hezekiah jones

nm

lpetrich

Radorth:
I could have written Bertrands "article" myself, it contains so few arguments which are not from the 19th century. He's a real yawn. His dependence on negative Catholic church history and dogma, while basically ignoring Protestant reformations and the original words of Jesus tells me he keeps his own head buried in the sand.

Which makes me wonder if Radorth had REALLY read BR's article, because BR does find fault with some of Jesus Christ's teachings and activities:

* Belief in eternal damnation, which he seemed to enjoy thinking about.

* Claiming that speaking against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable.

* Fulminating at those who would not listen to him.

* Cursing a certain fig tree for not bearing figs when he wanted to eat.

* Sending some demons into some innocent pigs, which then proceed to stampede into a nearby lake.

Also, the Catholic Church was Xtianity in Western and Central Europe for over a millennium, and it is still the largest Xtian sect. If indulging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy makes Radorth happy, we may have to let him do it.

If we are going to use examples of behavior and oppressive dogma, let us compare both the good and the evil ones on both sides. What has Marx' atheist dogma brought to the world? Almost nothing but suffering and oppression.

Marxism is a LOT more than atheism, something that Radorth seems unaware of. And one can be an atheist while rejecting Marxism. Furthermore, there is the serious question of how close Communism in practice has been to Marx's teachings.

I think that Radorth ought to read Ayn Rand's writings. If he gets through them without bursting a blood vessel over how an atheist can be anti-Communist, he may actually learn something.

One can find examples of bad and useless atheist dogma of much later origin than that the Catholic church. Since St Bertrand's preaching ended not so long ago, we have seen few examples of change in ANYBODY's behavior because of it.

Earth to Radorth, Earth to Radorth, Bertrand Russell's followers have not created some big cult which claims that its followers become New People as a result of studying BR's writings.

Christians were the first to publish the poems of slaves, and graduate black women from college, ...

And were also big on slave-owning and justifications for it. Radorth ought to study all those who claimed that slavery was in complete accordance with the Bible, and those who claimed that it was OK for white people to enslave black people because black people suffered the curse of Ham.

As BR himself notes, one of Tom Paine's critics offered this curious defense of the selection of the Midianite young ladies as not to be mass-murdered: they were not going to be used for "immoral purposes", as TP had implied, but were enslaved, something to which that critic claimed there could be no moral objection.

These generalizations about Christians sitting around waiting to go to heaven, and not taking personal responsibility are simple false, ...

Except that Jesus Christ himself, in the Sermon on the Mount, commanded that one ought not to worry about earning a living, because God feeds the birds and the wildflowers. And remember the manna-from-heaven miracle in the OT.

At least Wells found in Jesus' Gospel an extraordinary social impetus, but he seems one of the few atheists wise and honest enough to make any distinction between Jesus' example and that of less spiritual followers.

I don't care about what a saint he is supposed to be. To me, JC's teachings are very flawed.

Paperstreet

It makes me sick when people claim athiesm = communism. If thats the case, the Klu Klux Klan = christianity. Or how about molesting little boys = christianity? Communist Russia was a religion of a very different kind. There was an article written on this site that explained it much better.

christ-on-a-stick

lpetrich -

Great post. I look forward to a reasoned response, but *not* with bated breath

Vorkosigan

I could have written Bertrands "article" myself, it contains so few arguments which are not from the 19th century. He's a real yawn. His dependence on negative Catholic church history and dogma, while basically ignoring Protestant reformations and the original words of Jesus tells me he keeps his own head buried in the sand.

What! You know the original words of Jesus? Can you tell the world what they are? All of New Testament scholarship would like to know this.

If we are going to use examples of behavior and oppressive dogma, let us compare both the good and the evil ones on both sides. What has Marx' atheist dogma brought to the world?

Communism is bad because it is authoritarian.....like Christianity.

people. Finney is a prime example. At one time, his benevolent organizations' budgets together exceeded the federal budget.

Charles Grandison Finney?

That said, wouldn't it be nice if we could find the best examples of atheist or Christian goodness, and follow them?

You bet.

Christians were the first to publish the poems of slaves,

What are you talking about? Slavery was widespread across the planet and publication of slave poetry had taken place in many cultures around the world.

I also believe nothing really changes until someone repents.

Hogwash. Plenty of people have been motivated to make change simply by watching others screw up. Do you think I joined the Taiwan democracy movement because somewhere down the line I had failed to be democratic somehow? Change happens when people take action. Motives for action can be limitless.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

The point, WHICH YOU YOURSELF MADE BELOW, is that one who does not follow Jesus cannot fairly be called a Christian.

It's not a fallacy.

Precisely. But I'm surprised you immediately use the "no true Scotsman" argument, having just called it a fallacy. Of course if you believed in situation logic and ethics, you'd see no contradiction there I suppose.

I never said atheists were communists. However as I recall, Russell had hopes for Communism and even overlooked considerable Communist oppression for many years. Until it was field tested and failed miserably, a majority of atheists did not protest even when it became obvious anti-Communists were being murdered and oppressed in large numbers. I'm merely giving an example of useless and oppressive dogma invented by atheists AFTER the worst "Christian" oppression had ended. Thus the argument that "rational" atheist people will ever make a difference is hogwash.

Rad

Radorth

blah blah blah. He said we worry too much, not that we should stop working. More of your situation logic at work, I think. We note you didn't quote the verse or context, and almost never do when commenting.

Re Vorkosigan:

I hope so. You mean BR made them up? You're bursting my bubble now.

Oh, we'll always have a authority over us. I guarantee it. The question is the authority is righteous and whether we have enough love, self-control and mutual submission so that we don't feel any oppression from it, or even need to be directed by it. I doubt you're ready and probable still resist evil for fear of punishment by some authority. You'd first have to understand how being a servant leads to complete liberation.

(It's another of those Zen things only Buddhists and real Christians seem to get)

Rad

lpetrich

Radorth:
The point, WHICH YOU YOURSELF MADE BELOW, is that one who does not follow Jesus cannot fairly be called a Christian.

Whatever counts as "following Jesus Christ". I wonder if Radorth:

Tells a mugger "Mug me again".
Has sold everything he has and given the money to the poor.
Has deserted his family.
Waits for God to rain food down on him.
Has considered neutering himself.

(on whether Marxists truly follow Karl Marx's teachings)

Precisely. But I'm surprised you immediately use the "no true Scotsman" argument, having just called it a fallacy.

True, it does seem like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But it is important to consider how much self-styled Marxists have departed from Karl Marx's teachings and theories. Some early Marxists had, indeed provoked Marx to deny that he was a Marxist.

What would be "no true Scotsman" would be to claim that wicked Marxists are not true Marxists on account of their wickedness.

I never said atheists were communists.

Radorth, you are the one who was insinuating that all atheists are either Commies or Commie-lovers. I guess that the example of Ayn Rand and her followers would be too much for your little mind to take.

She was an atheist, a fervent anti-Communist, and an ardent supporter of capitalism.

However as I recall, Russell had hopes for Communism and even overlooked considerable Communist oppression for many years.

Radorth clearly knows next to nothing about Bertrand Russell and Communism. BR was critical of Communism since the very beginning. When the Russian Revolution happened, he thought that it might improve, but he changed his mind after a visit in 1920.

He concluded that the early Soviet Union was much like Plato's Republic -- a comparison he did not intend to be very flattering: both were totalitarian states ruled by self-styled philosophers. Much like a theocracy, it must be said.

Both Platonists and Communists howled over that comparison.

BR also met Lenin, who explained to him how he once incited some of the poorer peasants against some of the richer ones -- "and they hanged them from the nearest tree -- ha ha ha ha ha ha!" Lenin's guffaw BR found very chilling. And to me it's a bit like our current President mocking one of his victims by saying "Please don't kill me".

And since then, BR had been very anti-Communist, making numerous unflattering comments about Communism in his writings, comparing it to a religion and stuff like that.

lpetrich

Radorth:
blah blah blah. He said we worry too much, not that we should stop working. ...

I had omitted the Bible quotes for the sake of brevity, but I will put in a quote for you:

Matthew 6: 25-34
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[2] ?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
(NIV, from The Bible Gateway).

So he's clearly saying that you ought not to earn a living or plan for the future, since god will feed and clothe you just as he feeds the birds and clothes the wildflowers.

Oh, we'll always have a authority over us. I guarantee it. ...

"I'm just following orders", I suppose.

You'd first have to understand how being a servant leads to complete liberation.

(It's another of those Zen things only Buddhists and real Christians seem to get)

I suggest that Radorth "liberate" himself by getting himself kidnapped.

Celsus

Actually, we can credit pretty much the entire science of sociology to Marx, but I suppose sociology just let all those liberal academics in to show Christianity for what it is. Oh yes, we can also credit him with developing the political economy approach to understanding economic systems, which is only just making a revival in economic literature. As an academic, Marx is a giant of the 19th century. He may have been wrong on a lot of things, and far too hazy in his visions for a utopian society (which made it so easy for Lenin et al. to abuse), but his contributions are monumental to the social sciences. He was also far less dogmatic than you make him out to be, though you wouldn't be able to tell without reading a better sample of his works. So if you want to fault Marx for the evils of communism, we'll fault Jesus for the evils of Christianity.

Joel