NationStates Jolt Archive

Nobody is demonizing the constitution, at least I was not and the OP was not, nor was the pastor in his congregation.
And here we are back at page one of this thread, because I and many others think that is exactly what Zilam's pastor did and have been saying so since the beginning. How else do you interpret the pastor's claim that the reason they had to be silent was because of "separation of church and state" except as a claim that the Constitution is used to stifle freedom of religion, not protect it?

But Christianity is looked at by a vocal number of people, heavily concentrated in the academic world, as some sort of cancer.
Again, you have failed to prove that this attitude is prevalent. You also ignore the fact that the bigoted views of a few individuals does not amount to a campaign, or even an atmosphere, of persecution.

That Christians are superstitous, intolerant of other faiths, shove their morals down others' throats and wish to dominate this government and land. It is an organized effort as well with institutions like the ACLU...but yes I am repeating myself.
Yes, you are. Do you have anything to back up these assertions, or anything to show the existence of a persecution against Christianity?

I just want it to be clear where I am coming from. There are people who seek to cut Christianity out of the equation and are happy to see the number of church goers fall and wish to downplay or trivialize whatever historical relevance the religion had to the formation or ideals of this country, hoping whatever influence it has weakens.
A) Again, welcome to my world, as there are people who seek to have my religion stamped out altogether. I manage to cope, thanks to US law. Why can't you?

B) How do you know what the goals of these supposed people are? Is there a manifesto written somewhere? This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory.

It is possible to believe in separation of Church and state and also believe that Christianity and spirituality in general has a positive influence on this country.
Yes, of course. I would think that would be obvious.

He is a shock jock of a different breed, yes. He is entertaining as well in my opinion and does put forth rational viewpoints when not sticking to his true ideals. Howard was entertaining too, but his show lost its appeal. He became too obsessed wth pornstars while Rush became too obsessed with party loyalty.

Muravyets, are there any left wing pundits you are willing to criticize? I noticed you did not comment on Air America or Daily Kos.

That's because I never listen to or read them. I have no idea what they say beyond that they are liberals opposed to the rightwing. In general, I do not approve of punditry. I often stare at the television and ask aloud, "Why are we being told this idiot's opinion?", regardless of who the idiot happens to be.

Whats the criac?
I've been reading some of the above posts.

Okay when tells Joshua+Israelites to kill everyone in the land, it must be okay if God said so. God created the people, he can also destroy them if he wants. If I made a clay model, it would be wrong for someone else to destroy it if I didn't want them to. But I can destroy it since I made it or I can allow others to destroy it if I wanted it to be destroyed.
__________________________________________________________________
About the eye for an eye thingy earlier(revenge).

In the Old Testement
Technicly, God allows you to do the same thing back to someone when they wrong you, you can take revenge but you can't do more than what they did to you.

In the New Testement
The above still applies, but Jesus elaborates on it. He says you don't have to do the same back to the person, you should do less or preferibly nothing at all.

The above is sort of taken formthe sermon on the mount.

Whats the criac?
I've been reading some of the above posts.

Okay when tells Joshua+Israelites to kill everyone in the land, it must be okay if God said so. God created the people, he can also destroy them if he wants. If I made a clay model, it would be wrong for someone else to destroy it if I didn't want them to. But I can destroy it since I made it or I can allow others to destroy it if I wanted it to be destroyed.
__________________________________________________________________
About the eye for an eye thingy earlier(revenge).

In the Old Testement
Technicly, God allows you to do the same thing back to someone when they wrong you, you can take revenge but you can't do more than what they did to you.

In the New Testement
The above still applies, but Jesus elaborates on it. He says you don't have to do the same back to the person, you should do less or preferibly nothing at all.

The above is sort of taken formthe sermon on the mount.

That's just incoherent enough to make it not worth the time it would take to read it.

Damn it, I killed the thread.

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend too much time on making my posts easy to read, I'm rather busy at the moment.

Ooops, I just realised that my post above was in relation to page 51 of the forum, not page 101. My mistake.

When you say it was incoherant, do you mean the way it was written or what I was saying was incoherant

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend too much time on making my posts easy to read, I'm rather busy at the moment.

Ooops, I just realised that my post above was in relation to page 51 of the forum, not page 101. My mistake.

When you say it was incoherant, do you mean the way it was written or what I was saying was incoherant

incoherent is g(f)ood

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend too much time on making my posts easy to read, I'm rather busy at the moment.

Ooops, I just realised that my post above was in relation to page 51 of the forum, not page 101. My mistake.

When you say it was incoherant, do you mean the way it was written or what I was saying was incoherant

What you were saying, I'd say.

well...there's nothing left to say it seems now that we have done a huge 100 page loop to get back to original topic.

quick, somebody divert the thread!

well...there's nothing left to say it seems now that we have done a huge 100 page loop to get back to original topic.

quick, somebody divert the thread!

Pie are squared!
Sorry, I couldn't think of anything else on short notice.

Pie are squared!
Sorry, I couldn't think of anything else on short notice.

blasphemy! but i would expect that from someone like you! This is the injustice we all must fight. :D

It's about time them Christians were silenced. Over 100 pages, I mean, really!

It's about time them Christians were silenced. Over 100 pages, I mean, really!

We have a winner! :D

Okay, we're done here, I think.

Right, right, right, right, right, :rolleyes:

Marxism isn’t Communism? Really? You should have told that to the publishers of the manifesto then in the mid-nineteenth century…

What it says about itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.doc

What happened for its release in the world and why we know the word Communism in today’s world…
The Communist Manifesto, taken back to Germany in March and April 1848 by the returning members if the league, exerted no massive influence during the revolution. In the year of the revolution it had gone through two editions of several thousand copies and was published in partially in newspapers, so it was discussed in workers' associations. It provided the basis for the reorganization of the League of Communists between 1849 and 1852 and even after the league's dissolution it remained the most important source for communication and understanding among members of the league. The Manifesto stated that it would be published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish languages. The first translation was in Swedish in 1848; it was followed in 1850 by a partial translation into English in which, as in the reprint of the third section in the last volume of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung - Politisch-ökonomische Revue, the names of Marx and Engels were for the first time mentioned as the authors of the book. In 1869 a Russian translation and in 1872 a French translation were published. Only with the development of proletarian mass parties in several countries was it possible for the Manifesto to reach its great impact in the last third of the 19th century. With some thousand copies printed up to 1871, the new edition by the Zurich edition of the Sozialdemokrat reached twenty thousand. In 1890 Engels described the Manifesto as the "most widely distributed, the most international product of the entire socialist literature." Since then it has been published in some thousand editions and in more than a hundred languages.
~ Walter Schmidt
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/commat.htm *bolding by me to catch your attention...

Perhaps you are mistaking Marxism with Stalinism? Whereas, Marxism IS Communism, Stalinism is not.

In as much as Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, he did so under the directive of the delegates of the States. And in the same way that The Declaration of Independence belongs to all Americans, not just Jeffersonians, the Communist Manifesto of 1847 written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels belongs to all Communists, not just Marxists. The Communist League delegated them (authorized them) and then approved and published and sponsored the publication of the document in the European countries already outlined above. The Multilanguage release of the document was the production of the Communist League (not the Marxist League), they sponsored and released the their Communist Manifesto. Every modern communist party left in the world owes it’s allegiance to the document YOU call Marxism.

You want to re-invent what Communism means? Then you should choose a name not currently in use.

I didn't say that Marxism is not a brand of Communism. However, it is no more the definition of communism than Catholicism is the definition of Christianity. It's not a competition of who said it first. Marx may have fathered the movement, but the definition of Communism and the definition of Marxism are not the same thing. It's too bad you still don't understand that. There are many in Catholicism that say it is the only 'true' form of Christianity. Me, personally, I don't fall for True Scotsman fallacies.

Some would argue that one cannot be a Christian without adhering to Pauline doctrine. However, Paulians and Christians are not the same thing. Christianity does not rely on Pauline doctrine and, in the same way, being a communist does not rely on the Communist Manifesto, which coincidentally completely agrees with the arguments of GnI and mentions religion briefly as almost an aside.

Let this thread die, and restart you discussion on a new thread. It's a little too cumbersome to to have a 100 page thread.

Honestly, how can you come to the conclusion that I do not find those violations of ones rights equally as offensive? How did you come to that conclusion? Are you labeling me as some sort of fundamentalist? I would hope not.

The issue of gay marriage is debateable and is for another thread. Since when is marriage a right? I always thought it a priveledge. But again...not in this thread.

You know, I really try to be civil and reasonable here but I am starting to learn that on these boards, there is alot of the "us" and "them" mentality.

According to the Supreme Court you are incorrect. Marriage is an individual right.

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that discrimination was better as long as that discrimination was regarding 'priveleges'. For someone trying to dismiss an argument as ignorant of your actual stance on equality, you're not doing a very good job of hiding that you don't consider those two situations equal.

I didn't say that Marxism is not a brand of Communism. However, it is no more the definition of communism than Catholicism is the definition of Christianity. It's not a competition of who said it first. Marx may have fathered the movement, but the definition of Communism and the definition of Marxism are not the same thing. It's too bad you still don't understand that. There are many in Catholicism that say it is the only 'true' form of Christianity. Me, personally, I don't fall for True Scotsman fallacies.

Some would argue that one cannot be a Christian without adhering to Pauline doctrine. However, Paulians and Christians are not the same thing. Christianity does not rely on Pauline doctrine and, in the same way, being a communist does not rely on the Communist Manifesto, which coincidentally completely agrees with the arguments of GnI and mentions religion briefly as almost an aside.


To stick with your analogy. Marx to communism is like the Christ is to Christianity and Lenin is to communism like Paul is to Christianity. You pretend that you can dismiss Marx and still be a communist. It's like the Book of Mormon, you simply wrote an entirely new book, used some of the same names from the earlier sources and pretend that you are a member of the communist family. But it doesn't work that way. You reinvented what the word means in your definition, you kidnapped the name and exploit it. The communist manifesto says your version is not communism.

As to GnI’s invented reasons as to ‘why’ Marx might have been against religion and acted in the way he did, GnI already admitted/stated that he was projecting what he thought might be Marx’s reasons and rationales outside of what Marx said, as GnI said himself.

You confuse what I suggest Marx might have been doing, with what he might have been saying.

GnI has a habit, a modus operandi of claiming clairvoyant interpretations if you will, of projecting his interpretation and desired meanings into otherwise visibly trouble-free writings.

Marx was notorious for wanting to be open, and clear, and not secretive of his intentions and meanings, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Marx had any ulterior motives for dismissing religions other than the reasons he wrote about. And those reasons were; he believed the religious moral teachings and family encouragement etc., were botched experiments that failed society and that society had to give them up as dead-end roads, communism not evolving from them, but religions were a malfunction of society and needed to be removed from the society of the future. Your arguments not withstanding.

Yeah, I had an experience similar to this one when I read about that one jerk minister who manipulated his worshippers into hating a legitimate organization.

To stick with your analogy. Marx to communism is like the Christ is to Christianity and Lenin is to communism like Paul is to Christianity.
Nope. Marx is to communism as Paul is to Christianity, because you don't need to know a thing about Marx to be communist.
You pretend that you can dismiss Marx and still be a communist. It's like the Book of Mormon, you simply wrote an entirely new book, used some of the same names from the earlier sources and pretend that you are a member of the communist family.
No, the Book of Mormon analogizes to Stalinism.
But it doesn't work that way. You reinvented what the word means in your definition, you kidnapped the name and exploit it. The communist manifesto says your version is not communism.

The Communist Manifesto only deals with Marxism, so the Communist Manifesto says our version is not Marxism. It still is communism.

Nope. Marx is to communism as Paul is to Christianity, because you don't need to know a thing about Marx to be communist.

No, the Book of Mormon analogizes to Stalinism.

The Communist Manifesto only deals with Marxism, so the Communist Manifesto says our version is not Marxism. It still is communism.

Marx didn't invent the Communist League, the Communist Manifesto was sponsored and produced and published in several countries over several years by them, not Marx. In much the same way that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but the states sponsored it and sent it. The individuals in the States didn't have to know anything about young Jefferson whatsoever to agree with the paper they signed and sent and hung their very lives onto, they voted on it and sponsored it and would be held responsible for it by the King, not just those that followed Jefferson. The same with Marx and the Manifesto and the Communist League.

And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have.

And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have.

From wiki:
The notion of communism has a history long predating Marx and Engels. In early Greece the idea of communism was connected to a myth about the "golden age" of humanity, when society lived in full harmony, before the development of private property. Some have argued that Plato's The Republic and works by other ancient political theorists advocated communism in the form of communal living, and that various early Christian sects, in particular the early Church, as recorded in Acts of the Apostles, and indigenous tribes in the pre-Columbian Americas practiced communism in the form of communal living and common ownership. Christian communism espouses the idea that Christianity was meant to be communist in nature.

In his 1516 treatise Utopia, Thomas More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose leaders administered it through the application of reason. François Rabelais also described such a utopian society through the mythic Abbey of Thélème. In the 17th century, communist thought arguably surfaced again in England. Eduard Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and Communism [3] argued that several groupings in the English Civil War, especially the Diggers (or "True Levellers") espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that Oliver Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.[1]

Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Enlightenment era of the 18th century, through such thinkers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original hunter-gatherer state of mankind from which it arose. When humanity was capable of producing surplus, private property developed, society became unequal, resulting in classical society, and then to the feudal mode of production, to its current state of capitalism reached by a violent primitive accumulation of capital, which in part depended on the development of mercantilism. He then proposed that the next step in social evolution would be a return to communism, but at a higher level than when mankind had originally practiced primitive communism (in accordance with the influence of Hegel's dialectic on Marx).

In its contemporary form, communism grew out of the workers' movement of 19th century Europe. At the time, as the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for creating a new class of unskilled, urban factory workers who labored under harsh conditions, and for widening the gulf between rich and poor. Engels, who lived in Manchester, observed the organization of the Chartist movement (see History of British socialism), while Marx departed from his university comrades to meet the proletariat in France and Germany.

<snip>
And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have.
What do you mean by "communist Messiah"? There is no such thing, nor does there need to be. The word "Messiah" is not applicable to communism anymore than it is applicable to democracy, monarchy, science, the arts or any other human activity that is not either Christianity or Judaism.

EDIT: Sheni beat me to that Wiki article.

Here you go, bolded by me to point out the relevant points and why this doesn’t disagree with what I’ve been saying.

From wiki:

The notion of communism has a history long predating Marx and Engels. In early Greece the idea of communism was connected to a myth about the "golden age" of humanity, when society lived in full harmony, before the development of private property. Some have argued that Plato's The Republic and works by other ancient political theorists advocated communism in the form of communal living, and that various early Christian sects, in particular the early Church, as recorded in Acts of the Apostles, and indigenous tribes in the pre-Columbian Americas practiced communism in the form of communal living and common ownership. Christian communism espouses the idea that Christianity was meant to be communist in nature.

In his 1516 treatise Utopia, Thomas More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose leaders administered it through the application of reason. François Rabelais also described such a utopian society through the mythic Abbey of Thélème. In the 17th century, communist thought arguably surfaced again in England. Eduard Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and Communism [3] argued that several groupings in the English Civil War, especially the Diggers (or "True Levellers") espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that Oliver Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.[1]

Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Enlightenment era of the 18th century, through such thinkers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original hunter-gatherer state of mankind from which it arose. When humanity was capable of producing surplus, private property developed, society became unequal, resulting in classical society, and then to the feudal mode of production, to its current state of capitalism reached by a violent primitive accumulation of capital, which in part depended on the development of mercantilism. He then proposed that the next step in social evolution would be a return to communism, but at a higher level than when mankind had originally practiced primitive communism (in accordance with the influence of Hegel's dialectic on Marx).

In its contemporary form, communism grew out of the workers' movement of 19th century Europe. At the time, as the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for creating a new class of unskilled, urban factory workers who labored under harsh conditions, and for widening the gulf between rich and poor. Engels, who lived in Manchester, observed the organization of the Chartist movement (see History of British socialism), while Marx departed from his university comrades to meet the proletariat in France and Germany.

As to the Greek stuff, you do know that they are disagreeing with me about the anti-family and anti-religion teachings of communism right? The argument is that communism doesn't need to be anti family and anti-religion. But Plato's "Golden Age" is both, Anti family and anti religion, the exact same as Marx writings and the Communist Manifesto.

As to the others, the American societies and the early Christians, Communalism and Communism are NOT the same thing. Wiki comes up short here, as it frequently does (but unlike others, I won't damn the use of it).

To stick with your analogy. Marx to communism is like the Christ is to Christianity and Lenin is to communism like Paul is to Christianity. You pretend that you can dismiss Marx and still be a communist. It's like the Book of Mormon, you simply wrote an entirely new book, used some of the same names from the earlier sources and pretend that you are a member of the communist family. But it doesn't work that way. You reinvented what the word means in your definition, you kidnapped the name and exploit it. The communist manifesto says your version is not communism.
Wow, that is simply collosal ignorance of communism. Marx is not the subject of Communism. Christ is the subject of Christianity. See the difference. You can try to change the point all you like, but communism does NOT rely on accepting the teachings of Marx en masse no matter how much you want to make that claim. If what you're saying is true, why even have the term Marxism? Seems pointless, no? Marxist Communism would just be Communism. Unfortunately for you, we specify the difference because there is one.

I didn't kidnap any name. Communism wasn't invented by Marx. Marxism was.

What do you mean by "communist Messiah"? There is no such thing, nor does there need to be. The word "Messiah" is not applicable to communism anymore than it is applicable to democracy, monarchy, science, the arts or any other human activity that is not either Christianity or Judaism.

EDIT: Sheni beat me to that Wiki article.

I said, Marx's writings. What is the scripture, the code, the definition of communist in it's basic form in the modern? If not Marx, then it doesn't have one. And the wiki article does not disagree with me.

BTW: aren't you one of the people that regularly dismiss the wiki articles? Perhaps I am mistaken about that.

Regardless, the wiki article is helpful here, perhaps one should read it closely.

Here you go, bolded by me to point out the relevant points and why this doesn’t disagree with what I’ve been saying.



The notion of communism has a history long predating Marx and Engels. In early Greece the idea of communism was connected to a myth about the "golden age" of humanity, when society lived in full harmony, before the development of private property. Some have argued that Plato's The Republic and works by other ancient political theorists advocated communism in the form of communal living, and that various early Christian sects, in particular the early Church, as recorded in Acts of the Apostles, and indigenous tribes in the pre-Columbian Americas practiced communism in the form of communal living and common ownership. Christian communism espouses the idea that Christianity was meant to be communist in nature.

In his 1516 treatise Utopia, Thomas More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose leaders administered it through the application of reason. François Rabelais also described such a utopian society through the mythic Abbey of Thélème. In the 17th century, communist thought arguably surfaced again in England. Eduard Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and Communism [3] argued that several groupings in the English Civil War, especially the Diggers (or "True Levellers") espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that Oliver Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.[1]

Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Enlightenment era of the 18th century, through such thinkers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original hunter-gatherer state of mankind from which it arose. When humanity was capable of producing surplus, private property developed, society became unequal, resulting in classical society, and then to the feudal mode of production, to its current state of capitalism reached by a violent primitive accumulation of capital, which in part depended on the development of mercantilism. He then proposed that the next step in social evolution would be a return to communism, but at a higher level than when mankind had originally practiced primitive communism (in accordance with the influence of Hegel's dialectic on Marx).

In its contemporary form, communism grew out of the workers' movement of 19th century Europe. At the time, as the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for creating a new class of unskilled, urban factory workers who labored under harsh conditions, and for widening the gulf between rich and poor. Engels, who lived in Manchester, observed the organization of the Chartist movement (see History of British socialism), while Marx departed from his university comrades to meet the proletariat in France and Germany.

As to the Greek stuff, you do know that they are disagreeing with me about the anti-family and anti-religion teachings of communism right? The argument is that communism doesn't need to be anti family and anti-religion. But Plato's "Golden Age" is both, Anti family and anti religion, the exact same as Marx writings and the Communist Manifesto.

As to the others, the American societies and the early Christians, Communalism and Communism are NOT the same thing. Wiki comes up short here, as it frequently does (but unlike others, I won't damn the use of it).
Um, no, I, for one, do not know that they (GnI and how many else?) are disagreeing with you about "anti-family and anti-religion treachings of communism." I was under the impression that you were disagreeing with GnI's assertion that Jesus qualifies as a communist. I was also under the impression that GnI, Jocabia and others have been arguing that you are mistaken in thinking that Marxism forms the whole of communism and that every communist held the same ideas of communism as Marx. I have not seen any reference to "anti-family" anything before this post.

As to the article, can you dismiss the 16th, 17th and 18th century stuff as lightly as you did the ancient Greek stuff (which you dismissed without addressing, btw)?

Also, as to "anti-religion teachings," how do you account for Christian communism? Here is Wiki's article on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Here you go, bolded by me to point out the relevant points and why this doesn’t disagree with what I’ve been saying.



The notion of communism has a history long predating Marx and Engels. In early Greece the idea of communism was connected to a myth about the "golden age" of humanity, when society lived in full harmony, before the development of private property. Some have argued that Plato's The Republic and works by other ancient political theorists advocated communism in the form of communal living, and that various early Christian sects, in particular the early Church, as recorded in Acts of the Apostles, and indigenous tribes in the pre-Columbian Americas practiced communism in the form of communal living and common ownership. Christian communism espouses the idea that Christianity was meant to be communist in nature.

In his 1516 treatise Utopia, Thomas More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose leaders administered it through the application of reason. François Rabelais also described such a utopian society through the mythic Abbey of Thélème. In the 17th century, communist thought arguably surfaced again in England. Eduard Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and Communism [3] argued that several groupings in the English Civil War, especially the Diggers (or "True Levellers") espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that Oliver Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.[1]

Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Enlightenment era of the 18th century, through such thinkers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original hunter-gatherer state of mankind from which it arose. When humanity was capable of producing surplus, private property developed, society became unequal, resulting in classical society, and then to the feudal mode of production, to its current state of capitalism reached by a violent primitive accumulation of capital, which in part depended on the development of mercantilism. He then proposed that the next step in social evolution would be a return to communism, but at a higher level than when mankind had originally practiced primitive communism (in accordance with the influence of Hegel's dialectic on Marx).

In its contemporary form, communism grew out of the workers' movement of 19th century Europe. At the time, as the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for creating a new class of unskilled, urban factory workers who labored under harsh conditions, and for widening the gulf between rich and poor. Engels, who lived in Manchester, observed the organization of the Chartist movement (see History of British socialism), while Marx departed from his university comrades to meet the proletariat in France and Germany.

As to the Greek stuff, you do know that they are disagreeing with me about the anti-family and anti-religion teachings of communism right? The argument is that communism doesn't need to be anti family and anti-religion. But Plato's "Golden Age" is both, Anti family and anti religion, the exact same as Marx writings and the Communist Manifesto.

As to the others, the American societies and the early Christians, Communalism and Communism are NOT the same thing. Wiki comes up short here, as it frequently does (but unlike others, I won't damn the use of it).

Oh, look you discovered what we all know. That Marx took Communism to a different plateau. He was instrumental in it's popularity much like Paul was to Christianity.

Unfortunately the part you pretend doesn't exist, he defines Communism no more than Paul defines Christianity. He is simply the father of a popular brand of Communism. Popularity does not make it the only brand.

Wow, that is simply collosal ignorance of communism. Marx is not the subject of Communism. Christ is the subject of Christianity. See the difference. You can try to change the point all you like, but communism does NOT rely on accepting the teachings of Marx en masse no matter how much you want to make that claim. If what you're saying is true, why even have the term Marxism? Seems pointless, no? Marxist Communism would just be Communism. Unfortunately for you, we specify the difference because there is one.

I didn't kidnap any name. Communism wasn't invented by Marx. Marxism was.

Right, the Communist league invented communism as we know it, and they sponsored Marx to write their Manifesto for them...

I said, Marx's writings. What is the scripture, the code, the definition of communist in it's basic form in the modern? If not Marx, then it doesn't have one. And the wiki article does not disagree with me.

BTW: aren't you one of the people that regularly dismiss the wiki articles? Perhaps I am mistaken about that.

Regardless, the wiki article is helpful here, perhaps one should read it closely.

Now who's redefining. You add this little caveat to claim that it's current form must be the only form. Marx created Marxism. He did not create an ideology that existed before him. Communism existed before Karl Marx.

You know what? I think I'll just let wiki make my argument for me:
Wiki on Christian Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

Right, the Communist league invented communism as we know it, and they sponsored Marx to write their Manifesto for them...

Pardon? How can a ideology be invented by a person or group that was born or created after the beginning of the ideology?

Oh, look you discovered what we all know. That Marx took Communism to a different plateau. He was instrumental in it's popularity much like Paul was to Christianity.

Unfortunately the part you pretend doesn't exist, he defines Communism no more than Paul defines Christianity. He is simply the father of a popular brand of Communism. Popularity does not make it the only brand.

Okay, maybe you need to read where communism came from again:

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

The Communist League invented it, they own it, they sponsored Marx and Engels to put it into writing for them.

I said, Marx's writings.
You said "communism."

What is the scripture, the code, the definition of communist in it's basic form in the modern? If not Marx, then it doesn't have one. And the wiki article does not disagree with me.
Non-religious philosophies do not have scriptures. Non-religious philosophies and groups (especially non-apocalyptic ones) do not have "Messiahs."

BTW: aren't you one of the people that regularly dismiss the wiki articles? Perhaps I am mistaken about that.
I do not like to use Wiki as a definitive source because it is not stringently peer reviewed, and its authorship is too open. So when people claim that a Wiki article "proves" something, I do not accept that. However, if a Wiki article is just an introductory overview, AND if it contains many external sources of better quality than Wiki itself, then I am happy to use it as a convenient quick-reference for common facts. But if any of those facts are challenged, then I would want confirmation from a better source.

So, are you challenging the accuracy of the overviews in these articles?

Regardless, the wiki article is helpful here, perhaps one should read it closely.
Yes, one should. One including you.

Hey, guys, did you know Luther invented Christianity? I mean sure he existed long after the ideology was created, but let's pretend that doesn't matter.

Okay, maybe you need to read where communism came from again:

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

The Communist League invented it, they own it, they sponsored Marx and Engels to put it into writing for them.


Gosh, I sure do need to read that again. Because then maybe the fact that communism already existed as an ideology will fall out of my brain. Or the fact that the movement has evolved since them to include multiple version of 'modern' communism. The fact that you keep adding the word modern to Communism simply proves that you're trying to make an idiotic argument that we should ignore the communism that existed without the term 'modern' in front of it.

Pardon? How can a ideology be invented by a person or group that was born or created after the beginning of the ideology?

Really, when is the beginning of the word? If we burden every thought with inspiration that inspired it or was developed peripherally then nobody ever invented anything, they simply connected older ideas they stole from someone else. But this would be a false dichotomy on your part if you pursue it too far.

Hey, guys, did you know Luther invented Christianity? I mean sure he existed long after the ideology was created, but let's pretend that doesn't matter.

Well, if he invented the modern label for it, then he must have invented the idea, too, right? Pootwaddle seems to think that because the word "communism" was coined into English from the French in 1840, that means the idea did not exist beforehand. But I wonder what he thinks Barmby was talking about when he coined that word? Oh, right, he was talking about an idea that already existed but that he wanted a new word for.

Really, when is the beginning of the word? If we burden every thought with inspiration that inspired it or was developed peripherally then nobody ever invented anything, they simply connected older ideas they stole from someone else. But this would be a false dichotomy on your part if you pursue it too far.

The only one who cares about the inventor is you. This is an ideology. Unless, it's Marxism or Christianity or Jocabiaism, then one person doesn't get to define it. And, hell, Christianity does have Christ at it's core, but there still isn't just one version of it. Marx invented Marxism, one form of Communism. However, despite your bizarre attempts to ignore the facts Marx doesn't get to bogart the term Communism since the ideology existed before him and after him in various forms.

Non-religious philosophies do not have scriptures. Non-religious philosophies and groups (especially non-apocalyptic ones) do not have "Messiahs."

That route of analogy was brought on us by Jocabia, refute him if you don't like the terminology. I played with it because he suggested Marx was Paul...

<snip>

You need to read it better then:
The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

See, the WORD communist. Not communism, the word communist.
And before you argue that that's the same thing, were there not dogs before the word dog existed?
Fish?
Capitalists, even?

Well, if he invented the modern label for it, then he must have invented the idea, too, right? Pootwaddle seems to think that because the word "communism" was coined into English from the French in 1840, that means the idea did not exist beforehand. But I wonder what he thinks Barmby was talking about when he coined that word? Oh, right, he was talking about an idea that already existed but that he wanted a new word for.

Apparently the invented the word for an ideology that Marx hadn't fleshed out yet. I know I'd do that. Wouldn't you? Now let's talk about Luther the 'messiah' of 'modern' Christianity.

That route of analogy was brought on us by Jocabia, refute him if you don't like the terminology. I played with it because he suggested Marx was Paul...
If you say so.

It seemed to me that Jocabia's analogy was rather limited. You seem to be trying to stretch it a bit.

Hey, guys, did you know Luther invented Christianity? I mean sure he existed long after the ideology was created, but let's pretend that doesn't matter.

Oh there you go, lose your posit, lose your position and lose your argument, then you pull out false analogies and hope nobody notices... :rolleyes:

The only one who cares about the inventor is you. This is an ideology. Unless, it's Marxism or Christianity or Jocabiaism, then one person doesn't get to define it. And, hell, Christianity does have Christ at it's core, but there still isn't just one version of it. Marx invented Marxism, one form of Communism. However, despite your bizarre attempts to ignore the facts Marx doesn't get to bogart the term Communism since the ideology existed before him and after him in various forms.

And since he was too much of a communist to file a trademark on the name, then he's SOL on claiming ownership of it, ain't he? :p

That route of analogy was brought on us by Jocabia, refute him if you don't like the terminology. I played with it because he suggested Marx was Paul...

The analogy is apt. Paul popularized and ideology that already existed. Wrote about it. Explained it and expounded upon it. That is EXACTLY what Marx did for Communism. And just like so many would argue that you cannot be Christian without accepting the teachings of Paul, many claim you can't be Communist without accepting the teachings of Marx. Both are equally ignorant of the true origins of the ideologies, however.

Apparently the invented the word for an ideology that Marx hadn't fleshed out yet. I know I'd do that. Wouldn't you? Now let's talk about Luther the 'messiah' of 'modern' Christianity.

At least that would make marginally more sense than the idea of a "messiah" of communism.

The only one who cares about the inventor is you. This is an ideology. Unless, it's Marxism or Christianity or Jocabiaism, then one person doesn't get to define it. And, hell, Christianity does have Christ at it's core, but there still isn't just one version of it. Marx invented Marxism, one form of Communism. However, despite your bizarre attempts to ignore the facts Marx doesn't get to bogart the term Communism since the ideology existed before him and after him in various forms.

The Communist Manifesto was NOT written by one person, the Manifesto was NOT published by one person, the Manifesto was not produced and distributed by one person. See, yet another bad analogy by Jocabia.

Oh there you go, lose your posit, lose your position and lose your argument, then you pull out false analogies and hope nobody notices... :rolleyes:

To have lost his argument, he would have to have most people disagreeing with him. You haven't accomplished that yet.

The analogy is apt. Paul popularized and ideology that already existed. Wrote about it. Explained it and expounded upon it. That is EXACTLY what Marx did for Communism. And just like so many would argue that you cannot be Christian without accepting the teachings of Paul, many claim you can't be Communist without accepting the teachings of Marx. Both are equally ignorant of the true origins of the ideologies, however.


Then YOU argue with her about it not being a good analogy for religious comparison.

Oh there you go, lose your posit, lose your position and lose your argument, then you pull out false analogies and hope nobody notices... :rolleyes:

Uh-huh. I'm the one with false analogies. Apparently, I tried to suggest Marx was a messiah instead of simply comparing him to a human being writing about an ideology who predated him. Oh, wait, that was your absurd argument.

Then YOU argue with her about it not being a good analogy for religious comparison.

I didn't compare him to a messiah. I compared him to a man who wrote about an ideology. She doesn't have a problem with my analogy because I was comparing two men who wrote about two philosophies that predated them. You got torn apart in your attempt to take over my analogy so you try to pretend it's my fault. Take responsibility for your own poor argumentation.

At least that would make marginally more sense than the idea of a "messiah" of communism.


Here you go, I'll bold it for you...

And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have.

Then YOU argue with her about it not being a good analogy for religious comparison.
No, I see why he used that analogy, but possibly only because I am familiar with his take on Paul viz Christianity.

What I don't see, is how the word "messiah" got into the discussion. Particularly as Paul is not the messiah of Christianity.

Considering PootWaddle is nitpicking, I'd say he's lost the argument.

To have lost his argument, he would have to have most people disagreeing with him. You haven't accomplished that yet.

You assume too much from the 'people'

The Communist Manifesto was NOT written by one person, the Manifesto was NOT published by one person, the Manifesto was not produced and distributed by one person. See, yet another bad analogy by Jocabia.

You're cracking me up. You are the one who argued Marx was the 'messiah' of Christianity. My point was that Marx is just one person who wrote about an ideology that many people contributed to. Did you forget what you're arguing? Here I'll help - I'm arguing that Marx DID NOT define Communism. You're arguing that Marx DID. See how that works. You've pretty much confirmed that your argument was never correct. Thanks for the help, but I can establish that you're wrong without your help.

Here you go, I'll bold it for you...

And I'll bold and underscore the part I was referring to for you:
Originally Posted by PootWaddle
And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have.

Considering PootWaddle is nitpicking, I'd say he's lost the argument.

The truth is in the details. People try to hide falsehoods in the overall scheme of things.

Uh-huh. I'm the one with false analogies. Apparently, I tried to suggest Marx was a messiah instead of simply comparing him to a human being writing about an ideology who predated him. Oh, wait, that was your absurd argument.

If you are finished posting meaningful posits, perhaps you should just quit and save the space for others eh?

You assume too much from the 'people'

?

Considering PootWaddle is nitpicking, I'd say he's lost the argument.

This is what he does. When he loses the argument he tries to distract us with these shenanigans. Notice how now Marx wasn't the father of Communism. And I quote Pooty "The Communist Manifesto was NOT written by one person, the Manifesto was NOT published by one person, the Manifesto was not produced and distributed by one person. See, yet another bad analogy by Jocabia." Interesting quote from an individual who just previously claimed "And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have."

I wonder if contradicting oneself so badly is painful. I don't regularly do it, so I have to ask Poot in order to really understand the effects.

And I'll bold and underscore the part I was referring to for you:


And you referred to only half a sentence, and that is why you misunderstood it. Read it again in it's entirety. Since I equated Marx's writings to MY analogy of the messiah message for communism, and he didn't want it there, what then IS his messiah (meaning irrefutable source) of defining what IS communist. I apologize for any confusion you may have suffered.

If you are finished posting meaningful posits, perhaps you should just quit and save the space for others eh?

You're the one trying to distract everyone from the fact that YOU claimed that Marx's writings are responsible for Communism and that you said if Marx isn't the 'messiah' of Communism then there isn't one. A minute later you're claiming that I'm trying to say there is only one father of Communism. I think even you can't get behind your argument.

This is what he does. When he loses the argument he tries to distract us with these shenanigans. Notice how now Marx wasn't the father of Communism. And I quote Pooty "The Communist Manifesto was NOT written by one person, the Manifesto was NOT published by one person, the Manifesto was not produced and distributed by one person. See, yet another bad analogy by Jocabia." Interesting quote from an individual who just previously claimed "And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have."

I wonder if contradicting oneself so badly is painful. I don't regularly do it, so I have to ask Poot in order to really understand the effects.


What part of Marx was sponsored by the Communist League, like the example of Jefferson for the States and the DoI, are you having the most problem with?

The truth is in the details. People try to hide falsehoods in the overall scheme of things.
Perhaps they do, but they usually fail. For instance, are you aware that, by pointing out that Marx was not the sole author of the Communist Manifesto, you undermine your own assertion that communism has no "messiah" (whatever you mean by that) and loses its core message if Marx is not considered the creator of the idea.

Also, by using the term "modern communism" you are undermining your assertion that Marx created communism and that Marxism IS communism, because you are admitting the existence of a form of communism before Marx.

Yep, it can get tricky sometimes, can't it?

You're the one trying to distract everyone from the fact that YOU claimed that Marx's writings are responsible for Communism and that you said if Marx isn't the 'messiah' of Communism then there isn't one. A minute later you're claiming that I'm trying to say there is only one father of Communism. I think even you can't get behind your argument.

Marx Writings ARE the father of modern communism, because they were sponored and published and disbursed by the first communist to exist and call themselves communist.

Your argument sunk and you didn't even notice.

What part of Marx was sponsored by the Communist League, like the example of Jefferson for the States and the DoI, are you having the most problem with?

I'm not having any problem with it. I've been arguing that Communism was not fathered by Marx and that it predated him. YOU called him the messiah of Communism and claimed that without Marx there is no Communism. Or did you forget?

Marx Writings ARE the father of modern communism, because they were sponored and published and disbursed by the first communist to exist and call themselves communist.

Your argument sunk and you didn't even notice.

So he fathered an ideology for a group that had already called themselves Communists and who commissioned him to write about that ideology? Wow. That's not the dumbest argument I've ever seen, but it's impressive in how close it is in the running.

Perhaps they do, but they usually fail. For instance, are you aware that, by pointing out that Marx was not the sole author of the Communist Manifesto, you undermine your own assertion that communism has no "messiah" (whatever you mean by that) and loses its core message if Marx is not considered the creator of the idea.

Third time is a charm they say... Marx's WRITINGS. I called Marxist writings the messiah of the communists. Do you deny this? Do you still pretend that I did something other than that?

Also, by using the term "modern communism" you are undermining your assertion that Marx created communism and that Marxism IS communism, because you are admitting the existence of a form of communism before Marx.

That Wiki article you like so much is where the Modern Communism term came from... AND they said it was invented by the same people I said invented it. I think, rather, this helps my position.

And you referred to only half a sentence, and that is why you misunderstood it. Read it again in it's entirety. Since I equated Marx's writings to MY analogy of the messiah message for communism, and he didn't want it there, what then IS his messiah (meaning irrefutable source) of defining what IS communist. I apologize for any confusion you may have suffered.

And you referred to only the first three words of it. What's your point?

I did read your sentence in its entirety. I read the whole post around it, too. The entire thing and this post, too, assume the existence of such a thing as a Messiah for communism. That is what I am questioning. Non-apocalyptic, non-religious philosophies neither need nor have "messiahs."

"Messiah," by the way, does not mean "irrefutable source." Perhaps that's why I misunderstood you. You used the word incorrectly.

What part of Marx was sponsored by the Communist League, like the example of Jefferson for the States and the DoI, are you having the most problem with?

The part that tries to claim that Jefferson created democracy with the DoI.

So he fathered an ideology for a group that had already called themselves Communists and who commissioned him to write about that ideology? Wow. That's not the dumbest argument I've ever seen, but it's impressive in how close it is in the running.

Riiight, if you think that is the dumbest argument you've seen then you obviously haven't been reading your own posts.

Was Jefferson sponsored to write the Declaration of Independence? Does that then mean that ONLY Jeffersonians believe in it? Nonsense. You have nothing left do you?

I'm not having any problem with it. I've been arguing that Communism was not fathered by Marx and that it predated him. YOU called him the messiah of Communism and claimed that without Marx there is no Communism. Or did you forget?

Without Marx's writings the communist league has no real longevity, yes, I'll continue to agree with that statement. Some might argue that Engels could have gone it alone or with some other hard case. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Third time is a charm they say... Marx's WRITINGS. I called Marxist writings the messiah of the communists. Do you deny this? Do you still pretend that I did something other than that?



That Wiki article you like so much is where the Modern Communism term came from... AND they said it was invented by the same people I said invented it. I think, rather, this helps my position.

Why do you add the term 'modern' if the ideology didn't predate this 'modern Communism'? Hmmm... you're own grammar betrays your argument. Meanwhile, you've been claiming that one must accept Marx in order to accept Communism, but your own claims here admit that Communism already existed at the time of Marx's writings. Marx simply created a document that popularized a particular brand of Communism with the help of a particular Communist group, which is what we've been arguing the ENTIRE time. It's funny how you keep adjusting your arguments in attempt to pretend like you aren't wrong.

Third time is a charm they say... Marx's WRITINGS. I called Marxist writings the messiah of the communists. Do you deny this? Do you still pretend that I did something other than that?
Do you still intend to ignore my question?

What do messiahs have to do with communism?

Answer: Nothing. The analogy was a bad one.

That Wiki article you like so much is where the Modern Communism term came from... AND they said it was invented by the same people I said invented it. I think, rather, this helps my position.
No, it doesn't because, as I have already told you, the term "modern communism" presupposes the existence of an older communism, which would be the communism that Christianity fits in with.

Perhaps you've lost track, but your argument was that there is no way to say that Christianity is communist because Christianity is not Marxist and Marxism = communism. But if Marxism only equals "modern communsim" then you have shown no reason why Christianity cannot be pre-modern communism.

Without Marx's writings the communist league has no real longevity, yes, I'll continue to agree with that statement. Some might argue that Engels could have gone it alone or with some other hard case. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Progress. So basically, where we've landed is that Marx was just one player in the ideology, a very important one, something everyone here has agreed with repeatedly. Good. Since you finally agree with us, no need for any more arguments. You've exceeded my expectations. You've actually learned something here.

The part that tries to claim that Jefferson created democracy with the DoI.

His writings inspired and represented the people of future United State Republic, who said anything about democracy? Voting is not exclusive to communists or republics or monarchies.

Riiight, if you think that is the dumbest argument you've seen then you obviously haven't been reading your own posts.

Was Jefferson sponsored to write the Declaration of Independence? Does that then mean that ONLY Jeffersonians believe in it? Nonsense. You have nothing left do you?

Personal insults. You are the one who obviously has nothing left. I think I'll quit wasting my time with you and go watch a Japanese cartoon instead.

Riiight, if you think that is the dumbest argument you've seen then you obviously haven't been reading your own posts.

Was Jefferson sponsored to write the Declaration of Independence? Does that then mean that ONLY Jeffersonians believe in it? Nonsense. You have nothing left do you?

Your ability with analogy is lacking. If someone was here claiming that there would be no America without Jefferson or that Jefferson defines America, I would be equally arguing with them. Jefferson was one of many, many key figures in what America is. Marx is an excellent comparison, because Marx no more invented Communism and it is no more required that one accept the teachings of Marx wholesale to be a Communist than it is required that one accept the teachings of Jefferson wholesale in order to be an American or that Jefferson invented the idea of America.

Progress. So basically, where we've landed is that Marx was just one player in the ideology, a very important one, something everyone here has agreed with repeatedly. Good. Since you finally agree with us, no need for any more arguments. You've exceeded my expectations. You've actually learned something here.

And this proves what? You finally admit that the Communist League invented Communism? Thank you. Finally. Now we can re-discuss how they defined themselves huh, as they being the end all of what it was that they invented. And here we are again, back with the Communist Manifesto.


Game and match.

His writings inspired and represented the people of future United State Republic, who said anything about democracy? Voting is not exclusive to communists or republics or monarchies.

That doesn't require us to accept his idea en masse simply because he was a key figure which is what you've been arguing for with Marx. Your new arguments betray your old ones.

And this proves what? You finally admit that the Communist League invented Communism? Thank you. Finally. Now we can re-discuss how they defined themselves huh, as they being the end all of what it was that they invented. And here we are again, back with the Communist Manifesto.


Game and match.

I did? I claimed they invented Communism? Where? I never admitted that a group that was created after the ideology already existed invented. That would be idiocy.

Do you usually try to pretend you've won arguments by making up what the other person said?

You claimed that without Marx's writings there would be no Communism and now you admit that Communism predated Marx. I suspect you didn't know that when you originally made the claim because I don't believe you were lying when you made it. Now simply admit that as you started researching your claims you found that reality doesn't match your fantasy arguments.

His writings inspired and represented the people of future United State Republic, who said anything about democracy? Voting is not exclusive to communists or republics or monarchies.
Democratic republic is the fundamental idea Jefferson was thinking of, but it was not his idea. It had existed for over 2000 years before him. Just like communism existed before Marx.

And this proves what? You finally admit that the Communist League invented Communism? Thank you. Finally. Now we can re-discuss how they defined themselves huh, as they being the end all of what it was that they invented. And here we are again, back with the Communist Manifesto.


Game and match.
To Mr. Jocabia. :p

Personal insults. You are the one who obviously has nothing left. I think I'll quit wasting my time with you and go watch a Japanese cartoon instead.

You're so funny. I literally requited his words back at him and you blame me for starting personal insults. Classic :rolleyes:

To Mr. Jocabia. :p

And the way you only read half sentences to respond to I now see also applies to only counting half scores as well.

You're so funny. I literally requited his words back at him and you blame me for starting personal insults. Classic :rolleyes:

I'll give you this one, Pooty. I don't think your claims about my arguments were insulting. They required you to pretend I was arguing something different than I was, but they were not insulting. Now are you going to continue arguing that an ideology that already existed and was believed by a group that asked Marx to create his writings was fathered by Marx's writings?

And the way you only read half sentences to respond to I now see also applies to only counting half scores as well.

Oh, the irony. Are you done making arguments?

Would you care to explain how you can rectify your claims that Communism would not exist without Marx with the idea that he didn't invent it?

Oh, the irony. Are you done making arguments?

Would you care to explain how you can rectify your claims that Communism would not exist without Marx with the idea that he didn't invent it?

The Communist League, of which Marx was a member and leader of/in, invented the Communist. Marx was sponsored to put into writing their beliefs. EXACTLY as the communist manifesto says...

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

And I agree with the popular opinion of the historian, that without Marx's personality and hardcore determination and verbose ability, it would not have survived. (admittedly, this last part is unprovable opinion)

The Communist League, of which Marx was a member and leader of/in, invented the Communist. Marx was sponsored to put into writing their beliefs. EXACTLY as the communist manifesto says...

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

And I agree with the popular opinion of the historian, that without Marx's personality and hardcore determination and verbose ability, it would not have survived. (admittedly, this last part is unprovable opinion)

Oh, look you present more argument for our claims. First, in order for Communists of various nationalities to 'assemble' there must have been a communists and be of various nationalities. So we've established that communism already existed in a number of places at the time the group assembled to create the organization. They recognized that. Why don't you?

Meanwhile, your further points about Marx have nothing to do with the fact that it would still have existed without his writings even if it would have been less popular or even unknown. In other words, a direct contradiction to your earlier claim that it couldn't have existed without Marx. You can change your argument now but that doesn't make your original claim less ridiculous.

You make this too easy. Night, my love.

Oh, look you present more argument for our claims. First, in order for Communists of various nationalities to 'assemble' there must have been a communists and be of various nationalities. So we've established that communism already existed in a number of places at the time the group assembled to create the organization. They recognized that. Why don't you?

They actually invented the word communism, and you still deny that they were first? Interesting.

Meanwhile, your further points about Marx have nothing to do with the fact that it would still have existed without his writings even if it would have been less popular or even unknown. In other words, a direct contradiction to your earlier claim that it couldn't have existed without Marx. You can change your argument now but that doesn't make your original claim less ridiculous.

You make this too easy. Night, my love.

History of Communism
As a political doctrine and ideology, Communism is an implementation of theories proclaimed by Karl Marx — theories which were rooted in a novel concept of a utopian society, and buoyed by the success of the Paris Commune. Marx had said that the working classes would take over all aspects of society and would eliminate all other social classes, thereby creating a classless society — which he described as the "dictatorship of the Proletariat."
wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism)


Obviously you forget. I referred to communists and communism and quoted the communist manifesto. It was YOU and GnI (etc.,) that made the posit that I was quoting something called 'Marxism' and not communism. I have consistently, throughout all of these posts, called the communist manifesto communism. Only in referral to your sides misunderstanding have I addressed it as Marxism. I have repeatedly and unreservedly called Marxism = communism. that was the whole point. And yet now, you, without any actual ammunition or hope of resupply left, have tried to turn the tables around entirely, hoping perchance that you could pretend that I invented the Marxism claims...

That’s sad, really, but all is well, I forgive you, you got overly worked up, no harm done. Sleep well Jr.

Communism arguments are fucking BORING. Let's get back to the christian bashing, please. ^^

Persecuted? I would hope not. Treated unfairly when compared with other groups or looked upon as some sort of all pervasive super majority who can "take it" when their rights are infringed, yes I do feel the left leaning secular intelluctual crowd does this.

Allowing Pat Robertson to force school prayer on non-Christians is not something I support. Neither is suing the city of Los Angeles because it has a tiny little historical cross on it's city seal or kicking a Christian student group off campus because they do not allow those who do not accept the dvinity of Christ (the core belief of their religion) to join their group.

You fear the Fundamentalist Right but you seem to forget that there is also a Fundamentalist Left who wish to dominate as well. To many people Liberalism seems to be treated as a religion in its own right instead of a philosophy or an ideology. A godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.


I object to the fact that I cannot be a preacher at the Baptist churches around where I live. Some of them get paid pretty nicely, their job is a piece of piss - and yet, I am not allowed to do it, because I'm not a Christian.

I can see why this is considered fair... I clearly don't share their basic understanding, and it would be stupid of me to try to force their viewpoint to accomodate me.


On the other hand, I work in the sciences in rural Georgia, and have to - on a daily basis, deal with people who 'practise' science, whilst also believing in the LITERAL interpretation of Genesis as fact, and that insist Creationism has a place in a science classroom. Some of these people are 'activist' on the issue.

I find it frustrating that the non-Christian is expected to suck it up when the prejudice in the paradigm is pro-Christian (like - logically I can't be a Baptist preacher), but will pursue legal and even 'governmental' means to alter paradigms that do not REQUIRE a Christian perspective.

What the hell place does something as unscientific as faith, have in the science classroom? Why are they bitching and whining about persecution in such a clearly hypocritical and illogical fashion?

Indeed. Atheists should learn to cope with the religous imagery they are surrounded with. I mean, over 90% of the people in this country to believe in some sort of God after all.

In this part of rural Georgia, I have a twelve mile drive to work. MY twelve mile drive takes me through one small village (with a population of about a hundred people), and into the outskirts of a town of almost 10,000 people.

In the course of that drive, I pass six churches that are 'on the road'.

I do not object - despite my Atheism - to the churches... to their icons, their accusatory oradside signs, or to their graven images. Because that is what they are 'there for'... they are institutions dedicated to the propogation and perpetuation of 'religion'.

On the other hand, a courtroom in the town four miles away from me has the ten commandments prominently displayed. I sure as hell object to the fact that a place which is supposed to be dedicated to making us ALL equal under the law, favours one religion publically.

I didn't say that Marxism is not a brand of Communism. However, it is no more the definition of communism than Catholicism is the definition of Christianity. It's not a competition of who said it first. Marx may have fathered the movement, but the definition of Communism and the definition of Marxism are not the same thing. It's too bad you still don't understand that. There are many in Catholicism that say it is the only 'true' form of Christianity. Me, personally, I don't fall for True Scotsman fallacies.

Some would argue that one cannot be a Christian without adhering to Pauline doctrine. However, Paulians and Christians are not the same thing. Christianity does not rely on Pauline doctrine and, in the same way, being a communist does not rely on the Communist Manifesto, which coincidentally completely agrees with the arguments of GnI and mentions religion briefly as almost an aside.

Excellent point.

I wish I had cut through the crap to start with, and seen what is now the most obvious parallel.. the Christian/Catholicism model.

Many would argue that Catholicism is a 'Christian' religion, but Christian religion cannot be entirely DEFINED by Catholicism. Sterling work.

They actually invented the word communism, and you still deny that they were first? Interesting.



History of Communism
As a political doctrine and ideology, Communism is an implementation of theories proclaimed by Karl Marx — theories which were rooted in a novel concept of a utopian society, and buoyed by the success of the Paris Commune. Marx had said that the working classes would take over all aspects of society and would eliminate all other social classes, thereby creating a classless society — which he described as the "dictatorship of the Proletariat."
wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism)


Obviously you forget. I referred to communists and communism and quoted the communist manifesto. It was YOU and GnI (etc.,) that made the posit that I was quoting something called 'Marxism' and not communism. I have consistently, throughout all of these posts, called the communist manifesto communism. Only in referral to your sides misunderstanding have I addressed it as Marxism. I have repeatedly and unreservedly called Marxism = communism. that was the whole point. And yet now, you, without any actual ammunition or hope of resupply left, have tried to turn the tables around entirely, hoping perchance that you could pretend that I invented the Marxism claims...

That’s sad, really, but all is well, I forgive you, you got overly worked up, no harm done. Sleep well Jr.

Ha. You right you are sad. No, inventing the word for what they all were before they assembled to form the group you claim invented them is no more apt than claiming that the person who named dogs invented them.

They named an ideology that they all shared in various forms prior to assembling together and created a dogmatic view of it, but that is not invention. They popularized it. That is not invention. What was the result of their actions is what we call Marxism.

Meanwhile, you can twist all you like but I'll just quote you -

And if Marx’s writings are NOT your analogy of Jesus in Christianity, who then in communism IS the communist Messiah then? I suggest you don’t have one if you remove Marx, the communist ideology did not spontaneously spring forth from the ground fully grown and unfathered, regardless that it would favor your position now if it would have.

Hmmm.... you pretty clearly claim that Marx's writings are the subject of Communism and that without it it wouldn't exist despite the fact that we all know that Communism existed BEFORE Marx's writings. Though I suppose one could claim that Christianity existed before Christ's created it, but that person would be a lunatic. Come on, stop making a fool of yourself. You've been nailed. Simply admit that Marx could not have created Communism or been it's Christ to Christianity, nor could his writings. The ideology existed before him and before the group that invented the word for it. The ideology inspired the group, not the other way around. To claim otherwise is like claiming that American Civil Liberties Union invented civil liberties. It's lunacy.

Okay, maybe you need to read where communism came from again:

The word "communist" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

The Communist League invented it, they own it, they sponsored Marx and Engels to put it into writing for them.

The word. Not the concept. We use the word to describe the concept that existed prior even to the word.... we talk about Thomas More's 'communism' and the Greek concept of 'communism.

'Communism' (as a concept) is not limited by the word was coined, or by the use of the word.

Just in case anyone was wondering:
superstition

–noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

All of those defintions fit religion well.

Then I'm not very religious. My faith is actually soundly reasoned. But there is still a faith factor to it.

To have lost his argument, he would have to have most people disagreeing with him. You haven't accomplished that yet.
That depends, really. If there's a stacked deck, like when there's a cretinism/evolution debate and the cretinists pack the house with cretinist supporters....

That route of analogy was brought on us by Jocabia, refute him if you don't like the terminology. I played with it because he suggested Marx was Paul...

And he would certainly be closer to Paul (an influential commentator), than he would be to Jesus.

I'd be tempted, if I were going to make the huge leap to make ANYONE the 'messiah' of 'communism', to suggest either Lenin or Trotsky... (or maybe even Stalin?), sinc both come much closer to the idea of 'messiah' than Marx does, in the context of the 'story' of 'communism'.

In this part of rural Georgia, I have a twelve mile drive to work. MY twelve mile drive takes me through one small village (with a population of about a hundred people), and into the outskirts of a town of almost 10,000 people.

In the course of that drive, I pass six churches that are 'on the road'.

I do not object - despite my Atheism - to the churches... to their icons, their accusatory oradside signs, or to their graven images. Because that is what they are 'there for'... they are institutions dedicated to the propogation and perpetuation of 'religion'.

On the other hand, a courtroom in the town four miles away from me has the ten commandments prominently displayed. I sure as hell object to the fact that a place which is supposed to be dedicated to making us ALL equal under the law, favours one religion publically.


Just curious here as to what one religion the ten commandments belongs to. Would that be Christianity? Judaism? Islam?

The truth is in the details. People try to hide falsehoods in the overall scheme of things.

Isn't the common saying actually that the DEVIL is in the detail?

Worth thinking on...

They actually invented the word communism, and you still deny that they were first? Interesting.



History of Communism
As a political doctrine and ideology, Communism is an implementation of theories proclaimed by Karl Marx — theories which were rooted in a novel concept of a utopian society, and buoyed by the success of the Paris Commune. Marx had said that the working classes would take over all aspects of society and would eliminate all other social classes, thereby creating a classless society — which he described as the "dictatorship of the Proletariat."
wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism)


Obviously you forget. I referred to communists and communism and quoted the communist manifesto. It was YOU and GnI (etc.,) that made the posit that I was quoting something called 'Marxism' and not communism. I have consistently, throughout all of these posts, called the communist manifesto communism. Only in referral to your sides misunderstanding have I addressed it as Marxism. I have repeatedly and unreservedly called Marxism = communism. that was the whole point. And yet now, you, without any actual ammunition or hope of resupply left, have tried to turn the tables around entirely, hoping perchance that you could pretend that I invented the Marxism claims...

That’s sad, really, but all is well, I forgive you, you got overly worked up, no harm done. Sleep well Jr.

The reason people keep saying you are discussing Marxism, rather than 'communism' is because whenever 'communism' is mentioned, you trot out ideas of the abolition of religion, for example... ideas that MIGHT exist in Marxism - but are certainly NOT definitive of the CONCEPT of 'communism'.

Thus - people SAY you are debating Marxism, because you keep re-writing the word 'communism' to mean 'Marxism' in your responses.

Yes - you have called The Communist Manifesto 'communism'... and you have been wrong on each such occassion (and irrelevent, the original phrasing was 'a communist manifesto' not "The Communist Manifesto")... since The Communist Manifesto ONLY truly addresses the 'communism' of one place and time.

Just curious here as to what one religion the ten commandments belongs to. Would that be Christianity? Judaism? Islam?

Since they are in English, and use the King James style of translation, I am going to assume Christianity is the chief player.

(Curiously, if you pay attention to the Hebrew texts, the only set of commandments ever referred to directly as 'the ten commandments'.... ends with a commandment about boiling animals in the milk of their mothers...)

The reason people keep saying you are discussing Marxism, rather than 'communism' is because whenever 'communism' is mentioned, you trot out ideas of the abolition of religion, for example... ideas that MIGHT exist in Marxism - but are certainly NOT definitive of the CONCEPT of 'communism'.

Thus - people SAY you are debating Marxism, because you keep re-writing the word 'communism' to mean 'Marxism' in your responses.

Yes - you have called The Communist Manifesto 'communism'... and you have been wrong on each such occassion (and irrelevent, the original phrasing was 'a communist manifesto' not "The Communist Manifesto")... since The Communist Manifesto ONLY truly addresses the 'communism' of one place and time.

These may be some of my favorite Pooty arguments. First, he says I'm not paying attention that you asked him to talk about Marxism when I point out that Marxism and Communism are not equal, then he flips to claim they are equal. Then he claims that Marx fathered Communism and then when I say that is his argument he complains that a group of people created and popularized communsim. He calls Marx the messiah of Communism and then admits that Communism existed before Marx. He claims that a group of individiual communists came together to form a group where they would share communist beliefs, further the ideology, explore the ideology and such but that the group formed around the already existing ideology that was eventually called communism actually invented that already existing ideology that spawned the group.

Meanwhile, he ignores the logic that if there is such a thing as what he calls 'modern communism' there must logically be non-modern communism, or 'Marxist communism' then there must logically be non-Marxist communism. But hey, why let a little thing like logic get in the way of nice logical fallacy like his true Scotsman claims. "The only 'true' Communism is Marxism and thus Marxism and Communism must be equal."

However my absolute favorite was when he tried to bastardize my analogy and call Marx the Messiah and then when he got called on it acted like I made the argument and not him. That was comedy gold. I only wish he was doing it on purpose.

And the way you only read half sentences to respond to I now see also applies to only counting half scores as well.

And the way you refuse to address points or answer questions, I wonder you bother to post at all.

I have been clear about this all along, but I'll lay it out for you again, if you need me to:

Jocabia's analogy of Marx to Paul was correct because both were men who wrote influential commentaries on ideas that already existed and had already been developed by other people. Paul did not create Christianity, and Marx did not create communism. But Pauline Christians often act as if Paul did create Christianity, and you are acting as if Marx created communism. Both they and you are both wrong on the facts.

On the other hand, your analogy of Marx to the Messiah is unclear because you have not explained what correlation you see between the role of Marx in communism and the role of the Messiah in Christianity. You made one vague reference to an "irrefutable source" but that is not what "Messiah" means, so it did not help your argument. I have asked you repeatedly what "messiah" has to do with communism, and you have ignored my questions, leading to the only obviously conclusion -- that it has nothing to do with it.

And the way you refuse to address points or answer questions, I wonder you bother to post at all.

I have been clear about this all along, but I'll lay it out for you again, if you need me to:

Jocabia's analogy of Marx to Paul was correct because both were men who wrote influential commentaries on ideas that already existed and had already been developed by other people. Paul did not create Christianity, and Marx did not create communism. But Pauline Christians often act as if Paul did create Christianity, and you are acting as if Marx created communism. Both they and you are both wrong on the facts.

On the other hand, your analogy of Marx to the Messiah is unclear because you have not explained what correlation you see between the role of Marx in communism and the role of the Messiah in Christianity. You made one vague reference to an "irrefutable source" but that is not what "Messiah" means, so it did not help your argument. I have asked you repeatedly what "messiah" has to do with communism, and you have ignored my questions, leading to the only obviously conclusion -- that it has nothing to do with it.

He didn't ignore it. He pretended as if your issue was with me like I somehow made up the Messiah of Communism analogy. He's not ignoring you. He's trying to distract you with shiny logical fallacies.

They actually invented the word communism, and you still deny that they were first? Interesting.
The name "Twinkies" was first coined by a baker in the early 20th century. Are you under the impression that no one had ever made a sponge cake with cream inside it before the word "Twinkies" was invented? If so, you would be wrong about that, too.

"Communism" was a new name given to an idea that already existed, that had existed all over the world, for hundreds, even thousands of years. The 19th century communists saw themselves as trying to reform and modernize a system they saw as more in keeping with human nature, and they supported their arguments with appeals to history and the pre-industrial ways of doing things. Explain to us please, how they could appeal to historical examples of communal ownership of means of production if the system they were promoting had never existed before Marx's writings?

It's not a paradox, PootW. "Communism" = new name for old idea. Simple.

History of Communism
As a political doctrine and ideology, Communism is an implementation of theories proclaimed by Karl Marx — theories which were rooted in a novel concept of a utopian society, and buoyed by the success of the Paris Commune. Marx had said that the working classes would take over all aspects of society and would eliminate all other social classes, thereby creating a classless society — which he described as the "dictatorship of the Proletariat."
wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism)
If you are going to quote that Wiki article, then you should address the questions that have already been posted about it:

If Marx invented communism, if communism begins and is defined by Marxism, then how do you account for the communist systems and philosophies that existed in ancient Greece, in Europe in the Middle Ages and in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, and among indigenous peoples of pre-Columbian Central America?

If communism is antithetical to religion, how do you account for Christian communism?

If you are going to cite this article, you should be prepared to address the information in that refutes your arguments.

Obviously you forget. I referred to communists and communism and quoted the communist manifesto. It was YOU and GnI (etc.,) that made the posit that I was quoting something called 'Marxism' and not communism. I have consistently, throughout all of these posts, called the communist manifesto communism. Only in referral to your sides misunderstanding have I addressed it as Marxism. I have repeatedly and unreservedly called Marxism = communism. that was the whole point. And yet now, you, without any actual ammunition or hope of resupply left, have tried to turn the tables around entirely, hoping perchance that you could pretend that I invented the Marxism claims...

That’s sad, really, but all is well, I forgive you, you got overly worked up, no harm done. Sleep well Jr.
Your assertion that Marxism = communism is false. Your assertion that Marx invented communism is false. You can keep claiming otherwise and keep quoting the Manifesto all you like. History proves you wrong.

That depends, really. If there's a stacked deck, like when there's a cretinism/evolution debate and the cretinists pack the house with cretinist supporters....
Without engaging in any baiting of religious or non-religious people, we should note that this deck is not stacked.

Though I suppose the more Poot argues this particular line, the more stacked the deck becomes, against him.

Just curious here as to what one religion the ten commandments belongs to. Would that be Christianity? Judaism? Islam?
They don't belong to my religion, yet I'm an American, too.

He didn't ignore it. He pretended as if your issue was with me like I somehow made up the Messiah of Communism analogy. He's not ignoring you. He's trying to distract you with shiny logical fallacies.
Maybe he thought you could explain it better than him, seeing as he doesn't seem to know what a messiah is or does.

Maybe he thought you could explain it better than him, seeing as he doesn't seem to know what a messiah is or does.

He certainly seemed to think he could get out of the hole he dug for himself by pulling me in and then standing on my shoulders. If he'd have simply asked I'd likely of helped him but instead he just tried to climb on my back. I'll give him this though, at least he finally recognized the hole.

They don't belong to my religion, yet I'm an American, too.

And they are an offense to my religion as I don't believe in creating such idols.

And they are an offense to my religion as I don't believe in creating such idols.

Well, there ya go. Maybe the deck is a bit stacked after all -- against people who think they have a right to impose their idea of religion and proper religious expression on others. ;)

Jocabia's analogy of Marx to Paul was correct because both were men who wrote influential commentaries on ideas that already existed and had already been developed by other people. Paul did not create Christianity, and Marx did not create communism. But Pauline Christians often act as if Paul did create Christianity, and you are acting as if Marx created communism. Both they and you are both wrong on the facts.

Just out of curiosity, what would "non-Pauline Christians" be?

My understanding of the early development of Christianity is that prior to Paul's conversion and his taking up the mission to the Gentiles, Christianity was on the verge of slipping back into Judaism. There were disputes about whether it was permissable to share a meal with non-Christians, whether circumcision was a requisite part of conversion, etc. Paul cut through a lot of that and elevated the "Jesus Sect" out of Judaism and took it to the wider world. Of course, there were a great many other influences on Christianity in the years after Paul, but he is a seminal figure, whether or not you say he "invented" Christianity or not.

According to the Supreme Court you are incorrect. Marriage is an individual right.

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that discrimination was better as long as that discrimination was regarding 'priveleges'. For someone trying to dismiss an argument as ignorant of your actual stance on equality, you're not doing a very good job of hiding that you don't consider those two situations equal.


Exactly what Supreme Court are you referring to? Fire Island?

The United States Supreme Court has not even ruled on gay marriage. They said it should be up to the states to decide. A sensible decision.

When something is labeled a "right" it requires government intervention when that right is intruded upon. Calling a union between members of the same sex "marriage" is not a right. It seems everything is a "right" these days, which means more government intrusion. Now don't you start throwing words around like ignorant just because you can't stand disagreement. Marriage is not a "right". A right is something that can not be denied (it is guaranteed), is therefore protected by society and the government. Marriage is not guaranteed, it is not a right we are instantly born with. A man can not marry whomever he wants or how many he wants or whatever he wants. Marriage can certainly be denied in these cases unlike the true rights of voting, living and speaking freely.

Marriage is also a religous institution, that has been adapted by the government and it has the same definition in both institutions.

redefining "marriage" is not a right just because doing so makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside and "enlightened" as opposed to my "ignorance".

The legal and humane argument for gay marriage as a right could be made by lumping it with the "right to privacy". Then again, ever since Griswold VS CT, the right to privacy has been a vague and ill defined "right" that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Just out of curiosity, what would "non-Pauline Christians" be?
Jocabia could explain this better than me, as I am referring to arguments he has made, but my understanding is that the distinction is not really between "Pauline Christians" and "non-Pauline Christians." It is between Christians who give greater weight to Paul's commentaries on the gospels than to the gospels themselves, and those who do not do that. Thus, my phrase "Pauline Christians" would refer to several fundamentalist groups who typically do that in arguing their lines of reasoning.

My understanding of the early development of Christianity is that prior to Paul's conversion and his taking up the mission to the Gentiles, Christianity was on the verge of slipping back into Judaism. There were disputes about whether it was permissable to share a meal with non-Christians, whether circumcision was a requisite part of conversion, etc. Paul cut through a lot of that and elevated the "Jesus Sect" out of Judaism and took it to the wider world. Of course, there were a great many other influences on Christianity in the years after Paul, but he is a seminal figure, whether or not you say he "invented" Christianity or not.
From what I have read and heard, this point is disputable.

Jocabia could explain this better than me, as I am referring to arguments he has made, but my understanding is that the distinction is not really between "Pauline Christians" and "non-Pauline Christians." It is between Christians who give greater weight to Paul's commentaries on the gospels than to the gospels themselves, and those who do not do that. Thus, my phrase "Pauline Christians" would refer to several fundamentalist groups who typically do that in arguing their lines of reasoning.

Okay, as I said, I was just curious.

From what I have read and heard, this point is disputable.
Erm ... which point, the one about Christianity falling back into Judaism or the one about Saint Paul being important? I assume the former, and I suppose we'll never really know, though we do have two rather different accounts of the council at Antioch, the one in Acts and the one in one of Paul's letters (I forget which).

Exactly what Supreme Court are you referring to? Fire Island?
This snide remark implies bigotry against gays. Thank you for setting the tone early on.

The United States Supreme Court has not even ruled on gay marriage. They said it should be up to the states to decide. A sensible decision.

When something is labeled a "right" it requires government intervention when that right is intruded upon. Calling a union between members of the same sex "marriage" is not a right. It seems everything is a "right" these days, which means more government intrusion. Now don't you start throwing words around like ignorant just because you can't stand disagreement. Marriage is not a "right". A right is something that can not be denied (it is guaranteed), is therefore protected by society and the government. Marriage is not guaranteed, it is not a right we are instantly born with. A man can not marry whomever he wants or how many he wants or whatever he wants. Marriage can certainly be denied in these cases unlike the true rights of voting, living and speaking freely.

Marriage is also a religous institution, that has been adapted by the government and it has the same definition in both institutions.
Marriage is not a religious institution.

Marriage is a legal contract that combines property into a "household" and establishes claims on inheritance in extended families.

Prior to the Middle Ages, it was involved with religion only as a spiritual/magical blessing on the new household and its members, a forceful extraction of oaths of support/non-interference from the new householders' families, and a public announcement of the new household. But religious rituals have never been considered absolutely necessary for a marriage to be recognized by the legal system of a society. Commonlaw marriage is one of the oldest social phenomena known to humanity. In many cultures and in many periods of history, no religious rituals at all are required to solemnize a marriage.

EDIT: Actually, this applies to marriage during and after the Middle Ages, too. It's just that, after the Roman Empire collapsed, the Catholic church remained the most organized public institution and stepped up to take over reins of government that had previously been secular. Thus, religion involved itself in new areas of society, and it still claims authority over them, even where it no longer actually has any.

redefining "marriage" is not a right just because doing so makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside and "enlightened" as opposed to my "ignorance".
Redefining "marriage" as a religious ritual just because doing so allows you to assert some sort of social primacy for your religion doesn't help solve anyone's "ignorance" problem, either.

The legal and humane argument for gay marriage as a right could be made by lumping it with the "right to privacy". Then again, ever since Griswold VS CT, the right to privacy has been a vague and ill defined "right" that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Your argument is not made more attractive by dismissing "legal and humane arguments" for people's rights as something that could be "lumped with" something else that you then try to claim doesn't really exist anyway.

But I suppose we should expect a dismissive tone from someone who starts with snarky references to Fire Island.

Okay, as I said, I was just curious.


Erm ... which point, the one about Christianity falling back into Judaism or the one about Saint Paul being important? I assume the former, and I suppose we'll never really know, though we do have two rather different accounts of the council at Antioch, the one in Acts and the one in one of Paul's letters (I forget which).
Neither.

I don't care about and am not disputing what would have happened to Christianity if Paul hadn't come along. Whatever might have happened, it doesn't change the fact that Christianity existed before Paul.

Also, I never denied that Paul was important. I described him as "influential" in the religion. That was not my point, either, and it is not the point of the argument with Pootwaddle.

Pootwaddle has been trying to claim that Marx invented communism -- not that he developed it or advanced it, but that he created and defined it.

Jocabia argued against this, by making the comparison with Paul, whose writings influenced Christianity but did not create it, to illustrate how Marx actually relates to communism. I agree with Jocabia's argument because his description of Paul's function in Christianity is accurate.

So, my point was that Paul is not the creator of Christianity. He may have stopped it from becoming a sect of Judaism rather than a new, independent religion, but he did not create the Christian belief system itself.

Neither.

I don't care about and am not disputing what would have happened to Christianity if Paul hadn't come along. Whatever might have happened, it doesn't change the fact that Christianity existed before Paul.

Also, I never denied that Paul was important. I described him as "influential" in the religion. That was not my point, either, and it is not the point of the argument with Pootwaddle.

Pootwaddle has been trying to claim that Marx invented communism -- not that he developed it or advanced it, but that he created and defined it.

Jocabia argued against this, by making the comparison with Paul, whose writings influenced Christianity but did not create it, to illustrate how Marx actually relates to communism. I agree with Jocabia's argument because his description of Paul's function in Christianity is accurate.

So, my point was that Paul is not the creator of Christianity. He may have stopped it from becoming a sect of Judaism rather than a new, independent religion, but he did not create the Christian belief system itself.

Ah, okay. I didn't read back to the original posts, I have to admit. I disagree with you about Paul's importance to the on-going development of Christianity and the belief system itself (just as two examples, Paul's letter to the Romans was a major influence on St. Augustine and on Martin Luther, sending them in directions that had profound effects on the religion). Of course, we could end up just quibbling about degree of influence, too.

Sadly - and I mean that, because despite being an atheist, I love a good discussion of the history of Christianity - I need to go do something resembling workbefore the PHB drops by. :)

Ah, okay. I didn't read back to the original posts, I have to admit. I disagree with you about Paul's importance to the on-going development of Christianity and the belief system itself (just as two examples, Paul's letter to the Romans was a major influence on St. Augustine and on Martin Luther, sending them in directions that had profound effects on the religion). Of course, we could end up just quibbling about degree of influence, too.

Sadly - and I mean that, because despite being an atheist, I love a good discussion of the history of Christianity - I need to go do something resembling workbefore the PHB drops by. :)
Please. Hasn't there been enough quibbling in this thread already? ;)

This snide remark implies bigotry against gays. Thank you for setting the tone early on.


Hey, "learn to cope". This thread had been full of snide remarks from those on your side of the ideological fence.

You rationalize it however you want, and search wikipedia as much as you want but there is no legal, historical or even moral basis to make Gay Marriage a "right". Civil Unions? If the legislature passes it, then it is law and recognized...but calling it marriage? calling gay marriage a right? completely redefining an institution thats been around for thousands of years? it's not a right.

and save me your double standards when it comes to snarky comments. it has come clear to me the majority on this board only take the high road when it suits their ideological purposes.

Exactly what Supreme Court are you referring to? Fire Island?

The United States Supreme Court has not even ruled on gay marriage. They said it should be up to the states to decide. A sensible decision.

You said marriage is a privelege not a right. Are you seriously suggesting that SCOTUS has never ruled on marriage ever? They don't have to have ruled on gay marriage to have ruled on marriage as a right.

When something is labeled a "right" it requires government intervention when that right is intruded upon. Calling a union between members of the same sex "marriage" is not a right. It seems everything is a "right" these days, which means more government intrusion. Now don't you start throwing words around like ignorant just because you can't stand disagreement. Marriage is not a "right". A right is something that can not be denied (it is guaranteed), is therefore protected by society and the government. Marriage is not guaranteed, it is not a right we are instantly born with. A man can not marry whomever he wants or how many he wants or whatever he wants. Marriage can certainly be denied in these cases unlike the true rights of voting, living and speaking freely.

Marriage is also a religous institution, that has been adapted by the government and it has the same definition in both institutions.

redefining "marriage" is not a right just because doing so makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside and "enlightened" as opposed to my "ignorance".

The legal and humane argument for gay marriage as a right could be made by lumping it with the "right to privacy". Then again, ever since Griswold VS CT, the right to privacy has been a vague and ill defined "right" that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Marriage is a religious institution? Really? What religion?

No one is redefining marriage except the religious right. Gay marriage has existed for thousands of years. The idea of the nuclear family is a new one relative to history. It's a made-up thing to say that it's traditional. You can whine all you like, but the right to marriage is recognized by SCOTUS as an individual right and they ruled that interracial marriage laws were unconstitutional by that reasoning. They said that if you can marry someone and you are black and then I can marry that same person even if I'm white and vice versa. The point being that you can not define the group I am permitted to marry based on a discriminatory division like race. Sex is also a protected class and it's only a matter of time before they recognize the same thing regarding discrimination based on sex.

Looks like you've been exposed. You claimed that it was wrong to assume you were against gay marriage but you've betrayed yourself. You think you should be able to define what how people excercise their rights based on your religious beliefs and you're wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what would "non-Pauline Christians" be?

My understanding of the early development of Christianity is that prior to Paul's conversion and his taking up the mission to the Gentiles, Christianity was on the verge of slipping back into Judaism. There were disputes about whether it was permissable to share a meal with non-Christians, whether circumcision was a requisite part of conversion, etc. Paul cut through a lot of that and elevated the "Jesus Sect" out of Judaism and took it to the wider world. Of course, there were a great many other influences on Christianity in the years after Paul, but he is a seminal figure, whether or not you say he "invented" Christianity or not.

I would be a non-Pauline Christian. I take the word of Christ as the primary word on which Christians should define the teachings of Christianity. I believed Christ when he said the sum of the Law and the Prophets was to love God and love one another, or to treat others as you would like to be treated (he says it two different ways). I believed Christ when he said he was sent to save the Jews. I believed Christ when he said that we were to be humble and that our religious practices were meant to be private. And I won't allow any man to alter that message. That's what a non-Pauline Christian is. Paul may have been instrumental in the existance of Christianity today. Paul may have been a knowledgeable biblical scholar. He may have been a key figure in the spread of Christianity. That doesn't make him more important than Christ is to Christianity despite those misguided souls who treat him as if it were otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, what would "non-Pauline Christians" be?

My understanding of the early development of Christianity is that prior to Paul's conversion and his taking up the mission to the Gentiles, Christianity was on the verge of slipping back into Judaism. There were disputes about whether it was permissable to share a meal with non-Christians, whether circumcision was a requisite part of conversion, etc. Paul cut through a lot of that and elevated the "Jesus Sect" out of Judaism and took it to the wider world. Of course, there were a great many other influences on Christianity in the years after Paul, but he is a seminal figure, whether or not you say he "invented" Christianity or not.

Non-pauline christians? As in, those who follow Christ himself as opposed to those who claim to speak for him?

Those would be Deists. =)

Non-pauline christians? As in, those who follow Christ himself as opposed to those who claim to speak for him?

Those would be Deists. =)

Saying Non-Pauline Christian is like saying uncircumcized. It's nonsensical. There is just a circumcized penis and a penis (no need for an adjective). There are Paulians (Pauline Christians) and Christians (no need for an adjective). As you said, I put the words of Christ, Himself, above the words of those analyzing the words of Christ. I view Paul as a resource who knew the teachings of Christ as they existed very close to the life of Christ, but not as an infallible mouth of God. Even Paul didn't view himself as such, despite the claims of those that know no better.

Hey, "learn to cope". This thread had been full of snide remarks from those on your side of the ideological fence.
Pointing out your prejudice is a coping mechanism. :p

You rationalize it however you want, and search wikipedia as much as you want but there is no legal, historical or even moral basis to make Gay Marriage a "right". Civil Unions? If the legislature passes it, then it is law and recognized...but calling it marriage? calling gay marriage a right? completely redefining an institution thats been around for thousands of years? it's not a right.
This is nothing but an unfounded assertion based on your own personal bias. I used history to support my definition of what marriage is. You offer nothing to explain, let alone support, your definition of it. So what do you give us to work with here? Nothing.

and save me your double standards when it comes to snarky comments. it has come clear to me the majority on this board only take the high road when it suits their ideological purposes.
Kindly point out which of my snarky comments insultingly referenced an entire segment of society who are not even the subject of the thread.

Hey, "learn to cope". This thread had been full of snide remarks from those on your side of the ideological fence.

You rationalize it however you want, and search wikipedia as much as you want but there is no legal, historical or even moral basis to make Gay Marriage a "right". Civil Unions? If the legislature passes it, then it is law and recognized...but calling it marriage? calling gay marriage a right? completely redefining an institution thats been around for thousands of years? it's not a right.

and save me your double standards when it comes to snarky comments. it has come clear to me the majority on this board only take the high road when it suits their ideological purposes.

Amusing. Here's a paper I wrote on it for fun. You'll notice it cites the actual cases that define marriage as a right and ended other types of discrimination that used to surround marriage. Arguments that were made by religious individuals claiming that allowing black and white to marry was 'redefining marriage.'

Gay Marriage and US Law

I know people think that gay marriage just happens to be the cause du jour of late. They throw it in with the spotted owl and such. It is dismissed as a cause that is only believed in and should be only believed in by a small portion of the country. I beg to differ.

For those who are reading this and wondering why you should care, let me offer up a little quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller -

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
You’ll hear arguments that the law is on the side of those who are against same-sex marriage, yet there is a strong movement to put forth an amendment that makes same-sex marriage illegal. If the law is on your side, why are you putting forth an amendment to that law? I know I’m being unfair. Who said bigots have to be consistent, right?

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States found that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” They called it “one of the basic civil rights of man.” They are further supported by Skinner v. Oklahoma and Maynard v. Hill, along with dozens of cases since. This was no isolated case. The right to marry has forty years of law behind it.

The argument made by those who would restrict individual rights, for the gain of… well… NO ONE, is that gays and lesbians already have the right to marry, the opposite sex just like everyone else. Switch “gays and lesbians” with “blacks and other minorities” and change “opposite sex” with “the same race” and you have the same argument that was made in support of banning interracial couples, an argument that was struck down by Loving v. Virginia as a violation of the fourteenth amendment. Marriage is an individual right. That means that you cannot restrict whom I would like to marry based on my race or theirs or based on my sex or theirs. If a woman is permitted to marry a man, I cannot be restricted from marrying a man either or it is in violation of Loving v. Virginia. So those of you who think the law is on your side as far as restricting the right to marriage, you’re wrong and I can show you 40 years of precedent to prove it.

Oh, but that’s not the only argument. You’ll also hear that marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman and, as such, gays and lesbians are trying to redefine it. As an individual right it cannot be defined in such a way. It simply can’t. Defining it in such way tries to make it a group right just like defining it as a man of one race and a woman of the same race does.

Or you’ll hear that gays and lesbians should be allowed ‘civil unions’ so that heterosexuals can keep marriage sacred. First, it is not the job of the government to keep anything sacred. The government is required to shy away from such things. The government recognizes marriage even when the church doesn’t. The church will never be required to support any marriage it doesn’t like, but the government has no such right. The government MUST offer rights to everyone. Second, you’ll find that ‘separate but equal’ was struck down in 1954 for being unequal on its face. Simply by splitting people into separate institutions (marriages and civil unions) you create inequality according to all legal precedent.

“But what about the family?” It has been shown time and again that children benefit from a stable home that comes from the permanent relationship afforded by marriage. By denying marriage to same-sex couples, particularly those with children, you are denying that family of a stability their home deserves and the necessary protections a family finds in marriage. There 1049 rights and privileges offered to heterosexual couples and their families that are currently not allowed to same-sex couples and theirs.

Can anyone tell me how allowing these families to have a joint ability to make decisions for their family, joint ownership of property and all the other rights and privileges that come with federal recognition of marriage, is going to tear apart the family or the institution of marriage in a society where we have shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”? Maybe I’m missing it, but shouldn’t we want, even beg for, more loving couples to enter into marriage? Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to join together and raise families? Shouldn’t we be concerned about the state of marriage now? Shouldn’t we be all for long-term relationships and the stability they bring no matter how that relationship is composed? It seems to me the obvious answer is yes, yet 11 states had measures on the ballot to restrict the rights of same-sex couples and all of them passed. If you don’t find that concerning, then I don’t know what to say. In 11 states a majority voted to prevent loving couples from having a right that will not and cannot affect most or all of the people who voted to disallow same-sex marriages.

Now, I know lots of people think this is something that just came about as the religious right rose to power in the last few years, but I’m here to tell you that this is a problem on both sides of the aisle. Clinton signed into law something called the Defense of Marriage Act. For those of you unfamiliar with the act, I’ll summarize. The DOMA allows states not to recognize marriages and/or any equivalent unions, i.e. civil unions, that were allowed by other states if they disagree with that union. This act thumbs its nose at the Constitution and the “full faith and credit” clause of Article IV, a clause that is the reason why if you move states you don’t have to get remarried and which allows you to drive cross-country without stopping to get a driver’s license in each state.

Maybe you think gay marriage doesn’t affect you. Why should you care, right? In a free society, we should be upset EVERY time individual rights are abridged, particularly when abridging those rights protects the interests of no one. We have to cry out every time we see civil rights being trampled, because if we don’t, we send the message to our government and to the world that Americans aren’t for freedom, that instead we are selfish individuals that are only motivated to action when an abridgement of rights affects us directly. Stand up for freedom. Stand up for families. Stand up for love. Show the world that America is truly “indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL” and not just for those lucky enough to be in the majority. Don’t wait until they come for you and there’s no one left to speak out.

This is nothing but an unfounded assertion based on your own personal bias. I used history to support my definition of what marriage is. You offer nothing to explain, let alone support, your definition of it. So what do you give us to work with here? Nothing.

Don't you know? Jesus asked us to discriminate against people and stand in judgement. Oh, whoops, that wasn't what he said. He told us to respect the rights of others and to not stand in judgement. He told us to leave such thing to God. I suppose some of our Paulian friends jumped right over that passage. I mean, it's not that important, right? It's not like Paul said it.

Saying Non-Pauline Christian is like saying uncircumcized. It's nonsensical. There is just a circumcized penis and a penis (no need for an adjective). There are Paulians (Pauline Christians) and Christians (no need for an adjective). As you said, I put the words of Christ, Himself, above the words of those analyzing the words of Christ. I view Paul as a resource who knew the teachings of Christ as they existed very close to the life of Christ, but not as an infallible mouth of God. Even Paul didn't view himself as such, despite the claims of those that know no better.

If you follow any type of christian church, then you're paulian in one form or another.

If you follow any type of christian church, then you're paulian in one form or another.

False. Blatantly false. Most prevelent =/= only. I've been to many churches that don't believe the Bible is the only place we find the word of God and viewed Paul as a commentator as I do. I may be unusual, but I am hardly the only non-Paulian Christian. Christians come in every color of the rainbow and American Christians only represent a small percentage of that rainbow.

Amusing. Here's a paper I wrote on it for fun. You'll notice it cites the actual cases that define marriage as a right and ended other types of discrimination that used to surround marriage. Arguments that were made by religious individuals claiming that allowing black and white to marry was 'redefining marriage.'

Gay Marriage and US Law

I know people think that gay marriage just happens to be the cause du jour of late. They throw it in with the spotted owl and such. It is dismissed as a cause that is only believed in and should be only believed in by a small portion of the country. I beg to differ.

For those who are reading this and wondering why you should care, let me offer up a little quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller -

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
You’ll hear arguments that the law is on the side of those who are against same-sex marriage, yet there is a strong movement to put forth an amendment that makes same-sex marriage illegal. If the law is on your side, why are you putting forth an amendment to that law? I know I’m being unfair. Who said bigots have to be consistent, right?

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States found that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” They called it “one of the basic civil rights of man.” They are further supported by Skinner v. Oklahoma and Maynard v. Hill, along with dozens of cases since. This was no isolated case. The right to marry has forty years of law behind it.

The argument made by those who would restrict individual rights, for the gain of… well… NO ONE, is that gays and lesbians already have the right to marry, the opposite sex just like everyone else. Switch “gays and lesbians” with “blacks and other minorities” and change “opposite sex” with “the same race” and you have the same argument that was made in support of banning interracial couples, an argument that was struck down by Loving v. Virginia as a violation of the fourteenth amendment. Marriage is an individual right. That means that you cannot restrict whom I would like to marry based on my race or theirs or based on my sex or theirs. If a woman is permitted to marry a man, I cannot be restricted from marrying a man either or it is in violation of Loving v. Virginia. So those of you who think the law is on your side as far as restricting the right to marriage, you’re wrong and I can show you 40 years of precedent to prove it.

Oh, but that’s not the only argument. You’ll also hear that marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman and, as such, gays and lesbians are trying to redefine it. As an individual right it cannot be defined in such a way. It simply can’t. Defining it in such way tries to make it a group right just like defining it as a man of one race and a woman of the same race does.

Or you’ll hear that gays and lesbians should be allowed ‘civil unions’ so that heterosexuals can keep marriage sacred. First, it is not the job of the government to keep anything sacred. The government is required to shy away from such things. The government recognizes marriage even when the church doesn’t. The church will never be required to support any marriage it doesn’t like, but the government has no such right. The government MUST offer rights to everyone. Second, you’ll find that ‘separate but equal’ was struck down in 1954 for being unequal on its face. Simply by splitting people into separate institutions (marriages and civil unions) you create inequality according to all legal precedent.

“But what about the family?” It has been shown time and again that children benefit from a stable home that comes from the permanent relationship afforded by marriage. By denying marriage to same-sex couples, particularly those with children, you are denying that family of a stability their home deserves and the necessary protections a family finds in marriage. There 1049 rights and privileges offered to heterosexual couples and their families that are currently not allowed to same-sex couples and theirs.

Can anyone tell me how allowing these families to have a joint ability to make decisions for their family, joint ownership of property and all the other rights and privileges that come with federal recognition of marriage, is going to tear apart the family or the institution of marriage in a society where we have shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”? Maybe I’m missing it, but shouldn’t we want, even beg for, more loving couples to enter into marriage? Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to join together and raise families? Shouldn’t we be concerned about the state of marriage now? Shouldn’t we be all for long-term relationships and the stability they bring no matter how that relationship is composed? It seems to me the obvious answer is yes, yet 11 states had measures on the ballot to restrict the rights of same-sex couples and all of them passed. If you don’t find that concerning, then I don’t know what to say. In 11 states a majority voted to prevent loving couples from having a right that will not and cannot affect most or all of the people who voted to disallow same-sex marriages.

Now, I know lots of people think this is something that just came about as the religious right rose to power in the last few years, but I’m here to tell you that this is a problem on both sides of the aisle. Clinton signed into law something called the Defense of Marriage Act. For those of you unfamiliar with the act, I’ll summarize. The DOMA allows states not to recognize marriages and/or any equivalent unions, i.e. civil unions, that were allowed by other states if they disagree with that union. This act thumbs its nose at the Constitution and the “full faith and credit” clause of Article IV, a clause that is the reason why if you move states you don’t have to get remarried and which allows you to drive cross-country without stopping to get a driver’s license in each state.

Maybe you think gay marriage doesn’t affect you. Why should you care, right? In a free society, we should be upset EVERY time individual rights are abridged, particularly when abridging those rights protects the interests of no one. We have to cry out every time we see civil rights being trampled, because if we don’t, we send the message to our government and to the world that Americans aren’t for freedom, that instead we are selfish individuals that are only motivated to action when an abridgement of rights affects us directly. Stand up for freedom. Stand up for families. Stand up for love. Show the world that America is truly “indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL” and not just for those lucky enough to be in the majority. Don’t wait until they come for you and there’s no one left to speak out.

Well. Very well put. It's a point I've made before, too. I wouldn't want to get married in any church that objects to my lifestyle (actually, being an atheist, a church wedding is besides the point). I don't want any church that has such objections to be forced to marry homosexuals. The Catholics don't marry divorced people and no one's tried to take away their IRS tax-exempt status, so don't bringing up that canard. I only want the same rights as heterosexual citizens of the United States of America. And if I am not entitled to those rights, I want someone who opposes gay marriage to have the courage to stand up and say so. And then to explain to me why that is so. Is that asking for so much?

Hey, "learn to cope". This thread had been full of snide remarks from those on your side of the ideological fence.

You rationalize it however you want, and search wikipedia as much as you want but there is no legal, historical or even moral basis to make Gay Marriage a "right". Civil Unions? If the legislature passes it, then it is law and recognized...but calling it marriage? calling gay marriage a right? completely redefining an institution thats been around for thousands of years? it's not a right.
It used to not be legal that people of different races could marry.

But that didn't mean they didn't have the right to do so.

Well. Very well put. It's a point I've made before, too. I wouldn't want to get married in any church that objects to my lifestyle (actually, being an atheist, a church wedding is besides the point). I don't want any church that has such objections to be forced to marry homosexuals. The Catholics don't marry divorced people and no one's tried to take away their IRS tax-exempt status, so don't bringing up that canard. I only want the same rights as heterosexual citizens of the United States of America. And if I am not entitled to those rights, I want someone who opposes gay marriage to have the courage to stand up and say so. And then to explain to me why that is so. Is that asking for so much?

Apparently, you being allowed to decide what happens to YOU in YOUR private life somehow infringes upon their rights and damages them in some goofball unknown way. I don't know about you, but I would actually prefer to be the oppressed than the oppressors. Imagine have so little grip on your own beliefs that you couldn't find a way to keep believing them and living happily unless they were forced on other people. Yes, I would much rather be the oppressed.

False. Blatantly false. Most prevelent =/= only. I've been to many churches that don't believe the Bible is the only place we find the word of God and viewed Paul as a commentator as I do. I may be unusual, but I am hardly the only non-Paulian Christian. Christians come in every color of the rainbow and American Christians only represent a small percentage of that rainbow.

I'm sorry, I should've specified - I meant "church" as in, Catholic Church (tm), Protestant Church (tm), Baptist Church (tm), Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints (Yes, Mormons can be Paulian)(tm), and various other (tm) churches out there. There are those places that encourage worship but don't follow the books so much as what their heart tells them is right, and for them I give applause.

I'm sorry, I should've specified - I meant "church" as in, Catholic Church (tm), Protestant Church (tm), Baptist Church (tm), Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints (Yes, Mormons can be Paulian)(tm), and various other (tm) churches out there. There are those places that encourage worship but don't follow the books so much as what their heart tells them is right, and for them I give applause.

I still don't necessarily agree. You mentioned several recognized Churchs that accept Paulian scripture as infallible, but that hardly means that all of them do or that they must. However, I get your point and it's a valid one even if you're making it poorly :p

I still don't necessarily agree. You mentioned several recognized Churchs that accept Paulian scripture as infallible, but that hardly means that all of them do or that they must. However, I get your point and it's a valid one even if you're making it poorly :p

You must remember this everytime you read a post of mine: It always makes perfect sense in my head when I'm writing it, so any fault in the post is most likely a fault of the english language or the world in general. :D

I still don't necessarily agree. You mentioned several recognized Churchs that accept Paulian scripture as infallible, but that hardly means that all of them do or that they must. However, I get your point and it's a valid one even if you're making it poorly :p

You must remember this everytime you read a post of mine: It always makes perfect sense in my head when I'm writing it, so any fault in the post is most likely a fault of the english language or the world in general. :D

*sniff* It's so nice when things like this don't degenerate into name-calling and "Oh, yeah? Well mine's six and seven-eighths long!"

*sniff* It's so nice when things like this don't degenerate into name-calling and "Oh, yeah? Well mine's six and seven-eighths long!"

Psh, my dog's much bigger than that.

Psh, my dog's much bigger than that.

:eek:

Well, you know what I mean. :p

:eek:

Well, you know what I mean. :p

Yes and he meant the same thing ;)

Yes and he meant the same thing ;)

*pats dog on the head* Down, boy.

I commend all three of you heroes (and your dogs) for another valiant attempt to kill Count Threadula. Let's see if it takes. :D

These may be some of my favorite Pooty arguments. First, he says I'm not paying attention that you asked him to talk about Marxism when I point out that Marxism and Communism are not equal, then he flips to claim they are equal. Then he claims that Marx fathered Communism and then when I say that is his argument he complains that a group of people created and popularized communsim. He calls Marx the messiah of Communism and then admits that Communism existed before Marx. He claims that a group of individiual communists came together to form a group where they would share communist beliefs, further the ideology, explore the ideology and such but that the group formed around the already existing ideology that was eventually called communism actually invented that already existing ideology that spawned the group.

Meanwhile, he ignores the logic that if there is such a thing as what he calls 'modern communism' there must logically be non-modern communism, or 'Marxist communism' then there must logically be non-Marxist communism. But hey, why let a little thing like logic get in the way of nice logical fallacy like his true Scotsman claims. "The only 'true' Communism is Marxism and thus Marxism and Communism must be equal."

However my absolute favorite was when he tried to bastardize my analogy and call Marx the Messiah and then when he got called on it acted like I made the argument and not him. That was comedy gold. I only wish he was doing it on purpose.

I thought it was me. At first. I really did... I went through to the other room and sought my lovely lady's advice, as to how I could better explain what I was meaning - because I was honestly thinking that I was confusing the issue somehow.

Then, my 8 year old, listening to me talking to mama, suggested the 'alphabet argument' ('A' is a letter, 'B' is a litter, and yet 'A' is not 'B'...)

So - perhaps it is not an inability to express myself after all. Maybe it IS a refusal to accept the principles... the question is, then - is it being done for kicks? Or just so that the argument doesn't have to be acknowledged?

I find myself HOPING you are right... and that this is some kind of tongue-in-cheek technique.

I thought it was me. At first. I really did... I went through to the other room and sought my lovely lady's advice, as to how I could better explain what I was meaning - because I was honestly thinking that I was confusing the issue somehow.

Then, my 8 year old, listening to me talking to mama, suggested the 'alphabet argument' ('A' is a letter, 'B' is a litter, and yet 'A' is not 'B'...)

So - perhaps it is not an inability to express myself after all. Maybe it IS a refusal to accept the principles... the question is, then - is it being done for kicks? Or just so that the argument doesn't have to be acknowledged?

I find myself HOPING you are right... and that this is some kind of tongue-in-cheek technique.
I suspect that Pootwaddle is one of those people who sometimes has trouble keeping track of his own arguments. He gets on a roll and starts spouting outlandish remarks that sound snazzy and dramatic, like "Marx is the messiah of communism!", and when someone challenges him on such words, he has to scramble to try and figure out a way to make them fit into an actual argument. Of course, they don't fit into any kind of argument, so he just gets himself all tangled up until he can't remember what his original point was.

I fail to understand why people Accept some books of the Bible while rejecting others.

After the counsil of Nicea in 425, the Bible has been pretty consistant about what did and what did not belong.

Over 80 scholars of that day hashed it out for months. They were closer to the time everything happened than we are today.

Anything written "After" that time and called "another testament", new revalations or anything else are dubious and unreliable at best. :rolleyes:

I fail to understand why people Accept some books of the Bible while rejecting others.

After the counsil of Nicea in 425, the Bible has been pretty consistant about what did and what did not belong.

Over 80 scholars of that day hashed it out for months. They were closer to the time everything happened than we are today.

Anything written "After" that time and called "another testament", new revalations or anything else are dubious and unreliable at best. :rolleyes:

Yes, yes, the Council of Nicea. Who commissioned that council? Why did they commission that council? What was the purpose of them adopting and supporting Christianity? Weren't the people of that time also instrumental in incorporating Babylonian practices into Christian beliefs systems?

Meanwhile, because a bunch of 'scholars' all of whom believed that Paul was a Saint and infallible decided he was to be followed as a mouthpiece of God because it was what they believed doesn't make it accurate. Paul popularized Chritianity. Paul spread Christianity. It is no surprise that the brand he spread and popularized is consistent with what Paul believed. It's popularity does not offer it credence. To claim otherwise is generally an attempt to avoid the very painful lack of evidence that there is any other reason to accept it as infallible than the illogical reason of 'it's popular'.

Meanwhile, because a bunch of 'scholars' all of whom believed that Paul was a Saint and infallible decided he was to be followed as a mouthpiece of God because it was what they believed doesn't make it accurate. Paul popularized Chritianity. Paul spread Christianity. It is no surprise that the brand he spread and popularized is consistent with what Paul believed. It's popularity does not offer it credence. To claim otherwise is generally an attempt to avoid the very painful lack of evidence that there is any other reason to accept it as infallible than the illogical reason of 'it's popular'.

Agreed. That's one of many reasons I like to describe the Bible as useful rather than infallible, and don't appreciate it when folks decide they want to treat the Bible as a guide to scientific fact or absolute historical truth, or even a perfect source of appropriate Christian practice.

I thought it was me. At first. I really did... I went through to the other room and sought my lovely lady's advice, as to how I could better explain what I was meaning - because I was honestly thinking that I was confusing the issue somehow.

Then, my 8 year old, listening to me talking to mama, suggested the 'alphabet argument' ('A' is a letter, 'B' is a litter, and yet 'A' is not 'B'...)

So - perhaps it is not an inability to express myself after all. Maybe it IS a refusal to accept the principles... the question is, then - is it being done for kicks? Or just so that the argument doesn't have to be acknowledged?

I find myself HOPING you are right... and that this is some kind of tongue-in-cheek technique.

No, he was just making a different point from a different perspective and neither of you were bothering to discover what each other was saying and instead looked for why it was wrong from each of your perspectives. You don't have a problem expressing yourself, as far as I can tell that wasn't the problem at all.

Nothing changed, other than the usual suspects of supporters showed up to pat you on the back.

No, he was just making a different point from a different perspective and neither of you were bothering to discover what each other was saying and instead looked for why it was wrong from each of your perspectives. You don't have a problem expressing yourself, as far as I can tell that wasn't the problem at all.

Nothing changed, other than the usual suspects of supporters showed up to pat you on the back.

Man I love sour grapes. No time to make an argument but plenty of time to complain that people who have actually taken the time to educate themselves on a topic tend to agree particularly when the topic, in this case the origin of Communism, involves a person claiming things that are incongruent with fact, not debateable facts, just facts. It's a fact that the origin of Communism can't be Marx. It can't be. It existed before him. So yes, we're patting him on the back for managing to state the obvious. Keeping selling that one. Maybe someone's buying.

Silence them Christians ... Auf keinen Fall! :D

Silence them Christians ... Ninguna manera :p

Silence them Christians ... des clous :cool:

Today I went to the campus church at the University Union. It was a normal worship service. We all gathered in and sat, and then began to sing a song. Halfway through the song, the service pastor told us the following:




At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights, and had one band member stay up on stage with his acoustic guitar, and he was going to play a few songs. We were furious. Several members began to cry. But the funniest thing happened, instead of being quiet with our worship, we sang loud and with such great passion. It was the first service I have been to where I have felt the Spirit just flood down and fill everyone. Everyone was just crying out to God and we had Him there with us, and our hands were raised, and we sang sang so loudly, and just praised Him. It was the greatest feeling ever, as if we were all raised to a new level, perhaps right in front of God Himself at that point. After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. Not Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Unless One Wants To Manipulate Their Congregation.

Zilam, please tell me that upon seeing this you changed to a church that had a pastor who is so willing to violate the principles of the faith in order to make Christians who live in an era where their faith is celebrated and is a part of nearly every part of public life get some kind of persecution complex. Being paranoid that Nazis live in your basement won't make you like Jews during the Holocaust either. It just makes you paranoid. Your pastor should be ashamed.

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. Not Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Unless One Wants To Manipulate Their Congregation.

Zilam, please tell me that upon seeing this you changed to a church that had a pastor who is so willing to violate the principles of the faith in order to make Christians who live in an era where their faith is celebrated and is a part of nearly every part of public life get some kind of persecution complex. Being paranoid that Nazis live in your basement won't make you like Jews during the Holocaust either. It just makes you paranoid. Your pastor should be ashamed.

Once again another person has missed the point.

Silence them Christians ... Auf keinen Fall! :cool:

Once again another person has missed the point.

I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it. The point of the liar... ahem, sorry, pastor was to decieve the members of his church to make them feel persecuted in an ill-advised attempt to motivate them. However, no matter how you slice it, decieve is a necessary word in describing what he did. His lie played on a misunderstanding of the seperation of Church and State and he should have known better. As a Christian, I'm embarrassed that a person sharing that title would resort to such underhanded tactics.

But then, you're actually trying to spam the thread in an attempt to pretend there is actually a conspiracy in America to silence Christians. Apparently the Christian majority is voting to silence themselves, huh?

Care to make an argument or is the only thing you can do is compare anyone who disagrees with Christians forcing their religion on others to Nazis?

Silence them Christians ... Auf keinen Fall! :cool:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1652
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1653
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1654
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1657

Knock it off.

I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it. The point of the liar... ahem, sorry, pastor was to decieve the members of his church to make them feel persecuted in an ill-advised attempt to motivate them. However, no matter how you slice it, decieve is a necessary word in describing what he did. His lie played on a misunderstanding of the seperation of Church and State and he should have known better. As a Christian, I'm embarrassed that a person sharing that title would resort to such underhanded tactics.

But then, you're actually trying to spam the thread in an attempt to pretend there is actually a conspiracy in America to silence Christians. Apparently the Christian majority is voting to silence themselves, huh?

Care to make an argument or is the only thing you can do is compare anyone who disagrees with Christians forcing their religion on others to Nazis?

The Pastor isn't the point ... the fact that the Holy Sprit came is.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1652
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1653
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1654
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...postcount=1657

Knock it off.



I have made my point, now could you tell them the same thing?

The Pastor isn't the point ... the fact that the Holy Sprit came is.

I don't think the Holy Spirit did come.

I don't think the Holy Spirit did come.


Were you there? If not then how could you know?

Were you there? If not then how could you know?

Examination of the scene, and contrasting it to what Jesus did when he was in a similar situation:
They were told to be quiet and sang REAL LOUD.
Jesus was told that he was going to be executed and went along with it.

Now, what seems different about those situations?
Maybe it's the lack of anything resembling a holy spirit?

The Pastor isn't the point ... the fact that the Holy Sprit came is.
It wasn't the holy spirit (which, of course, doesn't exist), but their own paranoia and that they decided to overcome it.

Examination of the scene, and contrasting it to what Jesus did when he was in a similar situation:
They were told to be quiet and sang REAL LOUD.
Jesus was told that he was going to be executed and went along with it.
He also said not to pray loudly in public just to be showy, which is akin to what they were doing.

The Pastor isn't the point ... the fact that the Holy Sprit came is.

So the lesson is lie, the Holy Spirit likes it when you lie and rewards you. Good to know. Or perhaps it's YOU who missed the point. I don't believe it was the Holy Spirit. Because God sent his Son to tell us what we were to do it pretty much was a direction to behave exactly the opposite of this.

Were you there? If not then how could you know?

So your argument is that the Holy Spirit is our reward for deception? The ends justify the means? Hmmmm... what a very Christian message.

So your argument is that the Holy Spirit is our reward for deception? The ends justify the means? Hmmmm... what a very Christian message.


Thats not my message, you are it's author not I.

Thats not my message, you are it's author not I.

Fine, make an argument. It's clear the pastor lied. There is no argument to made to the contrary. He deceived his congregation. That's established.

So here's the question, if the Holy Spirit appearing is the point, then how did they cause the Holy Spirit to appear, the congregation was inspired by the actions of the pastor, no? They were inspired by the belief they were being silenced and you claim the Holy Spirit was the result. That they were being silenced was a manipulation, a lie, a deception.

A is the message of the pastor.

B is the result of A.

You claim B is the appearance of the Holy Spirit.

We KNOW A was a lie, a deception by the admission of the preacher. My conclusion is based on yours. It's the logical train of though resulting from your claim. It's not my fault for understanding logic. It's yours for not anticipating it.

Or tell me where my logic is flawed. I'd be interested in seeing an actual argument from you.

Fine, make an argument. It's clear the pastor lied. There is no argument to made to the contrary. He deceived his congregation. That's established.

So here's the question, if the Holy Spirit appearing is the point, then how did they cause the Holy Spirit to appear, the congregation was inspired by the actions of the pastor, no? They were inspired by the belief they were being silenced and you claim the Holy Spirit was the result. That they were being silenced was a manipulation, a lie, a deception.

A is the message of the pastor.

B is the result of A.

You claim B is the appearance of the Holy Spirit.


We KNOW A was a lie, a deception by the admission of the preacher. My conclusion is based on yours. It's the logical train of though resulting from your claim. It's not my fault for understanding logic. It's yours for not anticipating it.

Or tell me where my logic is flawed. I'd be interested in seeing an actual argument from you.


Visit a Holy Sprit filled church, open yourself to him and you will understand. I am not taking up for the Pastor, I am backing the author of this thread. As I have experienced the presence of the Holy Sprit many times, one of which was when he healed my eyes twenty seven years ago. So because you offer worldly knowledge in an attempt to explain away Christainity, I offer only my Faith in God the Father, Jesus his Son & the Holy Sprit. I can only attempt to share my experience with you as I have done.

Visit a Holy Sprit filled church, open yourself to him and you will understand. I am not taking up for the Pastor, I am backing the author of this thread. As I have experienced the presence of the Holy Sprit many times, one of which was when he healed my eyes twenty seven years ago. So because you offer worldly knowledge in an attempt to explain away Christainity, I offer only my Faith in God the Father, Jesus his Son & the Holy Sprit. I can only attempt to share my experience with you as I have done.

I have visited a Holy Spirt filled church. Generally, when the Holy Spirit is present is not based on pastors lying and manipulating people.

I'm not explaining away Christianity, my friend, so you can take that argument home. I'm a Christian, so is Smunkee. Both of us are offended by someone lying in the name of our Savior in an attempt to manipulate people in the Spirit. It shouldn't be applauded. It should be condemned. It's shameful.

Do you have something real to say or are you just going to make things up about me in order to pretend as if my motivations are other than what they are? When you say this event was a good thing, and you did, you are defending lying, deception and manipulation. Maybe you're comfortable with that. I am not.

You are trying to seperate the ends from the means, but it cannot be done. According to Jesus, it shouldn't be done. The motivation behind an action is more important than the results according to Jesus. But, hey, why bother hearing that message when the message of the lying pastor is so much more important.

The Pastor isn't the point ... the fact that the Holy Sprit came is.

Were you there?
If not, then how can you know?


You can manipulate people, you cannot manipulate the Spirit of God.

Were you there?
If not, then how can you know?


You can manipulate people, you cannot manipulate the Spirit of God.

Exactly - you saved me from having to say it.

Even the Atheist can see that visitation by the Spirit must be something personal... not something you are going to be able to document separately, at a later date.

No, he was just making a different point from a different perspective and neither of you were bothering to discover what each other was saying and instead looked for why it was wrong from each of your perspectives. You don't have a problem expressing yourself, as far as I can tell that wasn't the problem at all.

Nothing changed, other than the usual suspects of supporters showed up to pat you on the back.

I disagree.

My point was that Jesus was a communist.

Poot could rebut this idea only through reference to THE Communist Party (which I didn't mention), and the principles of Marx (which I didn't mention).

Since neither Marx nor The Communist Party can utterly define what communism may be in toto, Poot was way off the mark. I told him so, and he refused to confront the obvious truth of that statement, instead turning the conversation, over and over, back the the former Soviet Union and the legacy of Marx.

It isn't a difference of opinion. Poot was 100% wrong, and refused to admit it.

As for 'the usual suspects of supporters'... I think it verges on ad hominem attacks on whoever you consider to be these 'usual suspects', to imply they would offer support to arguments they found weak or false.

I have visited a Holy Spirt filled church. Generally, when the Holy Spirit is present is not based on pastors lying and manipulating people.

I'm not explaining away Christianity, my friend, so you can take that argument home. I'm a Christian, so is Smunkee. Both of us are offended by someone lying in the name of our Savior in an attempt to manipulate people in the Spirit. It shouldn't be applauded. It should be shouldn't be applauded. It's shameful.

Do you have something real to say or are you just going to make things up about me in order to pretend as if my motivations are other than what they are? When you say this event was a good thing, and you did, you are defending lying, deception and manipulation. Maybe you're comfortable with that. I am not.

You are trying to seperate the ends from the means, but it cannot be done. According to Jesus, it shouldn't be done. The motivation behind an action is more important than the results according to Jesus. But, hey, why bother hearing that message when the message of the lying pastor is so much more important.


I am a Christian too, I have Faith in God, I know that the Holy Sprit would not show himself anywhere where sin is. If he did in fact, then there was no wrong done. So I must take the authors word on whether or not he indeed came or call him a lier. If he did not, then that is between the author and God. If the Pastor sinned as you say then that is between him and God. My only responsiblity is to attempt to spread the teachings of Jesus which is what I have been doing. If you are Christian then you should know that it isn't your place to accuse me of these charges. If I am truely guilty of the charges then that is between myself and God. My point is that the church congregation didn't know it wasn't true. They thought that the vsiting officals were for whatever reason attempting to stop their worship of the Lord. Because they believed that they decided to worship the Lord regardless of the possible repercussions. Jesus says that if a Christian shows shame of him before the world, then he will be ashamed of that person before the Father. Should have the congregation just closed the doors and went home. Should they have whispered their songs of praise to God because the Pastor was being deceitful. I say No! I say they did what God expected of them because they didn't know it wasn't true until after the fact. I agree the Pastor could have made better choices on how to set up the test. But that shouldn't be held against the congregation.

I am a Christian too, I have Faith in God, I know that the Holy Sprit would not show himself anywhere where sin is. If he did in fact, then there was no wrong done. So I must take the authors word on whether or not he indeed came or call him a lier. If he did not, then that is between the author and God. If the Pastor sinned as you say then that is between him and God. My only responsiblity is to attempt to spread the teachings of Jesus which is what I have been doing. If you are Christian then you should know that it isn't your place to accuse me of these charges. If I am truely guilty of the charges then that is between myself and God. My point is that the church congregation didn't know it wasn't true. They thought that the vsiting officals were for whatever reason attempting to stop their worship of the Lord. Because they believed that they decided to worship the Lord regardless of the possible repercussions. Jesus says that if a Christian shows shame of him before the world, then he will be ashamed of that person before the Father. Should have the congregation just closed the doors and went home. Should they have whispered their songs of praise to God because the Pastor was being deceitful. I say No! I say they did what God expected of them because they didn't know it wasn't true until after the fact. I agree the Pastor could have made better choices on how to set up the test. But that shouldn't be held against the congregation.
the fact is that lying is a sin, that they were emotionally manipulated and that the rush they felt most likely was from rebeling from singing really loud when they believed they had been told not to.

what stopped them I wonder from praying? why was their first inclination to rebel? God is not a God of rebellion.

Did the congregation lie ... No! Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute. If you were given the same choice to rebel against humanity or against God, who will you stand for? If your truely Christian you will support the Lord. They were lead to believe that God was putting them to the test. They PASSED that test! If you feel you MUST assign guilt, then assign it to someone other then the congregation.

Did the congregation lie ... No! Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute. If you were given the same choice to rebel against humanity or against God, who will you stand for? If your truely Christian you will support the Lord. They were lead to believe that God was putting them to the test. They PASSED that test! If you feel you MUST assign guilt, then assign it to someone other then the congregation.

I would have prayed.

The "test" came from a human, one who lied no less, I doubt that God would fault me for disappointing someone who would lie to manipulate me by praying to God for discernment and wisdom.

I assign primary guilt to the pastor btw, secondary to a person who would still attend a church when their own pastor lied willfully and purposefully.

Did the congregation lie ... No! Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute. If you were given the same choice to rebel against humanity or against God, who will you stand for? If your truely Christian you will support the Lord. They were lead to believe that God was putting them to the test. They PASSED that test! If you feel you MUST assign guilt, then assign it to someone other then the congregation.

I'm going to stick with humanity. Guilt goes to the pastor for misleading his flock and with the congregation for being blind sheep. People need to think for themselves, not be lead around by a person claiming divine authority granted by a supernatural power. Because frankly, the concept of preisthood is utter bullshit.

Did the congregation lie ... No! Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute. If you were given the same choice to rebel against humanity or against God, who will you stand for? If your truely Christian you will support the Lord. They were lead to believe that God was putting them to the test. They PASSED that test! If you feel you MUST assign guilt, then assign it to someone other then the congregation.

My first instinct would have been to pray quietly. To reflect on my religion. I would be loud for the sake of being loud. I wouldn't rebel for the sake of rebelling. And I wouldn't assume the law of the land had just wildly changed just because my pastor said so. Even if the pastor wasn't lying, then the school was manipulating me in a similar way and my faith isn't subject to the whims of man. I wouldn't have changed my fashion of showing my faith in God in any way as a result of the manipulations of man. Apparently, you would and that's where we disagree. In fact, not only do you think a faith subject to manipulation by man is a good thing, but you don't care if there is also deception involved. How unfortunate.

I am a Christian too, I have Faith in God, I know that the Holy Sprit would not show himself anywhere where sin is.

Then the Holy Spirt wasn't there. Or are you arguing that lying is not a sin? He admitted to the deception. How can you argue "if he did".

If he did in fact, then there was no wrong done. So I must take the authors word on whether or not he indeed came or call him a lier. If he did not, then that is between the author and God. If the Pastor sinned as you say then that is between him and God. My only responsiblity is to attempt to spread the teachings of Jesus which is what I have been doing. If you are Christian then you should know that it isn't your place to accuse me of these charges.

What charges? Of involving yourself in a debate and accusing me of not being Christian? I've not levied any charges at you. None. I've simply said that if you come here and say that it is Christian to do what this pastor did or that this behavior or its results are a good thing, then I will absolutely voice my opinion that it is not and back it up with scripture if necessary.

Are the charges I levied that the pastor lied? He did. He admitted to lying. It's not a charge. It's a statement of fact. I didn't condemn him for it, but I did say that I don't think he should be leading them in their faith. That's not a spiritual condemnation. I don't think he should teach them Spanish with the same methods or anything else.

Don't give me that "if you are a Christian" nonsense. You came here and suggested I missed the point because I said I find a pastor lying to his congregation about tje gpverment attrocious. I find it sad that he left that room feeling like his pastor was doing a good thing. I find it said that he feels he learned a lesson about our government or about persecuation as the claimed things about our governemtn and persecuation were lies. They are myths. And that is what I was talking about until you came here and told I'd missed the point and that I should he excited that this occurred.

You came here and until you were told to knock of the spam and trolling, you're sole argument was that the persecution of Christians that does not exist is comparable to Nazis. Good thing condemning people is below you.


If I am truely guilty of the charges then that is between myself and God. My point is that the church congregation didn't know it wasn't true. They thought that the vsiting officals were for whatever reason attempting to stop their worship of the Lord. Because they believed that they decided to worship the Lord regardless of the possible repercussions. Jesus says that if a Christian shows shame of him before the world, then he will be ashamed of that person before the Father. Should have the congregation just closed the doors and went home. Should they have whispered their songs of praise to God because the Pastor was being deceitful. I say No! I say they did what God expected of them because they didn't know it wasn't true until after the fact. I agree the Pastor could have made better choices on how to set up the test. But that shouldn't be held against the congregation.

No, the congregation should have visited a lawyer if what was said was true. And it shouldn't have affected their worship at all. However, that's not what the OP said. The OP said that lying was an effective tactic for renewing their 'faith' in the Lord. I contend that if one's faith requires deception that perhaps that faith should be revisited and they should pray for guidance. And the young man in the first post should find a pastor that actually read the Bible and follows it. And THAT is not between the pastor and the Lord.

I'm going to stick with humanity. Guilt goes to the pastor for misleading his flock and with the congregation for being blind sheep. People need to think for themselves, not be lead around by a person claiming divine authority granted by a supernatural power. Because frankly, the concept of preisthood is utter bullshit.


I'm sorry you feel that way, if you stick with humanity during a time that God is measuring your faith then you may not see heaven. How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth? Hire a detective? Should they bug the Pastors office? Maybe they should bug all his clothing so they can hear ever word he says to anybody. A congregation needs a leader, is it wrong to trust your leaders because they might commit a nono in the future?
If it is then we are all guilty of that, because we all have or will be duped by a politician at some point in our life. Should the American people have been put in prison because Nixon was involved in Watergate? No they shouldn't ... finally you shouldn't make a blanket statement about all priest. There are good and bad priest just as there are good and bad in everyone else ... including all of us. Christian aren't perfect, they are forgiven. And they must prove their loyalty to God when he asks them too ... to remain forgiven. Not by killing or any such thing, but by praising him in all curcumstances. By not allowing non believers to stop them from praising him.
That is what the congregation in question did, they praised the Lord anyway.
There is no wrong in that at all.

I'm sorry you feel that way, if you stick with humanity during a time that God is measuring your faith then you may not see heaven. How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth? Hire a detective? Should they bug the Pastors office? Maybe they should bug all his clothing so they can hear ever word he says to anybody. A congregation needs a leader, is it wrong to trust your leaders because they might commit a nono in the future?
If it is then we are all guilty of that, because we all have or will be duped by a politician at some point in our life. Should the American people have been put in prison because Nixon was involved in Watergate? No they shouldn't ... finally you shouldn't make a blanket statement about all priest. There are good and bad priest just as there are good and bad in everyone else ... including all of us. Christian aren't perfect, they are forgiven. And they must prove their loyalty to God when he asks them too ... to remain forgiven. Not by killing or any such thing, but by praising him in all curcumstances. By not allowing non believers to stop them from praising him.
That is what the congregation in question did, they praised the Lord anyway.
There is no wrong in that at all.

You misunderstood me. I meant that if there is ever an alleged conflict between humanity and some supernatural force, I'm siding with humanity. I am an unbeliever, and I'm proud of it. There are good and bad preists, most definitely. But the institution of a the preisthood is evil. Claiming divine authority to lead others is wrong. I'm sorry you cannot see that, and that you are caught in salvation vs. damnation view of the world.

I don't care if people pray or not. I do not want so called "believers" being obnoxious about their faith.

I'm sorry you feel that way, if you stick with humanity during a time that God is measuring your faith then you may not see heaven. How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth? Hire a detective? Should they bug the Pastors office? Maybe they should bug all his clothing so they can hear ever word he says to anybody. A congregation needs a leader, is it wrong to trust your leaders because they might commit a nono in the future?
If it is then we are all guilty of that, because we all have or will be duped by a politician at some point in our life. Should the American people have been put in prison because Nixon was involved in Watergate? No they shouldn't ... finally you shouldn't make a blanket statement about all priest. There are good and bad priest just as there are good and bad in everyone else ... including all of us. Christian aren't perfect, they are forgiven. And they must prove their loyalty to God when he asks them too ... to remain forgiven. Not by killing or any such thing, but by praising him in all curcumstances. By not allowing non believers to stop them from praising him.
That is what the congregation in question did, they praised the Lord anyway.
There is no wrong in that at all.

Or they could have just proceeded normally not caring if it was true or not and not being subject to the whims of man. Instead they found their 'faith' in rebellion.

Afterwards, they knew he lied because he admitted it and they should have left the church never to return to being led by a person who is willing to violate the tenets of their faith in order to manipulate them.

Jesus spoke out against people who are motivated in the faith by others rather than God. Our faith should be between us and God and if it is, it would be impossible to be manipulated in that faith by the workings of man.

I'm sorry you feel that way, if you stick with humanity during a time that God is measuring your faith then you may not see heaven. How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth? Hire a detective? Should they bug the Pastors office? Maybe they should bug all his clothing so they can hear ever word he says to anybody. A congregation needs a leader, is it wrong to trust your leaders because they might commit a nono in the future?
If it is then we are all guilty of that, because we all have or will be duped by a politician at some point in our life. Should the American people have been put in prison because Nixon was involved in Watergate? No they shouldn't ... finally you shouldn't make a blanket statement about all priest. There are good and bad priest just as there are good and bad in everyone else ... including all of us. Christian aren't perfect, they are forgiven. And they must prove their loyalty to God when he asks them too ... to remain forgiven. Not by killing or any such thing, but by praising him in all curcumstances. By not allowing non believers to stop them from praising him.
That is what the congregation in question did, they praised the Lord anyway.
There is no wrong in that at all.

do you at least acknowlege that the minister was bearing false witness? can you bring yourself to agree that it is WRONG of a minister to lie to his congregation?

what others have done is irrelevant. bringing up the actions of politicians in the past only clouds the issue.

do you at least acknowlege that the minister was bearing false witness? can you bring yourself to agree that it is WRONG of a minister to lie to his congregation?

what others have done is irrelevant. bringing up the actions of politicians in the past only clouds the issue.

He paints God like a mean little kid who makes us give Him our lunch money. If your faith is strong, it can't be tested by something as silly as this. Faith is a personal relationship with God. How could the actions of a government, pastor or anyone else change that? The fact that they thought that their faith could or should be affected by this false test is very telling methinks.

I am an unbeliever, and I'm proud of it. the institution of a the preisthood is evil. Claiming divine authority to lead others is wrong. I'm sorry you cannot see that, and that you are caught in salvation vs. damnation view of the world.

I don't care if people pray or not. I do not want so called "believers" being obnoxious about their faith.

I agree totally

I disagree.


I'm shocked! ;)


My point was that Jesus was a communist.


Jesus was an actual communist??
Really?

I could agree that many of his teachings fit well with communism, but I don't believe that Jesus either did nor would endorse any particular economic system.

I thought we sort of agreed on that about 40 pages ago, but perhaps I'm recalling a discussion with someone else.


Poot could rebut this idea only through reference to THE Communist Party (which I didn't mention), and the principles of Marx (which I didn't mention).

Since neither Marx nor The Communist Party can utterly define what communism may be in toto, Poot was way off the mark. I told him so, and he refused to confront the obvious truth of that statement, instead turning the conversation, over and over, back the the former Soviet Union and the legacy of Marx.


Understood, but in all fairness, the language you started the conversation with would easily lead one to that conclusion. I found it a bit sad and more than a little boring that the conversation spent so much time quibbling over what precisely communism is/was instead of what each of you were saying about the relationship of communism, by whatever definition, to the teachings of Jesus.

I think you raised a good point that much of the Church on this continent needs to come to terms with, that Jesus was never preaching capitalism and the American way and instead that his message has relevance with communism too.
Why you allowed the conversation to track so long on the origins and authors of communism instead of the very good point you were making is beyond me.
Others that joined in seemed to only exasperate the pointless detour from your point.


As for 'the usual suspects of supporters'... I think it verges on ad hominem attacks on whoever you consider to be these 'usual suspects', to imply they would offer support to arguments they found weak or false.

Verging on something isn't going to bother me in the least. There's plenty of actual ad hominem to go around.
I'm not implying they found your arguments weak or false, I'm implying they rarely if ever stop to 'find' one way or the other.

Understood, but in all fairness, the language you started the conversation with would easily lead one to that conclusion. I found it a bit sad and more than a little boring that the conversation spent so much time quibbling over what precisely communism is/was instead of what each of you were saying about the relationship of communism, by whatever definition, to the teachings of Jesus.

I think you raised a good point that much of the Church on this continent needs to come to terms with, that Jesus was never preaching capitalism and the American way and instead that his message has relevance with communism too.
Why you allowed the conversation to track so long on the origins and authors of communism instead of the very good point you were making is beyond me.
Others that joined in seemed to only exasperate the pointless detour from your point.

I think the point was that Pooty was trying to claim that communism hates religion and because of this Christianity cannot have relevance to communism. However, his argument rested on the true Scotsman fallacy where he declared that 'real' communists must adhere to Marxism and thus want to abolish religion. We couldn't get past that point because Pooty would not concede that communsim exists in forms that are not inclusive of all of the teachings of Marxism.

Today I went to the campus church at the University Union. It was a normal worship service. We all gathered in and sat, and then began to sing a song. Halfway through the song, the service pastor told us the following:




At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights, and had one band member stay up on stage with his acoustic guitar, and he was going to play a few songs. We were furious. Several members began to cry. But the funniest thing happened, instead of being quiet with our worship, we sang loud and with such great passion. It was the first service I have been to where I have felt the Spirit just flood down and fill everyone. Everyone was just crying out to God and we had Him there with us, and our hands were raised, and we sang sang so loudly, and just praised Him. It was the greatest feeling ever, as if we were all raised to a new level, perhaps right in front of God Himself at that point. After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?

This reads like something I got in a spam e-mail awhile back. Hooray Jesus, send this to 20 of your friends.

I think the point was that Pooty was trying to claim that communism hates religion and because of this Christianity cannot have relevance to communism. However, his argument rested on the true Scotsman fallacy where he declared that 'real' communists must adhere to Marxism and thus want to abolish religion. We couldn't get past that point because Pooty would not concede that communsim exists in forms that are not inclusive of all of the teachings of Marxism.

If you are going to make strawman arguments and pretend that I made them I am forced to reiterate my points.



I started refutation of the claim that Jesus was a communist by showing scriptural quotes that showed Jesus could be said to have been a hard-core stockbroker or adamant capitalist gains broker, and I pointed out that Jesus could have endorsed the Greek ‘utopian’ or ‘golden age’ philosophies of advanced communalism (even though Plato wrote that they would have a hierarchy of status and citizens with aristocrats from the leader groups to slaves of the state, and this isn’t truthfully any kind of communists state, I know that socialist often think that this ideology is similar to communism) and because of that teaching Jesus would have been exposed to it and could have used that teaching as a starting point if he wanted to advance such an ideology himself but he did NOT.

And I pointed out repeatedly that Jesus’ message to us is entirely irrelevant to any kind of governmental advocating on his part to any one system (any system) over another. I pointed out that Jesus teachings are/were to the individual, that we can all be enlightened by his teachings regardless of what socio-economic system we may live in and believe in. AND, additionally, I showed how the communist ideology in particular was/is an anti-family and anti religion ideology and how Jesus most definitely was not either of those things and could hardly therefore be called a communist.

Then the other side said that that they weren’t talking about that kind of communist when they called Jesus a communist. I pointed out that Marx’s writing define communism, that all of the communist ideologies still in existence today owe allegiance to Marx’ writings from that period of time when the group that created the very word and defined it’s meaning hashed out it’s meaning over a period of years in the nineteenth century.

But in the end, the other side systematically confusses "communism" with "socialism” and the conversation can not progress past that point because they are stuck on the mistaken belief that they are not redefining communism. And since they do not understand that simple mistep they can’t understand the reason they are wrong. But here it is…

Communism is a sub-category of socialism. Communism could be viewed is a branch of extreme socialism (like Marx and the first group that would call themselves ‘communist’ initially called themselves ultra-socialist etc., as they worked out their name and idealogy). A person who callsthemself a "communist" needs to be a certain type of socialist, not just any socialist with extreme views. All communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. The more the other side says, that’s not the type of communism I’m talking about, the less and less like a communist they are advocating, they are talking about socialism, not communism at all.

To compare the two socio-economic systems against each other, communism and socialism are two different things. Socialism requires and mandates the existence of a ‘state’ beuracracy, while communism in it’s end form (after world revolution by force) theoretically would not have a state body of priviliedged beaurocrates anymore.

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether, socialism allows and may even promote and favor the development of the family unit and the responsibility of the parents to participate in the upbringing of their children, communism does not have families nor even marriages and the state takes over the responsibility of raising all of the the children and the parents would not know which children are theirs, ‘ownership’ of the children being forbidden.

In the end, the simple truth is, Jesus was not a communist. The communist would not advocate Christianity and monogamous marriages. Jesus advocated the worship of God, communism does not.

Believing in and teaching communalism or socialism, and charity of heart and generosity with ones possessions does not make one a communists. To say otherwise is to simply not understand the difference between communism and socialsim.

do you at least acknowlege that the minister was bearing false witness? can you bring yourself to agree that it is WRONG of a minister to lie to his congregation?

what others have done is irrelevant. bringing up the actions of politicians in the past only clouds the issue.


I believe I already told you that I agreed that the pastor was wrong in how he administered the test. He KNEW it wasn't the story he used wasn't true, but he used it anyway. Therein lies the differance, the fact that he KNEW it was a work of fiction. Because of that he was wrong in his method of delivery. But that is still a matter that is between him and God. We are not here to judge others, we are here to spread the word, that is our only responsiblity.

...this thread still waddling about the place?

*sighs, looks closely*

Tsk. Did somebody nail one of it's feet to the floor? Is that why it's been limping in circles all this time?

Heartless bastards - !

If you are going to make strawman arguments and pretend that I made them I am forced to reiterate my points.



I started refutation of the claim that Jesus was a communist by showing scriptural quotes that showed Jesus could be said to have been a hard-core stockbroker or adamant capitalist gains broker, and I pointed out that Jesus could have endorsed the Greek ‘utopian’ or ‘golden age’ philosophies of advanced communalism (even though Plato wrote that they would have a hierarchy of status and citizens with aristocrats from the leader groups to slaves of the state, and this isn’t truthfully any kind of communists state, I know that socialist often think that this ideology is similar to communism) and because of that teaching Jesus would have been exposed to it and could have used that teaching as a starting point if he wanted to advance such an ideology himself but he did NOT.

And I pointed out repeatedly that Jesus’ message to us is entirely irrelevant to any kind of governmental advocating on his part to any one system (any system) over another. I pointed out that Jesus teachings are/were to the individual, that we can all be enlightened by his teachings regardless of what socio-economic system we may live in and believe in. AND, additionally, I showed how the communist ideology in particular was/is an anti-family and anti religion ideology and how Jesus most definitely was not either of those things and could hardly therefore be called a communist.

Then the other side said that that they weren’t talking about that kind of communist when they called Jesus a communist. I pointed out that Marx’s writing define communism, that all of the communist ideologies still in existence today owe allegiance to Marx’ writings from that period of time when the group that created the very word and defined it’s meaning hashed out it’s meaning over a period of years in the nineteenth century.

But in the end, the other side systematically confusses "communism" with "socialism” and the conversation can not progress past that point because they are stuck on the mistaken belief that they are not redefining communism. And since they do not understand that simple mistep they can’t understand the reason they are wrong. But here it is…

Communism is a sub-category of socialism. Communism could be viewed is a branch of extreme socialism (like Marx and the first group that would call themselves ‘communist’ initially called themselves ultra-socialist etc., as they worked out their name and idealogy). A person who callsthemself a "communist" needs to be a certain type of socialist, not just any socialist with extreme views. All communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. The more the other side says, that’s not the type of communism I’m talking about, the less and less like a communist they are advocating, they are talking about socialism, not communism at all.

To compare the two socio-economic systems against each other, communism and socialism are two different things. Socialism requires and mandates the existence of a ‘state’ beuracracy, while communism in it’s end form (after world revolution by force) theoretically would not have a state body of priviliedged beaurocrates anymore.

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether, socialism allows and may even promote and favor the development of the family unit and the responsibility of the parents to participate in the upbringing of their children, communism does not have families nor even marriages and the state takes over the responsibility of raising all of the the children and the parents would not know which children are theirs, ‘ownership’ of the children being forbidden.

In the end, the simple truth is, Jesus was not a communist. The communist would not advocate Christianity and monogamous marriages. Jesus advocated the worship of God, communism does not.

Believing in and teaching communalism or socialism, and charity of heart and generosity with ones possessions does not make one a communists. To say otherwise is to simply not understand the difference between communism and socialsim.

We're done here. Communalism is a form of Communism. You're lack of understanding of even the most basic aspects of Communism is the basis of why you don't agree with us and you're making no attempt to educate yourself. Further discussion is pointless as you've proven. We're right back where we started. I'll point out that communalism is Communism. You'll say that Marx invented Communism. I'll laugh at you. And round and round we go.

Communalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism

"The term "communalism" is often used instead of "communism" as a way to denote those communal societies that are not based on Marxism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
"The Diggers movement in England in the year 1649 may also be described as an example of religious communism. The Diggers were particularly concerned with the communal ownership of land.

From the early 20th century to the present day, the most prominent form of religious communism has been the one practiced in the kibbutzim (collective communities) of Israel."

Hmmmm... apparently, religious communists not only exist and existed but they existed long before Marx was a gleam in his father's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
"However, Christian communists sometimes disagree with Marxists (and particularly with Leninists) on the way a socialist or communist society should be organized. In general, Christian communism evolved independently of Marxism, and most Christian communists share the conclusions but not the underlying premises of Marxist communists."

And, of course, there is the wiki article on Communism which you claimed got it right, yet it states clearly that there existed a primitive form of communism that Marx based his theories on.

There is the FACT that Engels actually compared the early Christian movement to Communism because many of the principles were the same. Now, of course, Engels argued that the Christians didn't get it right and that his brand of Communism would go further than they had, but that doesn't change that even Engels, who was certainly as much a part of the manifesto as Marx, even argued for what GnI said. Engels called it a limited analogy, because of the religious part, but he essentially made the same argument GnI did. Kind of hurts your point doesn't it. But, hey, maybe one day Engels, one of the writers of A Communist Manifesto, will have your understanding of the basis and principles of communism.

Communalism is non-Marxist communism. Now, you don't believe that non-Marxist communism exists, but your ignorance is not my problem, quite frankly.

I believe I already told you that I agreed that the pastor was wrong in how he administered the test. He KNEW it wasn't the story he used wasn't true, but he used it anyway. Therein lies the differance, the fact that he KNEW it was a work of fiction. Because of that he was wrong in his method of delivery. But that is still a matter that is between him and God. We are not here to judge others, we are here to spread the word, that is our only responsiblity.

I love that you pretend as if that's what you came to do, but you entered the thread making vague references to Nazis, or is that how you 'spread the Word'? The point of this thread is that Zilam came here praising the deception his pastor perpetrated and we simply corrected him in his mistake, not because we are condemning Zilam or his pastor to Hell. We pointed out his mistake because his pastor is fostering a sentiment that is out of line with fact and is causing a false persecution complex. Last I checked, Jesus didn't suggest that we are not able to discuss issues. That's what we're doing. You're just upset because we're managing to do it without invoking about half a dozen logical fallacies that I can find in your posts.

Did the congregation lie ... No! Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute. If you were given the same choice to rebel against humanity or against God, who will you stand for? If your truely Christian you will support the Lord. They were lead to believe that God was putting them to the test. They PASSED that test! If you feel you MUST assign guilt, then assign it to someone other then the congregation.

You create a false dichotomy.

The choice was not 'rebel against man' or 'rebel against god'... that is a fabrication.

First - there was no 'rebelling against man' option presented, except for a pretense. Even if parishioners might be tricked by such technique, the scriptural God, one assumes, would not... thus - the choices were NEVER as you state.

Second - The scripture GIVES God's instruction for these circumstances.. not only in analogy (one looks at the behaviour of Jesus), but also in the precise WORDS of Jesus - "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's".... one must obey the laws of man, obey the dictates of the temporal world.

The only place where we are shown to DISobey, is where the Spirit would be compromised - but that was never the case here. If the attendees had worshipped quietly and circumspectly (as the scripture instructs), the Spirit would not have been compromised.

Indeed - the loud and attention-grabbing worship that the OP claims, if compared to STRICT interpretation of the words of Jesus, is heretical - and exactly the kind of thing Jesus made a point of condemning.

I'm sorry you feel that way, if you stick with humanity during a time that God is measuring your faith then you may not see heaven. How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth? Hire a detective? Should they bug the Pastors office? Maybe they should bug all his clothing so they can hear ever word he says to anybody. A congregation needs a leader, is it wrong to trust your leaders because they might commit a nono in the future?

Hit the books again, my friend.

"How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth?"... consider this as a direct parallel to the Garden of Eden, and the pair of naked dimwits 'falling for the lies of' the Serpent.

Ignorance is no excuse. A sin is a sin.

Hit the books again, my friend.

"How was the congregation supposed to know it wasn't the truth?"... consider this as a direct parallel to the Garden of Eden, and the pair of naked dimwits 'falling for the lies of' the Serpent.

Ignorance is no excuse. A sin is a sin.

More importantly he acts as if there is some question of whether the pastor lied at this point. There isn't. He admitted that he lied. So it's not a nono in the future, it's a nono in the past. The pastor unapologetically admitted to misleading his congregation and gave no indication that he thought it was wrong or would not continue to do so at his whim. That's not about reacting to what he MIGHT do, but what he DID do.

I believe I already told you that I agreed that the pastor was wrong in how he administered the test. He KNEW it wasn't the story he used wasn't true, but he used it anyway. Therein lies the differance, the fact that he KNEW it was a work of fiction. Because of that he was wrong in his method of delivery. But that is still a matter that is between him and God. We are not here to judge others, we are here to spread the word, that is our only responsiblity.

ok good, we have that in common.

now, keeping in mind that i dont think that the congregation was WRONG in what they did, what do you consider would have been the BEST response to their pastor?

it is my opinion that the best thing would have been for the congregation to see that they were being fed an obvious lie or at least think that the response of their pastor was out of line. (given that on occasion public officials do things that are not legally correct).

others feel that the best response would have been not to be confrontational to "ceasar" but to "turn the other cheek". still others feel that the best thing would have been to have their service exactly the same as ever without giving any reaction to the phantom menace.

what most of the "con" posters agree on is that the congregation should have been outraged that they had been lied to by their minister. i think that the lesson they should have learned is not "how christians in other countries feel when they are denied free worship" but "how dangerous it is to blindly follow ANY leader so dont check your brain at the door even if its the door to your local church"

so what do you think their BEST response would have been?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to trim this - I don't want to deal with the whole post right now, but there are one or two absolute errors:


I started refutation of the claim that Jesus was a communist by showing scriptural quotes that showed Jesus could be said to have been a hard-core stockbroker or adamant capitalist gains broker,


Your scriptural quotes are parables about faith and knowledge of the divine. To make out that they are ACTUALLY about material wealth, is to miss the point, or misrepresent.


AND, additionally, I showed how the communist ideology in particular was/is an anti-family and anti religion ideology...


No - again... you showed how MARXIST ideology 'in particular' might be anti-family (which Jesus was also...) and anti-religion.


Then the other side said that that they weren’t talking about that kind of communist when they called Jesus a communist. I pointed out that Marx’s writing define communism, that all of the communist ideologies still in existence today owe allegiance to Marx’ writings from that period of time when the group that created the very word and defined it’s meaning hashed out it’s meaning over a period of years in the nineteenth century.


And this is your other main error... communism doesn't necessarily 'owe allegiance' to Marx. It should mention him, or consider him - because he has been imprtant to the evolution of the idea... but it OWES him nothing. Some forms of communism are entirely anti-Marxist.

(You might want to look up things like "Religious Communism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

The simple existence of which shows how fatally flawed is your argument.

More importantly he acts as if there is some question of whether the pastor lied at this point. There isn't. He admitted that he lied. So it's not a nono in the future, it's a nono in the past. The pastor unapologetically admitted to misleading his congregation and gave no indication that he thought it was wrong or would not continue to do so at his whim. That's not about reacting to what he MIGHT do, but what he DID do.

Indeed. The 'lie' is not debatable. We might debate the rationale... is it okay to lie? (I can find arguments either way in scripture)... we might debate whther anyone present was inspired... but as to whether the pastor practised deception? Condemned out of his own mouth. No debate.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to trim this - I don't want to deal with the whole post right now, but there are one or two absolute errors:



Your scriptural quotes are parables about faith and knowledge of the divine. To make out that they are ACTUALLY about material wealth, is to miss the point, or misrepresent.



No - again... you showed how MARXIST ideology 'in particular' might be anti-family (which Jesus was also...) and anti-religion.



And this is your other main error... communism doesn't necessarily 'owe allegiance' to Marx. It should mention him, or consider him - because he has been imprtant to the evolution of the idea... but it OWES him nothing. Some forms of communism are entirely anti-Marxist.

(You might want to look up things like "Religious Communism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

The simple existence of which shows how fatally flawed is your argument.

B-B-But that's not 'true' communism. What do you mean why isn't it true communism? Because it destroys the argument that Jesus wasn't communist of a fashion and makes Pooty look silly, that's why. So sayith the poot.

B-B-But that's not 'true' communism. What do you mean why isn't it true communism? Because it destroys the argument that Jesus wasn't communist of a fashion and makes Pooty look silly, that's why. So sayith the poot.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "Lol".

:D

Were you there? If not then how could you know?

Were you there? If not, how could you know the holy spirit did come?

EDIT: I see someone already asked you this, and you haven't answered yet.

Were you there? If not, how could you know the holy spirit did come?

EDIT: I see someone already asked you this, and you haven't answered yet.

Stop trying to apply logic here. Can't you see he's trying to chastise us for noticing that this is absurd behavior on the part of the pastor and that the congregation should realize that it has no bearing on reality or the actual application of the separation of Church and State.

Stop trying to apply logic here. Can't you see he's trying to chastise us for noticing that this is absurd behavior on the part of the pastor and that the congregation should realize that it has no bearing on reality or the actual application of the separation of Church and State.
What I've noticed is that he likes to jump in with one quick, superficial reference to any old post just as a launching pad for a spate of preaching that has nothing to do with the thread. I've also noticed that if we keep pushing him back to the topic, it will make him go away for a few days.

Your scriptural quotes are parables about faith and knowledge of the divine. To make out that they are ACTUALLY about material wealth, is to miss the point, or misrepresent.


I don't think you can make a total separation that you are suggesting.
Clearly, you are correct that the intent of the quoted parables was not to answer questions of how to handle material wealth and endorse any one particular view, but the fact that Jesus teaches with such an anti-communist parable lends credence to the view that Jesus would not have been married to any economic viewpoint, like communism.

I don't think you can make a total separation that you are suggesting.
Clearly, you are correct that the intent of the quoted parables was not to answer questions of how to handle material wealth and endorse any one particular view, but the fact that Jesus teaches with such an anti-communist parable lends credence to the view that Jesus would not have been married to any economic viewpoint, like communism.

off topic: communism is not only an economic viewpoint, but thats is another discussion.

I don't think you can make a total separation that you are suggesting.
Clearly, you are correct that the intent of the quoted parables was not to answer questions of how to handle material wealth and endorse any one particular view, but the fact that Jesus teaches with such an anti-communist parable lends credence to the view that Jesus would not have been married to any economic viewpoint, like communism.

No, no, My friend.

Jesus talks in terms of wealth, because he is talking to greedy people. The parable is for their benefit, not his.

Those who would be moved by his message, would also have understood that the intent was NOT material wealth, and that the rest of his ministry supported that.

No, no, My friend.

Jesus talks in terms of wealth, because he is talking to greedy people. The parable is for their benefit, not his.

Those who would be moved by his message, would also have understood that the intent was NOT material wealth, and that the rest of his ministry supported that.

If Jesus was a communist, why then would he have accepted assistance from the “bourgeois” of the world? Such as the Simon family, or Mary Magdalene or Joseph of Arimathea who is said to even have become a disciple of Jesus and was still rich when Jesus was crucified? In Simon’s case, Jesus even allowed one of his two daughters to pour expensive oil on his hair, and besides accepting hospitality from them they even call themelves loved ones of Jesus AND Jesus went to a great public burial/mourning ceremony and raised Lazarus (son of the welathy Simon) from the grave… in other places Simon was rich enough to host a dinner for many people at his house and own a house large enough to let many men and women sleep there. All of these, and more, were rich people and friends and disciples of Jesus and his ministry. Jesus regularly asked rich people to put him up for dinner, like the tax collector who was a sinner and rich…

According to you, calling Jesus a communist, when exactly do you suppose Jesus was going to bother mentioning to these people that he didn’t like them being rich or wealthy people? That they should give away all of their possessions? When did Jesus tell them to give all of their money away? He didn’t do those things because the accusation that he was a communist is nonsense. Jesus had rich and poor friends.

Jesus did not advocate against the ownership of properties. Jesus was not a communist. Jesus did NOT preach about what type of socio-economic system we live under at all.

Jesus preached to the individual. Jesus saves the individual, not the class. Jesus sees past positions and power, past money and heirarchy, and looks into the hearts of all men (and women of course) rich or poor and redeems them there.

I don't think you can make a total separation that you are suggesting.
Clearly, you are correct that the intent of the quoted parables was not to answer questions of how to handle material wealth and endorse any one particular view, but the fact that Jesus teaches with such an anti-communist parable lends credence to the view that Jesus would not have been married to any economic viewpoint, like communism.

I agree wholeheartedly.

GnI and Jocabia are ignoring the fact that Jesus was asked straight up to endorse a communist-like sharing of the wealth and he declined the request and did not take what would have been the perfect opportunity to do such a thing IF that was his belief and teachings...

Luke 12
13Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."
14Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" 15Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Here Jesus said three important things for the accusation about him being a communist.

First, he didn’t concede to the request to demand equal division of wealth, not even among brothers, how could it be different among complete strangers like a communist would advocate? It could not.

Two, Jesus tells us not to concern ourselves with money at all, not even so much as to worry or desire to equally distribute it among ourselves, not even in our own families.

Three, Jesus told the man straight up, why are you coming to me for that type of judgment? I am not here to do that type of arbitration.

So claiming Jesus was a communist was debunked before it started except to try and choose to portray a false cliché image of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus himself denied it, and he even denied that he was here to suggest such a thing at all. Like you said, “Jesus was not married to any economic viewpoint.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

GnI and Jocabia are ignoring the fact that Jesus was asked straight up to endorse a communist-like sharing of the wealth and he declined the request and did not take what would have been the perfect opportunity to do such a thing IF that was his belief and teachings...

Luke 12
13Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."
14Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" 15Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Here Jesus said three important things for the accusation about him being a communist.

First, he didn’t concede to the request to demand equal division of wealth, not even among brothers, how could it be different among complete strangers like a communist would advocate? It could not.

Two, Jesus tells us not to concern ourselves with money at all, not even so much as to worry or desire to equally distribute it among ourselves, not even in our own families.

Three, Jesus told the man straight up, why are you coming to me for that type of judgment? I am not here to do that type of arbitration.

So claiming Jesus was a communist was debunked before it started except to try and choose to portray a false cliché image of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus himself denied it, and he even denied that he was here to suggest such a thing at all. Like you said, “Jesus was not married to any economic viewpoint.”

Jesus said it wasn't his business, but he made it clear that he wanted them to avoid greed and the amassing of wealth. Even here, he clearly states that this man, who is asking him to distribute wealth from his brother to him, should not be avoid greed of all kinds. The borther wasn't asking to be cared for, he was asking for wealth and Jesus wasn't against it and says so in this passage and many others.

Meanwhile, again you are limiting yourself to a particular kind of communism. Not all kinds of communism eliminate wealth. The basis of communism is the ownership of the means of production, not the ownership of personal items. You create a false argument when you limit communism in order to make it not consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Even Engels made the comparison that GnI is made in talking about the early Christians. Apparently, he didn't understand communism as well as you. If only he were around today so you could explain to him that such a thing isn't consistent with communism.

If Jesus was a communist, why then would he have accepted assistance from the “bourgeois” of the world? Such as the Simon family, or Mary Magdalene or Joseph of Arimathea who is said to even have become a disciple of Jesus and was still rich when Jesus was crucified? In Simon’s case, Jesus even allowed one of his two daughters to pour expensive oil on his hair, and besides accepting hospitality from them they even call themelves loved ones of Jesus AND Jesus went to a great public burial/mourning ceremony and raised Lazarus (son of the welathy Simon) from the grave… in other places Simon was rich enough to host a dinner for many people at his house and own a house large enough to let many men and women sleep there. All of these, and more, were rich people and friends and disciples of Jesus and his ministry. Jesus regularly asked rich people to put him up for dinner, like the tax collector who was a sinner and rich…

According to you, calling Jesus a communist, when exactly do you suppose Jesus was going to bother mentioning to these people that he didn’t like them being rich or wealthy people? That they should give away all of their possessions? When did Jesus tell them to give all of their money away? He didn’t do those things because the accusation that he was a communist is nonsense. Jesus had rich and poor friends.

Jesus did not advocate against the ownership of properties. Jesus was not a communist. Jesus did NOT preach about what type of socio-economic system we live under at all.

Jesus preached to the individual. Jesus saves the individual, not the class. Jesus sees past positions and power, past money and heirarchy, and looks into the hearts of all men (and women of course) rich or poor and redeems them there.

Again, you fail to understand communism and it puts your argument on its face. Communism is about the means of production, not necessarily the equal distribution of wealth. Technically in a communist society one can amass wealth by simply being more frugal than another. Now some forms of communism specifically deal with such things, but communism at its most basic is about the means of production which is why Engel said that early Christians were good examples of what he was trying to achieve (except of course that he didn't want them to be Christian).

I agree wholeheartedly.

GnI and Jocabia are ignoring the fact that Jesus was asked straight up to endorse a communist-like sharing of the wealth and he declined the request and did not take what would have been the perfect opportunity to do such a thing IF that was his belief and teachings...

Luke 12
13Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."
14Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" 15Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Here Jesus said three important things for the accusation about him being a communist.

First, he didn’t concede to the request to demand equal division of wealth, not even among brothers, how could it be different among complete strangers like a communist would advocate? It could not.

Two, Jesus tells us not to concern ourselves with money at all, not even so much as to worry or desire to equally distribute it among ourselves, not even in our own families.

Three, Jesus told the man straight up, why are you coming to me for that type of judgment? I am not here to do that type of arbitration.

So claiming Jesus was a communist was debunked before it started except to try and choose to portray a false cliché image of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus himself denied it, and he even denied that he was here to suggest such a thing at all. Like you said, “Jesus was not married to any economic viewpoint.”

What? This quote is anti-communist?

Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?---He thought the guy was way out of line worrying about money.

"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed;---How much more anti-capitalist can you get?

a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.---To make sure you get it he repeats it.

I would like a better explaination of how this could possibly be an endorsement of capitalism.

Again, you fail to understand communism and it puts your argument on its face. Communism is about the means of production, not necessarily the equal distribution of wealth. Technically in a communist society one can amass wealth by simply being more frugal than another. Now some forms of communism specifically deal with such things, but communism at its most basic is about the means of production which is why Engel said that early Christians were good examples of what he was trying to achieve (except of course that he didn't want them to be Christian).

Again, YOU call socialism = communism. Your argument is on its face because of it. You have redefined communism as socialism.

AS to how Jesus really felt, when you said "... but he made it clear that he wanted them to avoid greed and the amassing of wealth." Jesus only really said "Greed" he didn't say he was against the amassing of wealth, YOU are projecting that onto his teachings yourself.

Jesus regularly eats with the rich and the wealthy, apparently liking their company the same as everybody else’s, even at the prominent Pharisee’s houses on occasion.

He does not condemn them or their livelihoods, as you said he did. He is quoted on one occasion telling them to invite people that can’t reciprocate their invitations so that they (AS Rich people having hosting parties mind you) will generate riches in heaven. And on other occasions Jesus uses rich property owner examples of analogies of God and Heaven.

Here Jesus clearly says that the rich can earn heavenly rewards by hosting banquets via charity etc., without giving away their ability to host banquets in the first place…

Luke 14:1
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee…
Luke 14 12-14
12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus telling a parable of what Heaven is like, the property owner being God…
Matthew 20:15
Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?


Meanwhile, again you are limiting yourself to a particular kind of communism. Not all kinds of communism eliminate wealth. The basis of communism is the ownership of the means of production, not the ownership of personal items. You create a false argument when you limit communism in order to make it not consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Even Engels made the comparison that GnI is made in talking about the early Christians. Apparently, he didn't understand communism as well as you. If only he were around today so you could explain to him that such a thing isn't consistent with communism.

Who is the communist to try and confine the teachings of Jesus to endorse just their world-view? Simply mistaken like ALL the other people that try and confine Jesus’ message and ministry to simplistic political ideologies. Engel and Marx openly admit that they were simply trying to form an inducement to influence Christians, to entice them into thinking he was preaching the same thing they were, to get them to join their group. Hardly a theological endorsement of trying to prove what Jesus really taught.

I did NOT create the false argument of limiting communism in order to make it not consistent with the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus did that for me. However, again you seem to be getting real close to trying to pretend that I am arguing something that I am not. I have consistently focused on what Jesus Said and how Jesus could not be a communist himself (the original GnI statements that got me in this thread to begins with). I have not said that a person in a communist society, a party believer even, could not be a Christian. I've stated that Jesus was NOT a communist, subtle differences that you seem to miss.

What? This quote is anti-communist?

Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?---He thought the guy was way out of line worrying about money.

"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed;---How much more anti-capitalist can you get?

a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.---To make sure you get it he repeats it.

I would like a better explaination of how this could possibly be an endorsement of capitalism.

I did not say it advocated capitalism. I said that is does NOT advocate the equal dispersal of wealth, as the communist ideology does. The man asks Jesus to assist him in getting what he thinks is his fair share of the wealth (communism) and Jesus doesn't do it. He simply doesn't care about that.

EDIT: at the end of that post you quoted, when I agreed that Jesus was not married to any economical system, "Any" includes Capitalism as well. I am not saying that Jesus endorsed capitalism or communism, he did neither.

Luke 14:1
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee…
Luke 14 12-14
12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus telling a parable of what Heaven is like, the property owner being God…
Matthew 20:15
Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?



In the first, he realized that he was talking to a religious conservative. Just like the neo-pharisees of the "religious" right today. He wasn't going to convert them to his teachings, but he was going to give them a step in that direction. Maybe one baby step would lead to another. It would be like trying to talk about the teachings of Jesus to Pat Robertson, or Jerry Fallwell. They aren't going to follow but maybe they will do a little bit.

Second, the whole point of the parable is that it matters not when one starts to work for God. We all get paid the same. This whole parable is an endorsement of equal treatment regardless of how much work was done. Some start working for God as a child. Some start working for God as an old man. All are paid exactly the same. The capitalists among them thought the workers who started early should get paid more.

How could that parable be anti-communist? It is saying that in the end all get paid equal.

In the first, he realized that he was talking to a religious conservative. Just like the neo-pharisees of the "religious" right today. He wasn't going to convert them to his teachings, but he was going to give them a step in that direction. Maybe one baby step would lead to another. It would be like trying to talk about the teachings of Jesus to Pat Robertson, or Jerry Fallwell. They aren't going to follow but maybe they will do a little bit.

Second, the whole point of the parable is that it matters not when one starts to work for God. We all get paid the same. This whole parable is an endorsement of equal treatment regardless of how much work was done. Some start working for God as a child. Some start working for God as an old man. All are paid exactly the same. The capitalists among them thought the workers who started early should get paid more.

How could that parable be anti-communist? It is saying that in the end all get paid equal.

It is saying in the end, the people do not own the vineyard, the property owner does and he gets to pay whatever he wants to pay.

They do not have a right to demand anything of the property owner. They agreed to work for the amount, that's what they get, contractual agreements enforced by God. Some will get it for free, others will work all day long. A contract is a contract, no labor disputes allowed, no strikes and no unions.

See, the message of the parable doesn't do anything for communism. It doesn't even help unions.

It is saying in the end, the people do not own the vineyard, the property owner does and he gets to pay whatever he wants to pay.

They do not have a right to demand anything of the property owner. They agreed to work for the amount, that's what they get, contractual agreements enforced by God. Some will get it for free, others will work all day long. A contract is a contract, no labor disputes allowed, no strikes and no unions.

See, the message of the parable doesn't do anything for communism. It doesn't even help unions.

The parable is pure communism. Everyone gets paid the same. It's the capitalist workers that started early that are saying that communism is an unfair system. The owner (God) says that his system is to give all the same and no one has a right to question why he doesn't follow the capitalist method of paying workers according to how much work they put in. In heaven all are equal. We all get paid the same regardless of how much work we put in. How much plainer can it be? God pays all the same.

No, no, My friend.

Jesus talks in terms of wealth, because he is talking to greedy people. The parable is for their benefit, not his.


I don't think you can support your assertion that the audience of the parable(s) was a greedy audience. Jesus used examples drawn from the real life of his audience, greed is not required for these parables to work, and in fact, if Jesus had been speaking specifically to greedy people, his choice of illustration could be easily taken too literally and used to support greed.

If Jesus was a communist, if he was advocating a communism, then why would he use capitalism in postive light in a parable to explain the Kingdom?

I don't believe Jesus would have any problem with communism, but I believe it is foolish to try and box him in on a subject like which economic system is divinely endorsed.

Jesus was most definitely NOT an anti-communist, but I think you overstate the case to call him an actual communist.

Those who would be moved by his message, would also have understood that the intent was NOT material wealth, and that the rest of his ministry supported that.

On this we can easily agree, the intent is not material wealth.

The parable is pure communism.

Pure?
No, while it has elements to the story that can be read in support of communism, the parable also supports the individual choosing how to disperse wealth without it being mandated.

Today I went to the campus church at the University Union. It was a normal worship service. We all gathered in and sat, and then began to sing a song. Halfway through the song, the service pastor told us the following:




At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights, and had one band member stay up on stage with his acoustic guitar, and he was going to play a few songs. We were furious. Several members began to cry. But the funniest thing happened, instead of being quiet with our worship, we sang loud and with such great passion. It was the first service I have been to where I have felt the Spirit just flood down and fill everyone. Everyone was just crying out to God and we had Him there with us, and our hands were raised, and we sang sang so loudly, and just praised Him. It was the greatest feeling ever, as if we were all raised to a new level, perhaps right in front of God Himself at that point. After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?

They cried!? HAHAHAHAHAAH!

When did Jesus tell them to give all of their money away? He didn’t do those things because the accusation that he was a communist is nonsense. Jesus had rich and poor friends.


"It is far easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter Heaven."

If Jesus was a communist, why then would he have accepted assistance from the “bourgeois” of the world? Such as the Simon family, or Mary Magdalene or Joseph of Arimathea who is said to even have become a disciple of Jesus and was still rich when Jesus was crucified? In Simon’s case, Jesus even allowed one of his two daughters to pour expensive oil on his hair, and besides accepting hospitality from them they even call themelves loved ones of Jesus AND Jesus went to a great public burial/mourning ceremony and raised Lazarus (son of the welathy Simon) from the grave… in other places Simon was rich enough to host a dinner for many people at his house and own a house large enough to let many men and women sleep there. All of these, and more, were rich people and friends and disciples of Jesus and his ministry. Jesus regularly asked rich people to put him up for dinner, like the tax collector who was a sinner and rich…

According to you, calling Jesus a communist, when exactly do you suppose Jesus was going to bother mentioning to these people that he didn’t like them being rich or wealthy people? That they should give away all of their possessions? When did Jesus tell them to give all of their money away? He didn’t do those things because the accusation that he was a communist is nonsense. Jesus had rich and poor friends.

Jesus did not advocate against the ownership of properties. Jesus was not a communist. Jesus did NOT preach about what type of socio-economic system we live under at all.

Jesus preached to the individual. Jesus saves the individual, not the class. Jesus sees past positions and power, past money and heirarchy, and looks into the hearts of all men (and women of course) rich or poor and redeems them there.

I'm finding this discussion increasingly bizarre... you are becoming more erratic, and your arguments more scattered. You might want to sit and refocus on what you are trying to say, because this scattered approach isn't cohesive.

Why would a communist Jesus have accepted help from the rich? Because those would be the people able to provide it. This doesn't speak to his communist or capitalist agenda... just to his acceptance of aid.

You confuse communism with socialism, perhaps - accepting abed for the night, or going to a party speaks nothing to communism.

"Jesus even allowed one of his two daughters to pour expensive oil on his hair"... because he said that the spiritual, the ritual, the godly things were more important than the earthly. Again, it says nothing to communism.

"they even call themelves loved ones of Jesus...[b]"... what THEY call themselves is not pertinent. What IS pertinent, is that Jesus loved/loves everyone. Being a 'loved one of Jesus' is like being a human that has a body... it's a prtty large 'set' of the population.

"[b]...raised Lazarus (son of the welathy Simon) from the grave"... and? You think he did this as an endorsement? Whether Jesus preached destitutism, or communism, he repeatedly suggests he would LIKE the wealthy to help with their welth, or give it away. It is illogical to assume, therefore, that the spiritual miracle with Lazarus is any kind of endorsement of BEING rich.

"Simon was rich enough to host a dinner for many people at his house and own a house large enough to let many men and women sleep there. All of these, and more, were rich people and friends and disciples of Jesus and his ministry. Jesus regularly asked rich people to put him up for dinner, like the tax collector who was a sinner and rich… "

He accepted from each, according to ability to give. He asked them to give to each, according to need. That is what your example illustrates. Again, though - this is cosmetic... a possible implication of communist ideas. Communism itself doesn't speak to personal wealth or distribution... it is about the means of production.

"...when exactly do you suppose Jesus was going to bother mentioning to these people that he didn’t like them being rich or wealthy people? That they should give away all of their possessions? When did Jesus tell them to give all of their money away?" Do you honestly believe that EVERY word Jesus said, is recorded in scripture?

"...Jesus had rich and poor friends..." ... indeed, and he certainly suggested which ones he thought were going to have a (much) easier job finding salvation.

"Jesus did NOT preach about what type of socio-economic system we live under at all."... so Jesus didn't preach destitutism? Jesus made no comments about the relative merits of physical and spiritual wealth? Jesus did not preach about obeying temporal powers?

"Jesus preached to the individual. Jesus saves the individual, not the class. Jesus sees past positions and power, past money and heirarchy, and looks into the hearts of all men (and women of course) rich or poor and redeems them there"... which is lovely - but has nothing to do with communism, or lack of it. He doesn't offer SALVATION based on your financial, social or economic model... but he certainly makes suggestions about what he would LIKE to see, on Earth.

I agree wholeheartedly.

GnI and Jocabia are ignoring the fact that Jesus was asked straight up to endorse a communist-like sharing of the wealth and he declined the request and did not take what would have been the perfect opportunity to do such a thing IF that was his belief and teachings...

Luke 12
13Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."
14Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" 15Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Here Jesus said three important things for the accusation about him being a communist.

First, he didn’t concede to the request to demand equal division of wealth, not even among brothers, how could it be different among complete strangers like a communist would advocate? It could not.

Two, Jesus tells us not to concern ourselves with money at all, not even so much as to worry or desire to equally distribute it among ourselves, not even in our own families.

Three, Jesus told the man straight up, why are you coming to me for that type of judgment? I am not here to do that type of arbitration.

So claiming Jesus was a communist was debunked before it started except to try and choose to portray a false cliché image of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus himself denied it, and he even denied that he was here to suggest such a thing at all. Like you said, “Jesus was not married to any economic viewpoint.”

Before I start: - saying Jesus was a communist would not be an 'accusation'. He is not being 'accused' of anything. Communism isn't a crime, it is an economic model.

Did you know you change your number scheme a third of the way in?

First - Communism doesn't advocate the equal distribution of wealth. SOME schools of communist thought might - but it is not inherent in the economic model. I think, perhaps, you confuse communism with socialism.

Two - Yes, Jesus tells us not to worry about money - but he doesn't EXCLUDE the idea of sharing the wealth, now, does he?

Three - you misrepresent the facts. Jesus said "who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you"... which is nothing like the message you suggest, "...I am not here to do that type of arbitration...". He wasn't saying he WAS there to arbitrate on 'that kind' of matter, or saying he denied it... he just asked them why THEY thought HE should arbitrate THEIR differences.

Jesus telling a parable of what Heaven is like, the property owner being God…
Matthew 20:15
Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?


You miss, or chose to ignore, two key elements of that story:

One - the 'land owner' is God, and the 'land' is eternity. God is not going to share 'ownership' of his eternal kingdom.

BUt, more importantly, perhaps - two - every man who works that day is rewarded in an equal fashion. If not a strict endorsement of communism, this supports a socialist agenda, at least.


I did NOT create the false argument of limiting communism in order to make it not consistent with the teachings of Jesus.


Yes, you did.

I said 'communist'... and from that point onwards, you have insisted on talking of communism ONLY in a Marxist context. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus didn't TELL you to do that. That was all you.


I have consistently focused on what Jesus Said and how Jesus could not be a communist himself (the original GnI statements that got me in this thread to begins with).

No - you have constantly FAILED to focus on what I said, and have instead derailed the debate with your constant infatuation with Marx. The Messiah of Communism? Get a room...

It is saying in the end, the people do not own the vineyard, the property owner does and he gets to pay whatever he wants to pay.

They do not have a right to demand anything of the property owner. They agreed to work for the amount, that's what they get, contractual agreements enforced by God. Some will get it for free, others will work all day long. A contract is a contract, no labor disputes allowed, no strikes and no unions.

See, the message of the parable doesn't do anything for communism. It doesn't even help unions.

Unless someone has instituted a 'union' for the spirit, that is irrelevent - because the parable isn't ABOUT literal 'work' or literal 'wealth'.

I don't think you can support your assertion that the audience of the parable(s) was a greedy audience. Jesus used examples drawn from the real life of his audience, greed is not required for these parables to work, and in fact, if Jesus had been speaking specifically to greedy people, his choice of illustration could be easily taken too literally and used to support greed.

If Jesus was a communist, if he was advocating a communism, then why would he use capitalism in postive light in a parable to explain the Kingdom?

I don't believe Jesus would have any problem with communism, but I believe it is foolish to try and box him in on a subject like which economic system is divinely endorsed.

Jesus was most definitely NOT an anti-communist, but I think you overstate the case to call him an actual communist.

On this we can easily agree, the intent is not material wealth.

Why do I call his audience greedy?

Because they are people... and people ARE greedy.

Some of us try to fight that in ourselves, and hope to see that same fight in others... but our natural (fleshy) urge, is 'more for me'.

Jesus understood the human animal well enough to know how to speak to that.

I'm not saying he ADVOCATED it... he appealed to what people ARE, but his message told them what they COULD be.


As for why he would use 'capitalism' in a postive light... he doesn't. He extends it to something else... a kind of 'capitalism of the soul', where our 'profits' are salvation and eternity. He made no bones about telling people he thought earthly profit was something to rid oneself of.

Last point - I'm not sure about the concept of 'divinely endorsed'. Just because Jesus liked raspberry ripple icecream, doesn't mean he 'endorsed' it... he just prefered it above all other icecream, and had no qualms telling everyone.

Again, YOU call socialism = communism. Your argument is on its face because of it. You have redefined communism as socialism.

AS to how Jesus really felt, when you said "... but he made it clear that he wanted them to avoid greed and the amassing of wealth." Jesus only really said "Greed" he didn't say he was against the amassing of wealth, YOU are projecting that onto his teachings yourself.

Jesus regularly eats with the rich and the wealthy, apparently liking their company the same as everybody else’s, even at the prominent Pharisee’s houses on occasion.

He does not condemn them or their livelihoods, as you said he did. He is quoted on one occasion telling them to invite people that can’t reciprocate their invitations so that they (AS Rich people having hosting parties mind you) will generate riches in heaven. And on other occasions Jesus uses rich property owner examples of analogies of God and Heaven.

Here Jesus clearly says that the rich can earn heavenly rewards by hosting banquets via charity etc., without giving away their ability to host banquets in the first place…

Luke 14:1
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee…
Luke 14 12-14
12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus telling a parable of what Heaven is like, the property owner being God…
Matthew 20:15
Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?



Who is the communist to try and confine the teachings of Jesus to endorse just their world-view? Simply mistaken like ALL the other people that try and confine Jesus’ message and ministry to simplistic political ideologies. Engel and Marx openly admit that they were simply trying to form an inducement to influence Christians, to entice them into thinking he was preaching the same thing they were, to get them to join their group. Hardly a theological endorsement of trying to prove what Jesus really taught.

I did NOT create the false argument of limiting communism in order to make it not consistent with the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus did that for me. However, again you seem to be getting real close to trying to pretend that I am arguing something that I am not. I have consistently focused on what Jesus Said and how Jesus could not be a communist himself (the original GnI statements that got me in this thread to begins with). I have not said that a person in a communist society, a party believer even, could not be a Christian. I've stated that Jesus was NOT a communist, subtle differences that you seem to miss.

I love how you say the teachings of Jesus are inconsistent and then quote him telling the rich to give to the poor. Hmmmm.... Sometimes I wonder if even you has any respect for the things you post. You certainly don't read what you post. I mean, I've seen you directly contradict yourself a half dozen times in this thread alone. But hey, maybe Jesus didn't just say there that should give to the poor instead of the rich and that they should not expect anything in return. Interesting.

I love how you say the teachings of Jesus are inconsistent and then quote him telling the rich to give to the poor. Hmmmm.... Sometimes I wonder if even you has any respect for the things you post. You certainly don't read what you post. I mean, I've seen you directly contradict yourself a half dozen times in this thread alone. But hey, maybe Jesus didn't just say there that should give to the poor instead of the rich and that they should not expect anything in return. Interesting.

I'm not meaning to be insulting to Poot, here - I genuinely am confused about something.

Did Poot say he/she was Christian? Are we arguing scripture with 'a believer', or otherwise?

(Not that it ultimately matters, I guess... since I usually do okay in scripture debates, and I'm as godless a heathen as I've ever met...)

I love how you say the teachings of Jesus are inconsistent and then quote him telling the rich to give to the poor. Hmmmm.... Sometimes I wonder if even you has any respect for the things you post. You certainly don't read what you post. I mean, I've seen you directly contradict yourself a half dozen times in this thread alone. But hey, maybe Jesus didn't just say there that should give to the poor instead of the rich and that they should not expect anything in return. Interesting.

You think only communists can give charity and donations to the poor? I think your agenda-slip is showing.

You think only communists can give charity and donations to the poor? I think your agenda-slip is showing.

On the one hand you argue that the redistribution of wealth IS a communist mechanism, on the other hand that it isn't.

I see what Jocabia means about your apparent flipping around on the issues.

On the one hand you argue that the redistribution of wealth IS a communist mechanism, on the other hand that it isn't.

I see what Jocabia means about your apparent flipping around on the issues.

Right. According to your logic, Bill Gates gives away money, giving away money is redistribution of money and redistribution of money is communism. Thus, Bill Gates is a communist. :rolleyes:

I think not.

Pure?
No, while it has elements to the story that can be read in support of communism, the parable also supports the individual choosing how to disperse wealth without it being mandated.

Pure communism isn't mandated. Pure communism is volutary sharing. Note the Amana's or Hutterites: They do it out of belief and because they felt/feel it is right. That is pure communism.

Right. According to your logic, Bill Gates gives away money, giving away money is redistribution of money and redistribution of money is communism. Thus, Bill Gates is a communist. :rolleyes:

I think not.

You fall on your head? How is that 'my' logic, when it is the argument YOU have been making?

Right. According to your logic, Bill Gates gives away money, giving away money is redistribution of money and redistribution of money is communism. Thus, Bill Gates is a communist. :rolleyes:

I think not.

You don't seem to get it. You claimed he was doing something against communism. You were making argument using an example that YOU say shows that Jesus wasn't promoting communism but in the example he suggests they do something EXACTLY in line with communism. Bill Gates may not be giving away money because he's a communist but it's an example of Bill Gates doing something in line with communist principles AND if you used Bill Gates giving away money as an example of him not supporting communism I would point out to you that it's a piss-poor example, just like I did with the exampel YOU did give.

YOU made the argument. YOU claimed that you were pointing out an example of Jesus doing something that suggests he wasn't communist. In that example he was suggesting they redistribute wealth which YOU said is a basic communist principle. Hmmmmm... one might conclude that you've been destroyed by your own argument.

On the one hand you argue that the redistribution of wealth IS a communist mechanism, on the other hand that it isn't.

I see what Jocabia means about your apparent flipping around on the issues.

Don't forget that Marx is the messiah of communism, that it was invented after it already existed, that Marx fathered it but didn't invent it, that invention means to give it a name, that there is term Marxist communism, but not because there is any other kind, and the plethora of other nonsensical tidbits we have been treated to on behalf of the Pooter.

Don't forget that Marx is the messiah of communism, that it was invented after it already existed, that Marx fathered it but didn't invent it, that invention means to give it a name, that there is term Marxist communism, but not because there is any other kind, and the plethora of other nonsensical tidbits we have been treated to on behalf of the Pooter.

You ever get the feeling the entire language got an update patch while you were asleep? ;)

Right. According to your logic, Bill Gates gives away money, giving away money is redistribution of money and redistribution of money is communism. Thus, Bill Gates is a communist. :rolleyes:

I think not.

Bill Gates obviously doesn't give under the Jesus model.

"Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." "They have already received their reward" "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows houses and for pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." "for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

Gates calls in the press and advertises his good works.

No Gates isn't a communist, nor is he following Jesus teaching.

You ever get the feeling the entire language got an update patch while you were asleep? ;)

It's not really funny. Seriously, there is a good portion of what he says that seems like he gets so worked up trying to be right that he completely forgets what the argument is.

There is no logical explanation for why someone would use as an example of the non-communist principles of Christ and instance where he condemns greed and as another example an instance where he tells the rich to give to the poor rather than to other rich people who will reciprocate.

Using his Bill Gates example it would be like me trying to prove that Bill Gates isn't a capitalist by giving examples of him selling things at the ideal point for profiting in the market. It's pure and unadulterated absurdity and I don't think it's intentional, which I actual find more sad than anything else. PootWaddle seems at point like he's actually going to be the cogent opponent that would make discussing these topics fun and then he does things like we see here.

Bill Gates obviously doesn't give under the Jesus model.

"Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." "They have already received their reward" "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows houses and for pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." "for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

Gates calls in the press and advertises his good works.

No Gates isn't a communist, nor is he following Jesus teaching.


I don't think that's his point. However, he was trying to claim that examples of someone doing something exactly in line with communist principles are valid examples of how they are not a communist.

And, in fairness to Gates, there is plenty that he does that flies well under the radar by design. I suspect that he sometimes thinks his good deeds will encourage others. For example, he does think there should be a 100% property tax. He's completely against dynasties and such. That's why he gives so much of what he has to charity. I suspect when he dies it will nearly all go to charity, considering his position on inheritance tax. And, obviously, at that point it won't be for personal gain. I think the Bill Gates issue is much more complicated than can or should be discussed here.

Bill Gates obviously doesn't give under the Jesus model.

"Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." "They have already received their reward" "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows houses and for pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." "for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

Gates calls in the press and advertises his good works.

No Gates isn't a communist, nor is he following Jesus teaching.

Give to those who cannot afford to reciprocate... That IS the Jesus model.

You fall on your head? How is that 'my' logic, when it is the argument YOU have been making?


It's your argument. YOU said Jesus was a communist because he advocates giving away your money to the poor. Bill Gates gives away money to the poor, you must think he is a communist too. Your logic, not mine.

Give to those who cannot afford to reciprocate... That IS the Jesus model.

And according to your own claim the communist model. Apparently, they are in line. Good. Looks like we're done here.

It's your argument. YOU said Jesus was a communist because he advocates giving away your money to the poor. Bill Gates gives away money to the poor, you must think he is a communist too. Your logic, not mine.

No, he didn't say that and one would assume you know it. It was said that in the example YOU gave that Jesus was acting against communist principle when in that example Jesus was actually telling them to give to the poor. Did you forget that you used that example or are you hoping anyone reading will? You used a poor example. Simply admit your folly and STOP embarrassing yourself.

Meanwhile, didn't you just claim that giving money to the poor is more than something Jesus advocated. In fact you said:

Give to those who cannot afford to reciprocate... That IS the Jesus model.

Hmmm... "the Jesus model" sounds like it's a little more than something he advocated, but hey, that's just me, reading what you write. Perhaps I should trying reading what you wish you'd written so you wouldn't look so foolish.

It's your argument. YOU said Jesus was a communist because he advocates giving away your money to the poor. Bill Gates gives away money to the poor, you must think he is a communist too. Your logic, not mine.

Okay - we'll simplify here. Let's assume your 'version' of what I have said here is related to truth...

Would you object to Bill Gates being termed a communist? Or do you plead special exception for a certain Nazarite?

And according to your own claim the communist model. Apparently, they are in line. Good. Looks like we're done here.

You sure like to make strawmen don't you...

Charity is NOT redistribution of wealth on the economic level, thus advocating charity =/= communism.

(BTW: you have yet to provide a source of your definition of communism, outside of your own imagination. Whereas YOUR communism = socialism, in truth, communism =/= socialism. Your first clue about that truth should be that the communist had to make up a new name for themselves because socialism already had a meaning and it didn't mean what they wanted to define when they invented communism.)

No, he didn't say that and one would assume you know it. It was said that in the example YOU gave that Jesus was acting against communist principle when in that example Jesus was actually telling them to give to the poor. ....


Charity and giving money to the poor is NOT an exclussive communist principle, regardless of how many times you try to make the claim.

Okay - we'll simplify here. Let's assume your 'version' of what I have said here is related to truth...

Would you object to Bill Gates being termed a communist? Or do you plead special exception for a certain Nazarite?

Bill Gates is NOT a communist simply because he gives money to the poor. Giving money to the poor is NOT a branding of a communist. One does not reveal their soci-economic standing simply because it is known that they give to charity.