Christianity and the left

[Demosthenes]

Still no answer to the question I put from either of you, and nothing more in your responses.

Not surprising really that the left is such an extraordinary failure despite being right.

 

[kyser_soze]

Where's your question? This:

If humanity is an accident, why should I suppose that I should do anything other than do my best for myself, and the people I care about? I don't believe your dreams of a better future or a better-organised more ethical society are realistic or attainable, - I think humans are innately selfish and that capitalism suits our nature.

Isn't a question, it's a statement.

More to the point, I have answered the question that's buried in the first line more than adequately.

 

[Dillinger4]

Which is, of course, is why the fractal wrongness caption is apt.

 

[Demosthenes]

Where's your question? This:



Isn't a question, it's a statement.

More to the point, I have answered the question that's buried in the first line more than adequately.

No it's a question:

Why should I suppose that it's possible for humanity to collectively organise things so we have a better world or better system than the one we currently have. ?

 

[kyser_soze]

Your question pre-supposes that I also think it's possible (an unwarrented assumption). I don't know if it is or not, the point is to try, because the results could be more wonderful than anything any of us could possibly imagine.

It could also be more shit than anything that's gone before it as well, but the point surely is to hope that the potential is there, and to try and realise that potential.

I see you still don't understand my answer, so are ignoring it.

 

[Spion]

Do you have as much of a problem celebrating Guy Fawkes as you do Saint Nicholas?

I don't celebrate either, but I do 'believe in' Guy Fawkes. There's quite a difference

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why should I suppose that it's possible for humanity to collectively organise things so we have a better world or better system than the one we currently have. ?

This is a silly question. You could have posed it back in the mid-19th century as a response to those who were organising workers and pushing for the range of vastly better conditions that we now enjoy. These improvements aren't just given. They must be demanded.

Your nihilism is ahistorical.

 

[kyser_soze]

Your nihilism is ahistorical

T-shirt logo!!!

 

[Spion]

Do you mean less greedy? "Materialism" is simply the belief that only matter can be proved to exist..

No it's not. It's the belief that matter is primary, but also that ideas and metaphysical phenomena are material forces in human life.

You need to find out about materialism as a philosophical school of thought rather than swallow the popular usage of the term materialism

without God, there is no objective meaning to life, and more worryingly, no objective basis for morality.

You're all over the place. How the hell can a man-made, created belief in god be objective? True, religion exists, it's a material force in the world but it is entirely made up, has no real substance other than as faith without objective underpinnings

 

[littlebabyjesus]

T-shirt logo!!!

The worst thing about it is that it is also self-fulfilling. You say 'there's nothing we can do about it' and lo and behold, nothing is done about it.

 

[Spion]

I don't believe your dreams of a better future or a better-organised more ethical society are realistic or attainable, - I think humans are innately selfish and that capitalism suits our nature.

<snip>

I say that humans are innately good, and are designed for a much better world than the one we currently live in.

I'm having a job working out what you think here as these two viewpoints seem to be 180 degrees apart

 

[Dillinger4]

The worst thing about it is that it is also self-fulfilling. You say 'there's nothing we can do about it' and lo and behold, nothing is done about it.

Indeed.

Actually, this reminds me of something I was chatting about to somebody off here the other day. I might start a thread...

 

[Demosthenes]

This is a silly question. You could have posed it back in the mid-19th century as a response to those who were organising workers and pushing for the range of vastly better conditions that we now enjoy. These improvements aren't just given. They must be demanded.

Your nihilism is ahistorical.

ffs,
It's not my nihilism. I'm not a nihilist. I don't even ask that question, it's a perfectly reasonable question for an uncaring atheist capitalist to ask of an idealistic humanitarian leftwing atheist, and one to which the leftwing atheist doesn't have any good answer. If you read the posts on some mainstream politics discussion, you will find exactly this viewpoint among most secular capitalists. They don't think left-wing politics is realistic or viable, and don't see why they should believe in the possibility of a better future for humanity, or put any effort or belief into that future, given that their overall viewpoint on life is that it's a meaningless accident and humans are imperfect and not perfectible.

It's not a question I ask, because as I already explained, I know there's a god, and I'm not a capitalist. That's why I have a very easy answer to the atheist capitalist, and why I believe it's pretty obvious that christianity and the left ought to have been on the same side.
But of course, since orthodox christianity did often put about a bad misinterpretation of man's fallen nature, perhaps it's understandable why they weren't. I'm just saying they should have been, and that it's because they weren't that leftism has comprehensively failed.

 

[TomPaine]

I know there's a god, and I'm not a capitalist

I'm sorry, but if you KNOW there is a god can you prove his existance to us, and secondly can you you provide his address to the Hague so he can be arrested for acts of genocide?

 

[Azrael]

You need to find out about materialism as a philosophical school of thought rather than swallow the popular usage of the term materialism

The popular useage is, roughly, "placing excessive value in material possesions", so I'm hardly doing that.

I go along with Britannica's definition: "In philosophy, the view that all facts ... are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them."

You're all over the place. How the hell can a man-made, created belief in god be objective?

It can't, and I never claimed it can. I said objective truth would exist if God actually did exist, and as I don't believe He does, I believe life has no objective meaning, only that which we choose to impose.

But for me that's part of the point. Rather than rely on some invented being/s from old dusty books or stories, life becomes a process of self-creation from one moment to the next.

True, and while both wonderful and wicked things are created, neither is objectively right, in a metaphysical sense. We have only human consensus, and sometimes not even that.

Of course we should strive to create a moral code, but it can only have pragmatic benefits. Most people seem to find this hard truth unpalletable: withness arch-atheist Richard Dawkins try and give subjective opinions pseudo-metaphysical "truth" with his memes theory.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Ok, I mean obviously in theory 'Religion is the opiate of the people'

But what about the reality.

How much effect does Jesus have on the left wing? And what effect will he have?

It does sometimes seem strange that the left wing is so anti religion. I mean, obviously there is good reason to be against the institutions, but considering that the New Testament has a lot of left wing messages in it, sometimes feels like 'we missed a trick' by just writing off something so powerful

thoughts?

Left wing politics stems from analysis of situations rather than naked self interest (generalising there) and is an intelligent movemetn.

Religion is exclusively for morons.

Therefore, the left is generally anti religious.




Also, religion is generally establishment.

Therefore, religion is generally with the rich.

The left is all about redistribution.....

Therefore, again, the left is generally anti religious.



The left is composed of sexy people.

Religions like virginity and repression.

Therefore, the religious fuckers don't come to our parties and if they do they are a drag.

Therefore, again again, the left is generally anti religious.

 

[Demosthenes]

I'm sorry, but if you KNOW there is a god can you prove his existance to us, and secondly can you you provide his address to the Hague so he can be arrested for acts of genocide?

If you can prove to me that you're conscious, then I'll prove to you that there is God.

Good luck.

As far as I know, people who've made a positive impact politically, in ways that can be considered left-wing, have generally been spiritually inspired.

 

[Demosthenes]

It can't, and I never claimed it can. I said objective truth would exist if God actually did exist, and as I don't believe He does, I believe life has no objective meaning, only that which we choose to impose.
True, and while both wonderful and wicked things are created, neither is objectively right, in a metaphysical sense. We have only human consensus, and sometimes not even that.

And what happens when we don't have consensus, -- when one group disagrees with another about the meaning or purpose of life, or more simply when two groups have different aims, and maybe each think that their goal is the proper goal. How do we work out who's right?

 

[untethered]

The left is composed of sexy people.

"Sexy" people without a trace of irony, perhaps?

 

[Azrael]

How do we work out who's right?

Well isn't that the bastard of it all!

 

[HackneyE9]

I was reading Chomsky's "Understanding Power" before Christmas, and a propos of not much else, he says - paraphrasing - that if you read the Gospels, Jesus is basically a radical socialist pacifist. And it was only when Emperor Constantine (?) made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century AD that it took on all the trappings of conformist state power and oppression.

 

[Azrael]

Jesus of Nazareth wasn't much for the redistribution of wealth.

What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money.

And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

 

[Demosthenes]

What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money.
And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's.
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Not for the redistribution of wealth. ???

I think you've misunderstood the quotation if you think that.
Because real wealth is not in coinage but in land.
And "The world and all that is there in belongs to God."

Properly understood the saying means,
"Caesar can keep his money. Everything else belongs to God."

 

[Xipe Totec]

god is made in the image of man; good socialists will embrace a common humanity and transformative spirituality regardless of the label, xtian or otherwise.

the corolory is evidenced by religious fundamentalists being comprised entirely of heinous, despicable human beings.

globalized capitalist agression takes place on the battlefields of the 3rd world.
to deprive the world proletariat (women and children in the global south) of spiritual faith due to anti-xtian prejudice is thoroughly counter-revolutionary.

 

[Azrael]

Properly understood the saying means,
"Caesar can keep his money. Everything else belongs to God."

Like most of Jesus of Nazareth's attributed sayings, its so ambiguous that no one can agree what it means. Some theologians say it commands submission to the state; others probably agree with you; others that it's a rebuke to collaborating with Rome.

Such ambiguity is surely part of Christianity's great appeal: you can shape the creed to mean pretty much what you want it to.

 

[RhymnRzn]

^however, it is carnal to eat the bread hypocrisy.

 

[Demosthenes]

Like most of Jesus of Nazareth's attributed sayings, its so ambiguous that no one can agree what it means. Some theologians say it commands submission to the state; others probably agree with you; others that it's a rebuke to collaborating with Rome.

Such ambiguity is surely part of Christianity's great appeal: you can shape the creed to mean pretty much what you want it to.

Well, I reckon it was pretty unambiguous to the jewish contemporaries of jesus, and usually, when you say something, it means whatever you expect the people you're saying it to to understand by it.

 

[Demosthenes]

The introduction to that passage states that they asked him the question in order to lay a trap for him, hoping to get him to say something they could reasonably get him arrested for.

The genius, and apparent ambiguity of the answer to the question
"Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?" was that he made it absolutely clear that he thought Caesar owned nothing of real value, while at the same time making a reply that couldn't be held against him in a court of law.

 

[TomPaine]

If you can prove to me that you're conscious, then I'll prove to you that there is God.

Good luck.

This warrants a fairly lengthy response, which I'll add when I have the time (bit busy with the family with it being the holidays an all).

 

[Barking_Mad]

Like most of Jesus of Nazareth's attributed sayings, its so ambiguous that no one can agree what it means. Some theologians say it commands submission to the state; others probably agree with you; others that it's a rebuke to collaborating with Rome.

Such ambiguity is surely part of Christianity's great appeal: you can shape the creed to mean pretty much what you want it to.

Fromm's - The Dogma of Christ would be a good read for you.

The Dogma of Christ is a fascinating study of the rise and modifications of Christianity considered from both an internal dynamic (psychoanalytical) and socioeconomic-political point of view. "I tried to show that we cannot understand people by their ideas and ideologies; that we can understand ideas and ideologies only by understanding the people who created them and believed in them. In doing this we have to transcend individual psychology and enter the field of psychoanalytical-social psychiatry."

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/9/6/643