Results 1 to 20 of 104
"Revolutionary Christian" Is Oxymoronic
If you ultimately rely on god** to make revolution, then you're ultimately not relying on the masses. If you believe that reality is ultimately immutable, then you ultimately deny that society is transformable.
Also, rather than doing something, this is ultimately about being something. In short, it's all ineffectual regardless of sincerity.
**Another form of fatalism
I don't think revolutionary Christians "rely" on God for the revolution per se, considering an influential phrase within Christian circles is "God helps those who helps themselves." Rather, I believe revolutionary Christian provides a theological basis for socialist thinking by way of their reading and interpretation of the Bible.
I'm sorry, but no.
I'm not religious, but claiming that someone cannot be a christian revolutionary is ridiculous. They don't rely on god (well, some might claim to...), they, in my experience, tend to believe in organizing in exactly the same way as the average leftist. Also, I imagine there have been a good number of Christian revolutionaries in the past. I'm under the impression Tolstoy was one of them (I've never read anything I've just heard him cited by others).
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
Sun Yat-sen vs Ravn: Go!
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
Doxxer beat me to it. I'm not a Christian either, but there have been many Christian revolutionaries, Tolstoy definitely being one of them, and many anarchist/communist communities in the past have been built on "Christian" foundations.
Isn't Ravn right though?
They might be right about individual cases but it obviously isn't true about religious people as a whole since people have already pointed out exceptions.
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
They tend to be rather annoying with their talk of God, spirits, the after life, etc but that doesn't mean they inherently rely on these forces for revolution and it is not a means to dismiss their revolutionary potential.
"The people have proved that they can run it... They (the pigs) can call it what they want to, they can talk about it. They can call it communism, and think that that's gonna scare somebody, but it ain't gonna scare nobody" ― Fred Hampton
“Mao Zedong said that power grows from the barrel of a gun. He never said that power was a gun. This is why I don't need no gun to do my thing. What I need is some freedom and the power to determine my destiny” ― Huey P. Newton
Here is the problem, if they were real Christians then they could not be revolutionaries. It is oxymoronic like the OP says. Maybe there are 'Christian Revolutionaries' but they are not really Christians then....So do we still call them that? I mean it contradicts everything Christians are about.
Last edited by RevolutionaryThinker; 24th November 2014 at 19:32.
Please see: No true Scotsman
And while I'm posting relevant links, Freddie Engels's The Peasant War in Germany in which a noted atheist waxes poetic about Christians attempting to establish communism, and the blurring of Christianity and materialism.
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
I am having trouble understanding what you mean, do you agree with me or not? And I'll try to find the time to read that.Please see: No true Scotsman
And while I'm posting relevant links, Freddie Engels's The Peasant War in Germany in which a noted atheist waxes poetic about Christians attempting to establish communism, and the blurring of Christianity and materialism.
I mean if you read the bible (like any good Atheist) you'd know the religion is all about obedience and not questioning things. This isn't what revolutionaries are suppose to act like I don't think. Christians, you are doing it wrong if you are trying to start a revolution.
Like any good atheist? So we can have a never ending unproductive argument with believers?
But anyway, I've heard some very convincing cases against what you're saying (even if I personally think god isn't real or whatever).
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
no, he isn't.
"Waxing poetically"? Hardly. Here is what Engels actually says:And while I'm posting relevant links, Freddie Engels's The Peasant War in Germany in which a noted atheist waxes poetic about Christians attempting to establish communism, and the blurring of Christianity and materialism.
"This position of the plebeians is sufficient explanation as to why the plebeian opposition of that time could not be satisfied with fighting feudalism and the privileged middle-class alone; why, in fantasy, at least, it reached beyond modern bourgeois society then only in its inception; why, being an absolutely propertyless faction, it questioned institutions, views and conceptions common to every society based on division of classes. The chiliastic dream-visions ancient Christianity offered in this respect a very serviceable starting-point. On the other hand, this reaching out beyond not only the present but also the future, could not help being violently fantastic. At the first practical application, it naturally fell back into narrow limits set by prevailing conditions. The attack on private property, the demand for community of possession had to solve itself into a crude organisation of charity; vague Christian equality could result in nothing but civic equality before the law; abolition of all officialdom transformed itself finally in the organisation of republican governments elected by the people. Anticipation of communism by human fantasy was in reality anticipation of modern bourgeois conditions."
Calling something "violently fantastic", "vague" and so on is hardly praise; of course, Engels couldn't possibly praise the Muntzerites etc. for trying to establish communism when he knew (1) they would necessarily fail; and (2) that this "communism" of theirs was only vaguely connected to modern, proletarian communism if at that.
Here is the thing: anyone who is a Christian is necessarily a follower of a religion that extols private property, non-violence toward the ruling classes, and the family, as well as being misogynist, homophobic etc., but apparently no one cares about such minor matters. Therefore, a consistent Christian can't be a consistent revolutionary.
And Tolstoy a revolutionary? Good god.
there's some good work out there that posits Christ as a revolutionary, fighting against the Roman and Jewish elites who were exploiting the poor and slaves. JD Crossan has an immense amount of work with regards to this that i would recommend the OP check out, specifically The Historical Jesus and Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.
You people should listen to 870.
no, 870 has already established himself to be an idiot where it regards politics and religion.
I think more Atheists read the Bible than Christians. If Christians actually read the Bible, then they would become Atheists too.
Can we not call people names?
lol, fuck you.
