[QUOTE]
[b]Ms. Rebel wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Poo, again wrote:
[/b]
Jesus surely wouldn't approve of the Roman Catholic church of today, or any other church for that matter.
The Christian faith is hypocritical in many ways, at least the way it is commonly interpreted today.
There, am I insulting you now, Ms. Rebel? Am I not entitled to air my own opinion?
P.S - Jesus was a communist.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus lived 2000 years before communism and you don't know what communism actually is. It is a most hypocritical political system in 20th century. Even more than Nazism. And you are talking about Roman Catholic church like it is equality of all it's followers. We all know that there are some faults made by the church but you can't compare those kind of things with people who belong in it. Even priests are sometimes in confrontation between themselves. And Pope John Paul II apologized for all the mistakes that have been made by church through whole history. In that way, you are only able to see things in black and white and you don't believe that there are so many people out there who consider themselves Christians and they are also very generous human beings. For you, anyone who considers himself as a religious person is someone with the "defect". In that way, you are as bad as people who you are judging in here. Being a true Christian is trying to be good person as more as it's possible. That is something that people like you simply cannot understand.
[/QUOTE]
Ow, I think you read too much into that. I don't see how what I said equals to me believing that religious people are "defect". And let's not get into a political debate here, as we're already a bit off topic.
I wouldn't think less of anyone personally because of their religious affiliation. That would be very ignorant.
But I can't help but recall there being an interesting passage in the New Testament, and it goes something like this:
"42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. "
Oh, I like that last part. From wikipedia, on Christian communism.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
^You are probably talking about ideals that Karl Marx brought out which later have been used as pattern for communistic regimes. There is a big difference between those regimes and Marx's teachings. If you read it, you'll realize that communism was supposed to happen in countries like USA and not in the poor ones as Cuba or Czechoslovakia. So when you say that Jesus was a communist is as same as saying that Jesus was a dictator like Stalin. *laughs* Jesus and his apostles were talking about giving your possessions to the ones who need it more than you do; that's not called "communism". Communism used promotion of social cares and needs as excuse for totalitarianism and establishment of terror. Jesus is something quite opposite to that.
It's amazing how Beata often doesn't understand what's been said, and always acts like she understands it better than all of us.
Beata, Poo was just pointing out that some parts of the Bible paint Jesus as someone who had certain ideas about sharing stuff and ensuring everyone has the basic stuff they need to live, which are quite similar to some of Karl Marx's ideas. Just like on the Jazz thread, you're talking without doing a bit of research. Poo mentioned his source, but did you even bother taking a look at it before saying he was wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Communism
"If you read it, you'll realize that communism was supposed to happen in countries like USA and not in the poor ones as Cuba or Czechoslovakia"
Where the hell did that come from? True, ideal, marxist communism should happen more urgently on POOR countries, not rich ones. When a country is poor, it doesn't mean EVERYONE in the country is poor. In pretty much all of them there a few extremely rich groups, and a very large group of extremely poor people. In countries like the USA, like most of Europe, money and resources in general are better distributed. Most citizens have access to decent, comfortable lives. Where is it more urgent to redistribute the money: In a country where, let's say, 0.5% of the population owns more than half the money available and over 70% of the population starves, or in a country where nearly everyone belongs to the middle class?
Besides that, Marx himself wanted the revolution to take over the whole world. He NEVER mentioned it should happen on this country, or that country. Just read the final bit of the Communist Manifesto:
[i]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 Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. [b]They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, Unite![/b][/i][b]
[/b]
"Communism used promotion of social cares and needs as excuse for totalitarianism and establishment of terror."
And Christianity uses promotion of God for the same reasons, then. Right? [b]Communism[/b] doesn't defend totalitarianism. [b]Communism governments[/b] did so. Communism is, in fact, the FINAL stage of Marx's socialism: First, there's a revolution, to get rid of the government. Then, a socialist dictatorship takes over, performs radical changes in the whole system in order to make all farms, factories etc property of everyone, ensure everyone will have a job and get everything they need. And finally, once everything's working fine, the dictatorship goes away, and the whole nation works without any sort of government. This final stage is what Marx called Communism. Anarchism basically is a communist revolution that skips the socialist dictatorship. Communism has never existed in our world.
Just like Marx, Jesus (no matter if he existed or not, if he really was the son of God or just some crazy hippie) had some interesting ideas to make the world a better place for everyone, and some bastards distorted those ideas and used them in order to earn lots of power and spread terror for years, centuries.
I don't mean to insult anyone, but true Christianism and true Communism are dead. All we have lived are heavily distorted versions of both, that have very little to do with what the original "creators" had imagined. Marx would've probably been disappointed to see what people did with his ideas. And what about poor Jesus, then...? I doubt he'd accept to be a "Christian" nowadays.
Both ideas are very beautiful written in books, but simply dangerous in real life.
Beata, Poo was just pointing out that some parts of the Bible paint Jesus as someone who had certain ideas about sharing stuff and ensuring everyone has the basic stuff they need to live, which are quite similar to some of Karl Marx's ideas. Just like on the Jazz thread, you're talking without doing a bit of research. Poo mentioned his source, but did you even bother taking a look at it before saying he was wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Communism
"If you read it, you'll realize that communism was supposed to happen in countries like USA and not in the poor ones as Cuba or Czechoslovakia"
Where the hell did that come from? True, ideal, marxist communism should happen more urgently on POOR countries, not rich ones. When a country is poor, it doesn't mean EVERYONE in the country is poor. In pretty much all of them there a few extremely rich groups, and a very large group of extremely poor people. In countries like the USA, like most of Europe, money and resources in general are better distributed. Most citizens have access to decent, comfortable lives. Where is it more urgent to redistribute the money: In a country where, let's say, 0.5% of the population owns more than half the money available and over 70% of the population starves, or in a country where nearly everyone belongs to the middle class?
Besides that, Marx himself wanted the revolution to take over the whole world. He NEVER mentioned it should happen on this country, or that country. Just read the final bit of the Communist Manifesto:
[i]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 Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. [b]They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, Unite![/b][/i][b]
[/b]
"Communism used promotion of social cares and needs as excuse for totalitarianism and establishment of terror."
And Christianity uses promotion of God for the same reasons, then. Right? [b]Communism[/b] doesn't defend totalitarianism. [b]Communism governments[/b] did so. Communism is, in fact, the FINAL stage of Marx's socialism: First, there's a revolution, to get rid of the government. Then, a socialist dictatorship takes over, performs radical changes in the whole system in order to make all farms, factories etc property of everyone, ensure everyone will have a job and get everything they need. And finally, once everything's working fine, the dictatorship goes away, and the whole nation works without any sort of government. This final stage is what Marx called Communism. Anarchism basically is a communist revolution that skips the socialist dictatorship. Communism has never existed in our world.
Just like Marx, Jesus (no matter if he existed or not, if he really was the son of God or just some crazy hippie) had some interesting ideas to make the world a better place for everyone, and some bastards distorted those ideas and used them in order to earn lots of power and spread terror for years, centuries.
I don't mean to insult anyone, but true Christianism and true Communism are dead. All we have lived are heavily distorted versions of both, that have very little to do with what the original "creators" had imagined. Marx would've probably been disappointed to see what people did with his ideas. And what about poor Jesus, then...? I doubt he'd accept to be a "Christian" nowadays.
Both ideas are very beautiful written in books, but simply dangerous in real life.
Yes, communism must be an evil monster masquerading as a loving ideology.
And the church is in no way a mere tool for supressing the masses.
An impoverished African farmer having to feed a starving family may endure a lifetime of backbreaking hard work.
But it's all good. God loves him, right? As long as he's being a good person he'll go to heaven. Right?
And the church is in no way a mere tool for supressing the masses.
An impoverished African farmer having to feed a starving family may endure a lifetime of backbreaking hard work.
But it's all good. God loves him, right? As long as he's being a good person he'll go to heaven. Right?
Raf, everything that you wrote is wrong. Please, read some of the Marx's work and them come here to criticize me. You don't have any knowledge about basic principles of his doctrines. So, it's completely waste of time for me to explain you everything or should I say anything. For instance, when i say that communism supposed to happen in countries like USA I didn't deny the fact that Marx said that revolution must include whole world. I mentioned USA just to describe how that world of revolution supposed to look like. As I see, you don't have any idea about Marx's dialectic materialism since he accentuated capitalization and economic prosperity as the final faze before revolution takes it's place. I'm not saying that America is the right country for something like that but it is more closer to that than any post communistic country. Please try to understand that you don't know shit and I'm tired of trying to convince you on that and then to teach you something new. :)
[b]
[/b]
[b]
[/b]
"As
I see, you don't have any idea about Marx's dialectic materialism since
he accentuated capitalization and economic prosperity as the final faze
before revolution takes it's place."
You were right at one point: I had never read much about dialectical materialism. So, I read about it before coming back here, and you're talking bollocks. Marx's dialectical materialism is a philosophical concept, it's his way to try to explain something, not an ideal we're supposed to pursuit.
Karl Marx did NOT defend capitalization, neither economic prosperity (not the way we see it in Capitalism, at least): [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx]"Karl Marx[/url] posited that socialism would be achieved via [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle]class struggle[/url] and a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolution]proletarian revolution[/url] which represents the [i]transitional[/i] stage between [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism]capitalism[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism]communism[/url]".
To him, the world is capitalist now. We make a revolution, go through a transitional stage to prepare society for communism, then we reach communism.
[b]LENIN [/b]was the one who used capitalism in the whole process. Since Russia's economy had been completely ruined, he came up with the New Economic Policy, a set of capitalist policies to save Russia from a huge economical collapse, to then start preparing it for communism. But it wasn't necessarily part of his ideology. Neither Lenin nor Marx believed it was necessary to make a set of capitalist decisions before moving on to communism. Lenin did it to avoid a major collapse.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
"Please try to understand that you don't know shit and I'm tired of trying to convince you on that and then to teach you something new."
Like I didn't know shit about jazz and ragtime and you were trying to teach me something new?
You were right at one point: I had never read much about dialectical materialism. So, I read about it before coming back here, and you're talking bollocks. Marx's dialectical materialism is a philosophical concept, it's his way to try to explain something, not an ideal we're supposed to pursuit.
Karl Marx did NOT defend capitalization, neither economic prosperity (not the way we see it in Capitalism, at least): [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx]"Karl Marx[/url] posited that socialism would be achieved via [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle]class struggle[/url] and a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolution]proletarian revolution[/url] which represents the [i]transitional[/i] stage between [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism]capitalism[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism]communism[/url]".
To him, the world is capitalist now. We make a revolution, go through a transitional stage to prepare society for communism, then we reach communism.
[b]LENIN [/b]was the one who used capitalism in the whole process. Since Russia's economy had been completely ruined, he came up with the New Economic Policy, a set of capitalist policies to save Russia from a huge economical collapse, to then start preparing it for communism. But it wasn't necessarily part of his ideology. Neither Lenin nor Marx believed it was necessary to make a set of capitalist decisions before moving on to communism. Lenin did it to avoid a major collapse.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
"Please try to understand that you don't know shit and I'm tired of trying to convince you on that and then to teach you something new."
Like I didn't know shit about jazz and ragtime and you were trying to teach me something new?
Meh, I don't agree with any of you.
I'll just send you both off to any available random concentration camp in the wilderness as soon as the revolution's over.
I'll just send you both off to any available random concentration camp in the wilderness as soon as the revolution's over.
well my holidays sucked because someone died....
now the family is in crisis.
i hate being stuck in this house.
it's bull....
now the family is in crisis.
i hate being stuck in this house.
it's bull....
[QUOTE]
[b]Poo, again wrote: [/b]
Meh, I don't agree with any of you.
I'll just send you both off to any available random concentration camp in the wilderness as soon as the revolution's over.[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha.
[b]Poo, again wrote: [/b]
Meh, I don't agree with any of you.
I'll just send you both off to any available random concentration camp in the wilderness as soon as the revolution's over.[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha.
[QUOTE]
[b]StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: [/b]
well my holidays sucked because someone died....
now the family is in crisis.
i hate being stuck in this house.
it's bull....[/QUOTE]
[img=/images/smiley/msn/sad_smile.gif][/img]
[b]StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: [/b]
well my holidays sucked because someone died....
now the family is in crisis.
i hate being stuck in this house.
it's bull....[/QUOTE]
[img=/images/smiley/msn/sad_smile.gif][/img]
[QUOTE]
[b]StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: [/b]
well my holidays sucked because someone died....
now the family is in crisis.
i hate being stuck in this house.
it's bull....[/QUOTE]
who died
[b]StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: [/b]
well my holidays sucked because someone died....
now the family is in crisis.
i hate being stuck in this house.
it's bull....[/QUOTE]
who died