So my friend Tyler corners me on a regular basis, and tries to put it buntly "to convert me".
My meaning is that my belief is that I do not believe Jesus is my savior in any way or form, I do not go to church (except when I'm with my grandparents so I don't make them fret), I don't pray, and I couldn't give a damn about the afterlife as far as I know its probably the Nexus from TNG: "Generations".
My belief/faith is in Communism, and my desire to help humanity by acheiving global peace and prosperity, and equality for all human beings and freedom from opression.
There is in this dream for a perfect world for religion of any shape or form except for whats done in private. I believed that humanity can evolve culturally and socially past the need for religion, just as children eventually grows out of the need for parental guidence.
He says my arguements are fubar and that I'm running away, my arguements are rational, I just don't see enough evidence around me for why I must believe in Jesus/God except in the abstract. If God exists then he probly created the big bang for that is all that is the only thing that is unknown territory for science and God serves as a good reason and another for explaning why the big bang happened. Now for why everything else happened.
There was once a time I was religious and believed in god and what not, but then I learned about the Inquististion, and the genocide of the millions of American Indians, the enslavement of whole peoples all in the name of god.
Sodom and Gonora as socially despicible they probly were did not deserve brimstone considering that if they did not worship god and were not forcing their lifestyles on other people, if we apply there logic to todays world then the theory of God causing Hurrican Katrina would be justified, it would also be justifiably in the terms of the bible to nuke China and Japan because they aren't Christians (Oh wait spoke too soon about Japan). So I don't believe Sodom and Gonora were ever actual destoryed, more likely as in the case of New Orleans, a asteroid just happened to hit them and it was atributed to God.
And finally, why I don't believe in God except in an agnostic/diest sense is because it would be a mockery and an insult to worship in one religion or another because I just don't have that level of faith within me, if one day I have a change of heart and do so then I'll gadly do so, but as it is I would not want to so rudely slap any faith in the face by worshipping in their temple or mosque or synagoge or shrine when I don't have the faith to do it trully without hypocrisy.
So am I running or am I being truthful?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*gasp* A Godless Communist!
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
Unfortunately there are always a few bad apples in every bunch. Some Christians totally miss the point and end up giving themselves a bad reputation and then, by association, the rest of us as well, much to our dismay.
edit: Do you feel like you're running from something or is that a label someone has put on you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're being truthful, Blayne, but you're still young enough that you haven't fully examined the depths of what you believe or the ramifications of those things. (Just as an example, ask yourself how it would be possible to achieve equality for all human beings while simultaneously achieving freedom from oppression.)
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Why is it that the biggest fans of Communism in the non-communist world are the ones least likely to happily take their place working in a factory or toiling at the state-run farm?
Coffee shop communism. pfeh
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I wash dishes at restaurants, factory work would be more rewarding me thinks.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
*dials up Joseph McCarthy*
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Having traveled to Russia in 1995 to volunteer for a week in an orphanage I have seen the results of the "benefits" of communism.
BTW, Communism and religion aren't mutually exclusive terms. Just ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Russians who continued to be faithful to their religion throughout Communism. I have two friends who grew up in the Communist USSR and were both raised as Christians.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*grumble* counter revolutionaries */grumble*
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Russia didn't really practice "pure" communisim as Marx suggested.
That being said, I don't think communisim is compatible with human nature.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Don't forget, God promised to spare those two cities you refered to if eve ten righteous men could be found. Neither the USSR nor China were/are wholely Godless societies despite what the publicists say. (There were underground religious people in the USSR and I'm sure there are in China too, even if we don't get to see them.)
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Heck, 'fair' isn't even in human nature, except when it's *me* (that's a collective 'me' as opposed to 'me' specifically) that fairness should be bestowed upon.
Communism is a nice ideal based on fairness for all, but humans aren't good about everything being fair - we want recognition for our achievments and the ability to advance beyond our peers.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Russia didn't really practice "pure" communisim as Marx suggested.
That being said, I don't think communisim is compatible with human nature.
Neither does China.
Frankly I don't think it can be done either. In fact the closest I've ever come to hearing about a "communist" type movement that worked was the Kibbutz movement in Israel in the early 1900's. (I am not saying that Isralies are communists.) These were groups of individual people who chose to live this way for the purpose of helping to integrate new immigrants and create workable farmland etc. It was not mandated by the government and not accepted by everyone. It worked because freedom of choice existed.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I don't think you're running away from anything as long as you don't think you are. There are some Christians (not all) who will try their hardest to convert you no matter what and will always try to make you think that what you currently think is wrong. My opinion is that you need to figure it out for yourself, without someone forcing it on you. If they happen to help you find God because you are willing to seek it, that's another story.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I'm just totally guessing off the top of my head here (so be kind to me):
The way I understand it, communism assumes people will be honest and behave. Capitalism and democracy assumes the oposite. So when people lie and steal in Democracy, the whole thing doesn't turn into some sick perversion.
I joked with an Asian friend of mine about going to China, and he said that would be a big mistake. He then proceeded to tell me how corrupt the government was and how everything was run by bribes and threats.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
A big problem with communism is that there is no reason to work especially hard. When you know that you will not get anything more then anyone else for working hard you do not have the incentive to go beyond mediocre.
This is actually true in my job too. I work on campus and I cannot get a raise, but I also won't be fired unless I steal or just don't show up. As bad as it sound it makes it hard to care about doing a great job.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
Running or being truthful, I think the problem is that your friend doesn't respect you enough to take "no" for an answer.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Is it just me, or did people stop reading after the word communist?
I've never seen a thread derail so quickly and completely
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Let's start a new thread for communism and/or the ideas of Marx. The two are most certainly not one and the same.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: A big problem with communism is that there is no reason to work especially hard. When you know that you will not get anything more then anyone else for working hard you do not have the incentive to go beyond mediocre.
I fail to see how this is true. If anything, the quality of merchandise coming out of Russia declined after the fall of Communism, especially "folksy" crafts such as matryoshka dolls and wooden toys.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The claim that there is no reason to work hard in communism illustrates more about what is wrong with capitalism than communism - because it illustrates how, in our capitalist system, we believe that there's no reason to work if you aren't getting paid for it. That belief does not reflect human nature.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres, as you should well know, since you've taken at least one introductory microeconomics course, capitalism does not depend on individual pay, but on personal utility from choices, which for many people happens to include pay as at least a moderate part.
That said, what most people portray as capitalism is a gross caricature of the system's historical roots.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
*points up*
fugu is correct.
That is all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm more into the belief that the struggle to achieve a perfect world is what is important.
As for my previous China reference I'm just refering that supposedly to the old/new testament a common interpretation was that any nation that was "unchristian" or "not believing in the Jewish god" deserved to burn in hellfire for all enternity and any natural desaster that happens to them they had it coming.
The fact that this interpretation changed to me points out contradictions in religious thought, but also the very coldness in how humanity is treated with throughout.
Thus human problems can only be solved with humans and the Marxist view of a leaderless utopia (regardless of the greek meaning Jesse) where everyone is equal, where there is no more suffering and everyone can work for the benefit of all happily should be the destiny and goal of humanity.
Though there are times when religion and communist ideas go together such as when south american bishops worked towards helping the poor, they were assasinated by the CIA.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Thus human problems can only be solved with humans and the Marxist view of a leaderless utopia (regardless of the greek meaning Jesse) where everyone is equal, where there is no more suffering and everyone can work for the benefit of all happily should be the destiny and goal of humanity.
Here's a question: if that goal cannot be achieved, is it better to work towards eliminating suffering, making everyone equal, or making people happy?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The fact that this interpretation changed to me points out contradictions in religious thought, but also the very coldness in how humanity is treated with throughout.
I don't know what this means.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tom if anyone one of those is achieved then I think it goes a long way towards solving the remaining others.
Beverly, I mean is that to some degree "God" turns a cold shoulder to humanity and by extension members of humanity interpret this as humanity being evil and must be purged.
If God kills 6 million and says its just for X reasons then I don't think it just to kill 6 million, I think it an evil and Imperialist act.
They very belief that God can do whatever he/she/it wants on a whim and say its just to me means that Humanity is not being loved and freed but enslaved and thus Humanity needs to stop needing a heavenly father figure to tell us what to do but instead we need only to look to ourselves, to our collective community to form order and to forge a new era.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I understand, a lot of people feel as you do. I guess I still don't understand the statment I quoted, though. What interpretation changed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom if anyone one of those is achieved then I think it goes a long way towards solving the remaining others.
I dunno. I can imagine worlds in which any one of those three would be true that actually exclude the other two options.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If you consider that 1000 years ago a city like new orleans being destroyed would have been cheered, today we critize any religious person who does similar.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Bradley, I think you need to examine if Communism really achieves the goals that you think it does.
quote:We didn't kill enough people.... Revolutions succeed only when rivers run red with blood, and blood has to be spilled if what you are aiming for is the perfectibility of the human race.
Ares Velouchiotes, Greek Communist
This seems to raise the same issues that you have with Christianity.
Ideals aside, Marxism-in-practice (i.e. Communism) impoverishes individuals and nations. It is a thin cover for unfettered power, corruption, and state-condoned mass murder. History has vindicated this point. There are numerous examples in the countries of Africa and the Orient. The nice thing about Capitalism is that you get to keep your life and material posessions.
If you want to achieve the goals of happiness, equality, and greater wealth for all, I suggest you switch your economic/social policy to the likes of Smith and Hayek.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"suffering, making everyone equal, or making people happy?"
Is people are happy then they aren't suffering, if everyone is equal then they are happy thus not suffering.
I think I can prove it with a truth table.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Au contraire. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church ahs been celebrating the destruction of New Orleans, and hardly anybody has taken notice this time around to criticize. His routine's getting a bit old, you know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Is people are happy then they aren't suffering, if everyone is equal then they are happy thus not suffering.
Wrong. People can be suffering without being cognizant of their suffering; consider a man with terminal cancer who's so doped up that he's no longer aware of anything but a general sense of bliss. Someone freezing to death, in their last moments, is said to feel nothing but peace and glorious warmth.
Moreover, equality does not produce happiness. At most, it can be said to reduce envy -- but a reduction of envy is not the same thing as an increase in contentment. And contentment isn't the same thing as happiness.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ah but the cruz of it is that you are content to be equal thats the point.
Also your taking the suffering thing a tad bit out of context.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ah but the cruz of it is that you are content to be equal thats the point.
Also your taking the suffering thing a tad bit out of context.
You say that the collective "you" are content to be equal. Why would you say that? What basis do you make this comment on?
This whole issue of equality reminds me of a short story that my literature class read in 9th grade. I don't remember exactly what it was called, but it was about an "equal" society. The ruling body determined that even if nobody rose higher than anyone else in society, things were inherently unequal. They made people who were naturally strong carry heavy weights around to make them less physically capable, and they made more intelligent people have things such as a constant loud buzzing noise in the ear to prevent easy thinking.
That said, I think that the story has some merit. As long as some humans are inherently better at some things than other humans, it's pretty much impossible to achieve equality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: the cruz of it is that you are content to be equal thats the point.
I dispute this, Blayne, based on what I understand of human nature. Most people would not be content to be equal. Most people would be content to be just a smidgen better than everyone else.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
"If everybody's special, then nobody is."
-o-
I'm going to stick with the derailment because I don't know that I could give a meaningful answer to the original question, which is, ultimately, very personal.
quote:Russia didn't really practice "pure" communisim as Marx suggested.
I considered pointing this out, but then I remembered that Blayne actually has defended many of the murderous Communist regimes that we have had in the last century, so I think it is fair game to point to their failure as evidence in this argument.
-o-
Some Russians may have retained their Christianity, but it would be naïve to think that religion was not stunted under communist regimes. When the public expression of religion is prohibited, and people are rewarded for turning in practitioners, and schools are used as an agent of state propaganda against religion, religion tends to die out because many faint Christians decide it is not worth the risk or hassle to continue openly practicing their religion. They may feel that they hold on to it in their hearts or teach it to their children, but without access to the organization of religion--as much as people deride organized religions--orthodoxy falls away, and in the absence of a community, eventually practice falls away as well. A typical religious family may be able to keep their religion for a generation, but not much beyond that.
Unlike some people I ain't just speaking through my earhole. I have plenty of relatives who left Cuba in the last decade, compared to the rest of the family, which left in the fifties and sixties, and those who were raised in Cuba after the revolution all report that religion was virtually unheard of there. Sure, there were certainly underground participants, but it was not longer common and everyday. And this is in a Latin American country--you know how famous latinos are for their Catholicism!
Things loosened up after JPII's visit to the island. Now practicing religion is frowned upon but not illegal. But the blow has been struck. Most people don't go to church or claim to be Catholic because they were not brought up doing these things.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't nessasarily defend everything about certain regimes, but some things are worth defending.
The point of transitional socialism is that with it society becomes disciplined enough, through socialiogal evolution to become content with equality.
Though equality would probly be more of smurf/startrek federation kind of equality.
But then again I don't really know what it'll be like, but the hope of such a society is what should drive us forward.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Mr.Funny, the story you read is probably Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.
I submit that "pure" communism hasn't been practiced because it's practically impossible. Lenin tried, but it caused a terrible Russian economy. As a consequence, parts of the economy were converted to maket-based economies.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I don't nessasarily defend everything about certain regimes, but some things are worth defending.
There is one example I am intimately familiar with--as far as I know, more familiar than anybody on this board--and that's Cuba. In the case of Cuba, the only thing worth defending that comes to mind at all is the lack of unemployment.
In contrast to that, we have:
violent repression
setting up of neighborhood committees to turn neighbor against neighbor
brainwashing kids in school
encouraging children to turn in their parents if their parents speak out against the revolution at home
mandatory pro-revolution pledges at places of employment, with prison as the ultimate penalty for repeated refusals to go along
the near-total elimination of freedom of mobility. Not a lot of Cuban tourists are coming to Disney World.
The removal of the free practice of religion
The destruction of a once-prosperous economy
The stealing of private real-estate property and corporations
The pollution of one of the most famous beaches in the Carribean
The stealing of medical supplies intended to be freely given to the people, to be sold, with the profits going to the military
The rise of rationing of most things we would consider essentials
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Sounds to me like the ideals of communism colapsed from the weight of corruption.
Either there is no protection from lying and stealing, or perhaps the means of achiving communism destroys the end goal.
"Can't start a clean and pure society by murdering everyone against it" sort of thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There's corruption in every society.
Honestly though, I agree that communism can't really work. People don't want to be equal. They want to know that they're better than everyone else in some way.
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:If you consider that 1000 years ago a city like new orleans being destroyed would have been cheered, today we critize any religious person who does similar.
I find that people in general value compassion far more than they used to. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we can't cloister ourselves away as easily. Communication makes the world smaller and from our youth up (hopefully) we are aware of the plights of others who are different than us.
Also, we have the luxury and free time to consider the needs of others. We can afford to be more selfless.
I think if the groups that produce terrorists were not so insular, they would have a harder time justifying their terrorism.
Has religion changed, or society? Did God (that I believe in) always want us to have a more compassionate view, but we didn't know how in our environment? I believe that God expects of us what we are capable of giving in our circumstances and judges us based on that.
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
The reasons why Christianity and Communism do not go together is because: 1. Communism believes that the individual is expendable. They believe that they can do whatever they wish to the individual to achieve a greater good. If this means torture or killing a whole lot of people, so be it, if it ultimately reaches their goal. 2. Communism is very atheistic, so any belief in a god or gods is a big no-no. 3. I haven't read it in awhile (so I may be mistaken) but, Marx's book states very close to the beginning, that Communism must be introduced by means of violence and hostility, aka, violent revolutions.
I am not precisely sure what your argument on why God doesn't exist is, but I'm getting the vibe that you don't believe in God because of the pain and suffering in the world. If this is the case, that is no more true than the fact that one unmade bed in a dormitory containing nineteen beds which have been made proves that there was no bed-maker there. It would be obvious that for some reason known to himself/herself the person who made the nineteen beds left the other one unmade.
I would have to say there is infintely more proof that God exists than that of Him not existsing at all. I could go through the argument of design with you but it is a very long process, and plus I think you probably know it already anyways.
Furthermore, God doesn't do bad things just because He can, He doesn't get his "kicks" and pleasures this way. "God Almighty would in no way permit evil in His works were He not so omnipotent and good that even out of evil He could work good." (St Augustine)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: 1. Communism believes that the individual is expendable. They believe that they can do whatever they wish to the individual to achieve a greater good. If this means torture or killing a whole lot of people, so be it, if it ultimately reaches their goal. 2. Communism is very atheistic, so any belief in a god or gods is a big no-no. 3. I haven't read it in awhile (so I may be mistaken) but, Marx's book states very close to the beginning, that Communism must be introduced by means of violence and hostility, aka, violent revolutions.
Hrm. I would argue that each of these points is in some way flawed.
quote: I am not precisely sure what your argument on why God doesn't exist is, but I'm getting the vibe that you don't believe in God because of the pain and suffering in the world. If this is the case, that is no more true than the fact that one unmade bed in a dormitory containing nineteen beds which have been made proves that there was no bed-maker there.
So your argument here is that God is occasionally busy or absent, or chooses to leave the odd bed unmade for some reason?
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
God occasionally chooses to leave a "bed unmade" for reasons only He knows. So going back to the quote by St Augustine, although leaving these beds unmade may seem evil to us,He would not do so if he was not so omnipotent and good that even out of evil He could work good. I guess the rest is up to faith.
And could you please argue the three points, I'd just like know what I'm leaving out. Thanks
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So going back to the quote by St Augustine, although leaving these beds unmade may seem evil to us,He would not do so if he was not so omnipotent and good that even out of evil He could work good.
Yeah, I'm afraid I don't find Augustine's argument compelling. Because if He's omnipotent, it's not necessary for Him to work good out of evil; He could just as easily work good out of good.
----------
1. Communism as a philosophy does not believe the individual is expendable, but rather that the individual is best served by preserving society; in other words, there is a greater good which exists, in a broader sense, to serve the individual. This means that specific individuals may not achieve their full potential, but the idea is that potential is optimized for more individuals and therefore higher overall.
Clearly, I don't agree with this premise, either. But I think the use of the word "expendable" suggests that communists believe there is no value to the self or the perception of the self; rather, they believe that the self is not as important as the whole. I think that's an important distinction.
2. Communism is not inherently atheistic. Marx was antagonistic to religion because he perceived that it was used to mollify the masses, to promise them future rewards that they would not see in this lifetime and thus accustom them to a life of servitude and misery. The church served as a higher authority and an ultimate carrot. Under Lenin, it was decided that worship of the state could be used in much the same way; this was not a product of communist philosophy, rather, but of simple dictatorial logic. Most dictatorial states require worship of the state to survive.
3. Marx felt -- perhaps rightly -- that existing capitalist structures could not be replaced without violent revolution. He stopped just short of advocating this revolution, which indicates that he may have felt it was simply inevitable. But this makes for a poor contrast with Christianity. After all, Christ himself observes that he brings not peace, but the sword -- and the Book of Revelations makes clear that Heaven on Earth will not happen until billions of people on this planet are scourged and cast into Hell. By comparison, a little revolution is a relatively minor sunk cost.
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the difference for point number one between my explanation and yours. If you say the person is better served by preserving society by whatever means, clearly they believe that the individual is, not expendable, but a pawn in which the government can manipulate and use to better society, and thus, them. I still see that if you agree with this philosophy, you see the individual as expendable. The second argument I agree with you upon further thought. But the last point, revolution was merely an example I was giving. I was mainly focussing on Marx's statement that Communism must be intoduced by means of violence, and in most cases, this happens to be a violent and bloody revolution. Revolution in its broader context is not anti-Christian, but the act of violence is. When Christ tells His apostles that he did not bring peace, but a sword, He simply means the end times in which peace will rule had not yet come. In terms of the sword, the sword was not a symbol of violence, but a transition between the old and new covenant, the reformation of the old Church. It's true that the revelation speaks of great violence and deaths, but this is mostly due to the antichrist and his manipulations, persecutions of the church and the many martyrdoms which will occur. I'm pretty sure in the Revolutions, it is the demons which begin the violence and then God takes action. not vice versa. And lastly, the comment that God could do good out of good, I'm sorry to say but you don't have to be omnipotent to do that. Heck, I could do good from good. St Augustine was explaining how God was so omnipotent that although the evil will cause great pain, the good that God can create from it is much more fruitful, and infintely more good. Now that's true omnipotence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I still see that if you agree with this philosophy, you see the individual as expendable.
It's a matter of priority. Consider that capitalism considers the individual "expendable" in similar instances; it's certainly not the case that an individual in this country can do whatever makes him happy. At some point, for the good of society, we limit his behavior. Communism just draws those limits closer to the bone.
quote: I'm pretty sure in the Revolutions, it is the demons which begin the violence and then God takes action.
No. It's pretty much God all the way. God lets some demons play around a bit, but most of the deaths are a direct consequence of His hand. It's actually a bit chilling, IMO.
quote: St Augustine was explaining how God was so omnipotent that although the evil will cause great pain, the good that God can create from it is much more fruitful...
Ah. But why? Why couldn't a truly omnipotent God create perfectly fruitful good from good? And if He could, why tolerate the existence of evil at all? Does God need evil to produce the highest quality good?
Posted by Domasai (Member # 8739) on :
I'm not completely unlike the topic's original author. I lack religion despite being raised in a very religious family, though I am very, very interested in all religions -- and religion in and of itself. I find the concept of faith and all the tenets related to it fascinating no matter the denomination or creed, and I'm glad it's there to help people when they need something to lean on or help bring like-minded individuals together.
That said, I don't agree with raking members of a faith across the coals for mistakes made in that faith's name. Every ruling body in history has done things it could and should feel guilty about. Communism, I might point out, is definitely not an exception to that rule.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)