I see is that of judgmentalism.If judging was the only thing that believers did, the world would be a much better place.

Rosa Provokateur

6th February 2009, 01:42

Waste of time. If they haven't laid down their arms or joined our side by the time the revolution rolls around, it's obvious they have their mind made up.

The point was that MLK would never have got to point he got to without violent struggle by others.

Your focus on the personage of MLK is what is borgeouis, not my perception of him. Although having said that most serious borgeouis historians have given up on the "great man" theory of history.

Many Christians would dispute that the Christian faith has been "hijacked". What makes you right and not them?

People have been historically speaking willing to die for a great many follies. Willingness to die for something only proves that they percieve it as important to them, nothing else.

Which is why it's not a good idea to "follow" personalities or "great men", but to think for oneself.

How could you possibly know this? Especially considering Christian attiudes to homosexual behaviour.

If judging was the only thing that believers did, the world would be a much better place.
There are no sides, no black and white. There are people and a system that harms them. Destroy the system--spare the people.

No violence was needed to de-segregate the buses or get the integration movement going. The recourse to violent methods was a retreat from what the Civil Rights movement was supposed to be about, not just for black people but all people. "Black Power" created an "us vs. them" mentality and took the focus off of who was at the center of it all, everybody.

I dont focus on him but I do give him the recognition I feel he deserves and recognize that his ideas were then and are now radical socialist.

I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. I'm here to say that the mainstream-culture, society, has warped the faith and twisted it into an establishment catering to the status-quo.

So, historically speaking, your cause isnt true but you only perceive it as being important?

I think for myself and the conclusions I've come across lead me to believe that Jesus Christ exemplified the best way to live and even if he didnt exist, his words and teachings as written in the New Testament exemplify the best way to live. Because of these conclusions I've given my life to doing the best I can to live up to that example and teach those who are willing to do so also.

It's whats in the Bible. They turned away from their own nature and what was natural to them. Read the verse you quoted.

Agreed, but even judging should be put to a stop.

Glorious Union

6th February 2009, 02:11

The fact that you can proove Jesus was a socialist will not change many people's opinions about their own political beleifs. Jesus is used as a right wing symbol a lot of the time to get the religious to follow them.

This is the way they want to see him and finding a few verses in the bible will not change their opinions. Until the bible outright claims socialism or communism to be the right path these religious patriots will disagree with you on every point you make.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th February 2009, 02:57

There are no sides, no black and white. There are people and a system that harms them. Destroy the system--spare the people.

Actually, there are sides. That's what class struggle is all about.

No violence was needed to de-segregate the buses or get the integration movement going. The recourse to violent methods was a retreat from what the Civil Rights movement was supposed to be about, not just for black people but all people. "Black Power" created an "us vs. them" mentality and took the focus off of who was at the center of it all, everybody.But MLK didn't lead or take part in a revolution. What he did was decent and noble but he didn't threaten the existance of bourgeouis society.

I dont focus on him but I do give him the recognition I feel he deserves and recognize that his ideas were then and are now radical socialist.A bright and influential individual, but MLK a radical socialist? Give me a break.

I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. I'm here to say that the mainstream-culture, society, has warped the faith and twisted it into an establishment catering to the status-quo.If you're not saying whether they're wrong or right, then by what standard do you measure that the faith has been "warped"? Relative to what?

So, historically speaking, your cause isnt true but you only perceive it as being important?My cause? From what I know my cause is true... but I could be wrong. I'm only human.

I think for myself and the conclusions I've come across lead me to believe that Jesus Christ exemplified the best way to live and even if he didnt exist, his words and teachings as written in the New Testament exemplify the best way to live.Really? Old JC seemed fond of the Old Testament traditions (Matthew 5:17). But then he turned a strange yellow colour and lied to protect his disciples (Matthew 12:2-5), referring to a non-existant scripture. Seems like there's one law for Jesus and his mates but a different law for everyone else. Has your eye offended you? According to Jesus you gotta pluck that out (Matthew 5:29-30). You'd better not swear the oath in court (Matthew 5:34-37) after you have your son stoned for being cheeky to you. Don't bother defending yourself either (Matthew 5:40).

But then, what do you expect from a collection of books and letters published over a long time and hacked together in a compilation centuries before the present?

Oh, and Jesus liked calling people vipers (Matthew 12:34, also 3:7 and 23:13-37) and various other zingers, so perhaps you ought to ginger up your posts a bit. He's definately more fiery than the milksop persona you seem to attach to him.

Because of these conclusions I've given my life to doing the best I can to live up to that example and teach those who are willing to do so also.You obviously have barely looked in your Bible. Remember that's your only available source of Jesus' alleged teachings. By the way, it's a mess of contradictions in the first book of the New Testament alone.

It's whats in the Bible. They turned away from their own nature and what was natural to them. Read the verse you quoted.That's Paul's opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct.

Agreed, but even judging should be put to a stop.I judge who I please, how I please. Others judge me. Nobody gets hurt by judgement alone.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th February 2009, 05:55

Once again I have to say August is right.

And you're right too NoXion. Fuck pacificism unless you wish to get fucked (but not in every situation, obviously).

ZeroNowhere

6th February 2009, 13:47

Who's tougher? A man who gets hit and hits back or a man who gets hit and has the self-control and endurance to turn the other cheek?
How is this not going to end up simply as a baseless judgment?

welshboy

6th February 2009, 17:36

The fact that you can proove Jesus was a socialist will not change many people's opinions about their own political beleifs. Jesus is used as a right wing symbol a lot of the time to get the religious to follow them.
I can prove that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a feminist with socialist leanings
Doesn't mean that she existed or that anyone should model their lives on her.

Rosa Provokateur

10th February 2009, 01:48

Rosa Provokateur

10th February 2009, 02:10

Actually, there are sides. That's what class struggle is all about.

But MLK didn't lead or take part in a revolution. What he did was decent and noble but he didn't threaten the existance of bourgeouis society.

A bright and influential individual, but MLK a radical socialist? Give me a break.

If you're not saying whether they're wrong or right, then by what standard do you measure that the faith has been "warped"? Relative to what?

My cause? From what I know my cause is true... but I could be wrong. I'm only human.

Really? Old JC seemed fond of the Old Testament traditions (Matthew 5:17). But then he turned a strange yellow colour and lied to protect his disciples (Matthew 12:2-5), referring to a non-existant scripture. Seems like there's one law for Jesus and his mates but a different law for everyone else. Has your eye offended you? According to Jesus you gotta pluck that out (Matthew 5:29-30). You'd better not swear the oath in court (Matthew 5:34-37) after you have your son stoned for being cheeky to you. Don't bother defending yourself either (Matthew 5:40).

But then, what do you expect from a collection of books and letters published over a long time and hacked together in a compilation centuries before the present?

Oh, and Jesus liked calling people vipers (Matthew 12:34, also 3:7 and 23:13-37) and various other zingers, so perhaps you ought to ginger up your posts a bit. He's definately more fiery than the milksop persona you seem to attach to him.

That's Paul's opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct.

I judge who I please, how I please. Others judge me. Nobody gets hurt by judgement alone.
I dont believe in class-struggle; that 20th century theory is old and has produced no fruit.

He brought a nation of people a sense of dignity and respect where before they almost had none, that sounds very revolutionary to me.

As sure as I am that the sky is blue, thats how much MLK was a radical socialist.

Relative to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Agreed.

In Matthew 5:17 he was declaring that he was the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, that he was the promised Messiah. I'd hardly call 1Samuel 21:1-6 non-existent. Matthew 5:29-30 was a metaphor for lust and how to prevent it before it leads to trouble. Matthew 5:35-37 is teaching not to use anything like swearing on the Bible, etc. to make an oath have weight but rather only make an oath that you're capable of keeping. Matthew 5:40 is a teaching on how to win your enemies over to your side.

No doubt he was fiery, thats why the Pharisees wanted him dead.

Then why use it as ammo if you dont think it's correct?

Point taken.

Jazzratt

10th February 2009, 02:53

I dont believe in class-struggle; that 20th century theory is old and has produced no fruit.

So you're not a leftist? Class struggle is the only realistic way of achieving socialism. Praying to jesus and asking the bourgeoisie very nicely if they wouldn't mind giving up on the whole exploitation thing is not a realistic strategy.

He brought a nation of people a sense of dignity and respect where before they almost had none, that sounds very revolutionary to me.

No he didn't. No more than Churchill defeated Nazism. You have the temerity to insinuate class struggle is outdated, yet here you are dragging out some Great Man theory bullshit.

The sense of dignity and respect came from the actions of hundreds of people and while Dr. King is one of the better remembered examples of this (especially by the bourgeoisie) he was certainly not the most radical nor the most important.

As sure as I am that the sky is blue, thats how much MLK was a radical socialist.

Astounding proof of your claims there, champ.

welshboy

10th February 2009, 08:10

I dont believe in class-struggle; that 20th century theory is old and has produced no fruit.

So why call yourself an anarchist?

As sure as I am that the sky is blue, thats how much MLK was a radical socialist.

OK so you admit that MLK isn't a socialist? the sky's a kind of neon pink at the moment.

No doubt he was fiery, thats why the Pharisees wanted him dead.

Why would they want him dead if never existed?

Rosa Provokateur

10th February 2009, 14:41

So you're not a leftist? Class struggle is the only realistic way of achieving socialism. Praying to jesus and asking the bourgeoisie very nicely if they wouldn't mind giving up on the whole exploitation thing is not a realistic strategy.

No he didn't. No more than Churchill defeated Nazism. You have the temerity to insinuate class struggle is outdated, yet here you are dragging out some Great Man theory bullshit.

The sense of dignity and respect came from the actions of hundreds of people and while Dr. King is one of the better remembered examples of this (especially by the bourgeoisie) he was certainly not the most radical nor the most important.

Astounding proof of your claims there, champ.
I consider myself Leftist but I wont stick to ideas that I dont believe in. Is there class, yes. Do I desire to abolish class, yes. But is class struggle the core of importance or is it the single-viable means to a revolution, no. I dont intend to ask them for anything. I intend to take it without taking lives.

Some men are great and I know that he didnt do it on his own. Bayard Rustin, the SNCC, NAACP, Malcolm X, etc. all played a hand and indirectly or directly lead the Civil Roghts movement to victory. MLK doesnt deserve all credit but I dont think it would have gone as well if he wasnt there.

Rosa Provokateur

10th February 2009, 14:42

So why call yourself an anarchist?

OK so you admit that MLK isn't a socialist? the sky's a kind of neon pink at the moment.

Why would they want him dead if never existed?
Because I believe that the State is un-natural and that life without it is not only desirable but possible.

Kudos, good wit.

I dont know. I guess he existed.

welshboy

10th February 2009, 17:39

I dont know. I guess he existed.

In all likelihood he didn't. The myth is a hodge podge of earlier pagan myths and hero stories.
If you can point me to any contemporary refereance to the christ I'll eat my hat. It's a damn fine hat too.

Decolonize The Left

10th February 2009, 23:23

I consider myself Leftist but I wont stick to ideas that I dont believe in. Is there class, yes. Do I desire to abolish class, yes. But is class struggle the core of importance or is it the single-viable means to a revolution, no. I dont intend to ask them for anything. I intend to take it without taking lives.

That's a might fine intention, but it's also highly unrealistic.

If you agree that class exists, then you understand that the capitalist class gains political, economic, social, and military power by existing. You must also understand that power corrupts, and hence this class will not release this power willingly.

If you agree with all this, and it's highly logical and apt (history is proof), then how do you intend to "take it without taking lives?"

- August

Rosa Provokateur

12th February 2009, 04:14

In all likelihood he didn't. The myth is a hodge podge of earlier pagan myths and hero stories.
If you can point me to any contemporary refereance to the christ I'll eat my hat. It's a damn fine hat too.
No serious historian or scholar that I know of doubts that a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth. His divinity depends on who you talk to but his existence in not a question.

Rosa Provokateur

12th February 2009, 04:16

That's a might fine intention, but it's also highly unrealistic.

If you agree that class exists, then you understand that the capitalist class gains political, economic, social, and military power by existing. You must also understand that power corrupts, and hence this class will not release this power willingly.

If you agree with all this, and it's highly logical and apt (history is proof), then how do you intend to "take it without taking lives?"

- August
What can I say, I'm an idealist:)

Agreed.

Love and compassion. How that love and compassion will be acted out, I dont know but I think love and compassion will be or should be the key elements.

welshboy

12th February 2009, 07:11

No serious historian or scholar that I know of doubts that a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth. His divinity depends on who you talk to but his existence in not a question.

Tell you what then, you go ask one of those 'serious historian or scholar'(s) to provide any form of contemporary evidence for the existence of a Jesus of the historical period. One single, solitary referance.
Go on.
Dare you.
The earlliest reference is in Josephus History of the Jews and the passage that mentions him is widely discredited for many reasons. Not least that it's a blatant forgery added in by a medieaval scholar and the passage in question makes mistakes that Josephus, the most highly respected historian of the period and region, would never make.
Also the bible can not be quoted as a historical reference as it contains so much myth and legend and historical inaccuracies as to be of no use as a source.
Roman records and the writings of Jewish scholars however make no mention of this so called man-god and it's not until many decades after his supposed death that the Jesus cult is started by Saul.
Saul who, in all of his teachings, never once mentions many of the stories in the bible about the christ. In fact he doesn't even put the christ in a historical context and instead talks in allegory and myth.
It's much, much later that anyone attempts to make a case for a historical christ and the dates given bounce back and forth all over the place for many years.
Oh and to top it off the home of the parents of the Nazarene did not even exist until two centuries after he was supposed to have been born!(no historical record of Nazareth until at least 200CE)
So come on, here's a gauntlet for you. Give me one contemporary reference to the existence of the christ that comes from a respected scholarly/historical source.

Jazzratt

13th February 2009, 23:11

I consider myself Leftist but I wont stick to ideas that I dont believe in. Is there class, yes. Do I desire to abolish class, yes. But is class struggle the core of importance or is it the single-viable means to a revolution, no.

So you suggest that class is destroyed, but don't actually have a concrete idea of how? If not through the constant struggle of workers against the bosses (violent and peaceful depending on the situation) how do you suggest we go about it? Wait for wizard in the sky to magic it all better? :rolleyes:

I dont intend to ask them for anything. I intend to take it without taking lives.

What a great idea! Tell you what, you try to take something meaningful from the bourgeoisie and if the largest piece of you that we can peel off the walls is capable of speaking you can tell me all about it.

Some men are great

This doesn't make them the driving force of history or even particularly relevant to it. "Great men", such as they are, are not particularly special; they are convenient figures on which to hang the responsibility for historical inevitabilities. If the Rev. Dr. was stillborn there would, no doubt, be another figure revered by the bourgeois as the "safe face of black power".

I know that he didnt do it on his own. Bayard Rustin, the SNCC, NAACP, Malcolm X, etc. all played a hand and indirectly or directly lead the Civil Roghts movement to victory. MLK doesnt deserve all credit but I dont think it would have gone as well if he wasnt there.

Even mentioning various individuals (and to a lesser extent the names of organisations) is a bit naive. Are you suggesting that without Rustin, X, King or whatever the black community at the time would have been completely unable to organise? Do you consider, perhaps, that MLK was a lot like Gandhi; non-violent and victorious because others were able to be violent in the name of his ideas?

No serious historian or scholar that I know of doubts that a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth.

Speak to a lot of historians and scholars, do you?

His divinity depends on who you talk to but his existence in not a question.

Not in question? Whoops. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html)

Rosa Provokateur

16th February 2009, 03:26

So you suggest that class is destroyed, but don't actually have a concrete idea of how? If not through the constant struggle of workers against the bosses (violent and peaceful depending on the situation) how do you suggest we go about it? Wait for wizard in the sky to magic it all better? :rolleyes:

What a great idea! Tell you what, you try to take something meaningful from the bourgeoisie and if the largest piece of you that we can peel off the walls is capable of speaking you can tell me all about it.

This doesn't make them the driving force of history or even particularly relevant to it. "Great men", such as they are, are not particularly special; they are convenient figures on which to hang the responsibility for historical inevitabilities. If the Rev. Dr. was stillborn there would, no doubt, be another figure revered by the bourgeois as the "safe face of black power".

Even mentioning various individuals (and to a lesser extent the names of organisations) is a bit naive. Are you suggesting that without Rustin, X, King or whatever the black community at the time would have been completely unable to organise? Do you consider, perhaps, that MLK was a lot like Gandhi; non-violent and victorious because others were able to be violent in the name of his ideas?

Speak to a lot of historians and scholars, do you?

Not in question? Whoops. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html)
Why not non-violent struggle?

Deal.

In theory.

No, these people and things were a result of black people's ability to organize. Violence didnt integrate the buses ans schools, non-violent civil-disobedience did; it worked then and can work now. I'm not familiar with the Indian struggle so I cant make an honest opinion concerning Gandhi.

No, do you? It's just un-heard of among historians that the man didnt exist, even the ones that dont see him as divine. The only people I see out to revise history are militant atheists.

My point exactly.

welshboy

16th February 2009, 12:51

No, do you? It's just un-heard of among historians that the man didnt exist, even the ones that dont see him as divine. The only people I see out to revise history are militant atheists.

I do, I speak to historians on a fairly regular basis and the historicity of Jesus is in serious doubt.
Please provide me with some evidence for his existence. The burden of proof is on you boyo.

welshboy

16th February 2009, 14:26

Oh, and please tell me that there's more evidence for the existence of jay-sus that there is for Julius Caesar!
I actually had a zombie cultist say that to me last year.:mad:

graffic

18th February 2009, 22:31

Killfacer

18th February 2009, 23:09

Well Jesus was all for "treat your neighbor as yourself", "Love your enemies", "give to the poor", "put others first"

Sounds very socialist to me.

In fact if Jesus was here today I imagine he would be one of the most fervent anti-capitalists around...

I also think Jesus did exist. There is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is Caesar existed. Whether he was the son of God is another question.

Didn't he also think he was the son of god? Doesn't sound particuarly socialist.

There are thousands of stories which paint Jesus and a frankly callous prick. Read God is not Great...

welshboy

19th February 2009, 00:16

WeThere is more evidence that Jesus existed than there is Caesar existed. Whether he was the son of God is another question.

Show me some then, go on. Anything. One shred that stands up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
http://www.museum-replicas.com/images/productimages/small/JUlius%20ceasar.jpg
http://www.romanemperors.com/images/julius-caesar/julius-venus-coin.jpg

Hit The North

19th February 2009, 00:31

No serious historian or scholar that I know of doubts that a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth. His divinity depends on who you talk to but his existence in not a question.

Name one reputable history scholar who would put his reputation on the line that Jesus existed and I'll show you a charlatan. There is not one single contemporaneous account of the existence of Jesus and I challenge you to provide evidence otherwise.

graffic

20th February 2009, 14:50

Show me some then, go on. Anything. One shred that stands up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
http://www.museum-replicas.com/images/productimages/small/JUlius%20ceasar.jpg
http://www.romanemperors.com/images/julius-caesar/julius-venus-coin.jpg

I've been told this by my history teacher and a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer. I trust them enough to believe it, a lot more than someone I don't know on an internet forum.

I think there are loads of texts written by Romans at the time that talk about Jesus.

Hit The North

20th February 2009, 19:30

Well graffic, your teacher is lying to you (it goes without saying that the lawyer is lying!:lol:). There is not one single eye-witness account.

You should check this book out: http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Evidence-Jesus-G-Wells/dp/087975429X

Think about it: the one book which is concerned with proving the existence of Jesus is the New Testament and yet there is not one source in there written by anyone who knew Jesus. The earliest accounts are written several decades after his supposed crucifixtion.

welshboy

20th February 2009, 22:11

It's true what Bob says. the earliest reference to the existence of a christ is the History of the Jews by Josephus. Which as I mentioned earlier is almost surely a fake.
The Romans do not mention him once.

brigadista

20th February 2009, 22:55

I know most people here will oppose religion and be atheist. But I find this approach fun and useful when arguing with Christians. I frequently get into debates with right wing christians who deny Jesus was left wing.

Thus, I'd like people to post for me in this thread all the quotes which would hint at Jesus, based on his teachings, was a socialist.

Of course I achknowledge he wasn't really the son of god and stuff, but just as a person, based on what he said.

i dont bother - the xtians round here are a lost cause...

iamnotashamedtosay

3rd April 2010, 02:25

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."

Do you even understand what this means? The needle was the side entrance to the city. It was hard but not impossible for a camel to sqeeze through the needle. It would have to get down and crawl through on its knees.

Jesus instructed his disciples to earn their keep and never take a handout when someone welcomes them to their home. Jesus taught us to take care of each other not to rely on a government or ruler to do for the least of our brothers that which we should do ourself.

iamnotashamedtosay

3rd April 2010, 02:35

i dont bother - the xtians round here are a lost cause...

Jesus instructed his followers never to take a handout when staying in a strangers house and to always earn every meal so that they will know their hearts are pure. He preached that we should be a moral people and always take care of the least of our brother. Never did he demand that the government or your neighbors take the fruits of your labor against your will. He instructed each person that the choice to be loving and charitable rests solely on the shoulders of the individual.

What you have done for the least of your brothers you have done for me.

Never did Jesus preach socialism. If he did then why do socialist governments deny religious freedom or the freedom to worship Christ? Does that make any sense that Christ would preach an idea that would not only fail to promote his good works but actually try to exterminate his teachings?

iamnotashamedtosay

3rd April 2010, 02:45

Well graffic, your teacher is lying to you (it goes without saying that the lawyer is lying!:lol:). There is not one single eye-witness account.

You should check this book out:

Think about it: the one book which is concerned with proving the existence of Jesus is the New Testament and yet there is not one source in there written by anyone who knew Jesus. The earliest accounts are written several decades after his supposed crucifixtion.

Catholicism has apostolic continuation with Peter being the first Pope. How do you think they know that without written evidence.

Second, this story is a fable? How did this fable stand the test of time if it is untrue? Why would people subject themselves to persecution and death over a fable?

True the New Testament was written much later and no one argues that. People did not have laptops and all stories were passed on orally for the most part.

Even the Islamic and Jewish faith acknowledge the existence of Jesus they simply dont believe He was the Word Incarnate.

Dave B

3rd April 2010, 14:48

Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum passage has clearly been tampered with, of that there is no doubt. However the general view from an analysis of the text etc is that it was not a straightforward insert. And that there was probably something there that had been tampered with or fundamentally changed.

That is obviously a bit controversial

Also there was apparently a Christian scholar can’t remember the details who had an ‘original’ copy of Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum circa 400AD. Who failed to comment on the said passage or if he did It didn’t survive.

Suggesting that it wasn’t there in the ‘present’ form or perhaps what was there was ‘hostile’.

Tacitus mentions the ‘Christians’ although that is also suspected of Christian tampering, but less convincingly.

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

More on that below;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ)
Justin Martyr writing around 150Ad seems to be aware of the existance and content of the four gospels mentioned in incidental kind of way.Thus;

VIII. Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr of Rome composed his first Apology to an emperor in 150 A.D., the second around 161 A.D. (scholars continue to debate whether there were really two, whether the two we have were originally those two, or only one of them that was later split up, and so on). He also wrote a Dialogue with Trypho [the Jew] which relates what purports to be a debate held around 135 A.D. (M 143-8). In the first of these works, Justin describes "Memoirs of the Apostles" (borrowing consciously from the idea of Xenophon's "Memoirs of Socrates") which he says are called Gospels (1st Apology 66.3).

He quotes Luke, Matthew and Mark, and uses distinctly Johanine theology, which accords to a great deal with the Judaized Neoplatonism of Philo the Jew, who wrote c. 40 A.D. Justin calls Mark the "Memoirs of Peter" (M 145), perhaps influenced by Papias (or both are following a common oral tradition). Justin also tells us that services were conducted by reading from these books, followed by a sermon, then communal prayer (1st Apology 67.3-5), demonstrating the rising interest in and use of written texts in the churches.

Justin's choice of Gospels could have been influenced by his location (Rome) or some other preferences unknown to us, but it is a crucial consideration because the first "orthodox" canon is devised by Justin's pupil, Tatian, who would thus have favored the choices of the man who had converted and instructed him. Finally, Justin quotes a lot of additional oral tradition outside these Gospels (M 147-8), including the belief that Jesus was born in a cave outside Bethlehem (Dialogue with Trypho 78.5). He also refers to the Revelation to John, but never mentions or quotes any Epistles.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#VIII (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html)

The gospels contain a prophecy that JC would return before everyone then living had died, which obviously never happened.

Described by C.S Lewis for instance as;

"the most embarrassing verse in the Bible"

However that would suggest that it was written before everyone then living had died.

Otherwise an amazing piece of honest or stupid reporting of what was said etc

It is Mark 13;28 and elsewhere.

There is an alternative explanation that it has been jumbled up; and that it meant to say that within a generation of the formation of a new Jewish state or when the fig tree starts putting out it leaves etc then things will kick off.

That would be a bit more in keeping with the second temple kind of crap that we are all familiar with and which originates from olds testament material.

There appears to be something connected to this in the addendum to the gospel of John chapter 21;

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumour spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

Engels dates the authorship of the book of revelation to between June AD 67 and January or April AD 68;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)

Dave B

3rd April 2010, 18:04

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus)

http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm (http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Word)

...

tradeunionsupporter

5th April 2010, 06:21

I agree with this.

Dave B

5th April 2010, 16:11

There are in fact two passages in The Antiquities of the Jews (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews) by the Jewish historian Josephus (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Josephus), written in the late first century AD that refer to or are potentially relevant to the ‘historicity of Jesus’.

The first passage which is universally accepted as a forgery is often called the Testimonium Flavianum and is;

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.</SPAN>

The second is generally accepted as genuine, robbed from wikipedia;

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Porcius_Festus), sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Hanan_ben_Hanan). Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests.

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sadducees), who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sanhedrin) of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;

they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Alexandria), and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Actually Origen mentions this ‘incident’ and second passage, in direct connection to Josephus (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Josephus)’s ‘The Antiquities of the Jews (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews)’. And perhaps ironically exposes the first passage as a later fraud.

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book X.

17. The Brethren of Jesus

And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Gal. i. 19.]

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

So Origen said that Josephus ‘did not accept Jesus as Christ’.

However in the so called ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ Joesephus is supposed to have said ‘He was [the] Christ (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Christ)’.

It also raises another question as to why Origen thought that Josephus ‘did not accept Jesus as Christ’; in that that implies that somewhere Josephus said as much.

Which again throws things back to the idea or possibility that the Testimonium Flavianum passage originally denied the ‘christ’ like status of JC and that that was then altered.

You could of course argue that the whole of Origens stuff and even the second Josephus passage are christian forgeries, but if they were, they have made a right dog’s bollocks of it.

What makes Contra Celsum so convincing is that the argument from Celsum is a pretty vicious and powerful attack on Christianity from a neo-Platonic polytheism position; which was all the rage then; as far as modern rational thought was concerned, even if It might look silly to us now.

So it doesn’t look like a forged knock over the strawman kind of thing.

(It would be highly unlikely that given what Celsum said that he was, as Origen was led to believe, an Epicurean and thus a materialist and therefore theoretically an atheist.)

Celsum appears to be familiar with the basic ‘history of Jesus’ including much detail and doesn’t appear to question its ‘historicity’.

Having said that ‘critical historical analysis’ wasn’t exactly in vogue at that time, not from neo-Platonists anyway, and it was usually a matter of attacking the ideas.

As to ‘Jesus’s socialism’ or ‘early Christian socialism’ it does appear, as Engels said, that it was at this time predominantly a ‘working class, non intellectual movement’ with perhaps a tinge of anarcho-syndicalism or Socialist Industrial Unionism.

BOOK 8

Chap. 75

Celsus also urges us to;

"take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion."

But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation--that is, the Church--rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy.

And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God--for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all--of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshipping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God.