Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is what happens when a religion is hijacked for political gain

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:35 PM
Original message
This is what happens when a religion is hijacked for political gain
Today Christians ... stand at the head of ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years."
- Adolf Hitler


As a liberal Christian who has seen our messages silenced..pulled from the air.. it is always an important thing to remember that the tyrants will use citizens own belts to hang them from the crossbeams



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. No True Scotsman...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. somebody is going to have to explain the scotman thing to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. A Tired Forensic Wheeze, Ma'am
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 04:05 PM by The Magistrate
The origin is this pattern of argument.

Person A says "Scotsmen love haggis."

Person B says "Mr. Mackenzie down our street can't stand the stuff! Spits it right out."

Person A replies "Well, he's not a true Scotsman."

It is employed when a person who clearly is a member of some identifiable group, usually religious or political, says or does something some other member of that group finds embarrassing or repellent. Thus, when some televangelist says, for instance, that President Obama is the Anti-Christ, to thunderous applause from his congregation, some will say 'But they aren't real Christians, that's not what Christianity is all about." It works both ways, of course. When a liberal cleric stands up and says "Christ taught people should give up their possessions and minister to the poor, so tax breaks for the rich while cutting Medicare is un-Christian!" fundamentalists preachers will cry that he is no real Christian, and that that is not what Christianity is all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. TY for the explanation
I had seen that a number of times lately and did not have a clue what it was referencing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Here's the original source.
From Anthony Flew:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. wow, somebody unrecced this? a little scared of the truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What truth? Everything in the OP seems like opinion. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. you mean the quote from hitler? are you the unrec?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. I mean the post in its entirety, as a whole object. It's an opinion based OP.
No, I am not the unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Okay I'll bite.. what in my op is opinion only?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. "This is what happens when a religion is hijacked for political gain"
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 05:04 PM by ZombieHorde
The opinion in this statement is "a religion is hijacked for political gain.".

The quote is present to offer "an example" of your opinion. But we don't really know if he was sincere in his Christianity, or the one proper way to be a Christian. We have to guess and form opinions.

:graybox:"As a liberal Christian who has seen our messages silenced..pulled from the air.. it is always an important thing to remember that the tyrants will use citizens own belts to hang them from the crossbeams":graybox:

One person's tyrant is another person's great leader. Even if we all agree, it's still an opinion.

Saying liberal Christians have had their message silenced is hyperbolic. Liberal Christian values -tolerance, charity, humility- are often present in movies and television.

Edit to add: Opinion OPs are not bad in any way, I was just pointing out it wasn't a fact based OP. I write and enjoy opinion OPs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. The point of the Hitler quote
was that he was not sincere in saying he was a Christian. You cannot take up the precept of the great commandment and be sincere in being a Christian.. He was using it as a ploy.

Secondly

It might at first glance seem hyperbolic..

This was banned from Network TV. When people wonder where the liberal Christian community is.. well they are out there, but having a heck of a time breaking through.

http://wn.com/United_Church_of_Christ_UCC_Bouncer_TV_Ad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. There are a lot of different interpretations of Christianity, but they're all opinion.
You have your interpretation and Hitler had his. I like your interpretation significantly more than Hitler's, but you cannot prove your interpretation is the correct one, you can only convince others your interpretation is the right one.

I know that ad had problems, but that is one piece of media out of many. I wish the ad didn't have any problems, but the liberal Christian message has not been silenced. Liberal commentators often show things from a liberal Christian perspective. Some comedies show things from a liberal Christian perspective as well.

Recently, an atheist billboard was taken down, but I don't think atheists have been silenced by this act.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. You miss the point.... but I tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. No, he knows what your point was.
You're just not getting his. If you could prove someone else was following the wrong interpretation of Christianity, there wouldn't be people like Fred Phelps and Donnie McClurkin today. You have yours, they have theirs. I also prefer yours, but both look equally (in)valid to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. okay.. read my op and what is my point..
I was hoping that a reader would take away the fact that religion and any belief system can be manipulated and turned on its head by people doing 180 degrees opposite of what the belief system states.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Your assumption is that a religion was "hijacked."
I.e., you don't agree with someone else's interpretation of your religion, so you think they hijacked it. Your whole outrage at someone "doing 180 degrees opposite of what the belief system states" is what's in doubt here - if the belief system actually stated things clearly and was not subject to wild interpretations - each of them basically just as valid as the others - then yes, someone could "hijack" it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Hitler killing millions of people is 180% opposite of my religious stance
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 09:20 AM by Peacetrain
and saying his regime was there to protect Christianity?

"I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years."

Yes that is hijacking a faith to do enormous evil while saying we are protecting the faith.

People do it all the time. Bin Laden did it to Islam.

That is a simple fact.. and has nothing to do with whether anyone shares the belief system. Questioning a belief system is another story.. that is not what I was hoping to get across.

There are no wild interpretations to love and treat thy neighbor as thyself. You can't murder millions of people and then come back and say you are embracing the basic tenet of the faith.

It is the bedrock



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Hitler believed he was saving Christianity, and working in the name of Jesus.
I do not doubt that his actions and beliefs were 180 degrees (not percent) from yours. But that does not mean he wasn't sincere about his beliefs, and from his standpoint, you would be the one hijacking the faith.

There are no wild interpretations to love and treat thy neighbor as thyself.

No room for interpretation there, huh? Well except for the meaning of the word "neighbor," I suppose. Which is rather key to the saying, wouldn't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Nope.. even if he believed it.. he was going 180 degrees away
from the faith I embrace.

So he hijacked my faith to further his political gain.

Just a simple fact.

and yep.. neighbor used was everyone .. your neighbor has a neighbor has a neighbor in the end it is everyone. You treat everyone as you would want to be treated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Again, I am not disagreeing with you on that.
His faith went in a completely different direction than yours. Can we agree we have established that point? There is no need for you to keep repeating it.

But to say he "hijacked" the religion is problematic. If there were an iron-clad, 100% agreed upon interpretation of the religion we could start arguing about who has "hijacked" it.

Can you provide proof that the word "neighbor" was used as you think it was meant?

You treat everyone as you would want to be treated.

You do realize that the Golden Rule wasn't created by Jesus or Christianity, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. The golden rule..
All things that you would want done for you, Do for others.. Matt. 7:12
Christianity

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman...Talmud: Shabbat 31a
Judaism

Hurt not others in ways that you would not find hurtful Udana-Varga 5,18
Buddhism

This is sum of duty, Do naught unto others, which would cause you pain if done to you.. Mahaebharata 5,1517
Brahmanism

Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you
Analects 15,23
Confucianism

Regard your neighbors gains as your own gains and your neighbors loss as your own T'ai Shang Kan Yingp P'ien
Taoism

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself
Dadistan-I-Dinik 94,5
Zoroastrianism

No one os your is a believer until he desires for his brother which he desires for himself. Sumnah
Islam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Yes, thank you, that was my point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. But again that is the whole premise of the orignal op.
Hitler who claimed to be a Catholic.. hijacked my faith.. that is the whole premise of my op.


You can sieve out of that.. anyones faith and belief system can be hijacked for political gain

but other than that.. your problem is with semantics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Not your faith, your INTERPRETATION of it. As I've been saying this whole time.
Which is at least as valid as anyone else's. I'm sorry we are not able to communicate on this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. We really are missing each other on this one aren't we
If it is 180 degrees opposite of the stated tenet of the belief system..then the interpretation is not valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Zoom in on this: "the stated tenet of the belief system"
THAT'S what is open to interpretation! If you can't definitively establish *exactly* what the belief system is (as witnessed by the countless Christians sects in existence), how can you say someone is 180 degrees opposite of it? They can be 180 degrees opposite of YOUR interpretation, sure. Unless you are going to tell me that YOUR interpretation of the bible and Christianity is the only true and correct one? That you couldn't possibly be wrong on any aspect of your belief system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Yes I did zoom on exactly that..
People who claim to be Christians and then refuse to follow the basic tenet, then guess what...they can call themselves artichokes and dress in green leafy costumes.. does not make them an artichoke, and does not make them a Christian.

Cannot get away from that.. cannot reinterpret it.. cannot re-filter it

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. No, you're missing it completely.
"The basic tenet." THAT is what's open to interpretation. You claim, I think, that the "basic tenet" of Christianity is to love your neighbor as yourself.

Now setting aside for the moment that you are going to get basic disagreement among Christians whether that IS the "basic tenet," there is the possibility that you yourself could be wrong. Unless, as I asked in the previous post, you are going to tell me that you and you alone have the 100% true and correct interpretation of everything in the bible. Is that the case? Are you the ultimate authority on what true Christianity is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. It is not open to interpretation.. and that is where we are missing one another
Now what I am putting forward is strictly for Christians.. and no matter what your denomination is.. and that is where we are getting into the deep stuff I think.. because you are looking at denominational differences as religious differences.

And there are a ton of differences.. which we could do in another thread..

But the two great commandments.. (and yes there are two) are basic to calling yourself a Christian..

You can be any denomination you wish..but you cannot kill millions of people and say you are protecting the Christian faith whatever denomination you are a part of.

It breaks the basic tenet of what the faith is about. There is no maneuvering around it.

Hitler killed millions of people for political power.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. "but you cannot kill millions of people and say you are protecting the Christian faith"
Yes, you can. It was actually done several times, IN THE BIBLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. You cannot be a Christian and kill millions of people in gas chambers
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 02:58 PM by Peacetrain
and say you are protecting the faith.

It cannot be done.

All laws spring from the 2 great commandments.. and no matter how one wants to twist it, or try to use it as an excuse for power or just plain evil.. they can say it..but it does not make it so.


I can say CH, I am a big green olive.. dress the part, pour olive oil over my head, sit a giant jar.. it does not make me an olive.


That is why, we have to as Christians.. (and I am speaking for my faith only here) be willing to step forward when people are saying things and trying to use the faith as a cover.

Edit to add.. where in the NT(New Testament) are millions killed by Christians?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Oh, so now its gas chambers? Your goalposts seem to have wheels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Hitler had millions killed in gas chambers..
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 03:12 PM by Peacetrain
that is a fact.

By the way, where exactly is it in the NT the Christians killed millions as you claimed?

cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jun-30-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. "but you cannot kill millions of people and say you are protecting the Christian faith"

Yes, you can. It was actually done several times, IN THE BIBLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. Lets review exatcly what you said.
"but you cannot kill millions of people and say you are protecting the Christian faith"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. That is right you cannot kill millions of people and claim you are protecting the Christian faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust


The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),<2> also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "calamity"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,<3> from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany throughout Nazi-occupied territory.<4> Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds perished.<5> In particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men. <6><7> Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani (more commonly known in English by the exonym "Gypsies"), Sinti, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.<8> Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.<9>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Still waiting for the biblical claim you said of Christians killing millions in the bible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #64
90. This clearly is at a dead end.
You refuse to, or simply cannot, understand that your interpretation of Christianity and its "core tenet" is just one of many thousands out there. None of you can prove the others wrong.

But at least we have you as the ultimate arbiter of what "true" Christianity is. That will help in the future, no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Well I do not know how to explain it anymore either.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 08:27 PM by Peacetrain
Again I think you are talking denominational differences. Of which there are numerous differences between the denominations.

But for Christians..they/we were given 2 commandments from which all the laws are based.

It has nothing to do with being arbitrary. It just is.

Matthew 22
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Answer me just one question that you have completely avoided:
Is there any possibility you could be wrong about your interpretation of Christianity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Trotsky.. there is no wrong or right interpretations
about the 2 great commandments for Christians.

They stand. They are what they are. I can't twist them or turn them into anything other than what they are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. You're still not answering the question.
Do you think it is possible you could be wrong? The answer is one of two words: Yes or No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #98
101. No.
It is what it is.

I answered that question a gazillion times.

No.

There is not wiggle room there

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #101
103. Wow.
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 06:19 AM by trotsky
A real life fundamentalist-style Christian who is absolutely sure that their interpretation of the bible is the only true & correct one, right here on DU.

If you cannot admit the possibility that you, a flawed human being just like the rest of us, could be wrong - there is literally no point in continuing.

Good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. You really are having a hard time with this
There is no way around it..

Matthew 22
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

There is not wiggle room on that. As the origin of the op I put forward. You cannot kill millions of people and claim you are protecting the Christian faith.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. You sound as certain about your beliefs...
as Fred Phelps does about his. Good for you. Take care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. I am certain that you cannot kill millions of people and claim
that you are doing it to protect Christianity.

I am certain of that.

Yes.

You take care also, and maybe we will meet in another thread on a different subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. What if an army of 2 million soldiers had their sworn goal as the destruction of Christianity?
And they took over Rome? Would you sign up to fight them? Would it be OK if someone else did? Would you (or they) still be a Christian?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #110
113. I thought you left.. you keep saying goodby and back in :)
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 08:41 AM by Peacetrain
Okay.. Rome? (I am not Catholic is that is what you are wondering).. 2 million soldiers cannot destroy Christianity.. it is a philosophy as it were.

Can the state tack down worship..sure.. it has been done multiple times. (see below)

Could a people protect themselves from being killed .. of course.

Can a Christian then kill 2 million (innocent) people and say they are doing it to protect the faith NO!



Example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were put in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed. Confessions forced at S-21 were extracted from prisoners through such methods as raising prisoners by their arms tied behind and dislocating shoulders, removing toenails with pliers, suffocating a prisoner repeatedly, and skinning a person while alive.<15>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. You're getting closer!
You admit it's possible for Christians to kill someone else and be protecting Christianity.

So you've moved your goalposts and now claim:

Can a Christian then kill 2 million (innocent) people and say they are doing it to protect the faith NO!

If someone truly believes that the existence of Jews threatens Christianity, then by what you already admitted, they can do so.

Not saying a thing about the validity of the reason, but then, you haven't given any more justification for your line of thinking than someone who believes that does. Because I guarantee you, every nasty Christian in history was just as certain about their interpretation as you are of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. No you cannot take this and make an argument for Hitler
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 08:56 AM by Peacetrain
You cannot protect Christianity by killing millions of people..

I am editing this post. because you are trying to say that Hitler killing millions of people is a Christian value ..

And it is 180 degrees the opposite give by the 2 great commandments.

It is not going to work.

No matter how much you try to twist it.. it does not work

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. I'm not making an argument for him.
I'm sorry you don't like where your reasoning leads, but it leads directly to the religious atrocities we've seen throughout history. One group was so absolutely certain that their interpretation of the religion was the one true and correct one, just like you. And you haven't given any more justification for your position than they did for theirs. (Your defense has basically been to shout "IT JUST IS!" at me, louder and louder.)

To me, while I greatly prefer your version of the religion, they look equally (un)grounded in reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. So a person of faith has no right to have perimeters or values to live by?
I am having a hard time following you. I will be honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #117
118. I didn't say that.
I'm saying you should probably have a better reason than "because I said so."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. In this case, it is not what I said.. it is what the text for Christians say
It gives us a place to define things.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.. just is.

It is not up for debate.

It just is.

This is what Christians have to measure their behaviors by in the end game.

Not what you have to measure yourself by.


It just is. It is the basis of being a Christian. It is something you have to accept to be a Christian.. if a person cannot accept that, then they have the free will to be what they want to be.

Likewise people who espouse to be Christians cannot get away from it either.

It is amazing the convolutions people will go to..to try and get away from that. the but but but conversations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. Because you said so.
I think we're done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #120
121. We are done again?
:rofl:

It just is. Again this is what Christians have to accept..if you are not a Christian, you do not have to accept any of this.

Matthew 22
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #121
122. Well, I kinda thought we had a chance for some progress...
but you shot it down. I'll let you have your last word now. Sorry to have bothered you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #122
123. Oh trotsky.. I have enjoyed talking to you
take care.. maybe another time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #122
130. I always find it amazing when someone is in their own circular logic loop and cannot see it.
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 01:57 PM by cleanhippie
Classic cognitive dissonance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Still waiting for the biblical claim you said of Christians killing millions in the bible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #131
136. Since google must not be working for you...
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 04:21 PM by cleanhippie
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html


I know, I know, New testament, blah blah blah. I know you are going to try and rationalize this somehow. But the fact remains that your god and its followers have killed millions of people (it says so right in the bible) in gods name, for god, by god, and to avenge god.
Remember, this is YOUR god, the one you believe exists, the one you pray to, and the one that made himself his own son, had himself killed and resurrected himself, all for things he created, did, and knew about.

But we really both know NONE of this ever happened....right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. The only person rationalizing.. is you..
You made an erroneous statement.

You are looking rather foolish at this point.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. Wait, what? You are the one that believes in the supernatural, and *I* am the one rationalizing?
Really?

You are the one that says that THEY follow the TRUE form of christianity. You are the one that says one cannot be a christian and kill people at the same time. You are the one that believes these stories of the supernatural.

Yeah, its me who is rationalizing. :sarcasm:



Millions of people were killed for or by your christian god. Its right there in your bible. Its explicitly says so. Why are you denying that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. Just admit it.. You were wrong..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #143
145. No he's right.
Or is the Bible wrong.

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1

bullet "...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT) They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."



Joshua8)24 And it came to pass when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness where they pursued them, and when they all had fallen by the edge of the sword until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword.
25 So it was that all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand - all the people of Ai.
26 For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

And there are more.

We can also look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch burnings the destruction of Meso-America. All done by Christians in the service of their Lord.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. You are making the same error that he did
The books of the the NT .. the Christian Bible as it were..the books you are quoting are part of the OT.. There are no Christians in the OT.

The New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew
The New Testament: The Gospel of Mark
The New Testament: The Gospel of Luke
The New Testament: The Gospel of John
The New Testament: The Acts of the Apostles
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The New Testament: The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The New Testament: The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The New Testament: The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The New Testament: The Epistle of Paul to Philemon
The New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews
The New Testament: The Epistle of James
The New Testament: The First Epistle of Peter
The New Testament: The Second Epistle of Peter
The New Testament: The First Epistle of John
The New Testament: The Second Epistle of John
The New Testament: The Third Epistle of John
The New Testament: The Epistle of Jude
The New Testament: The Book of Revelation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #146
147. So was the OT God
a different God than the NT God?
Did God change his very nature after Jesus.
Is the OT just a made up fairy tale without any truth?
Here is God, I presume the same God you worship, ordering genocide.
Was that acceptable to you?
Is it that you disregard all of the OT and only take what is said in the NT as the word of God?
Do you feel anything in the OT is without merit.
Do you think anyone who believes something based on the OT id wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #147
148. Now you are on a totally differenet subject.
The original assertions was that Christians killed millions in the bible..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #148
150. No I am going by YOUR assertion that
"You can't murder millions of people and then come back and say you are embracing the basic tenet of the faith."

So what was God commanding when he ordered genocide. Or is the OT invalid in your faith.
And what of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, the destruction of Meso-America. Where all those done by the dominant Christian church at the time in opposition to the true faith.

They obviously saw that their faith allowed these acts, where they wrong and you right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. You can't
You cannot claim to be defending Christianity and go against the basic tenets of being a Christian.

We are given one over-riding set of commandments in which to live by.

Matthew 22
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

There is not wiggle room on that. As the origin of the op I put forward. You cannot kill millions of people and claim you are protecting the Christian faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #151
152. So the
Edited on Sat Jul-02-11 09:53 AM by edhopper
Thousands of years where the Church did that, They were not true Christians?

And please answer the question about the OT, is it invalid, untrue, or describes a different God?

Pardon if we do not accept YOUR interpretation of the Bible. You use one quote, we use others to show where God condoned and even ordered genocide, but yours is the only, true interpretation.
You don't seem to see how others are just as positive that they are following God's will.

Seems we are back to the No True Scotsman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #152
153. You want me to defend my belief system?
That is not going to happen. As I told someone once before, I would have been burned at the stake 200 years ago for what I profess. I do not have to defend it, nor do I ask you to defend yours.

To answer your questions about interpretation. There is no interpretation. It just is. The trying to get around that fact has been the but but but discussion forever.

First of all we do have a set of guidelines to being Christian.

And that is the whole point of the original op.. people can call themselves anything they want to, but if they are doing things that go against the great commandments..

With a history of 2 thousand years for Christianity.. have many horrors been committed by those CLAIMING to do it for Christian reasons.. absolutely.

That is why people have to stand up, and even when someone says they are doing this or that for Christian reasons..

Peoples' prejudices have them scurrying through texts looking for validation for their hate. And we who profess to be Christians have an obligation as well as a right to stand up for what we were given.

What you are wanting is defense of the atrocities committed in the OT by me? My dear Ed, how?

Let me give you an example

The books of Judges and Joshua tell basically the same story.. one from more a historical perspective and one of a mythical person who killed 10,000 with the jawbone of an ass. For a beleaguered people needing a hero, Joshua was it.

Sort of like Americans embracing Rambo when talking about the Vietnam war.

I can't give you what you are looking for. Fundamentalists believe that every word of the bible is true.. I am not a Fundamentalist.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #153
158. You can believe what you want
but when you say "What I have stated is categorically true, and no one can claim otherwise"
You have to expect others here to question your absolutism.
Many of the atheist here do not think there is any real interpretation of the Bible, since it is all made up. We can analyze it, but don't find what you would call 'the truth' there. So when you claim to have the only truth, please understand why we would challenge that.
If you simply want to state your belief and not defend it intellectually, then just post your thoughts and tell us you don't want to discuss it any further. It might be of interest to a few, though that is more like blogging or tweeting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. Ah, so you don't believe that any of the genocides and massacres
you attribute to the OT god actually occurred. So all this heavy breathing and righteous indignation is over the fictional deaths of fictional people, rather like getting all verklempt over the atrocities committed by Romulans and Klingons before Star Trek got politically correct.

That being so, just out of morbid curiosity, what is the point?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. There is nothing to defend..Absolutes have a place when you define yourself.
It is two absolutes that a person can either accept or not.. up to them. You cannot put Christianity on a person.

And in order to be a Christian there are two absolutes you have to accept. All laws stem from those.

I know that can seem so circular.. but it is what it is.

What is an atheist..someone who does not believe a higher power acts in anyway in our lives or can be proved..

There is not problem with that.. it is an absolute that gives the atheist a starting point and grounding in putting forth their ideas.

If they were unsure than they would be an agnostic.

It is from those absolutes that belief stems. Now there is where all kinds of discussions on theology, religiosity, etc denominationalism , that separates people.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #152
154. ed.. I have to get going for a while
I will be back this afternoon.. good conversation.. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #152
155. How about your answering the question I asked in #149?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #147
149. Let's get something clear.
Are you arguing that the Old Testament is literally true history throughout? Are you supporting the fundamentalist reading? Noah and the flood, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan--all that, according to you, literally happened as it's asserted in the OT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #149
156. That's exactly what the claim is. It's always the same,
"It must ALL be literal truth or it makes no sense and if you believe it's ALL literal truth then it makes no sense, it defies all logic and reason, so it's ALL made up bullshit." They get to have it both ways so they can't lose. Quite logical and reasonable don't you think," MY WAY, ONE WAY, THE ONLY WAY" Kinda sounds like a group of f, well I guess I just leave that for another day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #156
157. He certainly seems to be avoiding the question.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #156
161. Sure. It's a "gotcha."
It's an attempt to hang the fundamentalist label around a clearly non-fundamentalist poster's neck and thereby dismiss that poster's argument as ignorant and bigoted. Quite apart from ignoring the actual nature of the Bible (ta Biblia in Greek, the Books, plural), it's specious on its face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #161
162. Are these questions for
me or Peacetrain?
If for me, I didn't catch that, why I didn't answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. They're for you,
as you can tell by checking the "Response to" note in the upper right corner.

In any case, I think you've already inadvertently answered them. You believe the Bible is "all made up," therefore that the massacres and other atrocities you allege are fictional. The question that remains is why there's such fauxrage over events that never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #163
164. The point I was making was in to reference to
the Op saying no Christian would be responsible for atrocities (paraphrasing there).
So from his viewpoint God does not condone any of these acts. But right there in the Bible HE believes in God is ordering atrocities. So the question then becomes, what part of the Bible does he believe in. If he is going to site scripture as the basis of his argument, why does he ignore or disregard other parts of the scripture.
I am not saying he is a literalist. I am merely asking, what part of the Bible does he think is true.
Is none of the OT important to his beliefs, if so, why?
As far as the Bible being fiction. Mostly yes, Adam and eve, Noah, Moses etc...when you get further along, after the founding of Israel there are historical events, but filtered through myth. Like the Troy in Iliad.

The argument "Only fundamentalist believe that, and I am not a fundamentalist." Only begs the question, What do you believe in and why. What part of the Bible do you think is literally true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #164
168. So why don't you ask Peacetrain whether she believes
Edited on Sun Jul-03-11 12:00 PM by okasha
the parts of the Bible in question are literally true?

Why ignore or disregard some parts of scripture? Easy. The Bible is not a book. It is books, plural, produced over a minimum period of seven hundred years by different writers with different political and religious agendas. What you are referring to as the OT god is actually the god of the Josaian reforms. Oddly enough, like Josiah and the Deuteronomist wrter, this god is intent on establishing monotheism, asserting the primacy of temple worship in Jerusalem, expanding Judahite territory to encompass the northern kingdom of Israel, and wiping out the "idolatries" that had hitherto been an accepted part of the religion of Judah and Israel. This was the point at which a unified kingdom of Judah and Israel comparable to the kingdom attributed to David and Solomon almost emerged. Unfortunately for Josiah, he pissed off Pharaoh Necho as he passed through Israel on his way to do battle with the Assyrians and paid for his indiscretion with his life.

The books created by, or under the supervision of, the Deuteronomist writer reflect Josiah's era and are meant to glorify him and his policies. These include Deuteronomy itself, the "newly discovered ancient scroll of the law;" Joshua; Judges and the "Court Histories:" Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Archaeology (see Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed has fairly clearly demonstrated that there was no "conquest of Canaan" as presented in the book of Joshua. Rather, the "Israelites" emerged from among the Canannite population of Palestine, pastoralists who settled into an agricultural lifestyle in the highlands but had little to distinguish them from other Canaanites except a taboo on pork. There were no massacres, at the behest of Yahweh or anyone else. Saul, David and Solomon appear to have been local chieftains centered in southern Judah. Possibly they were, or began as, bandits. Possibly David made himself a nuisance to the Philistines. He doesn't seem to have been more than that. The glories of the united kingdom presented in the court histories were actually "borrowed" from the wealthy Omride kindom of Israel, ruled by the dynasty that included Ahab and Jezebel. And again, they were meant to promote Josiah as the restorer of former glory. There's history in there, yes, but you have to dig for it. Literally.

You, are, though, precisely right when you make the comparison to the Iliad. What we have in the books of Exodus, Joshua and parts of the court histories is a deliberately composed national epic. The men--probably it was exclusively men--who produced these narratives were not "ignorant Bronze Age sheepherders." They were literate, intelligent and clearly familiar with the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultures around them. Judah/Israel was emerging as a nation among other nations. Achaia had its Homeric poems; Assyria had Gilgamesh; Egypt had an extensive religious and secular literature; of course Josiah's kingdom should have an epic of its own.

And so we have the triuphant exodus from Egypt, poking a finger in the eye of Josiah's nominal Egyptian overlord on the way. We have the conquering hero Joshua and a reprise with David. (The single combat between David and Goliath is probably constructed on the Greek model of the combat of champions, eg., Hector and Achilles.) It's a wonderful, rattling adventure story, with lots of sex and violence and no small flavor of soap opera in spots. It's very much like every other national epic, in fact, with the god(s) taking part and favoring his/their chosen heroes. What it is not is anything resembling accurate history.

The god of this epic, by the way, is very, very different from the Yahweh of the prophets in the later books of the OT. Isaiah's god is the lord of the peacable kingdom; Micah's god requires his followers to "do justice and love mercy; Zechariah and others dwell on the future kingdom of Yahweh on earth,ruled by the king/messiah in perfect peace and justice. The change reflects the later history of Israel as it was repeatedly conquered and depopulated by various of its neighbors, and it transitions seamlessly into a New Testament milieu in which Israel is once again occupied by a much stronger, tyrannical power. It's not Josiah's triumphalist god that Jesus preaches; it's the prophets' god who suffers with his people.

So I have another question: given that what we have here is not one book but many, not one author but many, not one theological viewpoint by a widely differing array of theologies--why is it a matter of contention that a reader or believer should credit different parts of the collection selectively? Why the support the fundamentalist view that it's a unified, connected narrative when the evidence is directly to the contrary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #168
169. I am not sure where you are coming from
you seem to be supporting the argument that none of the Bible can be taken as the word of God, or in fact support the reality of God. That basing anything on selective passages is misleading at best. Yet you debate me when I put this forth to Peacetrain.
:confused:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. You're attempting to relate things that aren't related.
Is the Bible the Word of God in the sense that it was dictated by God? I don't believe that. Very few, if any, pagans do. It is instead a series of separate works later sandwiched between two covers that records a people's evolving understanding of their god and their faith. It isn't the god who changes; it's the believers' understanding of him. Hence the movement from the triumphalist god of the first books of the OT to the "nursing father" as he discribes himself in Jeremiah, the god of the exile and the occupied. The latter is also the god preached by Jesus in accordance with his own reading of the prophetic tradition.

As for "basing anything on selective passages is misleading at best," I'm saying just the opposite. I'm saying that the Bible is such a mix of material that it's absolutely essential to weigh separate passages on their own merits. That means that, say, the book of Joshua cannot be taken either to validate or invalidate anything in the NT or even the later OT. The kill-em-all Yahweh of the book of Joshua is just that--the Yahweh of the book of Joshua. He's not the Yahweh of Isaiah, Micah, or Jesus. The fundamentalist tries to bring the two together and winds up with at best a contraditory understanding, at worst an angry, vengeful theology. That's the reading you seem to be supporting. The liberal reader, on the other hand, can apply various filters--history, archaeology, ethics--to determine what s/he finds credible. While the liberal practice sounds like a free-for-all, and it can be, there's actually quite a lot of consensus among liberal believers, clergy and theolgians. Suggest you try a little Crossan if you're really interested in the liberal take on the Bible and Christian theology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. But to be straight
Edited on Sun Jul-03-11 12:54 PM by edhopper
you believe all these Gods do in fact, or have existed?
Or there is one God interpreted and misinterpreted through the ages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. If you're referring to the Bible,
I believe that the changes in the nature attributed to Yahweh reflect changes in believers' undersanding of Yahweh, not changes in Yahweh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. But there is nothing to convince one
that their "understanding" was actually getting more accurate over time, as opposed to simply changing with social and political winds, nor in fact that there was anything outside of their own imaginings that they were attempting to understand in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #168
174. Excellent explanation of what the Bible is and the diversity of the
writings that make up the collection of books. I do have a question. Do you notice any constant underlying theme that runs through most of the books of the Bible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #174
175. I see several such themes.
One is "love thy neighbor." You see this early in the OT with commandments to extend hospitality to travellers and strangers--ironically, given the later sexualization of the story, the problem with the men of Sodom was that they didn't love their neighbor. The Passover and other ritual observances are also to be shared with the stranger, so that s/he loses nothing of his/her participation in the body of Israel by being away from home. The Book of Ruth is about taking in the stranger, in this case a Moabite woman. The theme continues in the NT with the innkeeper in Luke's nativity story who provides shelter for Mary and Joseph. And of course, there's the parable of the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were considered heretics by good Jews of Jesus' day because they had their own temple on Mount Tabor and claimed Moses for themselves. So "your neighbor" may even be someone to whom you are hostile. (One of the nuns who taught in the high school I attended was fond of modernizing the Bible. In her re-telling, the robbed-and-left-for-dead victim was a KKK member, and the man who picked him up out of the ditch and cared for him was African American.)

Another is what Gustavo Gutierrez calls "God's preferential option for the poor." That shows up as early as Deuteronomy, which forbids someone who's taken a poor persons garment as pledge for a loan to keep it overnight. It continues in the Court Histories, with Nathan's parable of the rich man who steals the poor man's lamb--David unfairly exercising his power to take Uriah's wife. In Jesus' teaching, it appears in the beatitudes, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the camel threading the eye of the needle, etc.. A friend of mine, an Episcopal priest, is fond of saying that the first Christian liberation theologian "was Our Lady St. Mary," quoting her song in Luke: "
Then there's the theme of the unlikely hero that we see again and again--Rahab, the madam; Gideon, who doesn't partiularly want to gird up and go smite anyone; Samson, a muscle-bound but amiable idiot; David the shepherd boy; a rag-tag rabbi out of Nazareth, a not-so-wide place in a dirt road, and his following of fishermen, a reformed terrorist or two, and a stray tax collector.

There's more, but those are some of the most significant, I think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. Was "love thy neighbor"
Edited on Sun Jul-03-11 06:40 PM by skepticscott
also the universal theme when the Israelites were slaughtering so many of their neighbors, right down to the women and children? Or when anyone who didn't worship the right god in the right way was liable to be unpleasantly killed? Or was that a different god telling them to do all that?

And the custom/obligation of offering hospitality to strangers and travelers was hardly religiously based. It certainly didn't come from Yahweh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. Well, scott, first you want to prove that the slaughter took place.
There's no archaeological evidence for the violent conquest of Canaan; quite the opposite. But if you want to get all righteously indignant over the fictional deaths of fictional people, go ahead. Get back to me when you can show some evidence that you're actually discussing history.

And yes, the offering of hospitality to strangers was religiously based in every culture in which it occured. In Greece, Zeus was called "the great guest god" and "Zeus Xenios" (Zeus the Stranger) and had direct jurisdiction over the special relationship between host and guest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. Sheesh, could your argument be any lamer?
The themes that occur in the words of the Bible, and what it teaches are what's at issue here. You have no more evidence that the specific commandments in the Bible to offer hospitality to strangers or to "love thy neighbor" were ever actually carried out than there is that the genocidal and religious massacres described there actually took place. What's your independent evidence that Rahab, Gideon and Samson ever really existed? None.

In either, case, it's irrelevant to the point that the Bible sends out all kinds of messages, and that "love thy neighbor" is hardly a consistent one, without the usual cherry-picking. It's frankly not even the case that Jesus' message in the good Samaritan parable had the same underlying motivation as the customs of hospitality (which were purely practical, despite the religious window dressing).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #178
179. Actually, there are several issues here.
One is whether the massacres attributed to the Israelites were history or fiction. You seem to be trying to have it both ways. Fine. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

I have not claimed, by the way, that Rahab, Samson, etc. ever exissted. I said they're unlikely hero figures. They are. That has nothing to do with their historicity or lack thereof. Nor are we arguing about whether the command to love your neighbor was ever carried out. In response to a question from another poster, I asserted that it's a recurring theme. It is. I cited examples. Your problem with this is not clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #179
180. As scott pointed out
so is the massacre thy neighbor theme.
You are the one trying to have it both ways.
You say something is prevalent in the Bible, I believe implying that this is what God wants, and then say something else prevalent in the Bible isn't historically accurate, therefore can be ignored.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #180
181. Wrong.
Let's review. This part of the discussion started with the assertion that "the Biblical god" had ordered or was otherwise responsible for several million deaths. What I've done is point out that most of those "deaths" are fictional. Both you and scott waver between "it's all made up" and "it's evidence of terrible atrocities." Pick one and stick with it.

The "massacre thy neighbor theme" is actually confined to the Deuteronomist's writings, including the fictional conquest of Canaan in Joshua and the inflation of Saul's and David's military exploits. After that, in the era of the prophets and into the New Testament, the inhabitants of both the northern and southern kingdoms were the victims of various genocides and relocations at the hands of the greater powers in the region--Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, ultimately Rome. The triumphalism disappears from the prophetic and wisdom books, which are contemporary with those various national disasters.

No, I am not "implying that God wants" any particular prevalent "something" in the Bible. I'm saying that the prevalence of various themes reflects the changing understanding/belief system of the people who wrote the passages in question, influenced by their sociopolitical circumstances. I don't see why this is difficult to understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #181
182. What we don't understand
is you believe in God and believe he has tenets that you should follow. We don't understand how you discern the difference in various aspects of the Bible on what to accept and what to reject.
Just seems you start with a concept and then pick those parts that support it.
If there is a God, he must want something. Or doesn't he care and has been intentionally obscure?
This is where we nonbelievers get frustrated.
You say "We aren't fundamentalist, we don't take the Bible literally. We are liberal Christians and are more intellectual in our faith." Fine, but then it becomes near impossible to pin you down in where you get your beliefs from. Where God tells you what you think is true.
God exists, right? Jesus existed, right? The account of Jesus in the NT is true or not? His words are accurate or not? If the Bible is just a reflection of how those people saw the world, why accept any of it, OT or NT as anything but myth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #182
184. For what has got to be the dozenth time:
I am not a Christian, liberal or otherwise. I am a pagan.

I am an ex-academic with degrees in literature and languages/linguistics. I also have an extensive background in history, which you pretty much have to acquire in dealing with those fields. I have spent more years than I care to count both researching and teaching ancient and other literature, including the Bible. I approach the Bible as I would any other work of literature, mainly through archetypal and historical schools of criticism; for the Bible, the "historical" part includes form, source and redaction criticism, which deals with where a text came from, who wrote it, and how it developed. This means that I do not approach the Bible as a single, homogenous work, or look to its parts to validate or invadlidate each other. It also means I don't find contradictions unsettling. It's not a matter of "accepting" or "rejecting" what's in the Bible. It's a matter of judging, in the context of everything we know about a text and its historical circumstances (archaeology, recorded history, etc.)whether the text actually reflects those circumstances or whether it was composed with another purpose in mind (glorifying King Josiah, for example.) As for your questions:

Yes, Great Mystery exists.

Yes, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure.

The account given of his life and work in the NT is in part mythologized in a deliberate attempt to set him up as a countervailing figure to the Roman Emperor and the Kingdom of God as a righteous alternative to the Roman Emperor. Mark and the "Q" Document, reflected in the other synoptic gospels, appear to have preserved at least some of his teachings intact, though there are intriguing hints that there may also be some eyewitness material in John. See Crossan for a thorough discussion.

Any literature is a refleciton of how people see the world. One has only to look at the changing assessments of various historical figures to see the process at work. I've been reading some more recent bios of Anne Boleyn and Mary, Queen of Scots, and the transformation in presentation over a few decades is amazing. While there have always been romantic defenders of both, Anne has gone from a shrewish, scheming slut to an intellectual and genuine religious reformer; whle Mary has been transformed from a twit into a shrewd politician dealing as best anyone could with horrible circumstances. Now, the documentation for those assessments has always been there. What's changed is the West's attitude toward women in power. Does that make Anne and Mary myths? Hardly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. What do you believe as a pagan?
Edited on Mon Jul-04-11 01:25 PM by edhopper
It is a ambiguous term. Many gods, one God, an intelligent force etc..

(I confused your replies with the OP who said she/he was a Liberal Christian, excuse me)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #186
191. I'm a panentheist.
The universe is pervaded by and contained within Great Mystery, who can be seen as male, female, both or neither. The many gods and goddesses are avatars of Great Mystery. I work mostly within my Tsalagi and Celtic ancestral traditions, but am comfortable in many others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #179
183. The point, since you seem to need to have it explained to you
is that your contention that "love thy neighbor" is a constant underlying theme of the Bible, is simply and demonstrably false. Some Biblical stories have that theme, but some stories have a theme very much at odds with that, including some of the parables of Jesus. The degree to which any particular story is verifiable as to its strict historical accuracy isn't directly relevant, as your own examples demonstrate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #149
165. Are you asserting none of it is true
that it is all made up. If so, why follow any of it's tenets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #165
166. No. That was your assertion.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #165
185. I suggest you actually read the book.
It has been published.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #185
187. You mean the Bible?
Nice snarky remark. No I do not think you are smarter or better educated than I am or most of the atheist here, who seem to know more about the Bible than the believers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #187
188. Or do you mean Crossan
in which case disregard previous post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. I do suggest Crossan.
I don't agree with him on all points, but he's one of the most thorough scholars in the field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #187
189. I apologize, edhopper.
That was meant to be a reply to #183, not to your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #189
192. Okay
I'll let scott take umbrage.:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-11 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #192
193. Simple rule:
you don't snark at me--which you haven't--I don't snark at you. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. delete for thread glitch
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 12:50 PM by Peacetrain
Sorry about that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. delete for thread glitch
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 12:50 PM by Peacetrain
I think we may have a glitch going on here if this does not turn up right..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. Where do you get that Hitler was saving Christianity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Mein Kampf.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'"
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #63
71. Then you must also accept this as true, right, Hitler said it.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-11 02:22 PM by Leontius
This is my last territorial claim in Europe, We want no Czechs. Not an exact quote but I believe quite close to his actual words in a speech after Munich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #71
89. "Not an exact quote but I believe quite close..."
I gave an exact quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #89
96. It is rather a long speech and I have no time to type the whole thing
but since I can only assume that you think I am somehow pulling a fast one try looking up Hitlers' speech entitled "My Patience is at an end", Sept 26 1938, before the Munich Conference not after as I posted earlier. I think the video is also on youtube.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. Ah yes, the classic dodge.
"I'm too busy to back up what I said. You do it."

No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Backed up my statement with the name and date of speech
so unless you are going to post the entire text I guess I'll have to assume that you're lying about some made up quote from Mein Kampf unless you're too busy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. Are all Christians as pleasant and accommodating as you?
You can do a Google search on the exact quote I gave you and find exactly where it's located.

You couldn't give me an exact quote, so I am at a significant disadvantage.

I know, of course, the trick you are not-so-adeptly trying to play - namely, that if Hitler lied or misled about one thing, then he can't be trusted on anything else he said, either. That sword cuts both ways, and by that logic not a single person who ever lived can be trusted about anything they ever said because everyone lied at one time or another. Even Jesus. You really want to go down that road?

Hitler said he was a Christian, and doing the work of the Lord. Unless you can go back in time and read his mind, neither of us can know if he was lying when he said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #102
106. I am quite pleasant when I'm not automatically accused of lying,
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 07:49 AM by Leontius
and point of interest here I also gave you the info to do a google search by supplying the name and date of the speech and you basicly said, 'sorry not good enough', so why is the same not applicable to you. I apologize for poor computer skills (no cut and paste, no links to just click on, etc) and also understand that you don't know me from Adam as I don't know you ,but from the few posts I remember you seem a pretty straight forward person . The point I was making is not exactly the one you think. I do hope that you will agree at least that Hitler was mad and relying on the words of a madman is at best dangerous given the dark and tortuous turns such a mind takes. I do make mistakes and have no problem admitting to them and correcting them but I do not intentionally try to mislead to make my case. You can take this for whatever you think it's worth, doubt my honesty or not, up to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. Didn't accuse you of lying.
I just wanted the quote. My goodness. Take care of yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. I will, thanks, but one simple question, why the
'classic dodge' post if all you wanted was the actual quote and I told you where to find it in the preceding post? ( That did piss me off, thin skin yesterday, my problem not yours)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #109
111. Because it *is* a classic dodge.
Someone throws out a claim, tells the other person to go do the work to look it up. Lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leontius Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #111
112. Okay got you, bottle fed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
68. "Hitler killing millions of people is 180% opposite of my religious stance"
Jesus said to love God and to love your neighbor, but Hitler was responsible for mass killings, mass torture, and was trying to wipe out whole ethnicities. How can these two go together?

The answer is the Two-Seed-Theory. The belief that there is more than one human lineage, Seth's lineage and Cain's/Satan's lineage. Those into this ideology usually believe Jews (and possibly others) are descendents of Cain/Satan. The decedents of Cain are not considered your neighbors, they are considered Satan's children, so killing them is doing God a favor.

The Two-Seed-Theory is not advocated by Catholics, mainstream Protestants, or LDS Mormons, but some Christian bigots love it. The following wiki article explains this racist belief very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed

The Two-Seed-Theory is over 1,000-years-old, and could have easily influenced Hitler and his ilk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Good read..
And as you put in your post.. this is not something embraced by the Christian communities or denominations, do we have denominational heretics and complete nut jobs .. OH YEAH we sure do. That was the whole point of my original op.

If this is what influenced Hitler.. and from some small readings I have done on the subject, he was very intrigued by somehow acquiring magical powers, it is a study in the dark heart and mind and what power and lust for power will do..

This is what gets us into so much deep stuff, trying to place 6000 and 2000 year old writings in todays context.

For someone of my religious background to identify what is or is not.. we were given a very simple tool. The 2 great commandments..

So using that specific usage from Christ.. all laws flow from this.

But you can take this to the bank.. I would have been burned at the stake 200 years ago for espousing exactly what I do now.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. My intrepration of Christian scripture is significantly closer to yours than Hitler's.
If Hitler was thinking, "Hey, there's lots of Christians in Germany. I think I will pretend to be a Christian so I can have an easier time selling my ideas to the public," then that could be considered hijacking the faith.

But we don't really know anyone's spiritual beliefs, except for what we're told. If he really believed in what he was saying, then he did not hijack the faith, he lived his interpretation of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. I am following your line of thought
And he might have believed it.. I am getting where you are going.



There is just no way to interpret the two great commandments as a reason to kill 1/4 of Jewish faith of the world.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. Most interpretations I am aware of believe love thy neighbor refers to humans only.
Cows, chickens, salmon, and other non-human animals are not included in love thy neighbor. Some Christians do include other animals and refrain from eating them, but most don't.

Some people don't view Jews as humans with souls. Some people view Jews as vermin or parasites. Is swatting a mosquito against love thy neighbor? It's a really fucked up mentality, but that is how they justify it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. We do have some hints.
I've seen several references to persons who knew Hitler from childhood/adolescence who claimed that after his confirmation he never received the sacraments of the Catholic Church. If that's true, he was certainly not a practicing Catholic or a Catholic in good standing. In his writings he promoted "the Aryan Christ," denying that Jesus and all significant figures around him were Jews. That also puts him outside any kind of orthodox Christianity, for which it is a key point that Jesus was the Messiah ben David, a Jew and the descendant of Jews, something all three synoptic Gospels go to considerable lengths to establish. I tend to think his "Christianity" was purely political talk, just as it is with many contemporary politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
91. Clearly your third party undocumented rumors trump everything else.
Thanks for clearing everything up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #83
92. President Obama has not gone to church very often since he became our executive.
I don't think this is evidence he doesn't believe in God.

Even if Hitler skipped out on going to church, that wouldn't really mean very much. Not all Christians believe going to church is very important.

We can only guess how Hitler really thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. Of course, not attending church isn't evidence a person doesn't believe in God.
That's not the question here, in any case.

For a pre-Vatican II Catholic not to attend Mass, though, and more importantly not to participate in the sacraments, would exclude him from the ranks of practicing Catholics. It would, in fact, place him in a continuing state of mortal sin. He could not in any sense be considered a "good" or "devout" Catholic. Whether he believed in God, on the other hand, is an entirely separate question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #97
124. Anyone who uses birth control wouldn't be considered a "good" or "devout" Catholic either.
Nor would someone who engages in homosexual sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #97
128. I agree Hitler was not an ideal Catholic. nt



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Will you directly state the point? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. See post 46
I see two posts asking basically the same question so for brevity sakes one answer and they were in before yours
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
61. I completely understand not wanting to have the same conversation with two different posters,
in two different places, at the same time. I'll see you up thread and try to jump back in. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #61
67. Sounds great.. look forward to it
Or maybe we can start a new thread specific to it.. this one is stating have little glitches in it. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. I made the following reply...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. Nowadays, it's flown into the structure of government.
And it's starting to bring the structure down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” nt
- Karl Marx

We are doing everything we can to eliminate the bewitching power of the opium of religion.”

-Nikita Khrushchev,1955

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Ahh...but there you have it.. the state became the tyrant
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 04:27 PM by Peacetrain
What had "never" been planned intentionally.. got curve balled by people who were anything but socialistic.

And they made sure true socialists were drowned out and ground up and in Stalin's Russia.


It isn't the religion, or the state, or the philosophy but the people who try to use it 180 degrees opposite of its original intent for political gain

edit to add the word never..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. So are you saying that atheism is not an element of Marxism? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Nope not at all..but the origins of the socialistic state should have been
the United States.. that was where Marx hoped it would go.. and he certainly did not forsee what happened under Stalin etc.

My point being.. people can take a philosophy, a religion, a government, a comment, and turn it on its head to where it is 180 degrees opposite of where it started.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
167. Indeed.
Whether it's socialism or Christianity or Islam, an ideology becomes distorted when used as an instrument of political power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. If You Are Going You Quote Marx, Mr. Bum, Quote Marx....
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 04:29 PM by The Magistrate
If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.

Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)



History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.

Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)



As Prometheus, having stolen fire from heaven, begins to build houses and to settle upon the earth, so philosophy, expanded to be the whole world, turns against the world of appearance. The same now with the philosophy of Hegel.

Marx, Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy, 1839)



Real talers have the same existence that the imagined gods have. Has a real taler any existence except in the imagination, if only in the general or rather common imagination of man? Bring paper money into a country where this use of paper is unknown, and everyone will laugh at your subjective imagination.

Marx, Doctoral Thesis, Appendix (1841)



Greek philosophy seems to have met with something with which a good tragedy is not supposed to meet, namely, a dull ending.

Marx, Doctoral Thesis, Chapter 1 (1841)



What is genuine is proved in the fire, what is false we shall not miss in our ranks. The opponents must grant us that youth has never before flocked to our colours in such numbers, ... in the end, one will be found among us who will prove that the sword of enthusiasm is just as good as the sword of genius.

Engels, Anti-Schelling (1841)



The representation of private interests ... abolishes all natural and spiritual distinctions by enthroning in their stead the immoral, irrational and soulless abstraction of a particular material object and a particular consciousness which is slavishly subordinated to this object.

Marx, On the Thefts of Wood, in Rheinische Zeitung (1842)



“atheism” ... reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man.

Marx, Letter to 30 November 1842



In the year 1842-43, as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to discuss what is known as material interests. ... the debates on free trade and protective tariffs caused me in the first instance to turn my attention to economic questions. ... When the publishers of the Rheinische Zeitung conceived the illusion that by a more compliant policy on the part of the paper it might be possible to secure the abrogation of the death sentence passed upon it, I eagerly grasped the opportunity to withdraw from the public stage to my study.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



Political economy came into being as a natural result of the expansion of trade, and with its appearance elementary, unscientific huckstering was replaced by a developed system of licensed fraud, an entire science of enrichment.

Engels, Outlines of Political Economy (1844)



The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)



The bureaucrat has the world as a mere object of his action.

Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)



This is a kind of mutual reconciliation society... Actual extremes cannot be mediated with each other precisely because they are actual extremes. But neither are they in need of mediation, because they are opposed in essence.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)



All forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)



We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.

Marx, Letter from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher to Ruge (1843)



Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.

Marx, Letter from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher to Ruge (1843)



But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.

Marx, Letter from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (1843)



The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but
theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.
Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843)



Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843)



The state is based on this contradiction. It is based on the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities

Marx, Critical Notes on the Article ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian’ (1844)



When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need — the need for society — and what appears as a means becomes an end. ... the brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them, but a fact of life, and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened bodies.

Marx, Human Needs & the division of Labour (1844)



Do I obey economic laws if I extract money by offering my body for sale,... — Then the political economist replies to me: You do not transgress my laws; but see what Cousin Ethics and Cousin Religion have to say about it. My political economic ethics and religion have nothing to reproach you with, but — But whom am I now to believe, political economy or ethics? — The ethics of political economy is acquisition, work, thrift, sobriety — but political economy promises to satisfy my needs. ... It stems from the very nature of estrangement that each sphere applies to me a different and opposite yardstick — ethics one and political economy another; for each is a specific estrangement of man and focuses attention on a particular field of estranged essential activity, and each stands in an estranged relation to the other.

Marx, Human Needs & the division of Labour (1844)



The only intelligible language in which we converse with one another consists of our objects in their relation to each other. We would not understand a human language and it would remain without effect. By one side it would be recognised and felt as being a request, an entreaty, and therefore a humiliation

Marx, Comment on James Mill (1844)



Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects.
Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value.

Marx, Comment on James Mill (1844)



Political Economy regards the proletarian ... like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle.

Marx, Wages of Labour (1844)



Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

Marx, Private Property and Communism (1844)



The entire movement of history, as simply communism’s actual act of genesis — the birth act of its empirical existence — is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming.

Marx, Private Property and Communism (1844)



But also when I am active scientifically, etc. – an activity which I can seldom perform in direct community with others – then my activity is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being.

Private Property and Communism (1844)



Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

Marx, Private Property and Communism (1844)



Natural science has invaded and transformed human life all the more practically through the medium of industry; and has prepared human emancipation, although its immediate effect had to be the furthering of the dehumanisation of man. Industry is the actual, historical relationship of nature, .... <The nature which develops in human history — the genesis of human society — is man’s real nature; hence nature as it develops through industry, even though in an estranged form, is true anthropological nature.>

Marx, Private Property and Communism (1844)



In general it is always empirical businessmen we are talking about when we refer to political economists, (who represent) their scientific creed and form of existence.

Marx, Human Requirements and Division of Labour (1844)



Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.

Marx, Human Requirements and Division of Labour (1844)



Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers — he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities — as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. ... A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being.

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy in General (1844)



A few days in my old man’s factory have sufficed to bring me face to face with this beastliness, which I had rather overlooked. ..., it is impossible to carry on communist propaganda on a large scale and at the same time engage in huckstering and industry.

Engels, Letter to Marx. January 20 1845)



Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist. The history of nature, called natural science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this history or to a complete abstraction from it. Ideology is itself only one of the aspects of this history.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



As far as Feuerbach is a materialist he does not deal with history, and as far as he considers history he is not a materialist.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature....Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life

Marx, German Ideology (1845)



The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question.

Marx, Theses On Feuerbach: Thesis 2 (1845)



The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

Marx, Theses On Feuerbach: Thesis 3 (1845)



The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

Marx, Theses On Feuerbach: Thesis 11 (1845)



One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm.

Marx, German Ideology, Chapter 3 (1846)



History does nothing, it ‘possesses no immense wealth’, it ‘wages no battles’. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; ‘history’ is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims..

Marx, The Holy Family, Chapter 6 (1846)



The productive forces are the result of man’s practical energy, but that energy is in turn circumscribed by the conditions in which man is placed by the productive forces already acquired, by the form of society which exists before him, which he does not create, which is the product of the preceding generation.

Marx, 1846 Letter to Annenkov (1846)



The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.

Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847)



Economists explain how production takes place in the above-mentioned relations, but what they do not explain is how these relations themselves are produced, that is, the historical movement which gave them birth. M. Proudhon, taking these relations for principles, categories, has merely to put into order these thoughts.

Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847)



Machines were, it may be said, the weapon employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor.

Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847)



The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society.

Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847)



But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece. So long as they look for science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society. From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.

Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847)



The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

Engels, Principles of Communism (1847)



What is Communism? Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor....

Engels, Principles of Communism (1847)



A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations. The liberation of Germany cannot therefore take place without the liberation of Poland from German oppression.

Engels, Speech on Poland (1847)



Under the freedom of trade the whole severity of the laws of political economy will be applied to the working classes. Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians.

Engels, To Free Trade Congress at Brussels (1847)



And this life activity sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. ... He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labor itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another.

Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847)



What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. ... A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar

Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847)



A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain.

Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847)



What is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. ...



But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Marx & Engels, On Free Trade (1848)



A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism.

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)



All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned ...

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)



In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)



In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)



The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)



We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable..

Marx, Editorial in Final edition of Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1849)



It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. ... the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier..

Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (1850)



The revolution made progress, not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but by the creation of a powerful, united counter-revolution, an opponent in combat with whom the party of overthrow ripened into a really revolutionary party.

Marx, Class Struggle in France (1850)



Revolutions are the locomotives of history.

Class Struggle in France (1850)



The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply ...

Engels, The Peasant War in Germany (1850)



The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to make the existing society as tolerable for themselves as possible. ... The rule of capital is to be further counteracted, partly by a curtailment of the right of inheritance, and partly by the transference of as much employment as possible to the state. As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers; in short, they hope to bribe the workers ...

Marx & Engels, Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League (1850)



Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)



Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an nightmare on the brains of the living.

Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)



the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes.

Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)



But the revolution is thoroughgoing. It is still traveling through purgatory. It does its work methodically. ... And when it has accomplished this second half of its preliminary work, Europe will leap from its seat and exult: Well burrowed, old mole!

Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)



And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove:
(1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production,
(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,
(3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

Marx, Letter to Weydemeyer (1852)



History is the judge — its executioner, the proletarian.

Marx, Speech at Anniversary of The People’s Paper (1856)



The Afghans are a brave, hardy, and independent race; they follow pastoral or agricultural occupations only ... With them, war is an excitement and relief from the monotonous occupation of industrial pursuits.

Engels, On Afghanistan (1857)



The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside society ... is as much of an absurdity as is the development of language without individuals living together and talking to each other.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. ... if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts, from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape.
Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



In all forms of society there is one specific kind of production which predominates over the rest, ... a general illumination which bathes all the other colours and modifies their particularity.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



Relations of personal dependence are the first social forms in which human productive capacity develops only to a slight extent and at isolated points. Personal independence founded on objective dependence is the second great form, in which a system of general social metabolism, of universal relations, of all-round needs and universal capacities is formed for the first time. Free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth, is the third stage.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



Capital and labour relate to each other here like money and commodity; the former is the general form of wealth, the other only the substance destined for immediate consumption. Capital’s ceaseless striving towards the general form of wealth drives labour beyond the limits of its natural paltriness, and thus creates the material elements for the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption, and whose labour also therefore appears no longer as labour, but as the full development of activity itself, in which natural necessity in its direct form has disappeared; because natural need has been replaced by historically produced need. This is why capital is productive; i.e. an essential relation for the development of the social productive forces. It ceases to exist as such only where the development of these productive forces themselves encounters its barrier in capital itself.

Marx, 1The Grundrisse (1857)



The pay of the common soldier is also reduced to a minimum — determined purely by the production costs necessary to procure him. But he exchanges the performance of his services not for capital, but for the revenue of the state.
In bourgeois society itself, all exchange of personal services for revenue — including labour for personal consumption, cooking, sewing etc., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductive classes, civil servants, physicians, lawyers, scholars etc. — belongs under this rubric, within this category. All menial servants etc. By means of their services — often coerced — all these workers, from the least to the highest, obtain for themselves a share of the surplus product, of the capitalist’s revenue.
But it does not occur to anyone to think that by means of the exchange of his revenue for such services, i.e. through private consumption, the capitalist posits himself as capitalist. Rather, he thereby spends the fruits of his capital. It does not change the nature of the relation that the proportions in which revenue is exchanged for this kind of living labour are themselves determined by the general laws of production.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



For example, when the peasant takes a wandering tailor, of the kind that existed in times past, into his house, and gives him the material to make clothes with. ... The man who takes the cloth I supplied to him and makes me an article of clothing out of it gives me a use value. But instead of giving it directly in objective form, he gives it in the form of activity. I give him a completed use value; he completes another for me. The difference between previous, objectified labour and living, present labour here appears as a merely formal difference between the different tenses of labour, at one time in the perfect and at another in the present.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



The separation of public works from the state, and their migration into the domain of the works undertaken by capital itself, indicates the degree to which the real community has constituted itself in the form of capital.

Marx, The Grundrisse (1857)



In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



There is in every social formation a particular branch of production which determines the position and importance of all the others, and the relations obtaining in this branch accordingly determine the relations of all other branches as well. It is as though light of a particular hue were cast upon everything, tingeing all other colours and modifying their specific features.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)



A philosopher produces ideas, a poet poems, a clergyman sermons, a professor compendia and so on. A criminal produces crimes. If we take a closer look at the connection between this latter branch of production and society as a whole, we shall rid ourselves of many prejudices. The criminal produces not only crimes but also criminal law, and with this also the professor who gives lectures on criminal law and in addition to this the inevitable compendium in which this same professor throws his lectures onto the general market as “commodities”.

Marx, Theories of Surplus Value (1861)



All economists share the error of examining surplus-value not as such, in its pure form, but in the particular forms of profit and rent.

Marx, Theories of Surplus Value (1863)



I do not think I shall be able to deliver the manuscript of the first volume to Hamburg before October. ... I cannot go to Geneva. I consider that what I am doing through this work is far more important for the working class than anything I might be able to do personally at any Congress.

Marx, Letter to Kugelmann (1866)



The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as "an immense accumulation of commodities," its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



Labour is ... not the only source of material wealth, ie of the use-values it produces. As William Petty says, labour is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



the existence of the things qua commodities, and the value-relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. ... This I call the Fetishism ... of commodities.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



Man’s reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz., the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so soon as we come to other forms of production.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



Political Economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely, value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour-time by the magnitude of that value. These formulae, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



It is with man as with commodities. Since he comes into the world neither with a looking glass in his hand, nor as a Fichtean philosopher, to whom ‘I am I’ is sufficient, man first sees and recognises himself in other men. Peter only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing himself with Paul as being of like kind. And thereby Paul, just as he stands in his Pauline personality, becomes to Peter the type of the genus homo.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter One (1867)



The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 3 (1867)



Modern society, which, soon after its birth, pulled Plutus by the hair of his head from the bowels of the earth, greets gold as its Holy Grail, as the glittering incarnation of the very principle of its own life.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 3 (1867)



While the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 4 (1867)



Capital is money: Capital is commodities. ... Because it is value, it has acquired the occult quality of being able to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 4 (1867)



Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, ....

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 7 (1867)



As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus-value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour. Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 10 (1867)



Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 10 (1867)



In every stockjobbing swindle every one knows that some time or other the crash must come, but every one hopes that it may fall on the head of his neighbour, after he himself has caught the shower of gold and placed it in safety. Après moi le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society.


machinery has greatly increased the number of well-to-do idlers.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 15 (1867)



Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil and the labourer.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 15 (1867)



a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 16 (1867)



On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects..

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 16 (1867)



That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power. As soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value. ... That in their appearance things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well known in every science except Political Economy

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 19 (1867)



A rise in the price of labour, as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of the tension of it.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 25 (1867)



Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds.
The expropriators are expropriated.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 32 (1867)



here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them.

Marx, Preface to First German Edition of Capital (1867)



The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.

Marx, Preface to First German Edition of Capital (1867)



Is your wife also active in the German ladies' great emancipation campaign? I think that German women should begin by driving their husbands to self-emancipation.

Marx, Letter to Kugelmann (1868)



Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included).

Marx, Letter to Kugelmann (1868)



The English have at their disposal all necessary material preconditions for a social revolution. What they lack is the spirit of generalization and revolutionary passion. Only the General Council can provide them with this, and thus accelerate a truly revolutionary movement here and, in consequence, everywhere.

Marx, Confidential Communication on Bakunin (1870)



But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

Marx, The Paris Commune (1871)



Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, ....

Marx, The Paris Commune (1871)

In German: ‘Statt einmal in drei oder sechs Jahren zu entscheiden, welches Mitglied der herrschenden Klasse das Volk im Parlament ver- und zertreten soll ...

Engels’ German translation (1891)



It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterparts of older, and even defunct, forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness.
Marx, The Paris Commune (1871)



A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Engels, On Authority (1872)



My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. .... With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital (1873)



Political Economy can remain a science only so long as the class-struggle is latent or manifests itself only in isolated and sporadic phenomena. ... In France and in England the bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class-struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.

Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital (1873)



Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital (1873)



The bourgeoisie is just as necessary a precondition for the socialist revolution as is the proletariat itself.

Marx, On Social Relations in Russia (1874)



... defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)



In a higher phase of communist society, ... — only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)



It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle — insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, ‘in form’.

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)



Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)



Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.

Marx, Letter to Bracke (1875)



Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.

Engels, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (1876)



Labour is the source of all wealth, the political economists assert. And it really is the source — next to nature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is even infinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labour created man himself.

Engels, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (1876)



When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.



But this conception, correctly as it expresses the general character of the picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up, and so long as we do not understand these, we have not a clear idea of the whole picture. In order to understand these details we must detach them from their natural or historical connection and examine each one separately, its nature, special causes, effects, etc.

Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)



Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research.

Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)



Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasing daily.

Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)



all past history was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange.

Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)



the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter.

Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)



Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends.

Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877)



The idea that political acts, grand performances of state, are decisive in history is as old as written history itself, and is the main reason why so little material has been preserved for us in regard to the really progressive evolution of the peoples which has taken place quietly, in the background, behind these noisy scenes on the stage.

Engels, The Theory of Force (1877)



Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves – originating from various countries – to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.

Marx, Letter to Blos (1877)



It is becoming equally imperative to bring the individual spheres of knowledge into the correct connection with one another. In doing so, however, natural science enters the field of theory and here the methods of empiricism will not work, here only theoretical thinking can be of assistance. But theoretical thinking is an innate quality only as regards natural capacity. This natural capacity must be developed, improved, and for its improvement there is as yet no other means than the study of previous philosophy.

Engels, On Dialectics (1878)



Dialectics constitutes the most important form of thinking for present-day natural science, for it alone offers the analogue for, and thereby the method of explaining, the evolutionary processes occurring in nature, inter-connections in general, and transitions from one field of investigation to another.

Engels, On Dialectics (1878)



The Greeks were not yet advanced enough to dissect, analyse nature — nature is still viewed as a whole, in general. The universal connection of natural phenomena is not proved in regard to particular; to the Greeks it is the result of direct contemplation. Herein lies the inadequacy of Greek philosophy, ... But herein also lies its superiority over all its subsequent metaphysical opponents. If in regard to the Greeks metaphysics was right in particulars, in regard to metaphysics the Greeks were right in general.

Engels, On Dialectics (1878)



For nearly 40 years we have raised to prominence the idea of the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeois and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; ... At the founding of the International, we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

Marx and Engels, Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (1879)



Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasingly daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution.

Engels, Socialism: Utopian & Scientific (1880)



The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

Engels, Socialism: Utopian & Scientific (1880)



To save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution is needed.

Marx, Letter To Vera Zasulich (1881)



The history of the decline of primitive communities (it would be a mistake to place them all on the same level; as in geological formations, these historical forms contain a whole series of primary, secondary, tertiary types, etc.) has still to be written. All we have seen so far are some rather meagre outlines. But in any event the research has advanced far enough to establish that: (1) the vitality of primitive communities was incomparably greater than that of Semitic, Greek, Roman, etc. societies, and, a fortiori, that of modern capitalist societies; (2) the causes of their decline stem from economic facts which prevented them from passing a certain stage of development

Engels, Letter To Vera Zasulich (1881)



Not only can we manage very well without the interference of the capitalist class in the great industries of the country, but that their interference is becoming more and more a nuisance.

Engels, Social Classes - Necessary and Superfluous (1881)



Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
Engels, Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx (1883)



What is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’

Engels, Letter to Eduard Bernstein (1882)



It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself.
And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:
The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.
Engels, Dialectics of Nature (1883)



Every individual capital forms, however, but an individualised fraction, a fraction endowed with individual life, as it were, of the aggregate social capital, just as every individual capitalist is but an individual element of the capitalist class.

M
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. So am I supposed to be impressed with your ability to copy and paste?
If I had wanted to write a book, I would have done so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You, Sir, Are Supposed To and Expected To Whine, As You Have Done
Others will no doubt note the range of thought expressed, the variety of issues addressed, and be reinforced in their sense and knowledge yu quote very selectively, and with little, if any understanding of the whole body of Marxist thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. It is hardly necessary to recite the "whole body of Marxist thought"
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 05:16 PM by humblebum
when a quote is sufficient. And if you equate response to whining, then you are really putting on a show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. When You say That Quote is Its essence, Sir, It Certainly is Necessary To Show Knowledge Of It All
Your style in this reminds me of Edwina brandishing a doorknob and demanding a whole house be designed around it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I never said "That Quote is Its essence", but that particular quote
is unequivocal and needs no supporting explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Not So, Sir: You Maintain Communism Is All About Atheism, and Brandish that As Proof
Your craw-fishing has some limited amusement value, but fools no one familiar with your ouvre down here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I also never said nor suggested "Communism Is All About Atheism."
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 05:32 PM by humblebum
I also never said tha all communists are/were atheists. BUT, Marxist/Leninist Communism required ALL card-carrying members of the party to renounce any religious adherence and to declare themselves to be atheists. And they were also required to openly persecute and report any public displays or professions of religious belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. There You Go Again, Sir, Contradicting Your Opener In The Body Of the Comment
You try and pretend every comment you make is a brand new thing, wholly unrelated to a body of commentary you have been posting up here for a very long time. In it you have, among other things, denied that Communism took as its primary goal the overthrow of the capitalist order, the complete revolutionary re-ordering of all the economic, political and social arrangements characterizing the bourgeois order, and insisted that all such things were subsidiary and subordinate to establishment of atheism and destruction of religion. Denials of this, and of the ignorance of history it displays, will fool no one here; everyone knows what you get up to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I have never even suggested that communism was all about atheism
Edited on Wed Jun-29-11 06:27 PM by humblebum
and nothing else. However, what YOU are attempting to do is to frame it as such. Institution of state atheism or 'scientific atheism', though, was a significant element of the agenda, along with the others. Trying to minimize that fact would be an deception. Monuments and museums were dedicated solely to scientific atheism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. This Is Too Sad To Continue With, Fella, On Such a Sunny Day With a Grand-Daughter On My Lap
"Children make the best opponents at Scrabble, as they are both fun to beat and easy to cheat."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Enjoy your grandchildren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. It is you who have ludicrously attempted to attribute
ALL of the deaths under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to atheism. So, yes, you have suggested exactly that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. And where did i ever do that? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Here, among many other places...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. A true statement. They were atheists and atheist dictators.
But that does not mean that they were not communists or former bankers or poker players or suffered from terminal warts. But yes they were atheists. Quite true. When you find a statement where I say that atheism was the sole cause of such things, let me know. But yes they were atheists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Not surprised to see you continue your
usual pattern of blatant intellectual dishonesty. if you had claimed that poker players or dictators with brown hair murdered 130 million people as often as you claimed that for atheists, then maybe your dodge might hold some water, but as it stands, your rationalization fools no one. Your intent was clear. You had no other point than to attribute those deaths directly to atheism, frequently and in direct response to posters here claiming innumerable deaths attributable to religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. History is what it is. Sorry if that bothers you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
77. And they weren't all poker players or dictators with brown hair,
but they were ALL atheists. Let's see, what is the common trait? Oh yeah. Atheism! And since many were acting in the name of their respective atheist organizations or Red Guards who were required to harrass, report, and to root out religious adherents - maybe, just maybe, atheism and not brown hair might have been a factor. The numbers are too big and the facts are too well documented to deny the connection.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. Oh, please, show us the documentation
that all 130 million of those people died ("were murdered" in your words) because of direct and deliberate attempts to "root out religious adherents". As opposed to starvation, political persecution having nothing to do with religion, or any of a hundred other causes. We'll wait.

Repetition of the same idiotic meme by you does not constitute "documentation".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. There you go again purposely misquoting me. Where did I
ever say "that all 130 million of those people died ("were murdered" in your words) because of direct and deliberate attempts to 'root out religious adherents'"? That said, I have provided time and again sources of documentation and I am sure that you have probably seen and no doubt commented on same. It's not like this is some new Revelation. Did you ever bother to read Solzhenitzen's 'The Gulag Archipelago'? Or Storming the Heavens ... By Peris, or The Black Book of Communism ... by Courtois, or Godless Communism...by Husband? The list is quite long, meaning that thereis no breaking news here.

What I did say is that those who did the acts were indeed atheists. And yes a huge number of these people were rooted out for religious reasons and killed in any number of ways. But the fact still remains that the perpetrators were declared atheists. Quit trying to pin something on me I never said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. You said that 130 million people
"were murdered by atheists and atheistic dictators." And "since many were acting in the name of their respective atheist organizations or Red Guards who were required to harrass, report, and to root out religious adherents - maybe, just maybe, atheism and not brown hair might have been a factor. The numbers are too big and the facts are too well documented to deny the connection."

Your "sources" provide NO documentation whatsoever about how many of that alleged 130 million were "murdered" in the name of atheism. If it's not all of them, how many? You have no clue either. It's just a number you like to parrot, but repeating it endlessly doesn't make it true.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Those sources do indeed enumerate the incidents that I have
referred to, plus the Guinness Book of Records also referred to. But you are still strawmanning. I made the statement that 130 million (a median estimation) were victims of atrocities by atheist dictators and avowed atheists. That number includes all in the 20th century and the USSR, China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe, etc.

The fact still remains that they were atheists and atheist dictators and NOWHERE did I ever say that they were ALL killed in the name of atheism as you are implying, BUT nonetheless the doers and the doers' leaders were atheists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #77
129. Since You Continue This, Sir, The Fraud You Engage In Should Be Laid Out Clearly For The Audience
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 01:57 PM by The Magistrate
Your line here is a reaction to statement of a fact, variously phrased, that religion has been the motive for the killing of a great many people down the course of human history. Being a religious person, and one who conflates 'religion' with 'good and moral', this troubles you, particularly when it is stated by persons who do not believe there is any Deity, and that all religion is therefore fraud and lies. So you attempt to throw the charge back at them, and claim atheism is the motive for mass murder on a scale that dwarfs killing done from religious motives. In doing this, you engage in a variety of distortions of meaning and shadings of fact. They are pretty obvious, but worth stating openly, as you persist in them so energetically; room must be left for the possibility you really are not aware of what you are doing.

When people say religion has been the motive for killing a great many people, they do not mean that people who hold religious beliefs have killed a great many people, from whatever motive: that would be a wholly unremarkable observation, and hardly worth the typing out. They mean that people have killed other people from motives of religious belief, killed to suppress a dissident sect in their society, or to extend the range of dominion their religion exercises, or killed to enforce a code of behavior inherent to their religion, or killed as matter of religious ritual or rite. And in fact a tremendous number of people have been killed down the course of human history over these directly religious motivations. These are killings which, it could be fairly claimed, would not have taken place without religion, or more precisely, without the religious beliefs the killers felt directed them to kill others as a matter of sacred duty.

When you say in response, 'well, atheists have killed lots and lots of people,' you fail absolutely to tie this into any element of atheist doctrine or belief that requires such killing, and so do not actually mirror the statement you are attempting to defend against, that religion has been the motive for a great deal of killing, that a great deal of killing has owed to the killers subscribing to a religious belief the killing they engaged in was required by their Deity, by their holy law. Since there really is no 'doctrine' of atheism beyond the statement that there is no Deity, it is hard to see how you could tie killings by atheists into some atheist doctrine, in the way that, say, the persecution of heretics or wars of conversion can be tied directly to items of religious doctrine, or the killing of persons on a high altar by priests, or in funerary rites, can be tied directly to requirements of religious ritual or enforcement of a sacred code.

Adopting the standard you wish to apply to killing by atheists, you would have to accept that every killing throughout human history by a person who held a religious belief was a killing that should be charged up to the account of religion, and that it would owe to religion, regardless of its actual motivation. This would chalk just about every death from human agency since we first appeared as a species to the account of religion; indeed, it would include a great many of the killings you ascribe to atheism on religion's side of the ledger, since the actual agents of death, the guards in the camps, the personnel of the squads that carted away the grain, were as a matter of practical fact shot through with persons who retained religious beliefs; even if they were acting on the order of an atheist, they were the ones actually doing the killing, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. Your are making some outrageous assumptions about what you
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 02:42 PM by humblebum
perceive to be my personal motivations, when all I have done is confronted you with historic, verifiable truth. I have never denied that much was done in the name of religion, nor can I defend it. Likewise, much has been done in the name of atheism. You said, "Since there really is no 'doctrine' of atheism beyond the statement that there is no Deity, it is hard to see how you could tie killings by atheists into some atheist doctrine..." when in fact organized atheism very much operated and does operate according to some doctrine,e.g. 'The Atheist's Handbook', League of Militant Atheists, Society of the Godless, etc. Yes, this publication and those groups did put forth specific doctrines. You say that you are so knowledgable on the subject of history, then find out for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. You Have Confronted Me With Nothing But Very Poor Efforts At Propaganda, Sir
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 03:37 PM by The Magistrate
And it is noted that you make no attempt whatever to engage the case presented above.

Manuals for guidance in debate, and polemics against religion, which is what the items you have referenced actually are, are not statements of dogmas and doctrines. It remains the case that there is no 'doctrine' to atheism but the statement no deity exists. Different people will proclaim different proofs of this, or see different things following logically from it, but these are not analagous to credal statements. There is no atheist equivalent to the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine Allah creates the universe a-new each instant, or the doctrine humans are ordered into castes by divine decree, or the doctrine that the Emperor of Japan is a deity descended from a moon goddess, or the doctrine that Hong Xiuquan is the yonger brother of Jesus, called upon to spread the true religion to China, and so on and so on. All of these things, too, can foster manuals for debate, and have differing proofs for, or logical consequences from, them put forward by various people who adhere to them.

But do not think you are going to be allowed to wriggle off the point presented and sustained: the 'case' you purport to present against atheism, in an attempt to rebut the clearly sustained charge religion has been, and still is, a frequent motive, by doctrine, for killing, by positing a grand equivalence, is wholly fraudulent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. There is no question that you are in denial.
You said,"the 'case' you purport to present against atheism, in an attempt to rebut the clearly sustained charge religion has been, and still is, a frequent motive, by doctrine, for killing, by positing a grand equivalence, is wholly fraudulent." First of all, please don't tell me what I am trying to rebutt. What I have written about organized atheism stands alone, and has been verified by objective, empirical evidence. I have not even tried to argue for or agaist any element of Christian or religious history.

What you are attempting to describe is the simple definition of atheism. However, people can organize around any premise, goal, belief, lack of belief, OR in opposition to belief, as was clearly the case. Yes, people have indeed organized in the name of atheism and have put forth specific doctrines. Are all atheists to be pigeon-holed into such a structured stereotyping? Of course not. But to deny the reality of these things is denial in the face of the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. You Do Not Even Present A Point With That, Sir, Let Alone Sustain It
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 04:16 PM by The Magistrate
The fact is that the pattern of fraudulent argument you engage in has been rumbled, and you have nothing but expostulation in response.

You attempt to set up a false equivalence, to take the sting out of the fact that a great many people have been killed in explicit obedience to discrete items of religious dogmas and doctrines. Since this cannot be done honestly, you necessarily resort to varius distortortions of fact and meaning. This can only produce a fraudulent argument, and that is exactly what you present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. You keep trying to tell me what I think and what I am trying to rebutt,
which is nothing more than a brazen red herring by you. I have not distorted anything. History truly is what it is. You can spin it, deny it, call it fraud, whatever your little ole heart desires. But to deny something in the face of such clear historical evidence is foolishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. If You Find Accurate Description Uncomfortable, Sir, There is Always The Option Of Change....
"Counselors are standing by."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #138
140.  You seem to be the one to "Find Accurate Description Uncomfortable."
You have accused me of fraud, without pointing out where such fraud displays itself. You have attempted to redirect attention away from any statement of fact that I have presented. It is those facts that YOU are clearly uncomfortable with and are unable to rebutt. Denial and attempts at diversion to rationalize your denial. I'll stand by the historical facts, if that's OK with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. This, Sir, is Below Even Your Own Accustomed Level, Poor As It Is
"I'm going home now. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. Your blizzard of phony accusations, sir, has been nothing more
Edited on Fri Jul-01-11 05:39 PM by humblebum
than an attempt to obscure the only argument that I have been making. Next time try debating the facts instead of engaging in diversionary tactics away from them, as has been your attempt here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. !
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
21. Important warning; thanks!
Too many leaders exploit religion - or other ideologies such as nationalism - to maintain themselves in power, and manipulate people into accepting wicked policies and actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. Is it the exception or the rule in history
that politics has tried to hijack religion for its own purposes? And vice versa? How is our current time anything particularly different or special when it comes to the political abuses of religion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dimbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. How is our current time anything particularly different or special ?
The only time US history has had a breather from religion was a short period just after the Revolutionary War. People still kept in mind the allegiance of the largest colonial church, the Church of England, and for a short time kept politcs aloof from organized religion. The fathers acted as best they could to protect us, with amendments and such, but as usual the sheep missed their shackles, and in a period ironically called 'the Great Awakening' rationalism took a dive. That would be about 1820 on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. Now this sounds interesting...
Histories of the USSR during World War II generally portray the Kremlin's restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church as an attempt by an ideologically bankrupt regime to appeal to Russian nationalism in order to counter the mortal threat of Nazism.

Here, Steven Merritt Miner argues that this version of events, while not wholly untrue, is incomplete. Using newly opened Soviet-era archives as well as neglected British and American sources, he examines the complex and profound role of religion, especially Russian Orthodoxy, in the policies of Stalin's government during World War II.

Miner demonstrates that Stalin decided to restore the Church to prominence not primarily as a means to stoke the fires of Russian nationalism but as a tool for restoring Soviet power to areas that the Red Army recovered from German occupation. The Kremlin also harnessed the Church for propaganda campaigns aimed at convincing the Western Allies that the USSR, far from being a source of religious repression, was a bastion of religious freedom. In his conclusion, Miner explores how Stalin's religious policy helped shape the postwar history of the USSR.


"Stalin's Holy War: Religion, Nationalism, and Alliance Politics, 1941-1945" by Steven Merritt Miner.

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Holy-War-Nationalism-1941-1945/dp/0807827363

Miner teaches Russian history at Ohio University and is a real expert in the subject...unlike a couple of the deathcount-obsessed comrades here in R/T.

Anyone interested in real Russian history can also pick up any of the fascinating books by Sheila Fitzpatrick, especially "Everyday Stalinism." She teaches modern Russian history at the University of Chicago.

One of the faves in my library is The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia by David King. People didn't just literally get disappeared under Stalin; they got virtually disappeared too, being airbrushed out of official photos and artworks. The book compares the original works with the censored ones, side by side. A fascinating look at just how far a govt. can go to re-write history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
88. Thanks for posting Peacetrain
hope you enjoy the ride :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #88
127. ....
So far so good.. I think I still have 9 of my 10 fingers left.. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
125. I guess I thought religion existed for political gain.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Good question
With time and numbers..political power is the next step..

I can't speak for any other religion..But Christianity the religion I am a part of.. started out as a table discussion and service.

We were a odd little Jewish sect. The wonderful X that so many Christians today get into a fluster about, marks how we identified one another during the early persecutions.

Then in the third century, Rome adopts Christianity, and the table turns and now that odd little Jewish sect, is in seats of power.

And power corrupts.

People start denominations to push off how different they are from THAT group of Christians and focus on a few stanzas in biblical texts.. and get completely off track.

2,000 years of transition, right though the dark ages and you are going to come up with some pretty sorry characters.


Facts are facts..can't get past that.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC